Category: Faith

Posted on

The controversy of Universal Reconciliation

Origen (3rd Century) is thought to have favoured Universal Reconciliation
Origen (3rd Century) is thought to have favoured Universal Reconciliation

Much as I am constitutionally disposed to resist being pigeon-holed, I guess you could describe me as a conservative Charismatic. Although I am a firm believer that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are rightly in active use today, I am troubled by some of the excesses witnessed in modern churches, blamed on “moves of the Spirit”. I would align myself with all mainstream orthodox (little ‘o’) Christian beliefs and creeds. So that sets out my stall/bias in writing this article.

Many years ago, a dear friend of mine took a turn – maybe it was a gradual turning – in his Christian walk, into a movement known as “Universal Reconciliation” (UR). I have attempted subsequently to understand what Universal Reconciliationists believe and to what extent (if any) my fellowship with them might be affected. Early on, I instinctively felt that a doctrinal chasm had opened up between us, but I do not trust my instincts, except in the sense that they reveal to me my deeper emotions. And I know that emotions can be misleading.

What is it?

The name is a fairly accurate although perhaps simplistic description of the characteristic belief of Universal Reconciliationists. To expand this slightly, they believe that all people will ultimately achieve salvation through Jesus Christ, if not in this life then in the next. This would include all those persons traditionally cited as “evil beyond redemption” – Hitler, Stalin, Genghis Khan, etc. This of necessity disallows the concept of eternal punishment/hell. More on that anon.

The need for grace

I think that God must find it very saddening when Christians focus more on what divides them than on what unites them. One way in which this is evident is the use of name-calling. Evangelicals sometimes call fundamentalist Christians “fundies”. Fundamentalists may call Charismatics “Charismaniacs”, and so on. An unfortunate trend I have seen amongst Universal Reconciliationists is to cover the rest of Christendom with the blanket term “ET-ers”, where the “ET” stands for “Eternal Torment”.

Granted, many Christians outside UR do believe that non-believers are destined to spend eternity/the afterlife in some form of perpetual and ever lasting punishment. But what we should remember here is that in the case of UR, “Universal Reconciliation” describes the point at which the movement departs from mainstream Christianity. For many (non-UR) Christians, eternal torment is not a major tenet of their beliefs. Admittedly, it’s in there somewhere, but this is not, I don’t think, the key focus of their spiritual lives. So it is unfair to pick one arguably secondary doctrine and make this the defining characteristic of those believers. Furthermore, calling them “ET-ers” implies a negative focus whereas I would suggest that this is not the focus or experience of the majority. And finally, note the difference: Universal Reconciliationists have (broadly speaking) chosen this label for themselves; the rest of Christendom has not (to my knowledge) chosen the label ET-ers.

So may I call for grace from Universal Reconciliationists towards your brothers and sisters in the Lord? Can we drop the name-calling?

If I am going to speak about grace, I must go on to express my dismay at the way non-UR believers have treated Universal Reconciliationists in so many cases. We should look to the fundamental primary doctrines held by these people and the fruit of their spiritual lives. I would submit that the differences are much smaller than the heresy-hunters wish to make out.

It is difficult, but necessary, when engaging in theological debate, that we focus on the issues, not on the people. We are called to love one another whether friends, enemies, those in our particular branch of the Church or those outside it. The vitriol unleashed by people on both sides of this debate is alarming, unloving, unrighteous and generally not worthy of a direct response. It is acceptable to demolish ideas; it is not acceptable to demolish people.

If you research UR online, you do not have to dig very deep to discover websites that have large sections devoted to UR (apologetically for or against). The attitudes of some of the contributors to and maintainers of those websites can be deeply saddening. Personal attacks are rife and this is extremely unbecoming for anyone who claims to be devoted to an all-loving God. UR particularly emphasises the love of God, making personal attacks all the more incongruous in those quarters. Whatever the case, it is incumbent upon all who seek to engage on this topic to do so with the utmost respect for each others’ dignity as creatures made in God’s image.

Examining the scriptural evidence

Since we’re talking about matters of doctrine, we must start with our source text, the Bible. It is important not to impose one’s presuppositions on the text. Beginning with an assumption that UR is either a correct or an incorrect position will inevitably result in the view that certain scriptures shore up that assumption. The Bible is an ancient document, which we see through the lenses of translation and dynamically shifting cultures.

I am hampered though; I do come to the text with presuppositions and fettered by my culture. Moreover, I am not trained in ancient languages and cultures, nor indeed in theology (except through limited self-study). Nevertheless, I will make the best fist I can, of examining the scriptural evidence both for and against UR and – who knows – perhaps something somewhere will ring true for my readers. I ask the Holy Spirit to guide my thoughts as I write and yours as you read.

Examining evidence is something with which I am well acquainted, having spent some 14 years in the study and practice of the law. Perhaps my approach will seem clumsy to some, but to me it is second nature. To the evidence, then.

The scriptural case for UR

I do not have the resources to conduct a thorough biblical study, but let us address a few of the typical texts used in support of UR.

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

1 Corinthians 15:22

The UR conclusion from this passage is that all people for all time will be “made alive”, that is, saved. To evaluate this critically from a non-UR perspective: while most Christians would agree that all people are “in Adam”, we cannot with certainty say that all people are “in Christ”. There is a subtle difference between the UR reading and the non-UR reading. To illustrate this better, compare, “as in Adam all [people ever born] die, so in Christ all [people ever born] will be made alive” (UR) with “as [of those people who are] in Adam all die, so [of those people who are] in Christ all will be made alive” (non-UR). Both are arguably valid renderings of the text. This verse on its own is insufficient therefore to support either position fully. Further evidence from the text is required.

On the basis that “a text out of context is a pretext for a proof text” we should at least examine the immediate context surrounding the verse in question. In verse 23, Paul goes on to say, “But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.” This seems to beg the question whether there will be those who don’t belong to him. Further, this raises the suggestion that the previous verse is not intended to indicate that the “all” referred to in connection with Christ is universal. This verse taken in isolation supports neither the UR nor the non-UR view.

Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.

Romans 5:18

As with the previous verse, the UR position is tied up in the use of that word “all” – “life for all men”. Analysing the context, we see in verse 19: “For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.” That there is a difference between “all” and “many” is undeniable (two different Greek words are used and those words are not synonyms). On a plain reading, verse 19 gives an indication that not all people will be made righteous.

Some might argue that the “many” people referred to in verse 19 could logically include “all” people. If all people were together, that would indeed be “many”! But although the logic follows, it seems rather awkward to impose such a reading on the verse. “Many” just as logically (and more commonly) can mean “less than all”.

In verse 18 the assertion that Christ “brings life for all” does not necessarily imply that all receive life. Nor does it expand on the nature, extent or duration of that “life”. Once more, neither the UR, nor the non-UR position is conclusively proven.

For God was pleased to have all his fulness dwell in [Christ], and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Colossians 1:19-20

This undoubtably is a key scripture for Universal Reconcilationists, not least because of the appearance of the phrase “reconcile to himself all things”. The UR position concludes that all people are ultimately reconciled with God, where “reconciliation” implies eternal blessed life, free from further punishment. This is compelling. Some difficulties present themselves, however:

  • “all things” – is Paul implying that reconciliation/eternal life awaits everything, whether animal, igneous rock, body corporate, item of stationery, ideology, software product, termite mound or interstellar gas? One supposes not.
  • “things in heaven” – is Paul suggesting that reconciliation and eternal punishment-free life await Satan?
  • “reconciled” – does reconciled mean that for all time any deserved punishment is removed, suspended, negated or past?

If the emphasis in this verse is placed on “through him” (non-UR) rather than on “all things” (UR), a valid reading becomes, “All things which are reconciled to God are reconciled through Christ.” So although this verse might lead some to reach a UR position, we can see that a UR position does not arise from it of necessity. This verse is better evidence in support of UR, but not sufficient in itself to build a doctrine.

So far, much has been made of one small word, translated “all”. In each of these verses, the word “all” comes from a Greek word transliterated “pas” (Strong’s number 3956). Interestingly, this same word is used in 1 Timothy 6:10, which is a very familiar passage:

For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

! Timothy 6:10

Earlier versions such as the KJV tended to translate this as “love of money is the root of all evil”. The New KJV now favours “the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil”. There is not currently a complete consensus amongst translators, but the differences of opinion should be enough to suggest that a dogmatic insistence on one particular rendering would be unwise. That said, the rendering that includes “all kinds” seems more consistent with the remaining corpus of scripture and makes good sense (in that there are certainly many evils for which money is not the root). Applying this back into the previous scriptures, where “all things” are reconciled, might this not properly be rendered, “all kinds of things” are reconciled? And so on.

That if you confess with your mouth, Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Romans 10:9

and

and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Philippians 2:11

I juxtapose these two as others have done elsewhere, in support of UR. The conclusion invited is that all people will ultimately confess that Jesus Christ is their Lord, thereby obtaining the salvation promised in Romans 10:9. The previous verse in Philippians states however, “at the name of Jesus every knee should bow…” This is a valid translation of the original and leaves open the possibility that while all should bow and confess, some will not.

… God our Saviour … wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

1 Timothy 2:3b-4

Perhaps we now come to the crux of it. A common line of reasoning for Universal Reconciliationists is thus: God is omnipotent. God is all-loving. God desires that all people be saved. Due to his omnipotence, everything he desires, he can bring into being, and since this would be consistent with being all-loving, all people will be saved. I do not propose to analyse that reasoning here, but returning to the scriptural evidence, we can ask: are God’s desires ever unfulfilled?

The Greek word translated here “wants” can be transliterated from the Greek as “thelo” or “ethelo” (Strongs number 2309). This word appears 210 times in the New Testament and the best place to answer our previous question is wherever the word is used in connection with God. One such instance is Romans 9:22:

What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath— prepared for destruction?

Romans 9:22

In this passage we see God’s wishes (“thelo” here translated “choosing”) being restrained by God himself. Taking an overview of the context in which this word is used (and precise meaning would normally vary with context), the meaning is no stronger used in connection with God than in connection with an individual. For example, “I wish to do a parachute jump,” communicates the desire without implying that this desire will definitely be fulfilled. I would suggest that this is how 1 Timothy 2:3b-4 should be taken. It is silent on the matter of whether God’s wish in this respect will ever be fulfilled.

There are many passages in scripture similar to those above. There are too many to list here, but of those I have analysed, a similarly inconclusive position arises. For the avoidance of doubt, I have not found any scripture that provides conclusive evidence in favour of UR, but please understand that this mere fact must not be taken as a positive assertion that UR is false. In that respect, we must next consider whether there is any scriptural evidence negating UR.

The scriptural case against UR

Since a principal tenet of UR is that punishment for unbelievers will be limited in time (or not happen at all), it is appropriate to examine those scriptures that touch on eternal punishment.

He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power

2 Thessalonians 1:8-9

Everything turns on the correct translation of the word here rendered “everlasting”. Unsurprisingly, it transpires that this is an extremely contentious point between UR and non-UR believers. On the face of it, on a plain reading of the NIV at least, UR is obliterated by this translation, but is the translation correct?

Different translators have different views. Here are a few:

  • eternal destruction (NASB, NLT, ESV, CEV, ASV)
  • everlasting ruin (destruction and perdition) (Amplified)
  • everlasting destruction (KJV, NKJV, Darby, NIV)
  • destruction that continues forever (NCV)
  • everlasting pains (Wycliffe)
  • destroyed for ever (Worldwide English)
  • eternal exclusion (JB Phillips)
  • eternal exile (The Message)
  • destruction age-during (YLT)

Of the translations (and paraphrases) surveyed, there is a broad consensus that the duration of destruction/punishment will be eternal or everlasting. In those translations it is difficult to impute a cessation to the period of punishment, at least not without second guessing the translators. In a couple of the translations, the intensity of the punishment is moderated to “permanent exclusion”. It is still without temporal limit.

The UR counter to this stems from translations such as Young’s Literal Translation, which focuses on the “ages” translation of the Greek word “aionios”, viz “they will be punished for an age”. The majority of translators disagree with this conclusion, but it seems to me that the bible is the best arbitrator on the question. Where else is this word used? Aionios occurs 72 times in the New Testament. Interestingly it is used in connection with life as well as with punishment. For example:

Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.

Matthew 25:46

“Eternal” here is aionios in both cases. If the UR position is correct that “aionios” punishment is limited in duration, then it must also surely assert that the “aionios” life is similarly limited in duration. Any other approach would be inconsistent. So if 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 does not conclusively support the non-UR position (if there is a valid question concerning the correct translation of aionios) it cannot support the UR position either, in the light of verses such as Matthew 25:46.

A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, he, too, will drink of the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulphur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name.

Revelation 14:9-11

This is one of many passages within Revelation concerning the punishment of the wicked. In this instance, the flavour of the passage conveys a permanent sacrifice-like punishment of a particular group of apostates. On a plain reading of the text, one must emerge with an impression of a devastating outpouring of God’s judgment upon some unbelievers. Words such as “fury”, “wrath”, “torment” and “sulphur” enhance that impression. I would advise caution here however: Revelation must be approached with great care. It contains much that is allegorical, much that is prophetic, much that appears poetic even. Extracting a clear prediction of the future (to the extent that Revelation may contain as yet unfulfilled prophecy) is beyond me. I accept Revelation as one of those mysteries of God, to be revealed at his good pleasure.

So, the evidential strength of Revelation 14:9-11 may legitimately be brought into question by UR believers. That it is evidence against their cause cannot be called in question. That it is perhaps not utterly compelling may be.

There are many scriptures that say similar things to those we have studied thus far. One scriptural concept deserves particular attention before we wrap up this section however: that of the unpardonable sin:

I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.

Mark 3:28-29

I cannot play Devil’s advocate with these verses. I must simply pray that I never stumble into such error.

The problem of free will

I do not wish to stray far from my biblical studies approach to this debate, but I do wish to express some thoughts on the topic of free will. It presents philosophical difficulties for me when I address Universal Reconciliation. My understanding may be coarse and inelegantly expressed, but for me, the Universal Reconciliationist says this: you will be saved whether you want to be or not. If you reject God initially, it is inevitable that you will ultimately repent and return to him.

In this eternal, UR view, free will becomes illusory. If a person’s choice (of God) is inevitable, predictable and effectively impossible to avoid, how can we reconcile this with what we instinctively know and feel (and believe the bible teaches moreover) about free will?

There is another problem: if it is inevitable that people will choose God, over the eternal time scale, is it not also inevitable that they will subsequently choose to reject him again? Or is it impossible, having chosen God, to reject him (thus negating free will once more)? The matter of salvation becomes bound up in the works of the individual, rather than in the sacrifice of Christ. This, compounded with the dismantling of free will, makes the UR position one that would require very careful scrutiny indeed, were one to choose to embark down that path.

Does UR present a case to answer?

Taking all things together, UR does indeed have a case to answer. Whilst I maintain that if we take an orthodox view of scripture whereby it is internally consistent, a non-UR position appears to emerge more strongly, this is not to say that UR views should be dismissed summarily. They rightly challenge the non-UR approach to scripture and this challenge must be met with grace and dignity.

It is not my objective to reach a conclusion on this subject, although my own position remains unchanged having conducted this study. For the reader, further material may be of interest. Might I suggest two starting points – in the interests of balance, one from each camp:

Universalism and the Bible — The Really Good News Keith DeRose (UR)

All the (((all’s))) all covered – An Examination of the Biblical Proof of the Doctrine of Universal Reconciliation Eric Landström (non-UR)

Bible quotes above: THE HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

Image of Origen from the Wikimedia Commons. Commons is a freely licensed media file repository.

Posted on

What is a backslider?

DepressedThis is one of the few scripture verses I can remember (Ishmael made it into a handy song). Proverbs 14:14 – “A backslider gets bored with himself, but a godly man’s life is exciting.” (The Living Bible) Or, “The backslider in heart will be filled with the fruit of his ways, and a good man will be filled with the fruit of his ways.” (ESV)

The bible doesn’t really expand on what “backslider” means. For me, a simple definition would be “a person who formerly claimed to be a Christian but whose life is not bearing the fruit one might expect of a Christian”. I would describe two types of backslider:

  1. A Christian whose life is currently dominated by sin.
  2. A person who never was a Christian and who has reverted to type.

I wouldn’t dare to call the apostle Paul a “backslider”, but his self-effacing remarks in Romans 7:15-24 hint at type 1 backsliding:

15 For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

ESV

If Paul felt this way, then for sure, backsliding is something we all experience in our lives, from time to time. These days though, I’m starting to wonder if most people you’d describe as “backsliders” were in fact never Christians at all. Check out 1 John 1:5-10:

5 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 6 If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practise the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

ESV

Once someone has the Holy Spirit indwelling, he is still capable of sin, but that goes against his new nature. This grieves the Holy Spirit. A Christian must inevitably show increased fruit of the Spirit – this is an unstoppable power at work in him. See Romans 8:11:

If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.

ESV

So generally for “backslider”, I read “wasn’t a Christian in the first place”. But that probably sounds harsh and I certainly don’t make it a rule. Ultimately only God truly knows the state of a man’s heart. 1 Samuel 16:7:

But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.”

ESV

“Depressed” image copyright © Sander van der Wel, licensed under Creative Commons. Used with permission.

Posted on

The daily STAB Prayer

Submit to the
Trinity
At
Breakfast

(or at the Beginning of a task, project, year, etc.)

The STAB prayer is a simple formula, intended to anchor your focus on God at the beginning of the day. No prayer should become religious or formulaic, rather the STAB Prayer provides a framework or a reminder of how we can pray. Although it can never compete with the Lord’s Prayer, it can certainly complement it.

The structure, which you can use as an outline, is as follows:

Father, You are my God; I worship you.
Jesus, thank You for being my Saviour; be also my Lord.
Holy Spirit, fill me today; I need You.

First, we concentrate on the supremacy of God the Father, and give Him the worship He deserves.
Secondly, we remember with gratitude the salvation bought for us by Christ. But we don’t stop at accepting His salvation; we also submit to His lordship over our lives.
Thirdly, we look to the Holy Spirit, to fill us afresh and to guide us through the day.

Simple, but powerful.

This image is a simple encapsulation of the STAB Prayer. Why not print it out and put it somewhere where you’ll see it at the start of the day?

The STAB prayer

Posted on

Don’t all faiths lead to God? Why is yours so special?

Assuming we’ve satisfied ourselves on the question of the existence of God and accept that He is real, the next logical question is which God and what is He like? In fact some would say, “Don’t all faiths lead to God? Why is yours so special?” And this is the issue I will attempt to address in this podcast.

Note to broadcasters: please do contact us to obtain higher quality audio and a licence to broadcast any of these podcasts.

podcast iconHow can a good God allow the innocent to suffer?

Posted on

The Message: Translation, Paraphrase, Truth or Heresy?

bible

Cards on the table. Growing up as a child, I read The Living Bible, a paraphrase of the Bible that was easy to read and understand.  This was my main Bible from the ages of 4 to about 15.  I gradually transitioned to the NIV, requesting a hefty leather-bound, commentary-laden edition for my 18th birthday.

19 years and many Bible studies later, slightly the worse for wear, this remains my main (printed) Bible.  The advent of the internet and the easy accessibility of multiple versions has somewhat relegated the printed word, but my old Bible still brings with it a sense of comfort, peace and tradition – in a good way.

Of course there now exist many different versions of the Bible, all rendered with different objectives and varied levels of scholarship.   If your faith rests on the word of God (faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God, says Paul in Romans 10:17) it is important to know where that word may be found.

Many Christians today refer to their Bibles as “the word of God” and here we come to the heart of our discussion: In a recent sermon, I quoted some passages from The Message.  My reasoning was that I was reading a familiar passage and it is sometimes helpful to hear that passage in unfamiliar language, to ensure we don’t “switch off”.

I had not anticipated that one of my friends and someone whose spiritual integrity I trust, would question my use of The Message and further, question whether The Message even deserved the right to be called “the Bible”.  The fundamental objection is that “The Message is a paraphrase”.

Broadly we divide Bible versions into two categories: translation and paraphrase.  Doing so, we may be forgiven for thinking that there is a clear distinction between the two approaches, or that one is “superior” to another.  But I do not think that the differences are as black and white as they might appear.

As I understand it, the objective of a translator is to take a text and render it in as nearly accurate a form as possible from the source language to the destination language.  With paraphrasing, the author may start with the source language or with a pre-existing translation and then seeks to render it into a modern idiom – that is, using expressions that are particularly meaningful in a certain time and place.  (Note, the foreword to The Message states that Peterson wrote “straight from the original text”.)

It is hopefully clear that paraphrasing intrinsically involves interpretation.  The author of the paraphrase has to attempt to understand the gist of the source and predict how the source could best be understood in modern (colloquial) language.  In this case, if the author’s understanding is faulty, the paraphrase will be equally faulty.  The author considers that risk to be worth taking: If the author’s understanding is accurate, the target audience should be able to understand the paraphrase with no further assistance.  The weakness of course is that, as language develops, the paraphrase becomes outdated quickly.  Furthermore, a paraphrase into American English, say, may not result in a completely intelligible read for an Australian or British English speaker.

What may not be obvious at first glance is that translation also involves an element of interpretation, especially when the source text is an ancient language and no native speakers are alive to verify the accuracy of the translation.  In all likelihood, the source text, regardless of its age, will contain idioms and colloquialisms that would be difficult to understand without background knowledge.  A literal translation could in fact do damage to the text.  For example, a literal translation into other languages of the expression “it’s raining cats and dogs” would be unlikely to leave the reader with the impression that it’s raining heavily.  More likely, they would wonder what strange phenomenon has occurred to cause domestic pets to fall from the sky.

One further problem of translation arises: the rendering will typically require interpretation and understanding on the part of the reader.  Since the objective has not been to create a colloquial version of the text, the reader is left to apply her own understanding to the work.  With translations (as opposed to paraphrases) of ancient texts, the risk of misunderstanding the text must consequently be greater.

Where does this leave us?

Regardless of the method of rendering, it would be a mistake, I think, to describe any English version of the Bible as “God’s word”.  At best, it is a translation of God’s word.  Fortunately we have the great benefit of the Holy Spirit, who communicates with us through and in addition to our English versions of God’s word, helping us to understand the text rightly.  Is it acceptable though to refer to paraphrases such as The Message as “Bibles”?  Given the inherent difficulties of translations and paraphrases, I would not personally withhold the title “Bible” from either.  By analogy, hammers and spanners are both “tools”.  The Message and the KJV are both “Bibles”.  Which is better, a hammer or a spanner?  Neither: they are different and have different strengths and weaknesses.  Which is better, The Message or the KJV? Neither: they are different and have different strengths and weaknesses.

All translations and paraphrases share a common divine heritage blended with a human (therefore flawed) understanding.  Let us not elevate any particular version to the state of deification. Rather let us thank God for the gift of His Word and the gifts he has given his servants in translating and paraphrasing for our benefit. And further let us thank him for his Holy Spirit who will guide us into all truth (John 16:13).

Practical note: due to the strengths and weaknesses of each version, when attempting to understand a passage, it is prudent to consult a range of Bible versions and to ask the Holy Spirit to guide us in our understanding.  Also, it is helpful to be mindful of the credentials of the authors of the versions.  In the case of The Message, as with many other versions, those credentials are impressive (many scholars contributed to the final text).  This is also the reason why I would dismiss a translation such as the Jehovah’s Witness’ version of the Bible, the New World Translation – the translators’ credentials are reputedly either poor or hidden.

Bible image copyright © David Campbell, licensed under Creative Commons. Used with permission.

Posted on

How to Remember the Ten Commandments

Do you struggle to remember the Ten Commandments? Would you find it tricky to remember them in order? As part of a teaching series on the Ten Commandments, I prepared some relatively easy mnemonics. You may find they help!

1. You shall have no other Gods before me.

2. You shall not make … an idol.

Remember two major “Idol” shows: Pop Idol, in the UK and American Idol in the States. (Perhaps a bit dated now!)

3. Don’t take the Lord’s name in vain.

Imagine the three wise monkeys, all determined not to blaspheme.

4. Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.

Visualise a four poster bed, with the words “rest” written in it. Note also there are four letters in each of the words, Holy Abba Rest.

5. Honour your mother and father.

Remember five gold rings (from The Twelve Days of Christmas) – rings being a symbol of marriage and thus parenthood. Also there are five letters in each of the words, Value Mater & Pater. (Yes I know! If it’s silly, you’re more likely to remember it!)

6. Do not murder.

Think of a grenade, roughly in the shape of a number 6.

7. Do not commit adultery.

007 is one of the most prolific adulterers in fiction!

8. Do not steal.

A bit of a stretch, I admit – imagine the 8 as part of a burglar’s mask.

9. Do not bear false witness.

Imagine someone lying down in a tennis court, holding a number 9 instead of a racquet. No lying in court! Get it? (Groan.)

10. Do not covet

Hard to explain, this one. Start with the letters “NO NV” (no envy). Take the last upright part of the first N and add put it next to the O to get 10. Then take the slant and last upright of the second N to get V and place it next to the V, for VV. In Roman numerals, V plus V is 10.

Posted on

Why did God bless Jacob, the deceiver?

5369725815_9db3016c6c_b_d[1]

In the story of Jacob and Esau, Jacob, the younger twin, uses fraud and cunning to take Esau’s birthright from him. The significance of the birthright in Old Testament times cannot be overemphasised. The end result was Jacob becoming the ancestor of the Israelite people, blessed by God and Esau becoming the ancestor of some of their mortal enemies, rejected by God. On the face of it, this preferential treatment might seem unjust, if it derives from Jacob’s use of subterfuge.

But perhaps therein lies the mistake, assuming that the blessing flows from the deceitful act, rather than from a prior or independent choice of God’s. If we look back in the story, even before the birth, God had said to the boys’ mother, Rebekah:

23 …Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples from within you will be separated;
one people will be stronger than the other,
and the older will serve the younger.

Genesis 25:23 (New International Version – UK)

And why did God choose Jacob over Esau? We may never know the full reasons, but here are a few thoughts:

  • God’s decision to bless Jacob is made prior to the children’s birth and prior to their ability to commit a sinful act. In this way, God provides an early demonstration of the principle that his favour is not based on our works.
  • God foreknew the events that would unfold. Remember that prior to Jacob deceiving his father, it is said of Esau that he “despised his birthright” (Genesis 25:34). He had sold it to his brother for some stew (probably not realising that Jacob was in earnest about taking the birthright).
  • It is possibly implied that Esau would not have honoured his bargain pertaining to the transfer of the birthright, hence Jacob’s need to take it by deception.

Whatever the real reason behind God’s choice, there are a few scriptures that cast light on his mode of operation. Firstly, the divine right of God to dispense special grace as He sees fit:

19 … I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

Exodus 33:19 (New International Version – UK)

Secondly, the attitude we are expected to maintain with respect to God’s grace:

21 … The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised.

Job 1:21 (New International Version – UK)

Amd thirdly, lest we be in any doubt, our position in respect of deserving God’s favour:

10 … There is no-one righteous, not even one;

Romans 3:10 (New International Version – UK)

In short, Jacob could not have earned God’s blessing. Furthermore, we can take some comfort from the fact that God blessed him despite his behaviour. And finally, we can see that in His glorious timescale, God’s purposes will be fulfilled, even though we and our enemy try our hardest at times to defeat those purposes.

Scripture taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 Biblica. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.

The “NIV” and “New International Version” trademarks are registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Biblica. Use of either trademark requires the permission of Biblica.

Isaac – Brancoveanu Monastery image copyright © Fergal of Claddagh, licensed under Creative Commons. Used with permission.

Posted on

A Holiday Message From Rob Pomeroy: Why I’m not an Atheist

Ricky Gervais

This year, Ricky Gervais strayed some distance from his usual field of comedy, posting a Christmas message for the Wall Street Journal, entitled Why I’m an Atheist. Within a week, the article had attracted nearly 6,000 comments.

A colleague brought my attention to the article and I’m glad he did. It was an interesting read. I commend Ricky for his honesty in expressing the reasons for his belief system at a time where personal belief seems an increasingly taboo subject.

Concerning belief, he makes a good point: “People who believe in God don’t need proof of his existence, and they certainly don’t want evidence to the contrary.” He’s right in observing the tendency to become entrenched in one’s beliefs and fearful of challenge to those beliefs. That is profoundly disappointing to me. I do not want to believe in something false, even if (as Plato observed) some good might come from that belief. No, I want to believe in something real and true, so far as such can be established. Therefore I welcome challenge to my faith. If the things I believe are true, they will stand up to any scrutiny and to the extent that I might be wrong or misguided, I want to be corrected.

Not all Christians feel the same way.

Where Ricky misses his own point is in neglecting to observe its application to him. In my experience, it is just as true to say, “People who don’t believe in God don’t need proof of his non-existence and they certainly don’t want evidence to the contrary.” Vast swathes of literature reporting miracles and the transforming effect of a personal relationship with God are dismissed out of hand. Let’s be clear: God, if He exists, is a spirit. What kind of evidence are you expecting?

But I agree with Ricky. When Christians (indeed believers of any persuasion) utter post-modern mantras like, “This is true for me,” or, “This is my reality – show me yours,” I cringe inwardly. Truth is not like that. In fact no one believes that, deep down. No one believes that the sofa that I’m sitting on has the capability of disappearing into non-existence in Schroedinger’s world between sofa and non-sofa. With the exception of a few very esoteric thinkers, we do all believe in the factual absolute truth that the sofa is not in my head.

If Jesus existed (and no serious historian now doubts that) then He was either truly God’s son or a lunatic. Let’s not be wishy-washy about that. There is overwhelming support for the fact that He made this claim. He had a reputation of performing miracles – this reputation was not confined to sympathetic or “Christian” writers. Jesus claimed to be the only way to God. There is no room in that view for half-hearted truth claims. Either Christ is the way for everyone or He’s the way for no one.

As an aside, this is where an accusation of intolerance is falsely levelled at Christianity. All world views have similar truth claims. Crusading atheist Richard Dawkins for example famously believes that parents teaching their children the truth of the Gospel are effectively committing child abuse. There’s tolerance for you. But I digress.

Let’s address the central point in Ricky’s world view: “I don’t believe in God because there is absolutely no scientific evidence for his existence and from what I’ve heard the very definition is a logical impossibility in this known universe.” This reveals that he has bought into the “enlightened” spirit of the age which wants us to believe that the only route to truth is through science. Since when did science acquire the monopoly on truth? For instance, ethics can tell us a lot about how we should practise science, but science can tell us nothing about how we should practise ethics. Science is a study of the observable universe, so it stands to reason (yes reason!) that it is in no position to comment on something unobservable or non-corporeal. If God exists, He is spirit.

I’ve recently been hearing about the Kalām cosmological argument which briefly states:

  • Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
  • The universe began to exist.
  • Therefore the universe has a cause.

Modern science does not take issue with this line of reasoning. Most cosmologists, Stephen Hawking included, believe that the universe is not eternal, that it “started” at some point in time. But we know from experience (don’t we?) that things do not just spring into existence out of nothing. It never happens. Why should the universe be any exception?

This then leads us to account for the existence of the universe: at this point we have a choice which faith statement to accept since it becomes impossible by any known method (including scientific method) to prove something beyond the sphere of our own universe. Do we believe in magic? A supreme being? Or some other idea which science is bound to hit upon eventually? At this metaphysical level the most elegant and yes, logical, account for the existence of the universe is an eternal being with will and intent. That being has to be eternal since the being cannot itself have come into existence (that would stick us with an infinite regression). That being can’t simply be matter since we know that matter has a beginning.

So the definition of God, far from being a “logical impossibility in this known universe” is a logical necessity and remains the best explanation we have to date of the fact of existence.

“Arrogance is another accusation. Which seems particularly unfair. Science seeks the truth. And it does not discriminate.” Here Ricky is confusing science with scientists. Science is practised by scientists and, I flatter myself, I have enough experience of them to detect a tendency towards arrogance, bias and discrimination. That is not unique to scientists; we all are like this.

I don’t follow why Ricky believes the burden of proof for God’s existence is on the believer. Be that as it may, believers have been demonstrating the existence of God for millennia and can hardly be blamed if non-believers refuse to accept that demonstration.

Keeping it real, Ricky’s account of the loss of his faith is poignant and saddening. He felt that his mother’s imposition of faith upon him was a sham to encourage him to behave “properly”. Darkly ironic. You see the biggest hurdle for belief in God, for many, is the poor way that believers behave. This is inconsistent with the stated underpinnings of love. Jesus when asked what the greatest commandment was replied, “Love God. And love people.”

But far more serious than Christians failing to comply with their own requirements is atheists following through the logical consequences of their belief system. If the universe is impersonal and amoral, there can be no logical defence of an absolute moral standard. Atheists can defend a moral consensus as much as they wish, but there can be no particular logical reason why a Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler or Genghis Khan should not rise up again and genocidally attempt to accelerate evolution.

If it doesn’t suit me for you to live, why should you live? The universe doesn’t care. If I’m stronger than you, why should your genetic material be given a chance to outlast mine? No moral reason. The universe doesn’t care. We all die anyway.

You say you’re trying to live a moral life. Good for you. But why should your morals have any impact on me? You’re in my space. So I’m going to kill you. That this reasoning is perfectly legitimate in the absence of an absolute moral standard cannot be disputed. You may not like it, but we’re not talking about like/dislike. We’re talking about right/wrong.

In my life I have experienced God’s intervention and known his love in a way that has surpassed coincidence and landed firmly in the realm of truth. I have tested this belief system and it has stood up to every challenge. When Christians talk about standing on a rock, this is what they mean. I embrace my faith and I embrace science. There is one important proviso: where my faith and science disagree, I have learnt to let faith preside over science. Experience has shown so far that science eventually catches up with faith, a trend I fully expect to continue, if science is indeed as honest as Ricky likes to believe.

Ricky Gervais photo copyright © Nadja von Massow, licensed under Creative Commons. Used with permission.

Posted on

How can a good God allow the innocent to suffer?

It’s perhaps one of the most significant questions asked of Christians, both in the frequency with which the question occurs and in the size of the hurdle it represents to the questioner. The challenge is in reconciling two apparently conflicting statements: firstly that God exists and he is loving, all-powerful and good and secondly, that suffering exists and can be seen in people who we consider don’t deserve to suffer.

Listen to the podcast for one approach to this vexing question.

Note to broadcasters: please do contact us to obtain higher quality audio and a licence to broadcast any of these podcasts.

podcast iconHow can a good God allow the innocent to suffer?

Posted on

Sinner or Saint?

crowbar

I’ve been a Christian for 30 years. That feels like quite a long time. Certainly long enough for me to forget the impact of my conversion experience.

I woke up with a strange but profound analogy going through my mind this morning: no matter how often I use a screwdriver to prise out nails, this will never make it a crowbar. And it may well break the screwdriver. I said this to my wife and she had no idea what I was talking about, so perhaps I had better expand on that. (In her defence it was 7am – a bit early for spiritual parables.)

One of the charges often levelled at Christians is that they’re no different from everyone else. In fact they’re worse: they claim to have absolute moral standards, yet they hypocritically fail to meet those standards themselves. I feel that often this is used as an excuse to justify bad behaviour (if the Christians can’t get it right, why should we?) nevertheless, sometimes the mud sticks. So are Christians any different, and if so, in what way?

Back to my conversion experience. I was four at the time. No, I wasn’t into sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll (!) but I was an unruly, wilful little boy and my parents – especially my mum – found me hard work. Until the day of my conversion, that is.

“No matter how often I use a screwdriver to prise out nails, this will never make it a crowbar.”

The story goes that I was having an argument with my dad. I was insisting that I was a Christian and he was insisting that I wasn’t. Eventually I asked him if I wasn’t a Christian, why not – and he explained to me the necessity of apologising to God for all I did wrong and committing myself to “the Jesus way”. Apparently I bought that explanation and made a commitment there and then.

Some may wonder whether it’s possible for someone so young to make such a significant decision or appreciate the implications of it. All I can offer in response is the evidence of my life. I’m still here, still following that path I set out on 30 years ago and increasingly certain that it was the right decision.

As to the impact of my commitment – I changed dramatically and immediately. I became tractable, obedient, compliant and submissive. Much of this is what my parents reported at the time and subsequently – I can’t remember in detail what I was like previously. But what I do remember is the feeling that a cloud had lifted and that I had emerged into a new, light, airy freedom. It genuinely was like being reborn.

This is one of many facts from experience that makes it nigh on impossible for me to deny the living reality of my faith. Excessively naughty four year old boys cannot simply change under their own effort. No, I experienced a transformation of my nature – there can be no other explanation for the sudden and complete overhaul of my behaviour.

“I remember the feeling that a cloud had lifted and that I had emerged into a new, light, airy freedom. It was like being reborn.”

There is an evident contradiction in my life though. Despite this transformation, I still blow it, frequently and repeatedly. How can this be, if I have been transformed from sinner to saint? This is where the analogy of the screwdriver comes in. I have heard it said recently that salvation is not an event, it’s a journey. From my experience, I have to disagree. It was a profound event. I was changed in an instant from a sinner to a saint. In the place of the crowbar there was now a screwdriver. I could still be used to pry out nails, but this was no longer my function. As a saint, I can still sin, but this is not my purpose or destiny. I have an obligation to live a better life than that and this is what I try to do, no matter how often I fall short of that. I also know that if I sin too often, if I prise out too many nails, it will break me and I will need some serious repairs/re-forging.

So I would no longer call myself a sinner. That is not what I am made for. Granted, I may sin, but using a screwdriver for the wrong purpose does not change its nature. Using all that God has given me for the wrong purpose cannot change my fundamental nature as one who is saved. This way of thinking liberates me to a free and fuller life. This is what I believe God wants for all people.

Crowbar image copyright © Dustin Tinney, licensed under Creative Commons. Used with permission.