In Rob Bell’s best seller, Love Wins: A Book about Heaven, Hell, and The Fate of Every Person Who Every Lives, the writer raises questions which have rocked the Christian world and have been discussed on the internet, TV shows, religious columns, and many Christian Bible studies. No matter what one believes, as a Christian about either Heaven or Hell and the afterlife, this book brings those questions to the forefront and are back of almost every Christian belief. This is only one of the very provocative questions he has dared to ask: “Will only Christians be saved?” This was prompted by a scrawled not underneath Gandhi’s picture in an art show of prominent peacemakers: “He’s in Hell.”
Seriously, what is the common Christian belief? How can we be sure? What must one do, be, or perform to qualify for entrance to the Pearly Gates? Is it dependent on one’s parents? The country of your birth? Making the right choices during your life? How much control do we really have over our parents, our birthplace, or our early environment that plays such a pivotal role in our attitude?
If one dies very suddenly is there any hope if he may not have been baptized into the Christian faith? Is that what Christians believe? Or, is it based on one’s personal relationship with Christ? Even though there is never such a phrase in the entire Bible?
The age-old questions “What must I do to be saved?” Is answered by sheer luck of being born in the right place, at the right time, to the right parents, and to good environment. If that is true, then my eternal future is in the hands of others.
Or, is it solely on my belief in Jesus’ blood that has saved me? How is this to be applied?
What conditions are necessary for me to be assured?
Nowhere in the Hebrew Bible is there promised a future eternal life; they did not talk of a future life somewhere else because they anticipated a coming day when the world would be restored, renewed, and redeemed and there would be peace on earth.
Jesus was the first to speak of Heaven as eternal life when asked of the young ruler who was most anxious to be assured. In Jesus’ reply he said that one day when God’s will would be done on earth as is now done in heaven, that earth and heaven will be one.
Surely, this question is one of the most important of all questions Christianity has been asked. If Christians cannot be certain of what the future holds, why be a Christian?
Since first they were introduced into the Christian lexicon, heaven and hell have been central to their mission. Are they literal places? Was the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus merely a metaphor for telling men that we must show mercy to others?
Is the Devil the one in charge of Hell and God is in charge of Heaven? When did the concept of Heaven as the home of the saved originate? Or that Hell was reserved for the most devious of humans? How much of the concept of Hell and Heaven were influenced by both ancient and more recent writers? Both John Milton and Dante described these two abodes of humans: Milton described Paradise in his epic poem Paradise Lost and Dante wrote the Divine Comedyportraying Hell, Purgatory and Heaven. This poem had an enormous influence on Christian thinking and was incorporated into Christian theology.
One of the most famous Bible verses in found in John 3:16: “For God so loved this world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him should not , perish but have everlasting life.” What is often forgotten and seldom read are the two verses following: “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him.”
This is the overriding theme in Bell’s book: according to the book of Timothy, “God wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2). And in Hebrews, the writer says: “God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear“ (chap. 6).
What did the writer of the letter to the Philippians mean when he wrote “Every knee should bow…and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord”? and Peter says that Jesus will “restore everything” (Acts 3), and Paul writes in Colossians 1 that through Christ “God was pleased to….reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven.”
On to Revelation: in the last chapters, the gates of that city in that new world will “never shut.” Gates are for keeping people in and keeping people out. If the gates are never shut, then people are free to come and go. When, in that book, God is saying that He will make all things new, does that mean everything, including people?
What did Jesus mean when he said “I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen” (John 10).
In the parables of the prodigal son and the worker who only worked one hour compared to those who had worked all day, it demonstrates that in Jesus’ kingdom, people will get what they don’t deserve.
Bell asks deeply unsettling questions for those who have been so secure in their beliefs of who will make up heaven’s inhabitants: Does this sound familiar? “Millions have been taught that if they don’t believe, if they don’t accept in the right way, that is the way the person telling them the gospel does, and they were hit by a car and died later that same day, God would have no choice but to punish them forever. God would, in essence, become a fundamentally different being to them in that moment of death, a different being to them forever. A loving heavenly father who will go to extraordinary lengths to have a relationship with his child would, in the blink of an eye, become a cruel, mean, vicious tormenter.”
If there was an earthly father who was like that, we would call the authorities. And yet millions of Christians have been taught this very belief and converted millions based on this fear. Has there been a bit of schadenfreud in Adventism that goes like this: ‘ “Those people out there may be going to parties and appearing to have fun while the rest of us do ‘God’s work,’ but someday we’ll go to heaven, where we won’t have to do anything, and they’ll go to hell, where they’ll get theirs” This is the same sentiment expressed by the elder brother when he was so angry because his father welcomed the prodigal son with open arms.
If God’s love is so small, so parsimonious that only those who have joined with the “elect” will be invited to heaven, that god has become much too small to redeem the world; to build mansions to be inhabited; to extend his welcoming arms to his children.
That can only mean that for those who believe this,:their God is far too small, and deserves no worship and adoration. Like the Wizard of Oz, that god is a very small image of our own making.
A couple of years ago I posted an article entitled Is God on Trial? Recently Marco Belmont on HeavenlySanctuary.com posted a nice piece of continuing Adventist mythology entitled Judging the Judge.
He begins with a story which he later tells us is a parable about God, Satan, humans and angels. The key piece to interpreting his parable is supplied when he explains:
“...I'd like to submit that the judgment never needs to be the source of anxious panic because guess what? We aren't the ones who are on trial. We human beings aren't the ones being judged. The crazy thing about the judgment is that The One who is being judged is none other than Almighty God Himself. We human beings – and doesn't this just blow the mind – we humans have been assigned jury duty. When this Great Cosmic Battle between good and evil comes to a close, the question isn't “what does God think about us?” - because that question has already been answered in the person of Jesus Christ. God loves even those who hate His guts. Rather, the real question that each of us will be asked when Jesus Christ appears at the close of time will be, “What do YOU think about God?” Is He guilty of being a harsh taskmaster who enslaves His intelligent creatures by using power and might as a way of keeping them in fearful submission? That's what the reptilian con-artist Mr. Satanic Snake has suggested. Or, is God a compassionate and kind Father who loves and forgives people even when they murder Him? That's the testimony of Christ. Right now, respectfully, we are going to judge the Judge of the Judgment.”
The idea that human beings are going to judge God is such an incredible logical fallacy that it amazes me people believe it. In fact toward the end of his rather long article he destroys his whole thesis by showing that human beings are not qualified to judge God. He writes:
“...If a jury knew a person was innocent and convicted that person as guilty despite knowing the truth, that jury just judged itself as being unfit for jury duty. Likewise, when people of God – and notice I'm not directing this towards non-Christians – who claim the name of Christ but spread any sort of theology that makes God look guilty as charged – no matter how precious the words seem to sound – there is no excuse for lack of investigation and pushing our old cherished beliefs out the window – we simply announce to the entire universe that we have become unfit to make truth – specifically the truth about God's character – our standard. Even worse, our absence from the jury box is not just a loss for God, but another vote in favor of Satan and his methods. Are we guilty of saying, “God is love” and yet warn people of Christ's 2nd coming? Why would we warn people about God? You warn people when an enemy is coming, not a friend. Do we claim there is freedom in serving Christ and yet enslave our youth with exacting rules that come from gross misinterpretation of the scriptures? Do we say God accepts everyone unconditionally but turn around and suggest that He couldn't do it unless Christ first shed His blood thus taking the true message of Christ and replacing it with hedonistic paganism? Have we substituted honesty, open mindedness, and willingness with symbolism, religious rhetoric and euphemisms? Do we keep preaching the soon return of Christ somehow subconsciously implying that Christ isn't available right this second as He stands within our midst at this very moment? Have we preached on prophecy and the signs of the times so much that we've forgotten about The God of prophecy and The God of signs and The God of time? Have we Christians become so enamored with God's law hanging up in some municipal or judicial building – worrying about politics and who will represent our cherished views in parliament or senates across the globe - all the while the law of love and freedom is strangely missing from the barren wall that now encases our hearts as God begs for a group of people to free Him from the shackles of the courtroom and announce with tongues of fire, “In the case of Christ vs. Satan, we find the defendant not guilty on all accounts.” If we have answered yes to any of these questions, we have judged ourselves unfit to judge God. Thus, we have no need to worry about The Judgment, because we won't ever experience that glorious moment when one group of people will turn to our good Good and say, “we are sorry, Father, that you were wrongly accused and that an innocent God ever had to prove His goodness in the first place.”'
To simplify this rather elaborate long section of material. If you believe God is good and just, you are capable of being on the Jury that Judges God. If you don't think God is good and just, you are not suitable for the jury and therefore you won't be seated on the totally biased jury pool and only those on that jury pool are rewarded with heaven. If you ever misrepresented God in any of the numerous ways listed as questions by Marco, then you are unfit to serve on the jury...sinners need not apply could be the title of that little section.
The fact is the judgment in the Bible is not about humans judging God after all, we can judge God now to the best of our abilities, we all have to go through life making judgments all the time who to trust and who not to trust, we apply the data and make the choices, in that respect we certainly do judge but it is restricted to our judgment about things. It is not some kind of legal all encompassing judgment of the ultimate truth or reality of a superhuman creature who dwells in the supernatural while we are restricted to the natural. Even if there was a judgment after this life of God, we would be dependent upon God for the information anyway and if you did not trust His information what are you going to do about it? So in such a vast judgment case in the sky scenario there is no point to man being the jury, no need for the finite to judge the infinite. These remnants of the old Investigative Judgment concepts must really go away as they are just as weak as the original Adventist Investigative Judgment. You cannot redefine a poor theology based upon complete misrepresented texts, that leads only to confusion the only answer is found in going back to the original presuppositions and discarding the faulty ones and rebuilding on a firmer and more logical foundation.
Recently I got an email asking about my stance on Substitutionary Atonement Theory. While I have an extensive article on the subject entitled: What is wrong with the Substitutionary theory of the Atonement? There still seems to be a lot of confusion when people think about the alternative I have often used called the Moral Influence Theory. Some of this was brought to my attention by some comments I read on Heavenlysanctuary.com and even from the website ReligiousTolerance.com, which in its article on the Moral Influence quotes from one of my previous articles. First, here is Anita’s question:
I read your stance on "substitution theory." I have accepted this as biblical for many, many years both in my Catholic upbringing and as a Protestant. I am not rejecting your thoughts, I am just curious what you are saying. I am a bit confused, so a summary of what your meaning is would be so helpful.
Atonement Theory
The Moral Influence Theory is a theological term; it is like many theological terms not proposed and given the name Moral Influence Theory that is simply something that got attached to the view by later theologians. It is a very simple theory, but first let me say that atonement theories are not meant to deal with all aspects of Christianity. In theological terms, an atonement theory is meant to explain the reason why Christ died. As Encyclopedia.com says: “In Christian theology, atonement is the reconciliation (‘at-one-ment’) of men and women to God through the death of Christ. The word was introduced by W. Tyndale (in 1526) to translate reconciliatio.”
Through history there have been a number of theories to attempt to explain how this reconciliation to God is brought about by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. In simple terms…because, in fact, the moral influence theory is pretty simple, the atonement is God’s showing His love and desire for reconciliation with humanity. In fact, you could find that idea in most every other atonement theory. It is very clearly established in the Bible, probably most memorably by Paul when he asks the rhetorical question:
(Rom 2:4 NIV) Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance? Repentance being the first step in human response to the actions of God leading to reconciliation.
What is the Moral Influence Theory
A couple of quotes from some easily accessible books online are helpful here, as most reference works will attribute the teaching of the moral influence theory or at least the popularity of it to Peter Abelard:
“It is only in his commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (c. 1135?) that Abelard develops the thesis that the redeeming action of Christ does not consist in freeing man from servitude to the devil, but in inspiring in him the true love of God through the example of his life and his death…”Encylopedia of Christian Theology By Jean-Yves Lacoste
“Concerning the doctrine of Christ’s atonement, Abelard set forth in his commentary on the Epistle to the Romans a distinctive teaching, often called a “subjective” theory. Abelard argued that the effect of Christ’s death was not an “objective” change in the relation of God and humanity (in light of human sin) as presented in Anselm of Bec’s Cur Deus homo. Rather, Christ’s death reveals self-sacrifice and absolute self-giving love, which evokes in the believer a response of total sacrifice and love and effects not a cosmic transaction involving divine justice but a personal and individual transformation of love and intention.”Medieval France by William W. Kibler, Grover A. Zinn
Subjective versus objective atonement
The idea of subjective versus objective is actually very interesting because most of the other theories have Jesus doing the sacrifice to change God. In the Satisfaction theory, God has been infinitely offended by man’s sin and demands satisfaction. Man, who is finite, cannot provide any infinite satisfaction, so Christ, the God-man, provides it. This theory, for all practical purposes, morphed into the Substitutionary theory where God demands that someone pay the penalty for man’s sin and Jesus becomes man’s substitute. The Ransom theory from early Christianity is similar to an objective theory as it seeks to have Jesus pay a ransom to Satan to free people from Satan’s grip.
The difference- the effect of the atonement upon man versus the effect of the atonement on God (or the devil) makes a huge difference from my perspective. God is God, and He does not need to change; He is the one who offers the love and reconciliation and the ultimate salvation we look for. Of course, the Substitutionary atonement proponent will readily agree to the idea that the Substitutionary atonement reveals the love of God because God is sending His own Son as the Substitutionary sacrifice. However, to them the love of God is not enough; God has to punish someone for the sin, so God pours out His wrath upon Jesus Christ. The problem is; does love demand that someone has to be punished to forgive someone else? It produces a confused view of God, someone who loves supremely yet can’t manage to simply forgive. That frankly is not the picture of God given in much of the Bible, and it is not a very reasonable view of God either.
Quotes from the confused about Moral Influence Theory
Let me give my own $0.02 on the Moral Influence Theory. There is nothing wrong with it.... as far as it goes. No one anywhere would deny that Jesus' life and death influenced us morally. That was certainly part of his mission
But if Jesus' only mission was to show us how to live more moral lives, or even to show us how far love would go, there would have been no necessity for his death. It was just a stronger statement that way.
What the MIT leaves out is the whole Great Controversy, the charges against God, the reason that God had to let sin play out and his solution to the dilemma that the results of sin presented. In my opinion it was this larger context that required that Jesus suffer the consequences of sin to demonstrate the truth of God's diagnosis and the full nature of sin. I see no other way in which that could have been addressed that would not have left some crack of doubt about God and his government. Jesus' death was absolutely necessary for the whole problem of evil to be resolved. The MIT does not include that broad a scope.
Mark
This person has made the classic mistake of not understanding what an Atonement theory is meant to address. That is how does the death of Christ bring reconciliation? He is partially right in that all Christian doctrine relates to some other part of Christian doctrine. But there is no Atonement theory that includes all the broad scope of everything in Christianity. There is not even agreement on what the broad scope would be, and just saying the code words “Great Controversy” does little to establish any understanding. Though the term is used and misused in Adventism a lot. Practically no one really knows what it means because the term seems to try and cover everything that a particular person thinks is important. The same person continues in another post:
That God would choose to do this rather than "start over" is proof of his love. But to me (and I do NOT NOT NOT claim to speak for all Larger View folk in this) the primary reason for the necessity of Jesus' death was that there was no other way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that sin pays its wages, death rather than sin results in God killing you.
To me this explanation takes our understanding of the atonement out of the realm of the "Moral Influence Theory" because the MIT has no "necessity" for his death. He could have done it without the death but it was simply a stronger statement that way. In this understanding the death of Jesus was necessary. There is no other way in which this "double bind" could have been answered. Jesus had to die to deal with the claims of evil.
This continues the previous misunderstanding of what an Atonement theory is, but it also adds a new component which you find in many of those who claim to be students of Dr. Graham Maxwell (people who often say they follow the “Larger View” or the “Great Controversy” view of atonement). That is, for some reason, no one would know what death was unless Jesus died. It is an attempt to get back to the objective idea that God had to change something (here it would be humanity's view of death). Instead of God having to punish someone for sin, they move it to God having to prove that separation from God really is death. That the death we see all around us is not really death at all; only seeing the sin caused the death of Christ as someone who never sinned do we realize the separation from God really kills. I know it sounds silly, and it is, and it contradicts the New Testament, which indicates at least 5 times that people killed Christ, not once saying that God caused the death of Christ. It is a view predicated on Ellen White; for those trying to incorporate her into their theology, it takes on major importance, with the idea that Christ suffered the Second death, the death that the wicked will suffer after the second coming.
Another regular member at Heavenlysanctuary, Scott wrote:
If penal substitution (forensic model) is true then Christ could have been killed at two years old at the hand of Herod (acting for God) and accomplished being our substitute for God's wrath.
If the Moral Influence theory is true then God needed not become human at all. He could have come down as God or even sent an angel to accomplish telling men how to live. This would not require his death or resurrection.
Here we see another of the misrepresentations of the moral influence theory; the idea that the reason for the moral influence theory of the atonement was simply to show us humans, how to live. First, as with Mark, Scott doesn’t understand what an Atonement theory is trying to explain, and second, the idea that moral influence is meant as telling us how to be moral. So no, his assertion that the moral influence theory would be just as acceptable if an angel came and died is incorrect. At best, we would conclude that an angel had self-sacrificial love, but that does not tell us about God and thus does nothing to create reconciliation.
Kevin writes the following:
A second criticism I have of the Moral Influence Theory is that it is focused too much on works. Jesus died as a demonstration so that you change your life and that life chance is what saves you. It turns the cross into a coach and becomes a very beautiful way of phrasing traditional legalism.
Using the words of detractors to define a belief
This is one of the most popular distortions of the Moral Influence theory. It is like so many distortions is drawn not from what the believers in the Moral Influence theory say but from what the detractors say about the Moral Influence theory. We see an example of this on Religious Tolerance website, which says under the description, “Some brief descriptions of the Moral Theory are:
Phil Johnson of the conservative Protestant Grace to You ministry disagrees with the Moral Theory. He describes it as follows: "Christ’s death was an example for believers to follow, a radical expression of love that influences sinners morally and gives them a pattern to follow..." 6
People have to really be careful who they get their information from. If you want to know what certain people believe, you go to sources of people who believe that. You don’t go to the Adventists to find out what Roman Catholics believe or to Roman Catholics to find out what Adventists believe. There may be Adventists and Roman Catholics who know what the other believes, but they will be able to document the belief from people who actually hold the belief. This is why quotations are so important, and it protects us from making wrong assumptions and/or judgments based upon faulty information.
Christ as Christian Example
That Christ is an example to follow is nearly universal in Christianity, but that is not what the moral influence theory is. You may have noticed nobody said that the book In His Steps was based upon the Moral Influence Theory, but that is the premise to the first half of the book and the concept “what would Jesus do”. The moral influence theory is no more works oriented than the works oriented legalism of those who hold to Satisfaction or Penal theory. Atonement theory is not about works or the grace of people. Atonement theory is about the grace or work of Christ and how His death leads to reconciliation.
Definitions of Moral often ignored
There are other definitions of “Moral” which convey much better the idea of moral used in the term Moral Influence theory. Three of them found in the definition of moral at Dictionary.com are:
Founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
of, pertaining to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character: moral support.
resting upon convincing grounds of probability; virtual: a moral certainty.
Atonement the center of Christianity
A person’s view of the Atonement will serve as the foundation, the center of their interpretation of all other aspects of Christianity. It defines the character of God, and that understanding of God defines the rest of our beliefs. This makes it very hard for someone who believes in the ultimately self-sacrificial love of God designed to bring us back to a relationship with God to live a legalistic life. In other words, to think that because God loved us so much that He came in the person of Jesus Christ to show us His love, and even when rejected and tortured by people He still loved and forgave the ones killing Him. Yet He requires the same self-sacrificial love and forgiveness from you, or He will not be reconciled with you makes no sense; it would not even be atonement. That God asks us to love and forgive is very true and a part of most all Christian thought. But that our love and forgiveness is what saves us is the difference between legalism and grace-oriented salvation. It explains why those who believe God is defined by His love and forgiveness cannot hope to live lives of sufficient love and forgiveness to merit salvation. We know that there are no works we can do to make up for our lack of love and forgiveness.
That God acts rightly, that love is the conduct of God, is the type of “moral” nature revealed in the atonement. That the character of God reaches to our mind, our feeling, and our character is equally moral. The fact that this love is convincingly given by the record of the life and death of Christ confirms still another definition of moral. We could even add more morals in that Christ conformed to the current laws or that Christ was obedient. But those moral elements don’t bring reconciliation; they are evidence of who Christ was. But we can’t ignore the elements of moral which influence us to follow God. Which is what many of the detractors of Moral Influence theory do because they really do like the moral influence theory; it just does not go far enough for them. It does not fulfill their view of a God that demands someone has to die because a law was broken…that satisfaction has to be made. If I speculated about their reason other than tradition for their insistence, I would have to say it is founded upon a misunderstanding of God and love. And that is why the theory of Atonement is so very important today.
