Are we still serious about hell?

I have no deep theological response to Jonathan Gibson's article on hell apart from the obvious need to act upon the fact of hell and eternal punishment. However, as I read the article, the music of Mozart's setting of the Dies Irae from the Requiem Mass kept coming to mind. This power of association is, of course, one of music's many notable features. I study this piece most years with my senior students and we always pause to reflect on the picture of God's wrath and judgement and the Day of the Lord, that the music paints. It is in stark contrast to the funeral music of Protestant composers such as Bach and we often discuss the differences in viewpoint and faith that the composers may have had to create such music. Reading Jonathan's article leads me to wonder if I may have judged Mozart harshly and that maybe it is my own preference to hear and dwell upon the gospel of grace rather than the truth of eternal judgement that has led me to consider his view of death as being negative and lacking in hope.I look forward to the opportunity that the music provides to both reflect myself on the Bible's teaching about hell and punishment and to discuss this important truth with my students.

Philip Cooney of Wentworth Falls (29/06/2010)

Thank you for Peter Collier's review of 'Unpacking Forgiveness'. As one who continues to suffer major depression resulting from decades of psychological abuse in earlier life, I was comforted by his perspective. Life for victims of abuse of any kind is made so much harder by well-meaning but sadly very heretical comments from Christians who think that just repeating some mantra of 'forgiveness' is all that is needed to be 'healed'. This is new age pop-psychology, not the gospel. How many people there must be out there who continue to suffer because of the reckless, insensitive preaching of this rubbish, especially at the hands of charismatics. The reality is that God Himself doesn't forgive those who do not repent. So how can we? Jesus said forgive as often as is needed, '..if he repent'. You also have the case of Jesus when He addressed the question of repeated sin against us despite being told about it. Rather than pronounce a blanket 'remedy' we are actually told to despise the offender (Matt 18:15ff). Now although that is probably not a literally meant outcome, it teaches limitations. How quick people are to replace biblical context with a context of their own, a context which, I suspect, really comes from a self-centred desire for their own fulfillment. Without even thinking, these people are guilty of the cruellest possible torture, especially to depressed and sensitive people. I pray God will be merciful to them, they are going to need it! However, given the wise precautions prescribed at the end of the review, I'm not likely to go out and buy this book.

Keith Barnett of Kings Langley, NSW, AUS (04/08/2010)

As you say, Up Front is all about Blatant Opinions, and I hear in Peter Bolt's article plenty of up front stuff. Now as any good evangelical will admit, Paul was quite keen on the gospel, and in many ways defined how we are to communicate that to people, except that in many ways his approach differed from that of Jesus, and it also tok sligthly different approaches depending on his setting. I don't think that he was trying fresh expressions of Church at that stage but he was certainly tailoring the emphasis of the gospel to address the particular issues that he saw presenting themselves. I commend Peter for addressing the issue that the most significant part of evangelism is always the first step of opening one's mouth and speaking to your neighbour, but telling them the good news is only going to be good news to them if it has meaning in their context, otherwise all our efforts will be like the pearls that get trampled on.

Dave Leaf of UK (04/08/2010)

David Moore’s article on the Sabbath is indicative of our muddled thinking when it comes to the 4th Commandment! Indeed sadly it has become the Claytons Commandment; ‘the Commandment you have when you’re not having a Commandment’. For example, imagine writing in a reformed Christian magazine, like the Briefing: ‘the command - do not murder, is not a law we need to uphold’. Or ‘here are some thoughts on how to keep the intention of not committing adultery’. But this is exactly what David’s article says about the Sabbath. Why is this so when this Commandment is not repealed anywhere by Jesus… rather, as David rightly points out, our Lord critiques the Pharisees wrong interpretation of it (Mat 12:12, see also Mark 2:27). In the Epistles, when dealing with the ‘Christian’ version of the Pharisees – the Judaisers, Paul frees Christians from having to follow Jewish ceremonies (Col 2:16). In doing this Paul allows for the New Covenant expression of Sabbath – worship and rest on Sunday, the day Jesus defeated death. This once a week event continues to this day and will continue as we, like our Old Covenant brothers and sisters before us, look forward to that final day when we will have access once again to the tree of life (Rev 22:2)! Of course it’s true that we can fall into the same trap as the Pharisees and Judaisers when it comes to the Sabbath. But a correct understanding and committed observance to it (and Moore makes some good points about what this should look like) has got nothing to do with pharisaical law keeping and everything to do with Godly Christ-like obedience, and obedience, as we all know, is not an optional extra.

Rev Peter Williamson of NSW, AUS (04/08/2010)

Thanks for your comment Peter. I can understand that the article may appear "muddled" on whether the Sabbath command needs to be upheld. I suppose this is one of the dangers in writing an article that builds on the biblical groundwork set down by previously published articles. I think the older Briefing articles deal specifically with the question of whether we do uphold the 4th commandment in the same way as the other 9 commandments. I've tried to summarise their conclusions as "its wise to have sabbath-type days", and then think about what those days might look like from what the OT says they look like. I wonder if your concerns are better directed at those articles and their less muddled arguments?

David Moore of NSW, AUS (04/08/2010)

Jonathan Gibson's article on hell (Briefing No. 381) was in a word excellent. It carefully articulated opposing views without resorting to caricature and faithfully presented the traditional and biblical view of this important topic. I had one very minor quibble - why the reference to our eternal glory as "heaven" rather than Scripture's portrayal of our future hope as the New Heavens and New Earth. Jonathan himself seems aware of this oddity (given his mixing of terms throughout his article). How I wish that we would refrain from the sloppy use of language (a point made in Briefing No. 327, pp 14-16). Apart from this small niggle, I'd like to reiterate how excellent Jonathan's piece was - pastoral in tone yet sobering in content. Thanks Jonathan and Thanks Briefing crew for seeking to teach us the full counsel of Scripture.

Rev G. Kip' Chelashaw of Alsagers Bank, Staffordshire, UK (24/08/2010)

David Moore's article on the Sabbath was stimulating and helpful. In particular, the emphases on the Sabbath being primarily a spiritual day (it belongs to the Lord; it is the day when we 'do church') and eschatological in its thrust (it points to our ultimate rest in that we 'recapture a taste of Eden before the Fall', and Christ has fulfilled it) were refreshing. The suggestions on how the Sabbath may be spent were also very helpful.

In fact I could agree with so much of the article that it seemed incongruous to read at least three times, in slightly different words, the conviction that the Sabbath is not binding on us because we are 'not under law but under grace'. I know that this is more or less 'Briefing orthodoxy', and seems to be becoming orthodoxy in much of modern western evangelicalism, but it really should not go unchallenged.

There is no space here to rehearse the arguments for the continuity of the Ten Commandments and the Sabbath in particular, but perhaps I could take up a point or two starting with David Moore's article?

First - the nature of the day. Yes, primarily spiritual and eschatological in thrust. But is there not a danger of an over-realised eschatology? Is it logical to say that because Jesus has fulfilled the Sabbath it no longer binds us as law? We are not in heaven yet. We are still sinners.The truly consummated Sabbath rest is yet to come. Is it illogical to have a special day in God's law for God's people? It would seem more logical in fact to have a special day until the End comes.

Second - the authority for the day. Intriguingly David Moore seems to spend the Sabbath much as many people who, like me, believe it is an abiding divine commandment. I guess he does so on a Sunday too - as most of us do, despite all the talk about the First Day of the week not being a Sabbath or mandatory.

So the question I ask is - why? What is the authority for spending the Sabbath as the Sabbath? If it is not divine law it could be, as far as I can see, (i) convenience - it suits us; (ii) convention - we've always done it that way; (iii) consensus - agreement universally, nationally or locally that that will be the day; (iv) calculation - it pays to use that day - that is, 'it works'; or (v) commandment of men - some human authority, church or otherwise, determines that Sunday will be the day.

In what way, though, are any of these an improvement as a motive on God telling us to keep the Sabbath? I think I would prefer a Sabbath Day commanded by God to a 'Sabbath-type' day subject to the vagaries of man. The Reformers after all delighted in liberating us from the commandments of men.

What I detect behind the repeated refrain 'not under law but under grace' (which in context has of course a very rich new covenant meaning) is (a) the idea that law and grace are somehow antithetical. Now sometimes they are; I am not under the covenant or curse or condemnation of law, for example; but I am under it as a rule of life. Why should I not include God's authority over my week as part of that? and (b) forgetting that the spiritual person delights in the law (Psalms19:7-11; 119:97,113). Does not the heart that loves God love a duty simply because it is from God? And to obey because we love him and because he is God - is that not the essence of the spiritual life - which Adam and Eve got spectacularly wrong because they could see no evident reason for God's command?

Jesus, not we, is Lord of the Sabbath. He claimed Lordship over it; was that only for three years? Was it to abolish it? Would something good, that was made for man (Mark 2:27) be struck out of the law - quite apart from the fact that Jesus after all did say the law would abide (Matthew 5:17-21)?

These comments do not of course in themselves make the case for the First Day Sabbath, but they are important features of the debate.

Mostyn Roberts of Welwyn, Hertfordshire, UK (24/08/2010)