John Stott

Dr. Alister Chapman who has studied John Stott for the last 10 years,  has published a book on Dr. John Stott:

Godly Ambition: John Stott and the Evangelical by Alister Chapman

Dr. Alister Chapman mentions briefly Stott’s position on hell on pg 145 of his book

“Stott also raised questions about whether hell would in fact involve the eternal, conscious torment of the lost – a staple of conservative evangelical preaching. Stott had struggled with this issue for some time. As a pastor he evaded the question, telling his congregation that he did not want to “be drawn into controversy about the exact nature of hell.” Now, however, he was as much a theologian as a pastor, and it was a theologian’s job to raise awkward questions, to stake out his ground, and take flack if necessary. Stott came in for heavy criticism after he published his view on the subject, and he lost credibility among American evangelicals in particular. He defended himself by saying that the true marks of an evangelical were a commitment to study the Bible and to submit to its authority not the tyranny of doctrinal traditions. However the criticism hurt him deeply, especially when it came from the mouth of that other tower of post-war Anglican evangelicalism, Jim Packer. Stott’s willingness to be candid about his questions about the nature of hell damaged his credentials as a evangelical stalwart. This made life harder for him with the theological conservative end of Lausanne. Yet the reality was that by the 1980s Stott was a different type of Christian from the one who first became preaching to students in the 1950s.”

Here is an interview with Dr. Alister Chapman. He does not mention Stott’s position on hell in the interview.

first look at natural death

Devotional Thoughts from Genesis 5.
Republished from marmsky.wordpress.com with permission.

This chapter traces the family tree of Adam until the time of Noah.  besides that, it also is a clear reminder that what God warned Adam about in the garden of Eden will happen.  Now that humanity has transgressed the prohibition of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, we share the same destiny.  We die.  It took Adam 930 years but he eventually succumbed to natural death (5).  The others followed.  At the end of each story, there is an inevitable “and he died”  (5,8,11,14,17,20,27,31).  The only exception appears to be Enoch, and we don’t really know what happened to him.  He was not found.  The point of this passage is that death is a constant, and it will be until our Lord returns to abolish it at the resurrection.

LORD, we tremble at the awareness of our own mortality.  but we trust that you will make us alive again when Christ returns.  Our destiny is in your hands.

Preaching The Gospel to the Dead By W. Laing

Republished from pages 87-88 of the Bible Standard April 1882

“For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to men in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.” 1 Peter 4:6

This passage has been declared by the most learned expositors to be very hard to be understood. Macknight says it is “one of the darkest passages in the New Testament;” Doddridge, that it, “must be confessed to be extremely difficult;” Bloomfield, that “the sense is here obscure;” Dr. Adam Clarke, that “there are as many different translations of this verse and comments upon it, as there are translators and commentaries;” and Dr. John Brown, that  “it would serve little purpose to state the various attempts which interpreters have made to extort an opposite meaning out of these words. Their number, and the extravagance of some of them, clearly shows that this passage is hard to be understood.”

The latter writer merely gives what appears to him the probable meaning of the passage in the following paraphrase: “For this end was the gospel preached to you when spiritually dead, that, believing it, ye should abandon sin and follow holiness; and, having gained its object, the result has been that ye are persecuted in your external circumstances, your body, your reputation, your outward condition, by men; but you are happy in your mind, in all your spiritual relations and circumstances, in God” (Expository Discourses, First Peter, Vol. ii., p. 466).

The context, however, does not seem to us to favour the idea that the apostle’s reference was to those who had been “spiritually dead,” but to believers of the gospel who were bodily dead at the time he was writing. Such is the view given of the apostle’s meaning by John Panton Ham, in his Generations Gathered and Gathering,p. 127: “The gospel was preached in the lifetime of those who are now dead; and to them for this cause, namely, that although they must be judged in the flesh after the manner of men – that is, although they must experience the common lot of man, which is to die – yet that they might live according to God in the spirit that is, that they might, notwithstanding, be made alive again in a spiritual existence namely, resurrection-when Christ shall be ready to judge the quick and the dead.”

To the same effect writes the Rev. J. C. M’Causland, M.A. (On the Intermediate State, pp. 69,70): “There is not in these words the slightest ground for the notion which has been too rashly built upon them, that the “dead” here spoken of were preached to in the intermediate state. They were called “dead” by the apostle, because they were so at the time of his writing this epistle, but they were alive when the gospel was preached to them. There is, at least, nothing in the language inconsistent with this position, while the supposing them to have been dead, when preached to, contradicts the uniform testimony of the Word respecting the disembodied state, and therefore cannot be maintained. There is no difficulty connected with the explanation here proposed, as it agrees with the testimony of Scripture which the other views oppose, and has thus a fair claim on our assent. The meaning of the latter part of the passage seems to be, that they were, according to the penalty denounced against sin, subjected to death “in the flesh,” but should yet, according to the provision of God, in Christ, “live in the spirit,” i.e., in the spiritual body, just mentioned, in the former of which the believer is “judged” to temporal death, while in the latter he will be introduced to eternal life. In fact the natural life, of which they were deprived by death, is to be succeeded by the spiritual life of the resurrection.”

The application of the passage suggested by Mr. M’Causland, seems to me very probable; it agrees entirely with the whole scope of the context, and with the whole testimony of Scripture. Only I am more inclined to Dr. Brown’s understanding of the phrase “judged according to men in the flesh,” as being equal to “judged by men” – put to death by persecutors; and in like manner regard the phrase “live according to God in the spirit” as referring to the Divine agency by which they were to live again, though put to death. Just as the same apostle had said of his Lord: “Him ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain, whom God hath raised up” (Acts ii. 23, 24).

But the force of the apostle’s argument is not materially affected, whether we understand him as referring to death by persecution, or death as the effect of God’s judgment against sin, as the common lot of the descendants of Adam. By referring to the preceding context the reader will perceive that the condition of the dead, between the time of their death and resurrection, is not the subject of his discourse; he is rather seeking to strengthen the flock God, amid the sore persecutions they had to bear for their Lord’s sake. He reminds them that suffering for well-doing was not peculiar to them; that the Christ Himself had suffered, even unto death; and therefore, as their Lord had suffered for them, they should be ready and willing to suffer for Him, no longer living according to the desires of the flesh, but according to the will of God. Viewed in this light, the language of verse 6 seems to amount to this: “Your sufferings are in no respect peculiar, for the gospel was also preached to, and received by, the disciples, who have already been subjected to death, who, although it was the will of God they should so suffer, yet that by submitting themselves to sufferings and death they should live again, according to the pleasure of God, when at the resurrection they are made “alive by the spirit.” Comfort this, like the assuring words of our Lord: “He who loseth his life for My sake shall keep it unto life eternal.”

Such, we think, is the most probable meaning of the apostle’s words; but, as W. G. Moncrieff observes in his work, Spirit: “Let the full force of the text be what it may, it teaches nothing about disembodied spirits, for surely it would require a most merciless torturing of the words, “live according to God in the spirit;”  to make them express this: “live according to God, as disembodied spirits, in the unseen world”” The translators seem to have viewed the language in a similar way as we have done, seeing they have rendered the Greek verb in the past tense: “For this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead.” According to the view taken by those who apply the words to a missionary effort in Hades, they would require to be: “For this cause is the gospel preached to them that are dead.” Perhaps such a rendering may yet be argued for; but it would be in strange contrast to such statements as: “Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor wisdom in the grave, whither thou goest.” “The night cometh when no man can work.” A great deal of Scripture, indeed, would require to be rewritten before we could find any warrant there for the idea of the evangelizing of the dead.

But, after all, the apostle is speaking of dead persons, while Dr. Farrar and his school are thinking of persons still alive! Those unsaved ones who are supposed to be the subjects of evangelization in the unseen state are not thought to be dead, but more sensibly alive than when in the body. It is not they, but their bodies – the house in which they lodged for a while – which has crumbled to dust. As men throw aside a worn-out garment, so they, it is supposed have left their bodies behind them, as so many old clothes, and in the unseen world whither they have gone, have the gospel which they despised here, preached to them there with so much effect that all, or nearly all, shall be saved by it!

Why take a passage, which speaks of those who are dead, to sustain a theory regarding persons who are alive? In the Scriptures there are no two greater opposites than death and life; and never do we find the Scriptures speaking of a person as dead, while he is understood to be alive, whether the reference be to natural or moral life. The persons of whom Peter speaks are evidently regarded by him as having been once alive, and now dead. It is not of bodies, as such, he is writing, but of persons; and the Scriptures uniformly speak of the person as dying-“ Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” “Man returneth to his earth; in that day his thoughts perish.”

It is only by ignoring the testimony of Scripture, and substituting for it the conceptions of men, that the pleasing fancy of reformation between death and resurrection can be held. Hence we find its advocates speaking with contempt of  “an array of texts of Scripture,” and denouncing adherence to its natural and grammatical sense as “servile interpretation.” The day is at hand when it shall be seen, who is the wiser – he who takes God’s Word to mean what it says, and obeys it, or he who wrests the Scriptures, by making them conform to his own fancy, or treating them as old-world lore, which the march of intellect has left behind!

Notwithstanding our deep sense of the sincerity, ability, and learning of Dr. Farrar, and many others like-minded, we must oppose their dream of salvation in the unseen state, for the apostle of Christ assures us that Now is the accepted time, now is the day of salvation.”

Bible Standard January 1906 – May 1906

Bible Standard January 1906

Bible Standard February 1906

Bible Standard March 1906

Bible Standard April 1906

Bible Standard May 1906

Around the Web January 2012

You might like to vote in this poll about hell ( follow the links) http://hellboundthemovie.com/?p=431

http://scottjhiggins.com/?p=826

asks

Really? Is it really true that God will “inflict wrath without any pity…he will have no compassion upon you…he will have no regard to your welfare… It would be dreadful to suffer this fierceness and wrath of almighty God one moment; but you must suffer it to all eternity: there will be no end to this exquisite horrible misery… you will absolutely despair of ever having any deliverance”? Is this hard biblical truth or terrible blasphemy?

Is this really what awaits the billions who die without faith in Christ?

The topic of hell is being discussed here http://mattdabbs.wordpress.com/2011/09/19/ten-questions-i-have-for-christian-universalists/

http://robinphillips.blogspot.com/2011/12/unquenchable-fire-part-1.html

Please leave other links that might be of interest to our readers in the comments.

Jesus: Liar, Lunatic or Lord?

Devotional Thoughts from John 5:19-47.
Republished from marmsky.wordpress.com with permission.

Those were the three options that C. S. Lewis suggested in his book Mere Christianity. Look at what Jesus said about himself. If what he said is untrue – and he knew it – he was a liar.  If what he says about himself is untrue – but he didn’t know it – he was delusional.  If what he says about himself is true, then…

  1. He does what God does (19, 36).
  2. He can raise the dead (21,25,29).
  3. He will judge the world (22,30).
  4. He grants eternal life (24,40).

In other words, he is the Lord and Savior of mankind. Who is he to you?

LORD, thank you for sending your only Son to save us from our sins, and to raise us to eternal life at his return.

Calvin on Psalm 31:5

“Into your Hands I commit my spirit.”

David’s statement of trust in the midst of trial was so spiritually significant that the Lord Jesus himself quoted it on the cross. Later, Stephen quoted the same text at the moment of his own death by martyrdom.  What does it mean to commit one’s spirit into God’s hands.  Does this affirm the immortality of the soul?

John Calvin thought so.  He was convinced that “man consists of a body and a soul; meaning by soul an immortal though created essence, which is the nobler part.”1  He concluded that “Christ, in commending his spirit to the Father, and Stephen his to Christ, simply mean that when the soul is freed from the prison-house of the body, God becomes its perpetual keeper.”2

Calvin did not come to that conclusion by reading Psalm 31.  He rightly commented on David’s statement by saying “Whoever commits himself into God’s hand and to his guardianship, not only constitutes him the arbiter of life and death to him, but also calmly depends on him for protection amidst all his dangers.”3  David was asserting his trust in God to deliver him, not his confidence in possessing an indestructible spirit.

Yet Calvin could not resist taking David’s words out of their context, and teaching that Christ and Stephen asserted something not about theology but about anthropology.  His belief in Plato’s doctrine of the immortality of the soul was so strong that it led Calvin to forget his rules of exegesis.

Christ quoted from Psalm 31:5 while dying on the cross.  He said “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!”4 In doing so, he was expressing the exact same sentiment that David had expressed when he had used those words.  He was not saying that his body was going to die, but that the real him was going to fly to heaven to be safe in his Father’s hands.  He was saying that he trusted his Father to rescue him.

His Father did rescue him.  He was raised from the dead three days later.  His spirit had not gone to heaven to be with his Father at death.  He told Mary “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father.”5 Christ went to the grave. He had committed his spirit – that is, his life – into the hands of the one person who could redeem it.

Stephen’s quote of Psalm 31:5 was also true to its context.  Stephen knew that he was going to die.  The prison-house was not his alive body, but death itself. But he also had confidence that his death would not be the end. God would rescue him from the prison-house of death in the same way that he had rescued Jesus – by a resurrection.  Luke records, “as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”” 6 I heard a preacher at a funeral of a friend of mine say that Stephen did not sleep in the grave because God received his spirit.  The preacher had quoted this verse.  Later, I had to remind my students (who also heard this sermon) that the preacher forgot about the next verse! Luke continued “And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep.”7

Stephen’s committing his spirit to Christ was not a rejection of the reality of death. It was an expression of confidence that death would not be permanent.

Calvin’s commentary on Psalm 31 also quoted Paul’s reflection on death. He says “What David here declares concerning his temporal life, Paul transfers to eternal salvation.”8 He was referring to where Paul says “I am not ashamed, because I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day.”9 What Calvin did not point out is that Paul’s words in 2 Timothy are not words of someone who denies death.  Paul’s words imply that his death would come, but he has entrusted himself to God who can rescue him from that death.  Paul’s trust was not in his possessing an immortal soul, but in his possessing a resurrecting God.

That is the sentiment expressed in Psalm 31:5 by David, and reflected in the words of Jesus on the cross, and those of Stephen at his death.  It is not that God has made a part of our being that will never die.  It is that God has promised to restore his own by a complete resurrection.  It is not about something inherent within us. It is about the faithfulness of God.

  1. John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1. {Forgotten Books}, 190. []
  2. John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1. {Forgotten Books}, 190. []
  3. John Calvin, Calvin’s Bible Commentaries: Psalms, Part I. {Forgotten Books}, 429. []
  4. Luke 23:46 ESV. []
  5. John 20:17 ESV {emphasis mine} []
  6. Acts 7:59 ESV. []
  7. Acts 7:60 ESV {emphasis mine}. []
  8. John Calvin, Calvin’s Bible Commentaries: Psalms, Part I. (Forgotten Books), 431. []
  9. 2 Timothy 1:12 NIV. []

Jesus: the Bread of Life

Devotional Thoughts from John 6:22-71.
Republished from marmsky.wordpress.com with permission.

Even non-believers in this generation do not seem to have any problem with Jesus calling himself the bread of life.  It was not so in first century Galilee.  The Jews were insulted that a mere man would dare to equate himself with the miracle of Manna in the wilderness.  They grumbled and left.  A few loaves and fish were not worth putting up with such heresy.

That hard saying (60) was even problematic to many of the disciples – that is – followers of Jesus.  Because of this, many of them “turned back and no longer walked with him” (66).

Jesus asked the Twelve if they, too, wanted to go away.  Peter replied that they did not intend to leave him.  He is the Holy One of God who has the words of eternal life (68-69).  That is what Jesus meant by calling himself the Bread of Life.  God sent him like Manna in the wilderness. Those who believe in him are sustained now and will be resurrected on the last day (40,44,54).

LORD, we choose to feast upon your Manna from heaven.  Give us more of Jesus.

Jesus: light, freedom, life

Devotional Thoughts from John 8.
Republished from marmsky.wordpress.com with permission.

The contrast that is seen throughout this chapter is between those who follow Jesus and those who have rejected him.

  1. Those who reject Jesus are walking in darkness and following their father, the devil.  Those who accept Jesus are living in the light and can understand his words.
  2. Those who reject Jesus are in bondage to evil.  Those who accept Jesus have been set free by the truth.
  3. Those who reject Jesus will seek to put him to death. They are living merely to die.  Those who accept Jesus will never really see death.  Their eternal lives are secured by his.

LORD, this day we choose your light, not darkness.  We want your freedom, not Satan’s chains.  We want eternal life.  For all these things, we place our trust in you.

Conditional Immortality Links from Around the Web December 2011

PLEASE NOTE:

The links do not necessarily reflect the views of this website, they are included for your interest. Please share any other links that might be of interest to our readers in the comment section.

My Top 5 Books On Hell from Christianity Today.

Conditional Immortality – What is it and How Does it Impact Religious Thought?

Contrary to modern evangelical thought, this view has been very popular with fundamental theologians through the years. Some of the l9th-century American theologians who held it are C.F. Hudson, W.R. Hunington, C.C. Baker, L.W. Bacon and Horace Bushnell. Central to this as a biblical argument is the belief that God was preventing man from choosing immortality in his sinful state when He drove man out of the Garden, away from the Tree of Life, so that he would not eat of it and live forever in his sins.

from earlier in the year ( only just now indexed by google ) Waiting for Rob Bell

My contention is this: the approach to this generation is not to denounce their questions, which often enough are rooted in a heightened sensitivity to divine justice and compassion, but to probe their questions from the inside and to probe thoughtful and biblically-responsible resolutions. We need to show that their questions about justice and God’s gracious love are not bad questions but good questions that deserve to be explored.

Not Whistling Dixie: Love Wins 3

A blog by another believer who has embraced conditional immortality :http://whatsoeverisright.blogspot.com/2011/11/i-would-love-to-be-universalist.html

Though I am not a Universalist, my reading and research in recent years have led me away from the traditional view of eternal-life-in-hell for the unsaved, to what is often called Conditional Immortality.

Do lost souls consciously suffer eternal torment in hellfire.

This past February 2011, some college classmates of mine from the 60s were having a good time arguing the physics of hell on our class email discussion listserv. Is Hell endothermic or exothermic? While some argued hell was endothermic, absorbing heat, as the only Christian in the discussion, I argued from Scripture, and what I recalled from physics, that hell was exothermic, oxidizing all that was thrown into the consuming fire, and giving off heat. Arguing that hell-fire was consuming, I was reminded of the annihilationist interpretation, and wrote about it to my classmates, who I suspect had never heard of that concept.”

Al Mohler stirs the Rob Bell pot some more

http://thecenterfortheologicalstudies.blogspot.com/2011/08/given-by-god-at-creation-immortality-as.html

In this post, I intend to respond to Fudge’s attack on traditionalists. While I have aimed to rebut the annihilationist view here, I also have a responsibility to respond to the attacks made by those with whom I disagree.

Hell and Mr. Fudge

Four Views on Hell Book Review
Christian History’s The History of Hell A Brief Survey and Resource Guide A Review