Monday, October 15, 2012

Death and Moral Responsibility: An Examination of the John Fletcher Analogy




I realize that it has been a while since I returned to the Center for Theological Studies. You may have assumed that I would never return, but God’s grace has granted me some time to return to a study of the Word of God and those who try to demolish it. While my network server was down last night, the Spirit laid it upon my heart to pick up Dr. Jerry Walls’s Purgatory: The Logic of Total Transformation and continue to plow through his philosophical contemplation of the Doctrine of Purgatory as well as the place (Purgatory) itself.

In the chapter I am in (chapter 2, called “Protestant Objections and Alternatives to Purgatory”), Walls addresses Protestant disagreement with Purgatory head-on and does not attempt to dismiss it. I applaud him for this; and I even agree that Purgatory, when contemplated only as a philosophical doctrine, could very well be a rather logical doctrine for not just Roman Catholics, but Protestants as a whole. Where I disagree with Dr. Walls, however, concerns his placement of the philosophical discussion above that of the theological discussion concerning Purgatory and the eternal destinations of both the saved and the unsaved. I have obtained a Master of Divinity degree in Christian Apologetics, and have pondered the questions of the existence of evil and the existence of God, evidences for the Christian faith, how Christian faith can lead the way in the societal arts, and so on (thank you so much, Dr. Bruce Alva Little, for pouring into my life). At the same time, I am not so learned or educated that I would ever place philosophy above the Word of God. The same God whose Word I read on a daily basis is the same God who has said in His Holy Scriptures, “Trust in the Lord with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding” (Proverbs 3:5, NASB). When philosophy comes before the God that makes logic possible, there is a problem with the individual rather than the text of Scripture itself.

To see this truth, let us consider Walls’ use of John Fletcher in his work. In chapter 2, Walls takes the time to consider the views of Jonathan Edwards (a conservative, Calvinist theologian) as well as John Wesley, a conservative Anglican theologian known today for the theological position we call “Wesleyanism” or “Wesleyan Arminianism.” He examines the views of these two theologians (along with John Fletcher, Wesley’s dear friend) in order to show that strong, assumed “conservative” theologians argue that holiness and a transformed life must exist in any individual that desires to enter into heaven upon the end of life. As I read his analysis of Jonathan Edwards, my mind went back to Edwards’ famous sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of An Angry God.” Although I consider myself to be distant from Calvinism (whether hyper or not), I have great respect for Calvinists like Jonathan Edwards who held to human responsibility in salvation and the need for true repentance and confession of sin. Holiness should be not only the word of piety on the lips of theologians, but also an act that demonstrates faith in the life of every Christian.

John Fletcher provides an analogy of older men and women who still long to sin as they did in their youth to show that dead men and women still desire to sin:

“When old drunkards and fornicators are as unable to indulge their sensual appetites as if they actually ranked among corpses, do they not betray the same inclinations which they showed when the strong tide of their youthful blood joined with the rapid stream of their vicious habit? Is this not a demonstration that no decay of the body, --no, not that complete decay which we call death, has any necessary tendency to alter our moral habits?” (John Fletcher, “A Polemical Essay on the Twin Doctrines of Christian Imperfection and a Death Purgatory,” from Checks to Antinomianism; Dr. Jerry Walls, Purgatory: The Logic of Total Transformation. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012, pg. 50. Underline mine.)

Fletcher uses the example of elderly men and women to make the case that the dead, like elderly men and women, lack the ability to indulge in sin to the desired extent (although both want to do so). It seems as if Fletcher says here, “Are not elderly and the dead the same?” I would argue that at best, Fletcher’s analogy points to a similarity, though not an equivalency, between the two.

Elderly men and women are unable to do many things they did when they were young and in the prime of their lives. I have heard my grandparents speak many times of what they would do if they could go back and be “25” or “16” again. I am now 28 years old, and I even contemplate how I would have made better use of my free time in college “if I could go back”.

However – and this is where the line is drawn – the elderly and dead are not the same in every way. An elderly person, though unable to do many things, can still walk, talk, speak, eat, drink, sleep, awake, move, and so on; a dead person, however, can do none of these things. He or she will “sleep” until the resurrection, but cannot arise from the grave each morning and greet the morning sun as it rises in the East – or watch the sun set in the West at sundown. In this regard, the elderly and the dead are not alike. While the elderly are unable to do many things, the dead are unable to do anything!

What about John Fletcher’s argument? Is there any truth to it? No. One such example that the apostle Paul offers up in Romans 7 concerns the marriage bond. Paul states:

“Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning her husband. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man” (Romans 7: 1-3, NASB).

Did you notice the phrases “as long as he lives,” “while he is living,” and “if while her husband is living”? These phrases place a condition upon the truths affirmed in them. That is, “as long as he lives,” he is to remain married to his wife (and she to him). Upon his death, however, “she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.” Paul says that the marriage bond is broken in the death of one spouse, freeing the other to take another spouse in the bonds of marriage. If you do not believe this is true, why is it that when couples marry, part of their vows consists of the phrase “Til death due us part”?

What happens at death that nullifies the marriage contract, the idea of paying bills and taxes, the action of voting, reporting to work, working to provide for one’s family, and so on? Death is a separation between an individual and his or her loved ones and friends. Death, as the Old Testament says it best, is a “cutting off” of an individual’s life, a time when believers such as King David “sleep with their fathers” (cf. 1Kings 2:10; 11:21, 43; 14:20, 31; 15:8, 24, etc.) and identify with those who have died and gone on to their eternal reward (“the church triumphant”) rather than those who remain on the earth (“the church militant). Jesus says that, whereas living individuals marry, deceased persons do not (cf. Luke 20:34).

This notion of marriage, however, seems to disagree with Fletcher’s notion. If, as Fletcher says (and Walls quotes him in agreement), the dead still have sinful inclinations as though they were alive, is it not the case that the dead still want to marry despite their buried state? Yet and still, however, Jesus says that the afterlife does not consist of marriage, but that humans are as the “sons of God,” or the angels. Do angels marry on a certain basis? If Jesus’ words in Luke 20:34, Matthew 22:30, and Mark 12:25 are true, then angels do not marry and humans in the afterlife will not, as well. Why do deceased individuals not marry, if they want to marry? They do not marry because they do not need to. The human longing for companionship is an earthly lust that does not exist or pose a problem for Christians who are in eternity with Christ.


We see the singleness idea as transcending the marriage state in the Scriptures. Not only do we have Jesus’ words that singleness prevails in heaven (which will last “for ever,” as compared to the small amount of time that life on earth will last), we also have the words of Jesus to the disciples in the context of divorce:

Not all men can accept this statement [“it is better not to marry,” Matt. 19:10], but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and then there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 19:11-12).

Jesus says that there are “those to whom it has been given” to refrain from marriage and remain single. This statement directly opposes the “there is someone for each of us” statement that many families speak to their single relatives. In line with Christ, the apostle Paul offers his words of wisdom to the Corinthian congregation:

“So then both he who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better” (1 Corinthians 7:38).

In other words, marriage (the desired state for many) is a gift, but so is singleness. In the words of Paul, singleness is the better gift because it “is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:36).


There are those here who are “eunuchs,” whether deemed so by God at birth, a result of the sinfulness and wickedness of the world, or of their own choice. Jesus does not condemn these reasons for why an individual remains celibate for a lifetime; instead, He tells the disciples that those who are called to be single are to live a life of singleness. Even in his discussion, He does not condemn those who choose to live the married life. Unlike many statements about singleness that have been made by many believers, I will not “rub in” Paul’s words about the exalted state of singleness.

Fletcher’s statement (and Walls’s) is that deceased individuals have the same sinful desires as those who are alive; but to presume this is to forget that such sinful inclinations are the actions of living, human beings. Humans are hungry when they are alive; they are thirsty when they are alive; they are tired when they are alive. As they near the time of death, however, they begin to put away the earthly necessities of food and drink. I saw this with my own mother; three days before she breathed her last, she slept. She did not eat food nor consume any drink. For her, the human inclinations of hunger and thirst belonged to humans who expected to live another day. She, however, knew her time on earth was coming to an end. Neglecting to eat and drink (and knowing that to do so was a cognizant choice to die) was mom’s way of accepting the end that was soon to come. In the same way, my sister Danielle and I chose to not resuscitate mom, should she stop breathing on her own. We did so not because we wanted her to die; our choice to not resuscitate was our way of surrendering to the will of God, a will that we acknowledged as greater than our own.

I will continue with more on Jerry Walls’s work on Purgatory in my next post. God bless...

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

The Last Hour: Jesus' Words About the End of Life




First off, let me wish a blessed month of April to everyone! The Lord’s goodness has propelled us into the fourth month of 2012, and the Lord’s grace will get us through the remaining eight months. For now, though, I’m content with the month of April. The month of May will bring troubles of its own. One of the troubles for me during the month of May is to remember that the second Sunday is Mother’s Day, a day in which I am reminded that I had a wonderful mother---though she was taken from me all too soon. I will be brave now, however, and say that the April weather is making me more optimistic about the Lord’s goodness and reminding me of His grace daily. I need those reminders with me, all the time.

I’m back today at the Center for Theological Studies (CTS) to continue my discussion of what John Salza titles his book: “The Biblical Basis for Purgatory.” There are some of my Baptist brothers and sisters who do not discuss Purgatory, nor give any thought to it. “It’s not in the Bible,” they say...and they run off to debate other things, such as the “roles” of men and women in the church, Darwinism and Intelligent Design, and Reformed Epistemology versus Evidentialism. These are all good debates, and I have a special stake in all of them; at the same time, however, we must do everything we can to engage our Purgatory proponents (though there are Roman Catholics in this fight who are saved) and show them that it is good to be saved and know Christ; at the same time, however, we must strive to know Him “as He is,” not “as we have been taught,” or “as someone else has taught us,” or “as tradition dictates.” Though our purgatorial brothers and sisters (proponents of purgatory) are saved and believe on the Lord Jesus, the Lord desires that we “rightly [or “accurately”] divide the Word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). We cannot be content that individuals know the Lord Jesus, though they do not know the doctrines of the faith. We must also help them come to grips with the doctrines of the faith, and strive to teach them to everyone we meet. We should not rest until God’s soldiers are adequately prepared to do battle for Christ. How will we use “the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God” (Eph. 6:17) if we do not know what the Word says?

Today’s text, as have texts from last week, concerns Dr. Jerry Walls and his view of afterlife sanctification. For him, the idea that God makes believers holy in an instant is simply too much to stomach. As I have recorded as a quote at the blog several times in the last week, Dr. Walls believes in a term I have coined as “afterlife sanctification”; that is, those who believe on Christ but are not completely holy in this life must complete more sanctification in purgatory before they are holy enough to enter heaven. I have examined texts such as 2 Timothy 4 (Paul’s testimony), Romans 7 to discuss the lack of marriage sanctification in eternity, and Philippians 1:6 to discuss the idea that the work of the Spirit continues until the day Jesus returns for His Bride, the Church. Paul has given his testimony of the afterlife, but in today’s post, Jesus will provide a glimpse into the afterlife and combat Dr. Walls’ notion of afterlife sanctification.

The passage is Matthew 20:1-16, a parable Jesus tells about workers in a vineyard. Jesus (the Master) goes to the marketplace (the place where the crowds are gathered) and hires workers. He tells them, “You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you” (Matt. 20:4, New American Standard Bible). He does this the third, sixth, and ninth hours. In the eleventh hour (last hour) Jesus goes and hires more workers. For each worker that agrees to go into the vineyard and work, Jesus pays them a denarius, the full amount for a day’s wages. The first ones to be paid are the workers who started in the last hour---each receives a denarius. The workers who started in the first hours expect to get more than the workers who started in the last hour; to their surprise, however, they receive exactly what the last workers receive. Instead of being grateful for what they receive, they complain instead:

“‘These last men have worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden and scorching heat of the day’” (Matt. 20:12, NASB).

The most offensive thing about the work and pay in the vineyard was not so much that the last-hour workers received a denarius, as it was that they received the same amount of pay as the first-hour workers. If the last workers had received a hundred denarii (and the first workers, too), the first workers would have been outraged still. “You have made them equal to us” pinpoints the problem at hand.

What does Jesus say in response to this accusation?

“‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what is yours and go, but I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious because I am generous?’” (Matt. 20:13-15)

Jesus, as Sovereign Master, agreed with them on His own terms. He decided to give the last man the same amount as the first workers. God’s sovereignty is such that God can choose to do this. The complaining worker (or workers) was not in a position to tell Jesus what He could and could not do. Sovereignty is such that no human can tell God what He could and should not do in salvation. Salvation is His gift to give---and it is given by grace. Since grace is the motive behind Christ’s gift of salvation, no individual can complain when someone else receives salvation---whether the person was saved for three hours, one hour, thirty minutes, or 50-60 years.

The point of Jesus’ parable is exciting because it reminds us that salvation cannot be earned. As much as works-salvation is inherent within all human beings, we cannot merit our salvation---no matter how great, or famous, or renown our deeds are. The first worker or workers forgot this simple fact and decided that they deserved more pay than the workers in the last hour. But how could they reason this way, particularly when they did not know what agreement the Master had with the last-hour workers? They could not know. And yet, they turned on the Master because His pay scale didn’t match theirs. While trying to earn their pay, they forgot about the Sovereignty of the Master or their inability to earn what they longed for.

How does this pertain to the Doctrine of Purgatory, one may ask? The answer is simple. If the last-hour workers received the same reward as the first workers, then how could the first workers complain (when God was Sovereign to do this)? In the same way, Dr. Jerry Walls (nor any other Christian, whether holding to purgatory or not) cannot complain that a thief on a Cross (Lk. 23) can be saved in his last hour and granted eternal life on equal footing with someone who worked for 50 years in the Lord’s service. Thus, being saved for one hour places a person in the same position as being saved for 50 years. The person saved for one hour needs no extra time to “willingly cooperate” before he or she can enter heaven. This idea is in stark contrast to Dr. Walls’ own view, known as the fourth view in his section on sin and eternity:

“Fourth, we may say that the sanctification process continues after death with our willing cooperation until the process is complete, and we are actually made holy through and through” (Dr. Jerry Walls, Purgatory: The Logic of Total Transformation. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012, page 6).

Dr. Walls’ quote above, I’m afraid, agrees with the first workers: since many enter eternity without their sins intact (as did the cowboy in his example), they need purgatory to make them completely holy before they enter heaven. To the contrary, however, Jesus gives the last-hour workers what He gives the first ones. In other words, the last-hour workers share the same spiritual position as the first-hour workers: both are granted eternal life (since this parable is about the kingdom of heaven, see Matt. 20:1), without any distinction.

I will continue with more biblical evidence against the Doctrine of Purgatory in my next post. God bless.

Friday, March 30, 2012

Paul's Testimony About Purgatory: A Lesson for the End of Life



"Fourth, we may say that the sanctification process continues after death with our willing cooperation until the process is complete, and we are actually made holy through and through" (Dr. Jerry Walls, Purgatory: The Logic of Total Transformation. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012, page 6). 


Before I get started, let me say that I welcome interaction with you, my readership. I know it seems as if most days, I post and then go my way---but your views and comments do matter to me. I am currently responding to a commenter’s responses on Annihilationism, a view I haven’t researched in some time. Let me say that even if you disagree with me, I still welcome comments that get me to stop and reconsider my own views on a subject. Don’t be afraid to comment here and ask me questions, or disagree with me. As “iron sharpens iron,” I want to be of aid to you---and desire that you would be of aid to me. We are all still growing in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, and no one is at such a point that he or she cannot be challenged by another.

Yesterday’s post dealt with the confession of the repentant thief on the cross in Luke 23 and Jesus’ words to him about the very moment in which he believed. If Dr. Walls is correct, the thief had not ridden himself of the corruption and moral deficiencies in his heart and mind. Though he believed in Christ, “it is not enough that we be forgiven of our sins,” Walls has stated in his introduction (4). If we believe Dr. Walls, then the criminal needed purgatory for moral reform. However, Jesus’ words that the thief would be with Him “today” (Grk. semeron) in to paradeiso (Grk. for “the paradise”) prove to the contrary. The word “today” means immediately, not far off in the future. If verbal-plenary inspiration (the very words of Scripture are inspired) means anything, Jesus’ word “today” means just that---today!

It is a passage like Luke 23 that poses problems for the Doctrine of Purgatory, since Jesus required no afterlife sanctification of the common criminal. Today’s post, however, will provide Paul’s own testimony about purgatory. Paul was at the end of his life when he wrote this text, and I think he provides some valuable insight into this disputed doctrine to which we currently devote our time:

“For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith; in the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing”(2 Timothy 4:6-8, New American Standard Bible).

Notice the verbs in Paul’s words: “fought,” “finished,” and “kept.” All of these verbs are past tense, referring to actions in the past. Paul is saying that the good fight he fought is now in the past; the course he had to run is now in the past; the faith he had to keep is now in the past. At this point, he is looking forward to the reward he will receive. The phrase “in the future” (rendered by the NASB) is the Greek term loipon, meaning “remainder, henceforth,” and so on. The term comes from the noun loipos, meaning “remainder” or “that which remains.” When Paul says that the crown of righteousness is laid up for him, he is saying that his reward is all that remains for the journey to be complete. Does this sound like he believes there is a purgatory awaiting?

No. Now, some (perhaps Dr. Walls) may think that Paul, having been saved for over 30 years, may have well worked out his sin in his life such that he could enter heaven upon death. The problem with this, however, is that Paul confesses to his constant battles with sin all throughout Scripture. In one place, he states his sin before his conversion, in the other his constant struggle with sin:

“It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all” (1 Timothy 1:15, NASB).

“For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want...I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members” (Romans 7:19, 21-23, NASB).

Paul served the law of God with his mind, but served the law of sin with his flesh (Rom. 7:25). This sounds as though he struggled in the Christian life, often enough that he hated how his flesh turned to sin---though he was saved by faith in the Lord Jesus.

Simply put, Paul did not consider himself to be one who had become completely holy in character such that he was ready to enter heaven; instead, he realized that he was a sinner saved by grace who was receiving a reward (“a crown of righteousness,” symbolic for eternal life, given to “all those that love His appearing,” which refers to all believers) that he did not deserve.

For him, the course he had run in his life was coming to an end. Once he finished his course, there would be no future course to run or endure. It seems that Dr. Walls and fellow proponents of the Doctrine of Purgatory would find an ally here with the apostle---though, again, they do not. God bless.

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Afterlife Sanctification? A Look at Scripture, Pt. 1




For the last three days, I have examined the introduction to Dr. Jerry Walls’ book, titled Purgatory: The Logic of Total Transformation. What very few individuals know about me is that I have a secret interest in a study of the Doctrine of Hell. When I entered my Master of Theology (ThM) program last Fall (2011), I wanted to study the Doctrine of Hell for my theology degree; however, I decided that Inclusivism and Theology of Religions was probably a better route (conversationally) to head into. This private interest of mine in the Doctrine of Hell is one of the reasons why I turned to Dr. Walls’ book when deciding to return to the Center for Theological Studies and blog once more. Let me just say, before I start the subject matter of this post, that it is a blessing that the Lord has favored me to return to the blog I love so much. I pray that you have been blessed by the work done in the last few days...and that you would continue to allow the Lord to challenge your theological views, day in and day out. This is still my prayer; Master of Theology students still need the Holy Spirit to teach them theological truth daily. Praise the Lord that He is patient and teaches us in all things!

Today, I want us to continue to examine Dr. Jerry Walls’ quote about afterlife sanctification. The quote stems from a context in which Walls discusses four possible views on how sinful human beings (though believers) can enter the afterlife. The first view states that believers enter into heaven with their sin because it is not eliminated from them in this life. Walls dismisses this, and so do I. The second view says that no one enters heaven because all believers have sin---even up to the last moments of their lives. I disagree with this because of so many saints scripturally that are in glory with the Lord. Does the Roll Call of Faith in Hebrews 11 mean anything (cf. Heb. 11:13-16)?

View three says that the Lord makes believers holy in an instant, a theory that I find plausible and commendable based on texts such as 1 Corinthians 15 that say the Lord will transform our bodies “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye” (1 Cor. 15:52). Dr. Walls, however, finds the fourth view the most plausible for his convictions:

“Fourth, we may say that the sanctification process continues after death with our willing cooperation until the process is complete, and we are actually made holy through and through” (Dr. Jerry Walls, Purgatory: The Logic of Total Transformation. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012, page 6).

In my last post, I stated that this poses problems for married spouses who were unfaithful to each other in life (and battled infidelity until death). If they need a portion of the afterlife in which to learn how to be better husbands and wives, they are out of luck---for the marriage bond ends at death, according to Romans 7:2-3. Additionally, men and women do not marry in eternity (cf. Matt. 22:30). If sanctification in marriage cannot exist in the afterlife, then neither can sanctification in any sense still exist in the afterlife. Sin is no longer an issue when one lays down his or her flesh.

This was a rather indirect way to approach Dr. Walls’ proposition that there is such a thing as afterlife sanctification. In today’s post, I look to tackle Walls’ proposition based on direct references to the biblical text. That is, what do the Scriptures teach concerning purgatory, heaven, and hell?


A classic text that I think is pivotal to a Protestant defense against Purgatory is the repentant thief on the cross, a unique passage to Luke 23:39-43:

“One of the criminals who were hanged there was hurling abuse at Him, saying, ‘Are You not the Christ? Save Yourself and us!’ But the other answered, and rebuking him said, ‘Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.’ And he was saying, ‘Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!’ And He said to him, ‘Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise’” (Luke 23:39-43, New American Standard Bible).


There were two thieves at the crucifixion event: one that was only concerned about saving himself from mortal death, the other that only wanted to be saved from spiritual death. He did not ask to be spared from mortal death. Why? Because, as he told the selfish thief,

“And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong” (Lk. 23:41, NASB).

There is information in the passage above from Luke 23 that specifically pertains to Dr. Walls’ fourth view of afterlife sanctification. Notice that the man knows some things about Christ: 1) His name is “Jesus”; 2) Jesus has a kingdom; 3) Jesus is innocent of the crime for which He has been charged and convicted; 4) Jesus will rise from the dead. The fourth piece of information is pivotal, since it seems the thief had heard Jesus’ preaching and teaching about Himself and His coming kingdom for a while. The thief on the cross may have been a thief, but he was also a man who had heard Christ’s teaching and believed His message.

In the poignant moment between the repentant thief and Jesus, the thief asks Jesus to remember him. Jesus understands the request and says, “Today you shall be with Me in paradise.” What are we to make of this? Jesus did not tell the man, “You must first undergo the moral reformatory school of purgatory, since you have been a criminal for most of your life and you need sanctification in this matter before you can enter heaven...then, you will be with me in paradise.” No---Jesus’s words to the repentant thief were that, in that very day, at the thief’s last breath, he would be with Jesus in paradise, in glory.

The repentant thief needed only repentance and faith to spend eternity with Christ. And it is no different for us, either. All we need is repentance and a confession of faith. If the repentant thief shows us anything, it is that afterlife sanctification is not necessary---for, the very day in which believers leave earth, we too, will be with Jesus in paradise. God bless.

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Acquiring Actual Holiness, Pt. 3: The Fourth View and Its Problems




“Indeed, there are Christians of many stages of spiritual maturity and growth in holiness and many, probably most, die far short of perfection... Faced with what seems to be this obvious empirical reality, the question remains about the fate of such persons. There are four broad possibilities. First, we might say that they go to heaven with their sins, imperfections, and the like intact, so heaven is not in fact essentially sinless. Second, we might think they will simply be lost and never make it to heaven if they die without actually becoming completely holy. Third, we might say that at the moment of death, God makes people holy by an instantaneous, unilateral act, however imperfect, sinful, and immature in character they may be. Fourth, we may say that the sanctification process continues after death with our willing cooperation until the process is complete, and we are actually made holy through and through” (Jerry Walls, Purgatory: The Logic of Transformation. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012, page 6).

In my last post, I examined the first three of Jerry Walls’ views on sin and eternity. The first one argues that Christians enter heaven with their sins intact---thus, heaven is sinful rather than sinless. I argued there that God, being light and having no darkness in Him (we are told from 1 John 1:5), cannot have sin enter into heaven. The apostle Paul goes so far as to say that flesh and blood cannot enter God’s kingdom (1 Cor. 15:50). Scripture refutes the first view. The second view is also refuted by Scripture because we know that the saints of God will spend eternity with Christ and reign with Him (Rev. 22:3, 5). Therefore, at least a multiple number of believers will go to Heaven. Although believers are imperfect on this earth, they enter Heaven by an act of God whereby they are made complete in an instant. Even 1 Corinthians 15 says that we are “changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye” (1 Cor. 15:52). I argued there that if God can give us new bodies in an instant, He can certainly make us holy in an instant. This is the third view, which most Protestants and I uphold, according to Dr. Walls.

Today’s post will explore the fourth view. I will repeat it here for our understanding:

“Fourth, we may say that the sanctification process continues after death with our willing cooperation until the process is complete, and we are actually made holy through and through” (Walls, Purgatory: The Logic of Total Transformation. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012, page 6).

According to Dr. Walls, Protestants often disagree with Purgatory as a sufficient doctrine because they say, “It’s not found in the Bible.” Don’t get me wrong: Purgatory does not exist in the Bible, in any form. Even in the Greek translation of the New Testament (or the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament), we have no mention of “purgatoria” or any word similar to this one. It is not there in explicit terms---but many who argue for the doctrine believe it to be there implicitly. For them, it is there in principle, though not bearing the title we have come to place upon it. John Salza, in his The Biblical Basis for Purgatory, argues that the prison Jesus refers to in His teaching (about agreeing with the adversary quickly, see Matthew’s Gospel) refers to purgatory.

However, there are other biblical ways for the Christian to combat Purgatory as a doctrine other than to say, “it’s not in the Bible.” Let’s assume Dr. Walls’ theory for a moment---that is, that sanctification continues after death. If we do, the Scriptures themselves pose problems for Dr. Walls and purgatory. Why? Because of the institution of marriage.

Let’s say that a man marries a woman, and a woman marries a man. Both married couples have trouble throughout their marriages: in each marriage, both partners struggle with faithfulness and fidelity toward their spouses. Each partner wonders what his or her life would be like if he or she decided to have an affair on the side. Each partner works late hours, so his or her spouse would never know otherwise, would never suspect cheating. Both partners in each marriage choose to cheat on one another with other married people, exacerbating the problem. In the last twenty years of their marriages, both sets of partners come to salvation in Christ and give up their unfaithful ways; they pledge to be faithful to one another and never eye another person, ever again. While they still struggle with fidelity, they have never had an affair against the other from the moment they came to faith in Christ.

After a scenario such as this, you would think that the two couples would be ready for heaven, correct? Dr. Walls would say that, while their hearts are inclined toward God, they may still need some sort of moral and spiritual transformation before entering glory:

“Now let us consider our unfortunate cowboy in light of this analysis...let us extend his story and assume he is a Christian believer, albeit one who is obviously rough around the edges, and clearly not very faithful at this point of his life. Let us assume, moreover, that before he died he repented of his sin and sought forgiveness for his murder, and even acknowledged that his desire for vengeance was wrong. Even if we assume all this, including that he was forgiven before he died, it is doubtful that he had cultivated a love of God and a taste for the holy such that he would be fully ready to enjoy heaven” (Walls, 6).

In short, though the cowboy confessed his sin, repented, and let Jesus into his heart, he still would not be ready for Heaven. Why? Because Heaven can only be enjoyed by those who have hearts disciplined for it. The cowboy would not have a heart sown in righteousness, since he did not have time to work through his sin and grow in discipline and moral character. The question remains: How would the Lord teach an unfaithful, tending-to-stray husband or unfaithful wife how to remain faithful in his or her marriage? The answer? According to Dr. Walls, send the man or woman to Purgatory and help him or her work through the marriage.

I hope you’re smiling at this point and that you know where I’m headed. The problem with the man learning how to be better in his marriage (or the wife) is that there is no marriage in the afterlife. Marriage ends at death:

“For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man” (Romans 7:2-3, New American Standard Bible).

A woman is bound to her marriage if the husband lives; if he dies, the marriage bond is broken and she is free to marry someone else. This is why marriage vows often end with, “Til death due us part.” At death, husband and wife “part ways” and the marriage bond is dissolved. Thus, a husband cannot become a better husband in the afterlife, nor a wife a better spouse for her husband. In the afterlife, sanctification (at least in marriage here) is not an issue because marriage no longer exists (Matt.22:30).    

If sanctification does not exist in the afterlife in marriage, how can sanctification exist in the afterlife for any other issue such as drug rehabilitation, or any other sexual immorality? How can the afterlife teach you how to resist drugs when you don’t enter the afterlife in human flesh?

Simply put, sanctification is an issue of the flesh, an issue of earthly life. It is why we have to “kill” or “mortify” our human body parts on the earth (Colossians 3:5-7), and “walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit” (Rom. 8:7, 10, 13). There will be more on afterlife sanctification in my next post. God bless.

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Acquiring Actual Holiness, Pt. 2: Four Views on Sin and Eternity




In my last post, I introduced Jerry Walls’ book and pointed out some problems that I have with his view that purgatory actually exists. It is pretty easy to tell that someone believes strongly in purgatory, particularly when his or her introduction begins with the excerpt I covered yesterday. I pointed out yesterday that Philippians 1:6 seems to be confident about the Philippian believers, that God would complete what He started in their lives. This indicates to me that the Lord, having started their transformation by way of regeneration, is certain to complete it. As a result, I don’t think the proper response is to argue that we need a prison sentence in eternity called purgatory to become thoroughly holy and upright in character and spirit. For Paul, John the Revelator, and others, eternity would reap the fruits of both a trusting walk with Christ and a rebellious life against Christ.
In today’s post, I’m back to examine Walls’ four views on sin and eternity. He provides four views in his book that combat questions about how sin exists in eternity, does it exist, and how are believers made completely holy. Walls writes:

“And the cowboy is far from alone in his predicament. Indeed, there are Christians of many stages of spiritual maturity and growth in holiness and many, probably most, die far short of perfection. In another sermon, Newman reflected on this reality, observing that there are many persons who may be sincere servants of God who are ‘dark and feeble’ in their religious state. Many others repent late in life, if not on their death bed, and leave few traces of Christian fruit in their lives. And beyond all such cases as these, he pointed out that there are many others who have made a good start and persevered, yet have hardly begun the process of sanctification ‘when death comes upon them;--many who have been in circumstances of especial difficulty, who have had fiercer temptations, more perplexing trials than the rest, and in consequence have been impeded in their course.’

Faced with what seems to be this obvious empirical reality, the question remains about the fate of such persons. There are four broad possibilities. First, we might say that they go to heaven with their sins, imperfections, and the like intact, so heaven is not in fact essentially sinless. Second, we might think they will simply be lost and never make it to heaven if they die without actually becoming completely holy. Third, we might say that at the moment of death, God makes people holy by an instantaneous, unilateral act, however imperfect, sinful, and immature in character they may be. Fourth, we may say that the sanctification process continues after death with our willing cooperation until the process is complete, and we are actually made holy through and through” (Jerry Walls, Purgatory: The Logic of Transformation. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012, page 6).

While Walls presents four views, two are of the utmost attention. The first two can be discarded: heaven is a sinless place because God dwells there—and He has no sin, and in Him is no sin at all (1 John). Next, the idea that you must be completely holy to enter heaven would discard the entire human race. No one person is holy enough that at the end of their lives, they can enter heaven based on their actions. Until our dying breath, there are still things that we will want that are sinful and against God. If we must get to heaven on personal holiness, we will all fail and enter eternity in Hell. Hell is really all we deserve, had it not been for the atoning work of Jesus Christ. We deserve Hell; He is the one that has given us Heaven instead.


Views three and four are the two most interesting to examine. View three says that we enter Heaven because of a unilateral act of God whereby He makes us holy in an instant. This seems plausible and commendable as a theory. After all, are believers not changed “in a moment, in a twinkling of an eye” (1 Corinthians 15:52)? 1 Corinthians 15 speaks of the end, when believers put on immortality. Read Paul’s words further:

“But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, ‘DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP IN VICTORY. O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY? O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR STING?’ The sting of death is sin, and the power of the sin is the law; but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 15:54-57, NASB).

When is “death swallowed up in victory?” At the resurrection, when believers who died in Christ put on immortality---and those who are alive put on immortality. At this point, we are given immortal bodies, bodies that do not long or yearn for sin of any kind. In a moment, as fast as an eye can sparkle, believers will be made holy. This is a rather damaging truth to the fourth view Walls proposes. The fourth view is one in line with Walls’ conviction, and I will discuss it in my next post.

If you take nothing else away from this post, take 1 Corinthians 15. Let it challenge you to begin thinking about whether or not a long time in purgatory matches 1 Corinthians 15 and its sanctified “transformation in the blink of an eye.” I have no qualms against Dr. Walls presenting a philosophically-appealing view; I do disagree, however, with his view when it contradicts what I see found in Scripture. God bless.