The Case for Christ Movie Review

We purchased The Case for Christ movie dvd yesterday at Walmart.  Last night Hope and I watched it together with two friends from our church.  Here’s the summary:  it’s awesome!

The movie is basically a testimony about the many ways in which God works to win a person’s heart.  In this case, God is working to win the heart of a man (Lee Strobel) who was a skeptical and hostile atheist.

God works in many ways. The movie’s strength is that it shows how these different expressions of His grace and truth are woven together to rescue a lost rebel.

I don’t think that “spoilers” will spoil this movie, but just to let you know, this review includes some.  Here are some of the ways the movie shows God working:

1.  God works through providence.  Providence is a fancy word meaning that God controls all the events and details that happen in our lives.  He uses these for His own gracious purposes.  This is seen, for example, when Lee’s daughter gets candy caught in her throat. God uses this to set into motion events which lead to great good.

2.  God works through patient love.  The patient love of Lee’s wife and the change he sees in her after she accepts Christ are a powerful influence on him.

3.  The Lord works through a team of people.  While one person may be there at the point of “harvest”, God usually works through a group of Christians to win a person.  There are a number of different believers in different parts of Lee’s life who all play a role in leading him to Christ.

4.  God works through prayer.  Lee’s wife and others pray passionately.  God answers.

5.  God works by healing deep emotional wounds.  Lee has a deeply damaged relationship with his father.  God works to bring healing here even before Lee accepts Christ, and this healing opens the way for Lee to move forward.

6.  God works through local churches.  A local church plays an important role in Lee coming to Christ.

7.  The final cause I’ll mention is the one Lee Strobel if probably best known for. God worked through a careful and critical investigation of historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Lee sets out to prove that Christianity is not true.  He uses the skills and methods of an investigative journalist (which he was).  He becomes a Christian. He himself is then used by God to help win others to Christ.

Besides the excellent content of the movie, I thought the acting, script, and directing were all very well done. The movie was moving and engaging in the best ways. I feel it is among the best Christian movies I have watched.  I highly recommend it.  Buy the dvd.  Watch it. Watch it with friends.  Pass it around.  And pray that God will work through us to win others as He is shown working in The Case for Christ.

Hebrews 13:16 And do not forget to do good and to share with others . . .

What are Theological Liberalism and Theological Postmodernism?

The spirit of theological liberalism was first seen a long time ago.  It appeared not in a dark cave, but in a splendid garden.  Its first words were, “Did God really say . . . ?”

Since that tragic day, theological liberalism has been sowing doubt about the content, reliability, truthfulness, goodness, and authority of God’s words. And it has been doing this among God’s people by those claiming to represent Him.

What Prompted This Post

I read this question on a Christian Discussion Forum:  “What makes a person theologically liberal?”

I read over 100 replies.  Some were quite helpful, but I still felt more should be said.

While the original question asked about theological liberalism, I am including theological postmodernism also.  There is a great deal of overlap between the two.  Both have the effect of eroding the authority of God’s Word in the hearts and minds of the people they influence.

Various Disclaimers

I’m aware that there are a wide range of people who self-identify, or are identified with, theological liberalism and/or postmodernism.  They’re not all the same.  Some may be true  brothers and sisters in Christ.

I’m not talking about politics.  Although there is a high correlation between theological liberals and political liberals in the US, they are not identical, and my focus here is on theological liberalism.  More specifically, I’m concerned with those who claim to be Christians, but embrace and promote theological liberalism and/or postmodernism.

Being “liberal” on one issue does not mean a person, church, or denomination is liberal overall.

Despite their errors, liberals sometimes do good and sometimes are used for good purposes by God.

While I recognize these “disclaimers”, I do not want to water down the truth about theological liberalism and postmodernism.  These are some of the most serious and widespread sources of false teaching within Christianity.  They distort God’s truth, and in the process lead many astray.

Short Definitions

Theological Liberalism:  teaching which undermines trust in the truthfulness and authority of the Bible by compromising with modern beliefs, morals, and/or values which are contrary to God’s Word.

Theological Postmodernism:  teaching which undermines trust in the truthfulness and authority of the Bible by compromising with postmodern beliefs, morals, and/or values which are contrary to God’s Word.

Both liberalism and postmodernism usually begin not with outright denials of the truth of the Bible, but with sowing doubt about its truthfulness.  However, in settings where it is advantageous to their cause, they do go on to explicitly deny many Bible truths and teachings.

Examples and Indications of Theological Liberalism and Postmodernism

A teacher, church, or institution claiming to be Christian, may be theologically liberal or postmodern if you see any of the following.

*  They cause doubt about whether the books of the Bible which name their authors were actually written by those historical people. For example, if someone causes doubt about whether Paul wrote 2 Timothy, they have been influenced by theological liberalism.

*  They question the truthfulness of any account which is presented as historically real in the Bible.  Examples would be Jonah being swallowed by a fish, the virgin birth, and other miraculous stories throughout the Bible.

*  They question the need to win people to the Christian faith from other religions, such as Islam and Hinduism.

*  If someone believes or teaches that any sexual act between two men (or between two women) is not sinful, they are theologically liberal/postmodern.

*  Belief in unguided evolution as a correct explanation for the appearance of life and for all the types of life we see today is a strong indicator of theological liberalism.

*  All, or nearly all, theological liberals deny the Bible’s teaching that husbands are to lead in a marriage and that only men should serve as Senior Pastors in the church.  However, there are some Christians who are truly evangelical and theologically conservative overall who are wrong on this one issue.

*  Postmoderns often undermine the Bible’s teaching that the death of Christ on the cross meant that He was acting as a substitutionary atonement on our behalf.

*  If you are reading something on one of the above topics and the author’s view seems unclear and confusing, it is very often the case that the author is theologically liberal or postmodern.  A lack of clarity is sometimes just poor writing.  But a lack of clarity is also a trademark of some postmodern writing. Their writing causes doubt about things that are clear in God’s Word, while intentionally being worded in such a way that allows the author to avoid an accusation of outright heresy.  This is especially common when postmodern authors desire to continue to be accepted by, and to be able to have influence among, evangelical Christians.

How to Guard Against and Respond to Theological Liberalism and Postmodernism

The best defense against the doubt, confusion, and errors of theological liberalism and postmodernism is to read, study, believe, and teach all of God’s Word.

If you know someone going down the path of theological liberalism, do all you can to gently, but clearly, win them back to the truth.

Christian teachers, authors, and leaders who promote theological liberalism should be opposed as false teachers.

If you find yourself in a liberal or postmodern church or denomination, unless you are called by God to fight against these errors by staying, get out!  Get into a church that believes that all of the Bible is really true.

In applying these principles, be careful not to become divisive over minor issues or doctrines which many truly theologically conservative, evangelical Christians disagree on.  Although they may be mistaken, someone is not a false teacher just because they have a different view from you of the age of the earth, or a different understanding of the millennium, or a different way to explain God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility.  In your zeal for the truth (which is good!) do not neglect to also have a passion for unity among true believers.

A Few Verses to Meditate On

NIV Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

NIV Matthew 7:15 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.”

NIV Matthew 24:11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people.

NIV Acts 20:30-31 Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.

NIV 2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them-- bringing swift destruction on themselves.

NIV 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

NIV 2 Timothy 2:25 Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth,

Hebrews 13:16 And do not forget to do good and to share with others . . .

The Universalist’s False Dichotomy

In this post I will be looking at part of Robin Parry’s motivation and argument for being a universalist. I’m not picking on Parry because he is an especially “bad” universalist or because his arguments are weak.  Just the opposite!  Out of the universalist material I have read, I find the arguments in his book, The Evangelical Universalist, to be the least weak.

Parry is humble and open in the way he presents his material.  Early in the book, he explains that it was “philosophical problems with traditional Christian teachings on hell” (The Evangelical Universalist, pg. 6) which started him down a path which led to him embracing universalism. After explaining these philosophical problems, Parry goes on to develop a Biblical metanarrative which he believes points to universalism.  He uses the metanarrative to suggest possible interpretations of texts which are difficult for his view.

I see problems at every stage of the book.  I think his interpretation of difficult texts is wrong and his metanarrative is flawed. However, in this post I want to start where Parry started.  With the philosophical problems which motivated the rest of the argument.

Here, near the beginning of his case, I see a key error.  This error echoes throughout Parry’s book.  I suspect something similar is true for many other universalists.  The error I’m speaking of is the error of a false dichotomy.  At a key point, Parry sets up a false dichotomy between eternal conscious torment (ECT) and universal reconciliation (UR).  He fails to consider a third alternative:  conditional immortality (CI).  I’m not saying Parry did this intentionally.  Most false dichotomies are more subtle than the one in the cartoon below. While being more subtle, they can still lead to errors.

Parry’s Philosophical Problem with Hell

For Parry, the problem that motivated his journey to universalism is that he could not find a way to explain why, if God is all powerful and also truly loves all people, God would not save all people.  To his credit, Parry considers a range of traditional answers to this difficult question.  He looks at the way Calvinists answer this question and finds it unsatisfying.  He then goes on to look at the way freewill theists (those who “lean Arminian”) answer the question.  Parry explains the freewill answer this way:

The basic freewill theistic way to defend the traditional doctrine of hell is to deny that God can always get his will done.  God’s will, says the freewill theist, is that all people freely (in a libertarian sense) choose to accept the salvation God offers in Christ.  God does love and desire to save all. However, he will not force his salvation on people. He wants them to choose it freely. Thus, God must respect the free choices of those who reject salvation and who, by default, choose hell (The Evangelical Universalist, pg. 23, the italics are Parry’s own emphasis).

I basically agree with this explanation.  I would word it a little differently.  For example, I would not say that God must respect free choices of sinners, but that He chooses to do so for good reasons. I would also argue that God gets what He wants most, even though some things do happen which are contrary to what He wants. However, Parry is not satisfied with this explanation.  He goes on immediately to point out what he sees as a fatal flaw:

There is an objection that applies to all freewill theists’ attempts to justify a traditional doctrine of hell that is worth making at this stage.  It could be argued that an all-loving God will try all that he can to elicit freely a positive response to the gospel; but, if all else fails, he would be justified in not leaving people free in a libertarian sense with respect to their salvation.  This is preferable to allowing them to suffer in everlasting torment (The Evangelical Universalist, pg. 23).

Parry suggests that God has to choose between the following two options when considering what to do with those who will not freely choose to love Him and trust Jesus as their Lord and Savior:

1.  Torture them forever.

2.  Use His power to override their freewill so that even though they have lost their freewill, at least they are not being tortured forever.

If those were the only two options, I would agree that Parry had discovered an incredibly difficult philosophical problem for Christians who are not universalists.  In fact, I do believe Parry has correctly identified a difficult problem for Christians who believe in eternal conscious torment.  But Parry has presented a false dichotomy.  There’s a third option. An option which is clearly and repeatedly taught in Scripture.  Here are the three options:

1.  Torture them forever.

2.  Use His power to override their freewill so that even though they have lost their freewill, at least they are not being tortured forever.

3.  Cause the unrighteous to perish (John 3:16), have their bodies and souls destroyed (Matthew 10:28), and be burned to ashes (2 Peter 2:6) so that they are completely dead (Romans 6:23) and can no longer feel or think anything.

Option three is often referred to as either Conditional Immortality (CI) or annihilationism.

Now, we still have to ask why God might choose option #3 over option #2.  I can think of some  good reasons.  I present these cautiously.  While I’m totally convinced that the Bible teaches that God will, in fact, permanently annihilate the unrighteous after judgment, the Bible does not explicitly and directly state all of God’s reasons for doing so. However, it is easy to see at least two good reasons based on Bible truths:

1. God’s whole design for people involved making us in His image. An important part of being in God’s image includes the ability to love as God loves.  And that kind of love requires free will (I explain why I believe love requires free will in another post, here). Since removing people’s free will would remove their ability to love, and since loving is a massively important key part of God’s design for people, God may be justified in annihilating people rather than turning them into loveless robots.

2.  God is just.  His justice is an expression of His love.  If you slapped me hard in the face, I might get a little angry.  If you slapped my wife or daughter hard in the face, only the grace of God might restrain me from punching you.  What I’m saying is that God gets really angry, justly angry, at those who hurt his children.  He has promised to pay back those who hurt Christians (2 Thessalonians 1:6).  Thus, annihilating the unrighteous (which may include some temporary conscious suffering) is entirely in line with God’s character.

Thus, I see Parry as making an important error in his philosophical reasoning early on.  I believe this error, this false dichotomy, may have started a type of chain reaction which led to other errors.

I’m fully aware that there is more to universalist arguments than the faulty philosophical reasoning I have addressed briefly here.  I have addressed some other universalist errors in other blog posts:

1.  I discuss the fact that Universalism has the wrong ultimate goal here.

2.  I explain why Universalism is not realistic here.

3.  I discuss the rather obvious fact that ashes can’t repent and explain why this is a major problem for Universalism, here.

4.  You may find many resources providing a biblical case for annihilationism at the Rethinking Hell website.

Hebrews 13:16 And do not forget to do good and to share with others . . .