|
Adam and Eve: Did They Really Exist? |
|
BILL HOLDRIDGE: We have two microphones. We have one on your right and one on your left. If you would please just stand up to the microphone and you can go ahead and form lines behind each microphone for your questions. And we'll take your questions one question at a time. Please keep your questions in the form of questions, not statements. I'll cut you off. JOHN RANKIN: What an authority. BILL: Let's keep them in the form of questions so that we can just really keep moving along here. OK, go ahead. QUESTIONER: This is for Father Hansen. If you believe that the Bible is not totally the inspired Word of God, how do you understand Jesus continually trying to show that the prophets in the Old Testament were true? Do you believe that that part of the New Testament was maybe not correct? CARL HANSEN: That has nothing to do with history. I mean, Jesus said things like, today in our lesson for example, Jesus in the Gospel of Mark is quoting Isaiah, people's lips pay me service but their hearts are far from me. In Luke chapter 4 he quotes Isaiah 61 about the Spirit of the Lord setting prisoners free, the blind to see and the lame to walk and so forth. Jesus constantly quotes the Hebrew text because those are his texts and those are the promises that are given. The Evangelists, the ones who wrote the Gospel, can see unfolding in Jesus's life the fulfillment of those historical prophecies. Prophecy fully understood is not simply a prediction of the future, but rather God's word spoken. It gets us right back to the same argument about what is inspiration, that we can see the truth in it without necessarily seeing the historical accuracy of it. It doesn't make it less true if it isn't literally historically true. QUESTIONER: Thank you. JOHN: You know, Carl, you said earlier that truth doesn't equal accuracy. And yet whenever you find something you think is inaccurate in the Bible, you regard it as untruth. And what's interesting about Jesus is he said he's come to fulfill every jot and every tittle. Now a jot and a tittle of the Law means the slightest stroke of the pen of the Hebrew scribe. And so he's said he's come to fulfill it all. Well, if there is dispute about what it is, how can he fulfill it? Unless there is agreement in the Jewish mind, even though they may not have understood the difference between the first and the second comings of the Messiah, they were nonetheless there in Isaiah, in Zechariah, and so forth. And so once again, I think the biggest issue we face right here is that Jesus stands in fulfillment of the only culture in human history that had the criteria to require historical accuracy and scientific consistency. And you believe in historical accuracy and the goodness of it, and scientific consistency, and yet when it comes down to the Bible, I see you saying on the one hand it's not accurate, and on the other it doesn't have to be accurate. And the final interpretive perspective I hear you saying is human experience of which there are about six billion varieties, in which case in my estimation we wind up with chaos. QUESTIONER: This is to Rev. Hansen. I've never met you before. Nice to see you. And thank you for coming. But I kind of take offense to what you said. You said that when Christians regard the Bible as the inherent Word, an infallible Word of God... JOHN: Inerrant, I think. QUESTIONER: Inerrant, I'm sorry. This is an excuse to use as weapons to "torture," "become an idol," black and white, right and wrong. I disagree with you. And I think that this gives me the license, you said if I have a relationship with God in Jesus Christ, but I don't believe in the inherent Word of God, literally, the Bible, then I can commit adultery. Does that give me the right to commit adultery or be a homosexual? I would like for you to explain why Christians use this as weapons. I don't understand. Because I do believe the Bible is the Word of God. I didn't know what you meant by that. CARL: Good, I'll try to explain. What I meant was that when we talk about Scripture as being inerrant, we are really only disguising our particular opinions about what Scripture is. Because in every reading of Scripture we always make decisions about what's literal and what isn't, what's historical and what isn't, what's poetry and what isn't, what's myth and what isn't, and so forth. Did Jesus really mean this literally, or is he using a metaphor here, and all of that. We make decisions constantly. Now, whenever we say this is what it means and this is inerrant, then that's where the arrogance comes in. I don't see that as being arrogance, I just see that as being humble. I see that as being willing to admit, that if I understand it in only one way, then I am taking my way and elevating it above all other ways and calling it inerrant. The fact is, that we make choices constantly about how we interpret Scripture. And you may not in this room, you may all have one understanding of it. But in the church next door, they may have a different understanding, and that's true throughout Christianity, not to mention the other cultures that John alludes to. We do that all the time as human beings. I think it's not arrogant to admit it. It's honest and it's humble. As far as the adultery comment. I think that the standard of agape love, having the integrity of being honest, of being helpful, of being pure of heart, of always doing what's right for the other person as well as for yourself, and all of those things which are embodied in Jesus's witness. When we're loving, and the church has said this in many, many ways throughout history, when we're loving we will do the right thing. And that's what it means to fulfill every jot and tittle of the Law. By fulfilling the spirit of the Law we will do the right thing. The Law, however, when we just fulfill that, we can do that in the wrong spirit, we can be very unloving. You can not be an adulterer and still be unloving to your spouse. That doesn't mean you've satisfied the Law, but technically you have. JOHN: In the matter of inerrancy, to believe that the Bible is true in everything it says, without error, does not lead to arrogance. Because it doesn't say my interpretation of the inerrant Word is inerrant. And I've never said that. There may be some who do. But I know some theological liberals who are far more arrogant when they deal with me who believes in the Bible as literal, than a lot of fundamentalists who can quote unquote be arrogant. So to say that it is inerrant says nothing about the accuracy of my interpretation. My interpretation is being argued that it is the Bible on its own terms. So for example, I've pointed out exactly how Genesis views the historicity of Adam and Eve. The very language of the text views Adam and Eve as people made by divine fiat by God, who married each other, had children, and trace the genealogies all the way down. Now, if my interpretation is wrong, that if you can go into that text and show that there's presence of mythology, or there is no genealogy, or no exact location for the Garden of Eden, then you can challenge my interpretation. But I think the facts I've given there are true. You said earlier, Carl, that truth -- I wrote it down -- was not even necessarily about good and evil. Well to me, if you take Genesis as literal or metaphorical or poetic (and all Hebrew poetry is in service to history), or whether you take it as mythological, it gives us the definition of choosing between good and evil. What is right is good and what is wrong is evil all the way through. And the very love of Jesus Christ, the agape love, the self-giving love of Jesus Christ, that Paul coined that word for the love of God, distinct from sexual or friendship love, is based on what Jesus said to his disciples. If you love me you will obey my commandments. And he's come to fulfill the commandments of the Law, which as the author of Hebrews says only cleanse the outside of the cup. It doesn't cleanse the inside of the cup that Jeremiah prophesies. But unless we know the outward standards that are right -- you shall not commit adultery, you shall not lie, not steal, you shall not be an idolater -- that can only be accomplished through the inner renewal of the heart. But Jesus came to fulfill every jot and tittle. And so at this point the most important element here, and back to the earlier question, is, to believe it's inerrant is not to be arrogant. To believe my interpretation is inerrant would be arrogant, and it's not inerrant. I do my best to honor the Bible on its own terms. BILL: Before you ask your question, I'm going to ask the speakers to do their best to try to shrink down responses to two or three minutes. That way we can get through more questions. We talked about that earlier. The responses are so welling up within you, I know. CARL: Can you give us a little rap on the podium? BILL: Yeah, I'll do that, OK. Go ahead. QUESTIONER: I know this is a question Rev. Rankin asked earlier at the end of his first fifteen minute talk. And I just want a direct answer from you. If the Bible isn't inerrant, what is that higher source that we look to ask these questions like, are the Ten Commandments right? On the question of adultery, say, I love my wife or I love my husband and now I love this other person. What do we look to if we can't believe in the Bible. What is the higher source? CARL: The Holy Spirit. I'd have to get indirect if you want me to go further. QUESTIONER: You said that the Bible is inspired. Inspired means filled with the Spirit. And I see the Holy Spirit, God, all perfect. And therefore I'd assume that the Bible would also be perfect and inerrant. CARL: Well, in your relationship with Christ, you have the ability because of his love within you to know right and wrong. And the question is not knowing what's right and wrong. The question is having the will to do right. You don't need to have someone, to have written it down in the Ten Commandments. Not that that isn't part of the formation of your knowledge of right and wrong, in order to know that cheating on a spouse is wrong. And so you have to claim your authority as a spirit-filled person, as a Christian who embodies the love of Christ within you and lives that way. That's what I mean between the difference between using the Bible in an idolatrous way where it is what we can hold on to that tells us what to do, as opposed to having a living relationship with Christ where you are guided by his Spirit within you. JOHN: And yet, every culture apart from the ancient Jewish culture back to its origin sources justified adultery, sacred prostitution, homosexuality, cult prostitution. It justified sex outside of marriage. It said it is a good. Now, they may have been contesting against the image of God within them in saying that. But they say it was good and they made it a social norm. And so to say that the Holy Spirit is the one who is true, is true. But I think that your question is very good there because if the Holy Spirit is perfect, then is he going to give us an imperfect revelation? And if he gives us an imperfect revelation, do we have the basis for knowing to choose between good and evil? See, the Holy Spirit is consistent with what is written in the Word as the author of it. And if we say that the Spirit can interpret it apart from the Word, or that the Word has errors in it, then ultimately the question is, who determines what the Holy Spirit says? And the only way we can determine it is by my experience. And once again we come to six billion different interpretations and we have no standard of truth. And then we have to ask ourselves the final question: is God good enough to show us the truth? Or does he want to leave us with six billion interpretations and say good luck? QUESTIONER: Hi guys. How ya doing tonight. Just had one thing in Scripture here. It's just a couple of verses out of the book of John chapter 5, verses 46 and 47. This is Jesus talking to the people he's addressing. He says, "For if you believed Moses you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my word?" And to me that tells me that Moses could only write about Christ because he was inspired by God to write about Christ. And that's how they were able to write what they wrote, because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, the inerrant Holy Spirit. BILL: So do you have a question? QUESTIONER: I just wanted to hear your answer on that. What does that tell you? That if you don't believe what Moses wrote about, which we've been discussing about Adam and Eve and the things in Old Testament, how can you believe what Jesus said? How can you believe his words? CARL: I do believe what Moses said. I just don't believe in the necessity of having to understand every bit of it as historically, scientifically true. And that's the issue that we're debating. JOHN: And once again we go back to Moses who wrote the final text of the Pentateuch and said Adam and Eve are historical. And so in the very clear language of the text on its own terms, when Jesus said Moses wrote about me, and I came to fulfill him, I believe once again, Carl, you're coming to a perspective of personal interpretation. That where the Bible confirms your view of a loving God, you said that earlier. You said, a God who's loving would not send someone to hell. When you're saying that you're coming against Jesus Christ who spoke about hell more than anyone else in all the Bible. He spoke it to the religious hypocrites and to others. And so at this point if we don't believe that Jesus is consistent with Moses, and Moses was historically accurate in what he said, then I think the question is well posed, why believe in Jesus? QUESTIONER: Good evening. My question is for Rev. Hansen. I think Rev. Rankin just stole a little of my thunder there. I wanted to ask you. You at least intimated that you think the doctrine of eternal punishment in hell is an affront to human morality. And I was interested in what you think, reading the salvation motif in the New Testament, where Jesus came to save sinners. What did he save us from if not the wrath of God? And in relation to that, what happened on the cross if not the substitutionary atonement, that is, the doctrine of historical Protestantism? CARL: Good question. Thank you. Jesus came to save us from ourselves. He came to save us from ways of acting toward one another that are not God's intention for us, ways of viewing life and other human beings that are not God's way of viewing them. Jesus came to address the religious community of his day. He said love your enemies, forgive those who persecute you. He said, you hear it written in the law that you shall not kill. Well I tell you that even if you hold anger in your heart toward someone else, then you have violated that commandment, and so on. Those are the things that Jesus came to give, to give us life. To give us eternal life now. Not something that we have to wait for after we die. Sure he used the imagery of hell. That's as much to say that there are eternal consequences here to the ways that you live. Because this is from God. We're talking about divine things here. We're not just talking about a choice that we have between doing this or doing that. This is built into creation from the beginning. This is what it is to be fully human. So he came to confront us in that. We have turned around as Christians for the most part and become just like the Pharisees, who thought that because they had the Law they were going to rule even those who didn't have an idea of heaven or hell, had the idea of a new worldly political power where they would be ruling because they were God's chosen people and favored by God. Jesus confronted that radically over and over again. God loves those people just as much as he loves you, maybe even especially the sinners, the lost sheep, where he leaves the 99 and goes for the lost one. Now how can we take those few instances where Jesus uses the metaphor of hell in order to describe the divine implications of this in talking about a way of being that we can't even comprehend after this worldly life, and deny all of those instances where Jesus confronts that. [end of tape 1 side 2] I'm not saying everyone's going to heaven. We do have a choice. But to think that God would punish people eternally because they're sinners is to fly in the face of the very Lord that we believe in. BILL: Let's let John respond. JOHN: What I see, Carl, here with all due respect, is fudge language in both directions, in contrast with the clarity. You appeal to creation and yet you're saying that what's in creation on its own terms is not really there. Adam and Eve are not real. You see, Adam and Eve sinned. They chose "moth tamouth," they chose death over life. And God said if you choose death you have death. And he came to rescue us from death which is eternal death if not reconciled. And so to say he came to save us from ourselves, well yes, but our sinful selves. Our sinful selves, that if we choose and love the darkness, the very language of Jesus, more than the light, we will get the darkness. And so on the one hand you said God wouldn't send them to hell, but then you said everyone's not going to heaven. So I see a little bit of play in there. I was raised a Unitarian-Universalist. So I was raised in the context of no heaven and hell, or no hell at least and probably not a belief in a God much. But when I was talking to a Unitarian friend of mine, in fact I'm having lunch with him in a few days again, and I talked to him about the ethics of choice that we talked about earlier. And I delineated the difference on biblical terms between those who choose to go into darkness, he said he could believe in that as a Universalist, which is theologically quite remarkable and wonderful. And so I think if we get to the clarity of God's Word on its own terms, its justice is precise and its justice is accurate. And its mercy trumps for those who want the mercy. QUESTIONER: Gentlemen. I need some understanding. Now, I've reached the point that we understand God has created all things. Would you both agree to that? JOHN: Amen, for the taping. QUESTIONER: If he's created all things, the time and space continuum in which we live, is pretty vast, would not you say as far as the expanse of the cosmos? JOHN: Amen. QUESTIONER: Now we have a hard time dyeing our hair, turning it white or black. We can create a few things, but we don't have that kind of power, would you agree to that? JOHN: Amen corner. CARL: What kind of power? QUESTIONER: The kind of power to create the cosmos. CARL: To create hair, no. QUESTIONER: To dye hair, yes. CARL: Yes, right. QUESTIONER: OK, the point and the question. JOHN: Is this a middle-age discussion for men? BILL: Dave's in that time of life. [laughter] QUESTIONER: No comments from the peanut gallery, please. JOHN: It depends on your maternal grandfather and what he gave you. QUESTIONER: Why is it that we would tend to restrain and limit the ability of an almighty Creator who has created the cosmos and spoken it into existence and given us the very breath of life and existence we have, and then limit him to being able to preserve the Word that he puts and gives to lost man, the very Word by which we come to know him? Why would he be unable to preserve and keep pure and to keep consistent and mislead us by allowing human frailty to distort it, so that we might all pick and choose what we want to believe? Why not just accept the fact that God is God and he meant what he said? [applause] And he's basing our very eternal existence upon what it is you or I choose to believe. That is the essence of life. Therefore, answer the assertion, whether or not he can preserve his Word to be accurate, true and undistorted. BILL: Both of you get a shot. CARL: Sounds like a question to me. Well God gave us a brain. JOHN: You're gracious in the midst of a bunch of Evangelicals. CARL: We don't have a choice in that. I don't wish it were that simple, because I think God knows what God is doing. God gave us the ability to ask questions. God gave us the ability to struggle. I think blind submission not only denies the reality of the fact that we do make decisions, and we can't pretend that we don't. But it also causes us to not use the greatest gift that God has given us, which is our mind. And he didn't intend us to be robots. He intended us to be co-creators. He also intended us to be subject to the limitations and frailties of what it is to be human, and to find grace because of the ways that we stray and the ways that we kind of have to learn things the hard way. That's part of being human as well. So we see God's grace unfolding in the brokenness of our humanity. The question the gentleman asked, and I think he left the room. I guess he wasn't interested in my answer. I don't know if he's still here or not. Is he here? Oh good. I think your question really is the question about the cross. Why did Jesus have to die for us? JOHN: You know, Carl, to bring in the idea of blind submission has nothing to do with anything I've ever said or I believe or anything anyone else here has said. In fact I outline in the ten ethical components of Genesis 1, the love of hard questions. There's no blind obedience in the ethics of choice. God does not make us robots. He does not force us into heaven or force us into hell. So I think that that is not germane to the topic. I think very simply that if you or someone else has difficulty believing that God could preserve his written Word, what is the only other choice? The only other choice you've given to us is the Spirit. But the question was raised about the consistency between the Spirit and the Word. And this opens the door for me to human experiential interpretation that has no anchor. And so we have no more certainty than the very, if we reject the Bible on its own terms that it's revealed, we have nowhere else to go. And the uncertainty multiplies. I'll tell you what my personal opinion is in a generic sense between most, I don't want to be over-generalizing, of those who accept the Bible as fully inspired, versus those who carve out exceptions. Do we accept the Bible only when it makes us comfortable? Or do we also accept it when it makes us uncomfortable and causes us to repent? And this comes back to our last forum on homosexuality. The bottom line is, do we stroke those who are choosing a deathly lifestyle, relationally, physically, spiritually. Or do we challenge the way that Jesus challenged us and said repent. QUESTIONER: Question for Rev. Hansen. In regards to your comments about moral error in the Bible. Let's say for example, God's judgment. If we are not able to trust Jesus's affirmations of God's judgment, then by what moral standard do we judge the items in the Bible that mentions some morality that in some cases we may not agree with? CARL: To understand your question I have to ask where does Jesus say that it was OK to kill your enemies, or to kill anyone for any reason. QUESTIONER: Well I don't know the answer to that, but I'm in general, for example, that's why I brought up the example of God's judgment, the idea of heaven and hell and that sort of thing. Those items that Jesus had affirmed many times in Matthew chapter 25, the sheep and the goats for example. But my real question is, whose moral standard do we apply to Scripture in judging whether accounts of morality are in error or not? CARL: Jesus. There's no one else for a Christian to go to apart from Jesus. We know Jesus in several ways. One are his words in Scripture, as quoted by those who knew him. We know him through those who knew him, like St. Paul, who knew him as risen Lord and was informed by that relationship with him in his devotional life with Jesus. St. Paul is really the first evangelist and the greatest. He didn't even hear Jesus speak in his earthly ministry. But he was very anxious to go to those who did and to learn as much as he could about Jesus. What we all believe here whether we want to admit it our not, is largely influenced by the tradition of our particular churches and our particular evolvement. I don't know the congregational development of Calvary Church here, but it probably comes out of some kind of a tradition, an evangelical tradition, reformed tradition, protestant tradition and so forth. Our view of things is to a certain extent enculturated. And we need to realize that. And we need to be open of different ways of looking at things so that we can see a bigger picture than our own limited experience. So those are the kinds of questions that we have to raise. The business of Jesus using the word hell keeps coming up, and for me it's a way of using a word and a description, whether it's on the lips of Jesus or the Book of Revelation or wherever it is. It's saying, to be in heaven with God, to choose that, to accept God's grace given to us in Jesus, is so wonderful that to not accept that would be like burning in hot sulphur eternally. We try to use words to describe what that would be like. That does not mean that we have to believe that we are going to be tortured if we don't do that. Because that isn't the kind of faith that Jesus calls us to. It's not a faith out of fear. It's not because we're afraid of God, the wrath of God. Paul says that he saved us from the wrath of God. That doesn't mean that if we believe Jesus is God, what Paul is really saying there is that he saved us from thinking of God as being one who would do something like that. God loves us. God forgives us. Jesus is speaking as God. He's not saying I'm going to change God's mind. I'm God. And I'm not going to exercise what is my right, and that is to punish you. I want you to be with me always and that's what Jesus offers us. JOHN: And he offers it to us if we repent and believe. But he will not force it upon us. Jesus said that Sodom and Gomorrah were judged. God came down from heaven and burned them with sulphur, because the entire culture was at such a point that when two angels coming to visit Lot appearing as men came in the midst, every man and boy in the city gathered around for a gang rape. They were so sinful at every level. And that was the height of their response. And here's the critical element of taking the Bible on its own word. And that is, if you want to stop genocide, you believe in the Bible, OK, because the only people God destroys are those who choose to be destroyed as Satan's servants destroying others. The Bible clearly shows that Israel is under God's command. And they are destroying the Amalekites because the Amalekites were seeking to destroy the messianic lineage. If you take the Bible on its own terms, had the Amalekites succeeded, the Messiah would not have been born and we would all be in our sins. This is the Bible's view. And so when Jesus quotes that God directly destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, he is also saying that God spoke to Israel to destroy another pagan nation that would have destroyed us in the process. So yes, Jesus has come to destroy the destroyer. John says he's come to put the devil under his feet and to destroy his works. And you destroy the destroyer by destroying destruction. For those who choose to believe in the destroyer, they choose that as well. God judges no one against their will, and he will not force goodness on us. And therefore Jesus, when he comes and talks about hell, does so for one marvelously simple reason: to save us from the stupidity of choosing it. BILL: Before the next question, I want to let you know that there are going to be two more questions. We are going to be wrapping up by nine o'clock this evening. We've got some final comments to make, so we'll take two more. QUESTIONER: Good evening. Regular reader, Father Carl. I would like to suggest that maybe Mars Hill Forum #45, with all due respect, Pastor Holdridge, could take place at All Saints. CARL: Love to. QUESTIONER: So we could get some questions from your congregation, Father Carl. Father Carl, you made the statement in your rebuttal that truth is love. Now I've heard that statement before, several different areas. For some reason I always seem to get Oprah Winfrey in my head when I hear that statement. She'll come out with that all the time. Would you explain what you mean by that statement. Rev. Rankin, would you explain what Father Carl means by that statement. [laughter] JOHN: As long as you don't require of me an inerrant interpretation. QUESTIONER: And Rev. Rankin, would you give us your Webster's definition of truth. BILL: Well asked. CARL: Well, truth is agape love. And again it goes to Jesus because Paul didn't actually invent the word agape. It existed but it wasn't commonly used, but it was certainly evident in the life of Jesus. Paul seized upon that word to make it distinct from whatever Oprah Winfrey talks about, romantic love which is eros, philios which is kind of brotherly-sisterly love between human beings. That sort of elevation of love beyond our biological families which is storge love. Agape love really takes us right to Jesus as the model for that. It's the kind of love that always acts in the best interests of another person and all persons. It's the kind of love that involves an investment of self, a sacrifice. It's the kind of love that doesn't just say what people want to hear, but confronts them and lovingly challenges ideas. It's the love that has no boundaries. He was asked who is my neighbor and he told the story of the Good Samaritan. So we know that our love because of Jesus, agape love, doesn't have limits on it. The love that you have for each other in this room as Christians has to extend to whatever the modern equivalent of the Amalekites are somewhere in the world. But we love them just as much as we love each other because of Christ. That's agape love. There are other ways of talking about that. It's a tough love. It's not an easy love. It's not frilly. It's not something that is just for romance novels. It is nothing less than the cross. Take up our crosses daily and follow him. JOHN: Three points in terms of love. Many elements, to give my uninfallible interpretation of Father Hansen's definition, many elements of what Father Hansen has said are true. It comes to a question of interpreting what that love is in concrete instances. So for example, our last forum, Father Hansen was arguing that homosexuality was a gift of God and an appropriate expression of love. And my argument was no, that leads to death. And the Bible makes that very clear. So love is self-giving, it's sacrificial, it's all those elements. We cannot define love by feelings or experiences or a subjective definition of the spirit. We define it by who Jesus Christ is and who Jesus Christ fulfills, which is the Word of God going back to the very Adam and Eve who sinned in the Garden, for whom Jesus has died including the rest of us subsequent to that. That's the first element. Secondly, and let me go back to the prior element about Mars Hill Forum #45. Actually, hopefully that will be with Patricia Ireland again. But the next forum that I do out here, it would be lovely to do it at your church. The difficulty is I have to be out here and it's a lot of expense to come to the West Coast. And so if you can get enough people I'll be delighted. Out of forty-four forums that I've done to date, thirty-seven or thirty-eight have been in secular audiences where I'm outnumbered nine to one on average. And I enjoy that. So I would love to get every person on the peninsula who disagrees with me and supports you into a forum. It would be electric and exciting. The final element about Webster's definition of truth. I use the Random House Dictionary and the Oxford Dictionary. And Noah Webster's a godly man, grew up in the same town I grew up in, West Hartford. But apart from that, let me go to a biblical definition of truth. Truth is that which is revealed by God on the Bible's own terms. And so when we look at the element of truth we have to ask ourselves, does the Bible represent truth when it treats Adam and Eve as historical people? And if it didn't view them as such we could say it's not true. And so all the way through I will say the ethics I put out in the beginning about the ten positive ethical elements, historical eyewitness, scientific witness, the power to give of God, all these elements are the elements of truth. And Jesus said, I am the way, the truth and the life. And no one comes to the Father but by me. So truth is in the very person of Jesus Christ. And the debate we have tonight is, who is Jesus? Who is his self-view? And did he believe he fulfilled every jot and tittle of Moses? And as Paul said Adam to Moses, are both Adam and Moses historical, that brings us back to Adam and it brings us back to the definition of God, life, choice, and sex. And I think the biggest debate in culture today: is sex outside of marriage permissible? The pagans say yes. The Jews and the Christians say no based on the historicity of Adam and Eve. QUESTIONER: My question's for Rev. Hansen. I just want to know if you truly believe there's a hell. And what you base your salvation on. CARL: I believe in a hell as I've described it. I don't believe God is going to torture people eternally. QUESTIONER: How do you perceive hell to be? CARL: I think it's darkness. I think it's going out of existence. Personally I don't know. But I don't think it's going to be, because you see, and again I base it on Jesus. Because that lost sheep, we have a choice. And as long as we exist I think Jesus is going to try to find us. So it's going out of existence probably. But in contrast to being in heaven with the Lord eternally, I mean there's no comparison. That's my personal belief. I'd gladly accept the other point of view if, number one, it agreed with Jesus's own disposition and own teaching toward and his revelation of God. And secondly if it was helpful at all in terms of believing. I mean, what kind of faith is it that says I don't want to go to hell so I'm going to believe in Jesus? Is that the kind of faith that he asked us to... QUESTIONER: What do you base your salvation on? CARL: I base it on Jesus' death on the cross. QUESTIONER: And a hundred percent of what he says in his Word? CARL: Well, yes. But again we have to recognize that it is always understood, what does it mean? What does he mean? Absolutely a hundred per cent. QUESTIONER: And he will reveal it... BILL: Thanks. CARL: You and I may disagree. BILL: Thanks for the question. It's a good question. And now we need to give John an opportunity to respond. JOHN: OK, very simply, Carl, you have expressed belief in the doctrine of annihilation. I will argue that's not present in Scripture anywhere. And Jesus continually talks about the torment and the fire that never goes out and the darkness that never ends. And so at this point you're not even taking the words of Jesus. You're taking a personal belief, and I think that's the vast difference between us, is, where do the words make us feel comfortable and get rid of the ones that make us feel uncomfortable. Having said that, what's remarkable is the difference between the response to the return of Jesus Christ, the very Jesus that we say we believe in, in Luke 21 versus Revelation 6. In Luke 21 it says, when you see the signs coming to pass in Jesus stepping through the heavens, look up and rejoice, your redemption draws near. In Revelation 6, opening of the seventh seal, it says all the people, the kings of the earth, when they saw the coming of the Son of Man, cried out for the rocks and the hills to crush them to dust. They would rather be crushed to dust than to look eyeball to eyeball to Jesus, because they loved darkness instead of light. And as C.S. Lewis portrays in his marvelous allegory, "The Great Divorce," and as I argue theologically from the Bible all the way through, that I believe those who are in hell, and the language of hell is metaphorical as well as literal. The darkness that doesn't cease, the worm that continues to consume, the fire, the loneliness, the abandonment, the abyss that drops out and there's no bottom, no home, no identity, no name, no future, no hope. All these things are describing being in the darkness compared to being in the light. And I believe what's going to happen for those who choose hell, is they will be happier in hell than in heaven. Because in hell they can own their own bitternesses against God, feel justified, and shake an angry fist at him the way they shook at God and would rather be crushed than to look at him eyeball to eyeball. And so I think the bottom line is that you have in the pagan texts hell imposed without choice. And in heaven, God never consigns anyone to any destiny they have not chosen on their own terms. |