 |
| Dr. Lindstrom |
What many people may not realize is that Hulk Hogan was saved through a Free Grace ministry! I didn't know this either until recently, when I saw a YouTube video by Yankee Arnold about it.[1] In the video clip, Yankee talks about how Hogan got saved through the ministry of Pastor Hank Lindstrom. Then I saw another video clip on YouTube of Hogan being interviewed on the Joe Rogan podcast, and Hogan was talking about how when he was 14 years old, some of his friends convinced him to start attending a Bible "Youth Ranch" in the Tampa, Florida area near where he lived. Apparently, the youth group needed a guitar player, and Hogan liked playing guitar. So Hogan began attending this "Youth Ranch" with his friends, and that's where he met Pastor Lindstrom. In the podcast, Hogan explained how Pastor Lindstrom constantly drilled John 3:16 into his brain until one day it just made sense and Hogan understood that Christ died on the cross for his sins and if he would just believe that Jesus died for his sins he would not perish but have eternal life! And Hogan says he trusted Christ to saved him and that's how he got saved. It was through the ministry of Pastor Hank Lindstrom.
This is what Hogan said about it on the Joe Rogan podcast. Hogan put it like this: "I kind of like would go to a Southern Baptist church when I was a kid, because my Mom and Dad took me to church one time there, and I was hooked. My parents only went once with me, but it was close enough to my house where . . . I would go there to Ballast Point Baptist, so I was raised in a Southern Baptist church. And then when I started playing in a rock and roll band, when I kind of like got in junior high and stuff, I kind of like wasn't going to church at all, and a couple buddies of mine, who became ministers, they were twin brothers, Ron and Don Satterwhite, they asked me to come to Hank Lindstrom's Youth Ranch, because all the kids were there. It was like a Bible study thing, and Bible bros and all that stuff. And they would all sing, but they didn't have anybody to play guitar. So they knew I played guitar, so I went there and I played all the three chord progressions for the little Christian songs and stuff. And then this minister, Hank Lindstrom, he hit me hard with the John 3:16, 'God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes that He gave His Son will not perish but have everlasting life.' And I accepted Christ as my Savior when I was 14. But then I derailed, . . . kept playing music in rock n' roll bands and got way away from my faith, and then as the years went by, . . . I started seeing how things went, and it's got me to the point now where I'm locked back in. I'm locked and loaded, . . . after all the life experiences and, . . . seein' how people live, and what money does to people . . . okay, money makes it easier but it's not the live-and-die-all situation that some people say it is, you know? And it's just that relationship I have, not so much with religion, but with my Lord and Savior, is what I function on."
Notice that Hogan mentioned Pastor Hank Lindstrom as instrumental in his salvation. So I just want to give recognition to Pastor Hank Lindstrom, the man who led Hulk Hogan to Christ. Here is Pastor Lindstrom telling about it some years later. He said: "I took my daughter, a couple years ago, to a gym opening with Hulk Hogan. And we waited in this long line forever. [Then] we got to the front of the line and Hulk Hogan saw me (and I led him to Christ); he stopped the line and he pulled my daughter and I out of the line, and he grabbed us and took us over to the Macho Man, and introduced me as the man that saved his life. And the Macho Man looks at me, looks back at the Hulk, and said, 'This is the guy that saved your life?!' Here's the Hulk, you know, and here's the Macho Man, muscles everywhere, and Hulk really used it as a witnessing opportunity: he said 'Yes, this man beat John 3:16 into me for about three months.' And then he quoted it several times, 'For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.' [And Hulk said:] 'And finally it got through. And I trusted Christ. I was saved. And this is the man that saved me.' After that we walked over to the new gym owners, there was about three or four guys that I guess owned the gym, and this was a proud moment for them as they opened the gym, and Hulk said, 'I want you to meet somebody who's significant in my life: this is the man that saved my life!' And again, they looked me over like, 'Is this the man who saved Hulk Hogan's life?' And then he went through it again; he quoted John 3:16 again and said, 'Yeah, he used this verse over and over again with me, until finally it sunk in and I trusted Jesus Christ as my Savior. This guy named Hank Lindstrom beat him over the head with John 3:16.' And what is interesting is that he doesn't use all the lousy terminology that's out there: 'commit your life,' and 'join the church,' or 'surrender,' or 'turn around,' or 'repent' [in the sense of turning from sins or a behavior change], he simply said, 'I believed it, and I trusted Christ and I was saved.' So obviously if you're taught right [correctly] from the beginning, it seems like you're able to carry the right message through, and he never got corrupted by the bad terminology that's out there, which I was real tickled to death that after all these years he still had the [right message] ... John 3:16 and 'whosoever believeth' is the one that gets saved, and not all the other nonsense."[2]
This is interesting, because Pastor Lindstrom passed away in 2008. And I read somewhere online that Pastor Lindstrom may have told this story in 2006. And he said the incident happened "a couple years ago". This could simply be a generic way of saying "some time ago," almost like a placeholder for an unspecified duration of time. Or maybe Pastor Lindstrom forgot how many years had actually elapsed. Because when I searched online, I found a Tampa Bay Times newspaper article from August 16, 1993 with the headline: "Hulkster, other wrestling stars to shine at gym's opening". The first few paragraphs of the article read as follows:
"Hulk Hogan and other World Wrestling Federation stars will sign autographs and greet the public from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. Saturday at the grand opening of Gold's Gym-Aerobic & Fitness Center. The center is in Fashion Square Shopping Center on the northeast corner of Waters Avenue and N Dale Mabry Highway [in Tampa, Florida].
The new facility contains more than 15,000 square feet of state-of-the-art fitness equipment and will offer cardiovascular programs, professionally supervised training and a weight management program for weight loss or muscle gain."[3]
This is probably the event that Pastor Lindstrom was remembering. This becomes all the more likely because "Macho Man" Randy Savage and Hulk Hogan were estranged in 2003-2004 (and afterwards), and were publicly feuding. In fact, Randy Savage released a rap album in 2004 titled Be a Man. The title track was actually a "diss track" aimed at Hulk Hogan! So it's unlikely that the two men were at any public events together around that time. Eventually they did reconcile, but it was not until years later.
There is a parable that Jesus told in the Gospel accounts about a man who went out to sow seed. And in this case, that man was Pastor Hank Lindstrom. He sowed the good seed of the Word of God in the hearts (soils) of many, and one of them was Hulk Hogan. That good seed took root in Hogan's heart, and in time it grew into a beautiful planting (Isa. 61:3; Jn. 15:8; Eph. 3:17-18) that bore "much fruit". Only time will show the full impact that Hogan's testimony will have on this world!
Pastor Lindstrom and the Hulkster have now gone to their eternal home, and are rejoicing together in the presence of their Savior. A fitting Bible verse that comes to mind in regards to both men is where Jesus talks about the seed that was planted in the good soil. Jesus tells His disciples: "And the seed that fell on good soil represents those who hear and accept God's word and produce a harvest of thirty, sixty, or even a hundred times as much as had been planted!" (Mk. 8:20, NLT).
And so, the legacy of a faithful pastor and a transformed wrestling legend lives on, a powerful testament to the boundless grace of God.
Some Objections Answered:
Objection #1. "Mr. Hogan was in his second adulterous marriage. Holy Scripture warns that no adulterer will enter the kingdom of God." This objection echoes the vainglorious words of the Pharisee in Luke 18 who prayed to himself thus, "God, I thank thee that I am not like other men, swindlers, unjust, adulterers..." (vv. 9-12). But Jesus reveals that this man wasn't even saved! (See Luke 9:14.) Sadly, this same brand of self-righteousness is common in the church today. The objector is just another hypocrite who fails to understand that "The ground is level at the foot of the cross." No doubt the objector is referring to the sins/vices listed by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Galatians 5:19-21, and Ephesians 5:3-5, and by the apostle John in Revelation 21:8, 21:27, and 22:15 (incidentally, when John refers to those "outside," that is a reference to unbelievers; cf. Mk. 4:11-12; Jn. 12:31; 1 Cor. 5:12-13; Col. 4:5; Rev. 20:10). In each of these vice lists, those referred to are unbelievers, i.e. the unsaved (those "outside" of God's whole eternal kingdom in hell), in contrast to Christians who are said to be "washed," and "sanctified," and yes, also "justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor. 6:11) -- even though (and here's the key point) these Christians were still committing some of those same sins that the unsaved were doing! Thus, the comparison is not between those who do those sins and those who don't, but rather the comparison is between how God views the unsaved who practice those sins, versus how God views His children who practice many of those very same sins. God sees His children under the soul-cleansing blood of His Son, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world! (Cf. Exod. 12:13; Jn. 1:29.) In other words, although God obviously knows that His children still sin, He views them as judicially forgiven (Acts 13:38-39; Rom. 4:5-8; Eph. 1:7; Col. 2:13-14), and even perfectly righteous (1 Cor. 1:30; 2 Cor. 5:21), in Christ![4]
Objection #2. "Hogan said he 'accepted' Christ as his Savior, but the Bible doesn't use that terminology. Instead, it simply says 'believe'. Therefore maybe Hogan wasn't saved." This objection has been variously stated. For example, one person put it this way: "The term 'accepting Christ' is not a good term to use to describe receiving the gift of salvation and eternal life. The Bible gives us the perfect term - believe on the Lord Jesus Christ - to accurately convey salvation." Someone else went so far as to say: "Accepting the payment [of Christ] is a work." It should be noted, however, that both of these objections are false. Here's the statement I wrote in response to the individual who said that "Accepting the payment [of Christ] is a work." I said: "You may think so, but it's not a work according to Jesus in the Gospel of John. You mean well and I applaud your zeal for a free salvation, but it's not true that 'accepting' a gift is a work. Rather, to accept a gift is the same as to receive it. And of course, these are both synonyms for believing. Someone may say that the word 'accept' isn't found in the New Testament. That's false, by the way. But even if that were the case, that's like saying that the word 'Trinity' isn't found in the Bible so it's not true. Or that the word 'rapture' isn't in the Bible so it's not true. Those exact words may not be in the Bible, but the concepts (the ideas) are completely biblical. Furthermore, in regards to the word 'accept,' Bauer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament says that 'to accept' is one of the meanings of the Greek word lambanō, meaning: 'to take,' 'to receive,' or 'to accept'. This word is used many times in the New Testament, such as in Revelation 22:17, 'take the water of life freely.' This Greek word (lambanō) is also used in John 12:48 and in John 17:8. Bauer lists this as the meaning of the Greek word lambanō in these Bible verses: 'to accept as true, receive...something, figuratively...receive someone's words (and use them as a guide) John 12:48; 17:8;' (Bauer's Lexicon, 3rd edition, p. 584, definition 7). This is significant, because in John 12:48 Jesus says, 'He who rejects Me, and does not receive [or 'accept'] My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.' So Jesus is saying that in order to be saved from judgment, unsaved people must 'accept' His words as true! Similarly, in John 17:8, Jesus clearly uses the word 'received' (lambanō, 'to accept') as a synonym for believing. So if we are going to be honest with the biblical text, and more specifically if we are going to be honest with the words of Jesus Himself in the Gospel of John, we may need to change our thinking in regards to the word 'accept' (that is, the Greek word lambanō), and understand that it is a valid and biblical synonym for the word 'believe'."[5]
Objection #3. "Hogan stated that he got saved because of John 3:16. Doesn't this support the view of Zane Hodges and the Grace Evangelical Society, which says that a person doesn't need to know or believe in the facts of the gospel to get saved, as long as they merely believe in Jesus' promise of eternal life, that's saving faith? Thus, no knowledge or belief in the facts of the gospel are necessary for salvation." Let me illustrate the objection this way: A well-meaning but misguided person might say something like, "Aha! See! John 3:16 is all a person needs to know to get saved!" But that's like saying, "Acts 16:31 is the only information a person needs to know to get saved!" (For those who may be unaware, Acts 16:31 is where the apostle Paul tells the Philippian jailer to "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.") I like how Yankee Arnold says that, "It's all you need to do, but it's not all you need to know."[6] This is an excellent distinction! Because the Bible says that the apostle Paul went on to tell the Philippian jailer and his family more information from God's Word (see Acts 16:32-34; cf. 1 Cor. 15:1-4/5). The same is true in regards to Hulk Hogan's experience. Obviously Hogan heard more about the gospel from Pastor Lindstrom than just John 3:16! Because Pastor Lindstrom preached the gospel from 1 Corinthians 15, not merely John 3:16. Furthermore, Hogan said that he grew up attending a Baptist Church near his home. Whatever the preaching may have been, it undoubtedly went beyond John 3:16. The same is true regarding the Christian Youth Ranch that Hogan started attending as a teen. Are we really to believe that they shared absolutely no other Bible verses with Hogan besides John 3:16? Such a conclusion goes against everything we know about Pastor Lindstrom and his gospel message. For example, in a Bibleline article written by Pastor Lindstrom titled "A Relationship with Jesus?" (dated 8-24-2006 in the Audio Archive), Lindstrom says: "'For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek (Romans 1:16).' We need to present the GOSPEL when witnessing to the lost, because the GOSPEL is the power of God unto SALVATION. We need to present the death of Christ as the payment for our sins, His burial, and His resurrection!"[7] So obviously Pastor Lindstrom shared other Bible verses with Hogan besides John 3:16; but Hogan was just focusing in on John 3:16 as the most significant one in his salvation experience.
References:
[1] Yankee Arnold, "Hulk Hogan Accepts Jesus Christ As His Savior" (YouTube), Yankee Arnold Ministries.
[2] Hank Lindstrom, "Hulk Hogan won to Christ by Hank Lindstrom" (YouTube), Jesus is Right.
[3] Sue Usberghi, "Hulkster, other wrestling stars to shine at gym's opening" (Tampa Bay Times), August 16, 1993.
[4] I discuss the vice lists in greater detail in the comments section of my blog post, "Is Repentance Sorrow for Sin? 10 Reasons Why It Is Not" (FGFS, February 18, 2023). See my comments there for more information. Another excellent resource on this topic is the article written by Dr. Charlie Bing, "Understanding the Vice Lists in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Galatians 5:19-21, and Ephesians 5:3-5" (GraceNotes, Number 96). Here's how a Hulkamaniac might say it: "Charlie Bing and I are tag-team partners for the gospel! Whatcha gonna do when Free Grace runs wild on you, brother?!"
[5] See Walter Bauer, revised and edited by Frederick William Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (3rd edition), p. 584, s.v. λαμβάνω, definition 7.
[6] Yankee Arnold, "No Cross – No Gospel!" (YouTube), Yankee Arnold Ministries.
[7] Hank Lindstrom, "A Relationship with Jesus Christ?" (Bibleline Ministries), emphasis his. Note: This teaching is dated "08-24-2006" in the Audio Archive.
18 comments:
Hey, I have an off topic question, how do Free Gracers understand the "new heart" in Ezekiel 36? I haven't been able to find many sources besides GES.
As I understand it, in regards to the traditional Free Grace view of it, the "new heart" mentioned in Ezekiel 36 is a reference to regeneration. In context, it is the regeneration of the nation of Israel. As the Apostle Paul says, "and thus all Israel will be saved" (Rom. 11:26). It will take place in the future when Christ returns to the earth at His Second Coming to set up His millennial kingdom. On this point there seems to be general agreement among traditional Free Grace commentators (e.g. H. A. Ironside, John F. Walvoord, J. Dwight Pentecost, etc.).
Hey, I have a second question.
If the person’s faith is to be placed in the person and work of Christ, and someone radically diverges on how exactly the atoning work was done (for example there is a large debate on if the physical sufferings were atoning, spiritual sufferings or both), is that person trusting only a part of the work of Christ? Or even if someone misunderstands the mechanics, are they still trusting the reality of Christ’s entire work even if they misunderstand parts of it?
For example, lets take two radical examples, Martin DeHaan (who emphasized the physical as the primary means of atonement) and Robert Thieme (who in the opposite emphasized only the spiritual). If Martin DeHaan is right and the physical sufferings and bleeding were primary, is Thieme trusting a false gospel, because he thinks that the physical sufferings were not atoning? Also, if Thieme is right, would Martin DeHaan be trusting a false gospel because he is only trusting the physical sufferings for his salvation, yet according to Thieme the physical sufferings could never atone for sin?
If our faith is in the person and work of Christ, do errors on such major issues mean that we are trusting a made up version of Christ's work rather than the real work? Or could there still be a ground of saying that someone who is trusting the substitutionary atonement, even if they err on such major things are still trusting the reality of his work entirely, even if sometimes inconsistently?
(I hope I articulated my question well enough)
That's an interesting question! My initial thought is that it would be similar to if Jesus bought you a new car and gifted it to you. I know it's not the best illustration but just try to go with it for now until I think of a better one. But let's say that Jesus bought you a new car. You don't have to know exactly how He paid for it in order to accept it. You just need to know who He is and accept the free gift. Let's say you mistakenly think He paid for it with a VISA card, but actually He paid cash for it. Well, you can still get the car if you want it because you know the one who is offering it to you and you know the offer. That's the main thing, because that's really all you need to know, right? I mean, let's say Jesus calls you on the phone and says He bought this new car for you and it's yours if you want it. So that's the real issue. You know Jesus bought you a new car and is offering to give it to you for nothing if you want it. You don't need to know exactly how He bought it, just that He did. And that's my initial thought on how it is with the gospel. It tells us that Christ died for our sins and purchased our salvation, and He's offering it to us as a free gift if we want it. So that's the issue. A person doesn't need to pass an exam in theology (or soteriology) in order to get saved. They just need to hear the gospel message and receive it. You see what I mean? Believing the gospel is similar to the illustration with the car. You don't need to know all the details of the purchase in order to receive it because it's all been taken care of already. Jesus did all the work. The main thing is do you want it? Will you receive it? Let's switch the metaphor and instead of the free gift being a new car, let's say it's a drink of living water. That's the language the Bible uses. In John chapter 4, Jesus told the woman at the well, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, give me a drink, you would ask Him and He will give you living water!" And similarly, in John 7:37 Jesus said, "Whoever is thirsty let him come to me and drink!" Jesus said that in the temple courts of Jerusalem during the Passover feast, or on the last day of the feast. And at the very end of the Bible the offer is still available. In fact, it's available today to anyone who wants it! And the offer is simply this: "Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely!" (Revelation 22:17). So that's the key. A person doesn't need to know all the details of the water's composition or pass an exam in water analysis. Rather, the person simply needs to hear the message (Rom. 10:17) and just believe it and receive it! (See 1 Corinthians 15:1.)
Someone might say, "believe it" and "receive it"? Isn't that two conditions for salvation? I would say no, because a person receives it by believing! It's like how the apostle John says it in John 1:12, "But to as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to be children of God, even to those who believe in His name." If we look at the parable that Jesus told about the soils, He similarly mentions receiving the Word of God and believing it (see Luke 8:13). And I already mentioned 1 Corinthians 15:1 in regards to receiving the gospel, and in context Paul also mentions believing it (see vv. 1-2, & 11).
And just to elaborate on that illustration that I used of Jesus gifting the new car to someone and how it pictures the free gift of salvation, we know what the Bible says in regards to the helpless and in fact the hopeless and doomed condition of every sinner apart from Christ. So we might illustrate the truth thus: We could say that the man is actually in "debtors prison" for accumulated debts & aggravated offenses, coupled with the fact of his utter inability to pay or even the possibility of it because his debt is so large. (It reminds me of that Gospel tract titled "Who Can Pay So Much?") And the truth is this: that Jesus not only paid the entire debt and set the prisoner free, but added to that, give him riches untold! And so we see both the forgiveness of God and His free justification: the payment of the debt and the gift of righteousness. And if we want to go further with it, we could even say that Jesus adopts the forgiven sinner into his own family and makes him a joint-heir to his entire estate! Adopted into the family of God, the man is given a new name and a wonderful inheritance! "Giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in light" (Colossians 1:12).
I also want to clarify something I said because there are those who teach that in order to be saved, a person doesn't necessarily need to hear the gospel, but only the name "Jesus" and His offer of "eternal life". I think it's clear from my statements that that's not what I'm saying. But I just want to clarify what I wrote, specifically when I said, "you know the one who is offering it to you and you know the offer. That's the main thing, because that's really all you need to know, right?" So included in that offer is the fact that Jesus paid the price for the free gift. So I'm talking about the gospel offer. The Bible teaches that a person needs to hear the gospel to be saved (1 Cor. 1:17-24, 4:15, 15:1-4/5; Rom. 1:16; Eph. 1:12-13; 2 Thess. 1:8-9, etc.). Some Bible teachers disagree with that, so I just wanted to clarify what I'm saying so there's no misunderstanding. Because I'm not preaching a "crossless gospel". In John chapter 3, Jesus used the Old Testament incident of when Moses lifted up the serpent on a pole in the wilderness to illustrate saving faith, and how He (Jesus) will be "lifted up" on a cross so that everyone who believes in Him, that is, believes in "the Son of Man...lifted up" should not perish but have eternal life (see John 3:14-15). I wrote about this in more detail in my blog post titled "The Cross Is Now Essential To Believe" (FGFS, January 27, 2024). Some people in the Free Grace Movement have abandoned this doctrine, a fact that I pointed out in my article titled "The Cross Under Siege" (August 6, 2009). See those articles for more information. Oh, and I also discuss it in more detail in my article titled "Getting the Gospel in Focus" (Parts 1-2). I also wrote a slightly edited version of that article for GraceLife Ministries which is on their website (I also link to it from my blog); that article is similarly titled "Getting the Gospel in Focus" (November 2024).
I still don't fully understand it, as doesn't the Bible say that we have to put our faith though in the very work that paid for the debt? 1 Corinthians 15 includes the "death" as a part of the gospel, but if people radically re-interpret what the death there means, isn't in essence the gospel message there different? Some say it is only the physical death, some say only the spiritual?
Also to clarify, I am not talking about people who just don't know, but people who already are educated in theology. Would such an explicit reductionism in the atonement become a false gospel? If we are to put our faith in the very work that provided the payment (the death of Christ) and we distor its meaning, are we also distorting the gospel?
Maybe it's me that is misunderstanding. In the specific examples you cited (Martin DeHaan and Robert Thieme), both men would agree with Paul's Gospel as stated in 1 Corinthians 15, correct? And they believe it (as written), do they not? So I'm not sure why you are using them as examples. Are you questioning their salvation? Because if you don't question their salvation then they may prove my point. In other words, they are saved and their different views on the "how" details of Christ's atonement (that aren't specifically stated in the gospel) isn't a salvation issue. This sort of goes back to when I asked if people have to pass an exam in theology to get to heaven? I think sometimes we over-complicate it. Remember, the gospel message is simple enough for a child to understand. And as far as the meaning of the word "died" in 1 Corinthians 15:3, the context makes it clear that it is referring to physical death because Paul says in the next verse that Christ "was buried" (1 Cor. 15:4). If Christ only died spiritually but not physically there would be no need to bury His body if He were still physically alive. Both of the men you mentioned would agree with that, right? If they don't, then I'd say that's heresy.
What I meant is this: Thieme viewed Christ’s physical death as simply the fulfillment of prophecy and a demonstration of sin’s consequences, but he denied that the physical death itself had any role in paying for sin. I may not have expressed that clearly before. I brought up Martin DeHaan and Robert Thieme as examples because they represent two extreme and opposing views in the debates about the atonement. My struggle is seeing how these different views don’t directly affect the object of faith.
Part of my question comes from the fact that I’ve encountered some people who follow DeHaan’s atonement view (as presented in his book The Chemistry of the Blood). While I didn’t see DeHaan himself explicitly say this, some of those who take his atonement view insist that denying his view of Christ’s atonement is equivalent to preaching a false gospel. For example, the Baptist writer R. L. Hymers Jr (who may be technically counted as 'IFB' but is more of a Calvinist Fundamentalist Baptist without formal affilitation to a convention rather than a normal IFB) has multiple articles online where he states that denying DeHaan's physical view amounts to a false gospel.
Here’s where I get stuck: hypothetically, if the atoning work was located only in the physical aspects of Calvary, then wouldn’t true faith have to be placed specifically in those physical aspects? If, on the other hand, someone says Christ’s physical death itself had no real atoning value, wouldn’t that mean their faith is actually directed toward something other than the true basis of atonement? And if that’s not the case, how is it not? Because some argue that misdefining what part of the death was atoning itself amounts to a manmade version of what Christ's death actually is.
I just don't know how to escape that dilemma without making it into a theological test. On the other hand, it seems fairly logical that if only the physical death was atoning, then denying that the physical death was atoning by stating that only the spiritual death was atoning (and the same would exist vice versa, if only the spiritual death was atoning but someone denied that he died spiritually) would mean that you aren't trusting in the very thing that provided atonement, but also I fear that turns salvation into a theological test.
This really still confuses me.
You said, "My struggle is seeing how these different views don’t directly affect the object of faith." Well, but they do. They affect it, but they don't deny it. Both views are consistent with the gospel, that Christ died for our sins. Both views affirm that. I'm not saying that both views are 100% correct in all the details, I'm saying both views affirm Christ's substitutionary atonement. So what I'm saying is that it goes back to the gospel, what is the gospel? That is the main thing. These men agree with and affirm the gospel as stated by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. They are not saying, for example, "Oh, Christ died as our example, not as our substitute." Or, "Christ died for our benefit, but not for our sins." No, neither of the views you mentioned is saying that. To me, it's sort of similar to the question of whether or not Jesus suffered in Hades between his death and resurrection. I don't believe that He did. I believe that Christ's work of paying for our sins was "finished" (Jn. 19:30) on the cross, when He died there hanging between God and man. (Because the actual word that Jesus used when He cried "It is finished!" is the Greek word tetelestai, meaning "Paid in full!") But some Christians teach otherwise. I wrote a paper on the topic titled "Did Christ Suffer in Hell?" And what I said in the article is that it's not adding to the gospel to say that Christ suffered in Hades after His death on the cross, but it is subtracting from the value of His death. So I would say it's a false doctrine (an unscriptural doctrine), but not a false gospel. Because proponents of that view absolutely agree with Paul's gospel as stated in 1 Corinthians 15. They believe it. They preach it. I know this because I went to a church that taught that view, and I will tell you that I never heard the gospel preached so clearly as it was at that church! You might think that's an inconsistency and in a way it is, but it's not a contradiction. (When I say it's not a contradiction, what I mean is that proponents of that view don't deny or disagree with the gospel. Rather, they interpret the phrase "Christ died for our sins" as meaning that part of His death was Him spiritually suffering in Hades.) So I see some similarities between that view and what you are asking, particularly in regards to Thieme's view of the atonement. And so let me just summarize my point by saying 1 Corinthians 15:3 is the correct view of the atonement! If a person does not believe that "Christ died for our sins" (including their sins personally) then that person is not saved. And so the gospel states the correct view of the atonement, that is, substitutionary atonement. And so when a person believes the gospel, they are believing the correct view of the atonement because the gospel declares Christ's substitutionary atonement. If a person doesn't believe Christ's substitutionary atonement, then they don't believe the gospel because that truth is inherent in the gospel; that truth is stated in the gospel.
[Continued below...]
Maybe an illustration will help. Think of it like this: Two men disagree on why eating a chicken sandwich will keep a starving man from dying. One of the men says, "Well obviously it's because of the calories in the sandwich. The body needs calories for energy and to survive." And the man has a point, does he not? But the other man says, "Oh no, no. It's obviously the protein in the meat that keeps the man alive. Protein is broken down into amino acids, and the body needs those amino acids for the muscles so the heart can keep pumping and the lungs can work to take in oxygen." Well, there's a point to be made there too, is there not? But I think the error comes from saying it's exclusively one or the other, when actually both are true. And in regards to your question, it would also be wrong to say that the starving man needs to understand "how" exactly digestion works or "how" eating the chicken sandwich will keep him from dying. Rather, the starving man simply needs to eat the sandwich! The starving man doesn't need to understand "how" it all happens physiologically in his body, nor does he need to understand "the mechanics" of it (as you stated in one of your earlier comments). So I hope this illustration helps. As a disclaimer let me just say that I'm not a doctor nor a scientist, but I hope you see my point.
You went on to say, "While I didn’t see DeHaan himself explicitly say this, some of those who take his atonement view insist that denying his view of Christ’s atonement is equivalent to preaching a false gospel." This pertains to what I just said above. I would not agree that Thieme's view of the atonement amounts to or equates to a false gospel, because Thieme (as far as I know) still agrees with Paul's gospel. Thieme doesn't deny it. Thieme is not saying, for example, "Christ didn't die physically on the cross." That's the point I was making in my earlier comments. And I noticed that you didn't disagree. You see what I'm saying? That is your answer right there! Both DeHaan and Thieme believe the gospel and are preaching the gospel. And similarly, both men agree with and preach Christ's substitutionary atonement by His death. The two different views therefore are subcategories under the topic of "Substitutionary Atonement". You see what I mean? Now that doesn't mean that both views are right, but what I'm saying is that I wouldn't label it a false gospel and I wouldn't label it heresy because both views agree with the fundamentals of the Christian faith in regards to the gospel and the atonement. Both of the views you mentioned agree that Christ is the only way of salvation. Both views affirms that Christ died for our sins. He was buried. He rose again on the third day and was seen by many witnesses (1 Cor. 15:3-5). Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved (Acts 16:31). Neither of the views you mentioned teaches that Jesus just died as a martyr. Neither view teaches that He die merely as a good example. Rather, Christ died for our sins. Both DeHaan and Thieme preached that and taught that. So where is the disagreement? Why all the confusion? Well, you said it yourself when you wrote: "Here's where I get stuck: hypothetically, if..." So let's take a closer look at that.
[Continued below...]
You said, "Here’s where I get stuck: hypothetically, if..." Now let me just spend some time focusing on this statement because it's extremely important. As one Free Grace teacher has said, "Some times hypotheticals are not helpful." Very true! Christians can get into all sorts of trouble when we start interpreting the Bible based on what it doesn't say! The apostle Paul cautions us about this very thing when he tell us, "Do not go beyond what is written" (1 Cor. 4:6). Dr. Constable aptly comments, "To exceed what God has written would be to go beyond the teaching of the Scriptures (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:3-4)." And so this applies to the gospel! When Christians start to base their beliefs on hypothetical situations above and beyond the biblical gospel, that's where problems start. (I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they have no other doctrinal hang-ups or problems. If they do, then they have other problems, of course.) But getting back to using hypothetical scenarios to interpret the Bible. In your words, that's where you get "stuck"! That's why in my earlier comments, I kept bringing you back to what is written in the Bible (i.e. Paul's explicit statement of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15). It reminds me of how in response to the Pharisees and others who questioned Jesus, He repeatedly when back to the Bible (the Old Testament) and said, "It is written"! In this regard, the example of Zane Hodges should be a warning to us of what not to do. I'm referring specifically to his "imaginary" and "hypothetical Deserted Island Scenario" that he created to explain saving faith. I noticed that in your comments, after you said, "Here's where I get stuck: hypothetically..." You proceeded to ask three "what if" questions and then concluded, "it seems fairly logical". Yes, and let me say that the devil can make quite a cogent argument, can he not? As my dad often says, "Liars figure and figures lie." We must be very careful not to go "beyond what is written"!
[Continued below...]
Dr. Scofield has a wonderful statement about this. He too, like the apostle Paul, warned not to go beyond what is written in the Bible. Notice what Scofield says, he writes: "That Jesus suffered on the cross the 'equivalent of the torments of hell' [or that 'only the spiritual death was atoning'] is a theological theory or inference. It may be true, but no Scripture affirms it. Scripture is silent as to the legal nature of Christ's sufferings [!], but explicit as to the legal effect of them. Whether He endured an equivalent of the sufferings which but for Him must have been endured by the sinner; or whether He suffered the identical pains due to the sinner's guilt is a point of theological controversy. Scripture affirms that 'He was made sin for us;' that 'He bore our sins in His own body on the tree,' and that 'Jehovah hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' The present writer humbly submits that the infinite and ineffable pains of our Redeemer are too sacred to be used as the basis for logic chopping and inferential reasonings. It is being wise above what is written." (C. I. Scofield, "Biblical Notes and Queries," W. R. Moody, Editor, Record of Christian Work, Vol. 28 [New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1899], p. 381.) Scofield was responding to a similar question as yours. And I would add that even if the Bible does address certain details of the atonement that you are asking about, Paul still doesn't include those details in his explicit declaration of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15. Furthermore, I did a little research and I found that Dr. Charles Ryrie made a similar statement to Scofield's statement. It is a somewhat more general statement that Scofield's, but to the same effect. Ryrie says: "when logic is used to create truth, as it were, then the theologian will be guilty of pushing his system beyond the limitations of biblical truth. Sometimes this is motivated by the desire to answer questions which the Scripture does not answer. In such cases (and there are a number of crucial ones in the Bible) the best answer is silence, not clever logic, or almost invisible implications, or wishful sentimentality. Examples of particularly tempting areas include sovereignty and responsibility, the extent of the Atonement, the salvation of infants who die." (Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology, 1989 Edition, p. 18.)
[Continued below...]
I also want to spend a little time discussing "how?" vs. "why?" as it relates to the atonement. I noticed your comments focused on the "how" of Christ's atonement, not so much the "why" of His atonement. For example, you said: "If the person’s faith is to be placed in the person and work of Christ, and someone radically diverges on how exactly the atoning work was done (for example there is a large debate on if the physical sufferings were atoning, spiritual sufferings or both), is that person trusting only a part of the work of Christ?" You went on to say: "My struggle is seeing how these different views don’t directly affect the object of faith." Similarly you said: "And if that’s not the case, how is it not?" And lastly you said: "I just don't know how to escape that dilemma". Regarding this, I think that something Dr. McGee wrote applies here and is very helpful to see. On the topic of the atonement, McGee says: "The subject before us, why Jesus died, is not an explanation but it is a declaration." (J. Vernon McGee, "Why Jesus Died!") This is why, in my previous comments, I kept taking you back to Paul's declaration of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15. Paul simply declares the truth, he doesn't explain all the details of "how". And that is your question: "how?" But McGee's point is that Paul isn't answering that question when he gives us the gospel. Rather, Paul is telling us "why"! Why did Jesus die? He "died for our sins" (1 Cor. 15:3). McGee goes on to say: "Until you see that His death is the adequate remedy for your sins, you are not saved." (McGee, "Why Jesus Died!") In other words, the gospel tells us why Jesus died: "Christ died for our sins" (1 Cor. 15:3). That is the crucial and all-important point to understand. Not how did He die, but why did He die? So I would say you are asking the wrong question.
[Continued below...]
Lastly, I want to briefly discuss the nature of Christ's death as it pertains to the atonement. This is not explicitly stated in the gospel (that is, the nature of Christ's death is not explicitly stated in Paul's statement of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15), but by comparing Scripture with Scripture we can arrive at the answer. To once again quote Dr. Scofield: "The sufferings of Christ in atonement were not chiefly physical, but spiritual." (C. I. Scofield, Things New and Old, p. 10.) And so Scofield affirms that both are true. Both were involved in the atonement. And so I would say it is wrong (and a false dichotomy) to say that only one or the other was part of Christ's atoning work. Both the physical and the spiritual aspects of Christ's death were part of His atoning work. The fact that death is spiritual is made clear in Genesis 2:17, when God said to Adam and Eve, "but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die." Adam and Even did not physically die "in the day" that they ate from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam didn't die physically for another 930 years after he ate of the forbidden fruit! (See Genesis 5:5.) But the moment Adam and Eve ate that fruit, they did die! They died spiritually: they became separated from God (see Gen. 3:6-8; cf. Eph. 2:1). That is what death is in the Bible; it is separation (cf. Isa. 59:2). Similarly, when Jesus was dying on the cross He was separated from God. Thus He cried out, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?" (Matthew 27:46). Dr. Scofield aptly comments, "The sufferings of Christ in atonement were not chiefly physical, but spiritual....The token of this was Christ's desolate cry from the cross: 'My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?' Put the emphasis hard on the 'thou,' and the 'me.' Why, indeed, should the only perfectly holy, perfectly obedient Servant whom the Father ever had on earth be forsaken of God in his utmost need? The answer, and there can be but one, is that the Holy One was in that dread hour the sinner's substitute." (Scofield, Things New and Old, pp. 10-11.) Notice here that Scofield is pointing out what I stated earlier, that the gospel answers the "Why" question of the atonement, that Christ died for our sins (cf. 1 Cor. 15:3). This is the doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement! The Gospel declares the substitutionary atonement, and that is what a sinner must believe to be saved! As the saying goes, "Believing Christ died--that's history, believing He died for me (that is, for my sins)--that's salvation!"
I also would like to clarify something I said in an earlier comment, when I said: "I wrote a paper on the topic titled 'Did Christ Suffer in Hell?' And what I said in the article is that it's not adding to the gospel to say that Christ suffered in Hades after His death on the cross, but it is subtracting from the value of His death." When I said, "it is subtracting from the value of His death"-- what I mean is that it is subtracting from the value of His death on the cross. Because proponents of that view teach that part of Christ's death, that is, His spiritual death, occurred in Hades. That's why I want to clarify that I'm specifically talking about Christ's death on the cross. Just to elaborate on that, here's an excerpt from my article "Did Christ Suffer in Hell?" I wrote: "someone has said, 'I believe that Christ suffered my punishment in hell, that is not adding to the gospel'. I believe that when someone says 'Christ suffered my punishment in hell' it is subtracting from the gospel – it is subtracting from the worth of Christ’s death on the cross. It is also subtracting from Christ’s cry from the cross, when He said 'It is finished!' (John 19:30). I don’t want to say that it is adding to the gospel when someone says 'Christ suffered my punishment in hell', but I do know that when the apostle Paul explains the gospel in 1 Corinthians chapter 15, he says nothing about Christ suffering in hell – or in hades for that matter." I wrote that article back in 2001 when I was a student at Moody Bible Institute in Chicago. And after I wrote the article, I presented it to the individual whose view I was critiquing (the man is a brother in Christ). And after he read my article, we discussed it and he also talked to his pastor and some other Christians about it. And after some time of thinking and praying about it, he actually changed his view! He changed his view to where he no longer believed that Christ suffered in Hell or in Hades, but only on the cross. As someone has well said, "The cross is where God did business with sin." And so I just want to share that story anecdotally as a little background information related to the article and also since it relates to the topic of the atonement.
Post a Comment