Q&A on Hell, Creation, etc

Q&A Introduction and the Value of Asking Questions

Well, we are beginning tonight our question and answer. We do this periodically here at Sovereign Grace. It gives me an opportunity to know what theological issues that you're dealing with as a church.

It also, for me, every time I go to Bible conferences, sometime during the conference, they take the conference speakers and they sit them down, and they allow people in the congregation either to stand up and get in line and ask questions, or to present their questions in written form to them beforehand.

And a moderator will sit there and ask the questions, and the speakers will answer. Some of the funniest things I've ever seen in Bible conferences have happened during the Q &As. One time, a lady asked R .C. Sproul, this was only a few years ago, she asked R .C. Sproul, why is God's punishment so severe?

And R .C. Sproul, he, I'm trying to remember exactly how he began, but he looked out at the audience at one point, and he said, what is wrong with you people? Now, I'm going to try not to do that tonight, and say what is wrong with you.

But his point was, he says, what do you mean God's so severe? He said, this God of the universe has provided grace upon grace. He should have destroyed the human race the moment that's in the picture, and yet He has given grace upon grace.

What is wrong with us that we think God's too severe? He's overly gracious. And I just remember that, what is wrong with you people? I just always thought that was a great, a great moment. I ought to make a t-shirt that says, what is wrong with you people, R .C. Sproul, 2013, or whatever it was.

It's just a great moment in theological redemptive history. So, like I said, I'm going to try not to do anything like that tonight. But if you do ask a particularly good question, I might respond particularly humorously.

No, don't, don't. Anything you ask, and as I said in my prayer earlier, really the only foolish questions are the ones that we refuse to ask. Because if you have a question, it means you don't know the answer, or at least you're not confident that the answer that you have is the right one.

So we want to be confident in our answer. We want to know that what we believe is correct. Now, I did receive two email questions, and because I ask people to email questions, I'm going to allow those two to take priority.

But I did forget to print them, so the gentleman who emailed the questions, go ahead and read the first one, and we'll all open our Bible to the relevant text. Go ahead.

1 Peter 3: Christ Proclaiming to the Spirits in Prison

In 1 Peter 3, a horrible flood, and now they are in prison. So which of these do you agree, or do you have a different view on?

Okay. Well, let's read the relevant text. Everybody turn to 1 Peter 3, 18. And then we're going to talk about the different viewpoints on this particular text. 1 Peter 3, 18. All right. The text says, For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the Spirit, in which He went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is eight persons, were brought safely through water.

Here is the question, and the reason for the question, and the theological issue that has arisen as a result. It says here, particularly verse 19, that He, that is Christ, contextually, went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison.

All right. What is it talking about? What's the context? What does it mean? Well, some believe that Jesus Christ, when He died on the cross, went to hell and spent the three days between the time that He was on the cross, and the time that He arose from the grave, that He spent three days suffering in hell.

I do not believe that. And I'm going to make an argument for that in just a moment. But, this is one of the passages that has been cited, because it refers to Jesus going spiritually to the spirits that are in prison, and the interpretation of that as the spirits in prison is those in hell.

Okay? One of the things that we need to realize is that the doctrine of hell in Scripture is not a simple thing. The doctrine of hell in Scripture is actually a quite multifaceted idea. I want you to turn in your Bibles to Luke 16.

Hold your place at 1 Peter 3, because I just want to show you something. In Luke 16, beginning at verse 19, Jesus tells a story about a poor man named Lazarus and a rich man who goes unnamed. And in this story, the subject of hell is brought out.

Now, I am saying this is a story, not a parable. You notice I didn't say it's a parable. Some people believe this is a parable. I don't believe that it's a parable, because this is the only time when Jesus uses a proper name in a story.

And, if you think about, like, the Good Samaritan. I don't believe there was a Good Samaritan. I don't think it's necessary to believe there was a Good Samaritan. There may have been, and Jesus may have been telling a story.

But Jesus didn't tell it as a story. He told it as a parable. Which means there's not necessarily a Good Samaritan. It's a story. It's meant to give a moral point. But Jesus tells this story as if it is a story, as if it actually happened, and he uses a real name of a real individual.

He says in verse 19, There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen, and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate was a poor man named Lazarus. Now, that's not the same Lazarus who Jesus rose from the dead.

Just, I don't want anybody to be confused. That's in the Gospel of John. We hear about that Lazarus who died and was brought back. This is not the same Lazarus. This is a very common name. Just like John or James or anything else.

In Biblical times, Lazarus was not uncommon. It says, He was covered with sores, verse 21, who desired to be fed with that which fell from the rich man's table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores.

The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. In the King James vernacular, it says Abraham's bosom. To the presence of Abraham, is what that's saying. The rich man also died and was buried.

And in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off, and Lazarus at his side. And he called out, Father Abraham, have mercy on me. Send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue.

For I am in anguish in this flame. But Abraham said, Child, remember that in your life you received good things. And Lazarus, in like manner, bad things. But now he is comforted here and you are in anguish.

And beside all this, between us and you, a great chasm has been fixed in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able and none may cross from there to us. And he said, Then I beg you, Father, to send him to my father's house.

For I have five brothers. So that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment. But Abraham said, They have Moses and the prophets. Let them hear them. And he said, No, Father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.

He said to him, If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead. Alright, let's sort of break down what's happened. And I like to do this on the board.

Jesus tells a story. And he says, There was a man who died, and he was poor. He was so poor that he begged for food. He begged for the crumbs that fell off the table of the rich man. That man's name was Lazarus.

When he died, he died in faith. The text doesn't say that, but there is an implication because no one goes to heaven just because they're poor. The Bible never says you're justified by poverty. It says you're justified by faith.

So the implication is that the man was a man of faith even though he was a poor man. And so, he was carried by angels to Abraham's side. And I don't want to get too far off on a tangent, but this is one of the most comforting passages for me in regard to the death of a believer.

I believe that the believer's death is accompanied by a spirit of peace and security. That the believer doesn't die and go into blackness or fear or doubt. It says when he died, he was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom.

I think that's a beautiful thing to consider because in the very next breath, he says, and the rich man died, closed his eyes here, and opened his eyes in hell. There was no angelic escort. There was no peaceful entering.

It was an immediate you're done here, you're alive over there, and it's misery forever. That's some scary business. So, all that being said, Jesus paints a picture for us. He paints a picture of what the old covenant saints would have called Sheol.

The word in the Hebrew, Sheol, simply means the place of the dead. It didn't refer to hell or to heaven. It simply meant the place of the departed spirits. In this case, there is a chasm, Jesus says, that separates.

Abraham's bosom from what is referred to as Hades. Hades or a miserable place, hell. Would it be hell? We're getting there.

This is why I think the doctrine of hell is multifaceted and people don't realize the implications of it. This place currently exists, I believe. I believe this place is a now reality. There's a question as to whether this place is a now reality.

Here's the issue. The question is whether or not these people who were here after the cross are now with Christ. That's the theological question. Did Christ remove those who were with Abraham and take them with him?

What does Paul say? To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. So there's a theological question as to whether or not this still exists as a place. Or whether or not those who were here are now with Christ.

If that's so, that would make sense that if Christ preached to those who were in prison, this could be the answer as to who he preached to and he brought them with himself. Would these persons have heard what he said?

Well, Abraham could hear the rich man calling out for water, so the answer is potentially yes. Here's something to consider though and just as a thought. There is something Jesus is trying to tell us in this passage, in this story, that was not well known during the time of the rabbis.

During the time of the rabbis, they believed in heaven and hell. They believed in the place of Abraham's bosom and they believed in the place of the parted spirits that died outside of God's grace and they were being punished.

And they believed that it was separated by a hand's width. Some of them believed it was only a thin veil that separated those who were at peace and those who were in torment. But Jesus said it's not a hand's width, it's not a thin veil, it's a chasm that no man can cross.

Jesus is making a point. When you die, your opportunities of grace have been lost. Everything, it is over. No more pass go. I had a Jehovah's Witness come to my door one time and she told me that you get a second chance when you die.

I said, here's my Bible, or show me your Bible. It ain't in yours either. It's a bad translation, but it still don't say that. The point being there is coming a time. There is coming a time when there will be a lake of fire which is not this.

Revelation tells us that death and Hades gave up their dead and they were poured into the lake of fire. So what that means is this place will stop existing at some point and will be given over to the eternal place of fire called the lake of fire.

So this place is temporary. The lake of fire is not in service yet. I'm not going to say it doesn't exist yet, but it's not in service yet because Satan will be poured out there, his angels will be poured out there and every person in Hades and every person who dies outside of Christ will be put there.

Huh? The lake of fire. No, it doesn't yet. That's what I'm saying. This is hell, but it's not the lake of fire. We don't know what it is except that it is a place where you are extremely hot and it is tormented.

I'm sorry to confuse you. I'm not saying there's no fire here. I'm not saying there's no torment here. What I am saying is that the torment to come is not yet. Exactly. There is a theory and now we're getting into theories and it's going to make you dangerous.

There's a theory that when Christ died on the cross he went into Abraham's bosom and he led the captives captive. Have you ever heard that phrase, led captivity captive? It's an old King James phrase that says he led captivity captive and the idea was that he took those out of that place who were there by his grace on credit, if you will, because the cross had not yet occurred.

He took them with him and at that point this whole thing became Hades and thus Sheol and Hades are one and the same now. You either die and you're with Christ or you die and you're in Sheol or Hades and it's all one and the same.

I don't necessarily think you have to believe that theory, but it is a theory and I wanted to share it with you. It was one of the theories that was mentioned to me when I was taking eschatology so many years ago.

Yeah, absolutely. But Jesus is telling the story as if it already happened and the cross hasn't happened yet as Jesus is telling the story. So in time it still works. In time it would still work out. No, you go to the Old Testament and the Sheol reference is the place of departed spirits.

It's not designated in every context as being the place of torment. Sheol is, like I said, it's just considered the place of the dead in the Old Testament. So this is, again, this is a theory and you go back to 1 Peter 3 and it says he preached to the souls in prison.

Is that what it's talking about? Well, that's one potential answer. Some people believe Jesus suffered in hell for three days, that he went to Hades, not the lake of fire, but to Hades for three days and he suffered for three days for our sin.

I do not believe that and here's why. When Jesus died on the cross all of the wrath of God was poured out upon him and he said, it is finished. I don't believe that he had to then go spend three days being tormented by Satan and the demons to fulfill the punishment that Christ had to fulfill.

I think it was totally and completely fulfilled on the cross. And that's true. It's God who was punishing him. It pleased God to strike him says Isaiah 53. And here's the interesting just side note of that.

There are theologians, let me back up, there are people who play them on TV like Joyce Meyer, who will say that Jesus died and went to hell and suffered in hell, but again that is not at least what I would teach or believe, but I do want to.

Are you going to ask about the Apostles Creed? No. What I was going to ask you is is there a verse that they use? Well this would be one of the arguments from 1 Peter 3, which is the purpose for the question.

Also the thing that is often cited is the Apostles Creed. It says that he descended into hell. The Apostles Creed, I don't have a copy with me tonight, but if you go find a written copy of the Apostles Creed as it was written, it makes that point that he descended into hell.

How that is interpreted though is multi-fold. I don't have a problem with the Apostles Creed, I don't interpret that to mean he went to hell to suffer. I think that this text, if it's understood this way, that he went to proclaim the gospel to those who were in Abraham's bosom that he went there and proclaimed the gospel.

If you interpret it that way, I don't see a problem with the Apostles Creed. Some people don't like that line, they remove it from the Apostles Creed and they don't even say that part. That's fine. The Apostles Creed is not scripture.

But I do want to know when I study something like the Apostles Creed, which is almost 2 ,000 years old, I want to know what the writers of it intended. And I don't think any of them intended to mean that Jesus suffered in hell for three days to fulfill the necessity of the punishment that God had in store for him.

I don't believe that and I don't think that that can be borne out from the text of the Bible. Is there anything that I didn't cover? Is there anything that I didn't get to? Well, let me read through it again.

For Christ also suffered once for sins the righteous for the unrighteous that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey when God's patience waited in the days of Noah while the ark was being prepared, in which a few that is eight persons were brought safely through water.

Well, there is a reality where Noah was preaching. And there is a reality that those who heard the preaching of God's grace through Noah are in that place, are in punishment. I don't really know if I follow along with that same course of logic though that this is saying that Christ that this particular reference where it says he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison is referring to a past tense thing that goes back to the time of Noah.

I don't know that I agree with that. I don't know that I disagree with it. It's kind of one of those things where it seems almost like we're reading into it something that's not there. Sure. I got you.

Well, like I said, I don't believe Christ went to hell. I don't think it has to be interpreted that way. I think that if we look at it this way hadn't considered this idea. Well, this to me I think is where I would be on it as far as the issue of Christ preaching through Noah.

Is that true? Yes. Is that what's being talked about here? I don't necessarily see it that way. I'd have to spend more time with him kind of seeing where he's going logically with that, but I don't see it right away.

I'm not going to say he's off the rails, but this is where I think I would be at least on a sense of... Yeah, exactly. Alright, now you had a second.

The Value of Commentaries and Theological Consistency

Question. I want to respond to the last part first.

When a man says, I only study with my Bible and my journal in my hand and I don't listen to what anybody else has said about this particular passage I think that that is very, very foolish. Now I'm not saying that we should rely exclusively on the commentaries, but if you think that no one before you has had anything to say on what the Bible says, that is a tremendous amount of hubris.

If you don't think that anybody has had a deeper insight than you, that is a tremendous amount of pride. So I think, I'll tell you when I'm studying for sermons I begin with the text. I begin with the language.

I try to make sure that I understand what is being said and the original language, if I can parse it out and help to ensure that I understand it. I like to begin there before going to the commentaries because I don't want to be misled.

I want to know that I know at least enough to where if somebody says something that is off the wall and sometimes they do, even the best commentary writers say things that are wrong so I like to be able to at least go in knowledgably but at the same time I've often been looking at a text and then I go and I read Calvin or I read F .F. Bruce, which is one of the great commentaries on Acts.

That's what I'm studying now is Acts. F .F. Bruce has used man, everybody I hear preach on these they're all quoting F .F. Bruce. His commentary on Acts is fantastic. So I read what he has to say and sometimes it's like wow, I didn't see that because I was not aware of the historic context here.

I was not aware of the vernacular here and how important that is in this particular moment because I am limited on my knowledge of history and his knowledge combined with my knowledge makes me smarter.

So a man who says I don't need that or I don't use that I'm automatically suspect of because I had a professor one time I heard him say that he said yeah I can read the Greek language so I don't need the commentaries.

Who said you need commentaries just to help with the Greek? That's not all the commentary does. The commentary allows you to hear the way God has moved on other men to understand a particular text. Sometimes I read commentaries that I know are wrong.

Now you're going to think I'm nuts but I do that because one thing about the liberal bad theologians, they'll make you think about what you believe and they'll make you have to think why you believe what you believe and I'm confident enough that I can read what they have to say without being shook to my core over it.

So sometimes it's good to listen to somebody with whom you disagree. So that's the first part of the question. The second part of the question is what he said about Calvinism and Arminianism and he said I believe where they're right and I don't believe where they're wrong.

How do you word it again? Well he's claiming a contradiction. You cannot believe in limited atonement and universal atonement at the same time. You can't believe in total depravity and partial depravity at the same time.

You can't believe in unconditional election and conditional election at the same time. You can't believe in irresistible grace and resistible grace at the same time and you can't believe in perseverance of the saints and the lack of the perseverance of the saints at the same time.

So whatever he's saying is a contradiction. Contradiction is the hallmark of untruth because consistency is the hallmark of truth. One of the things that we must always be in our theological system is consistent.

That is the greatest failure in modern theology is inconsistency. A man will say God is absolutely sovereign and he has a plan that cannot be thwarted and then he'll turn around and say God allows every man absolute free will and he never interrupts his life in any way.

One of those has to be false. You can't have both. I heard a guy one time say that God is sovereign but you have to invite him to participate in your life. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. The God of this universe has to be invited to participate in my life?

Let me tell you something. I've seen people struck down by God. They didn't invite that striking down. Look through the Bible. Read the Bible. These people who are struck down by God they didn't say God I'm letting you in now.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. My point is consistency is important and I understand at least what he's trying to say. He's trying to say I affirm these things but they deny certain things and it's always about limited atonement.

They affirm Christ died for the elect. They deny Christ died for everyone in the same way and I deny that. You can't be both or either. It's got to be one or the other. That's normally where he is. That's the issue.

I don't know him so I don't know for certain. That's right. Well if you stand in the middle of the road you get squished like a grape. I'm going to quote the great theologian Mr. Miyagi from the Karate Kid.

He said if you walk on the right side you're safe and if you walk on the left side you're safe but if you walk in the middle you're going to get squished like a grape. Now he was talking about karate.

He said you either do it or you don't do it. But don't do half way. It's the same way. Either it's right or it's not. If you go this sort of half way route. I'm a four pointer this or a three pointer that.

It's a consistent system and it stands or falls as a system. I do believe that. Alright. I'm going to now take questions. I already saw one hand up. Yes ma 'am. And I'll go to you next sir. I'll let her go first.

Biblical Numerology and the Meaning of Numbers

Ladies first. Okay. Which one? Well I said what now? Did he go to hell for three days? No I don't believe that he did. Okay good. Well good. Yes. Yes. That's fine. I can hear you. Okay. I'm very careful with what is called biblical numerology.

Biblical numerology is an attempt. I know. I'm glad. It's a good question and I'm going to give you. I want to just start by saying there are people who believe that any time you see a number in the Bible that that number has an affixed meaning that goes with it.

Like one always represents God. Two always represents Jesus because he's the God man. Three always represents completeness because that's the Trinity. Four represents this. Five represents that. Seven represents perfection because that's when he rested.

So there's an attempt by some folks to make the Bible into a code book and we become sort of like 1970's cold war spies having to crack the code. Alright. How many of you ever saw the book The Bible Code?

Really? I used to sell it on TV. They'd come on learn the code of the Bible and you'll you know this and that and the other. I don't think the Bible is written in in a code of numerology. I think numerology is a man centered man focused type of wisdom earthly wisdom not a godly wisdom.

So I tend not to focus so much on numbers that are like that. But here's what Jesus said. Jesus said as Jonah was three days in the belly of the great fish so too will the son of man be three days in the belly of the earth.

So that's the answer from Jesus. He said Jonah was there for three days. Jesus was there for three days and it also speaks of the completeness of his death because a man who died was put in the ground and six hours later gets back up well maybe he wasn't dead but remember when Lazarus died he's been dead for three days.

By now he stinketh. That was what his sister said. He said roll away the stone. Well we can't by now he stinketh. The idea was that's when the decomposition had already begun and he was deader than dead.

So three days was a distinct way of saying yeah he was truly and really dead. Well I'm not saying that they do. I'm saying some people believe that they do. There are consistent well that's a good like I said it's a good question and there are things that we see that are consistent like no I appreciate that.

Forty days like that's a consistent thing. We see that pattern over and over. Forty days is like a fasting thing. Again the number seven as you know the seven spirits of God mentioned in Revelation 4.

We see numbers that sort of are come back over and over and over but I don't think that any of them are meant to be a code. I think that they're simply just showing the way that God is consistent. There's consistency like with fasting and things like that.

You wanted to add something? Okay. There was a money code guy. Yeah. You can get all the money with the Bible if you follow this simple and how many of you ever heard of Gail Ripplinger? She wrote New Age Bible versions.

She did this. She said the reason why the King James is the true Bible and all the rest are the false is she said if you take NIV and the NASV and she had to do this with a V nobody calls the NASV everybody calls the NASB but she called the NASV because it only works.

She said if you subtract out AV What's AV? 1611 authorized version of the King James Bible but if you subtract out the AV you end up with SIN which is sin and so these Bibles are based in sin. That's some nonsense right there.

That is straight that's crazy but that's the kind of silliness that people can arrive at if you get too far into this looking for symbolism and signism and numerology and stuff. Mr. Irv you have the next one.

Creation, Young Earth, and the Flood

I don't want to bypass you sir. It's more of what you would say to me about creation. The Bible talks about creation happening in what? 6 days? Sure. When they're talking about creation happening in the big bang 8 .5 billion years ago.

The scientists apparently I'm not covering things the way I want to hear it so I want to just know what you think about it's too big. No I've got all the time in the world for you Mr. Irv I promise I'm going to make this as simple as I can but this is a very very broad topic so I will simplify it as best I can.

There are essentially three ways of understanding the text of Genesis and I think only one of them really is faithful to Genesis. You have what is called Y-E-C. You have O-E-C and then you have what is called T-E Y-E-C O-E-C and T-E Y-E-C.

Young Earth Creationism. That is the belief that the Earth is not as old as modern science tries to make it out to be. Young Earth is just what it means. It's the younger Earth. The idea that the Earth is somewhere between 7 and 10 thousand years maybe more but they usually it's in the thousands not the millions.

That's that. The next is called Old Earth Creationism. That is the belief that the Earth is older than the Bible might seem to indicate but that man was still a special creation of God and that man has only been around for about 7 to 10 thousand years.

This is called Theistic Evolution. Theistic Evolution is the idea that the Earth is as old as the scientists say and that man has been around in different forms all throughout history. He started as a single cell and that single cell multiplied and grew and became different organisms and now we are at the stage that we are in now and that is called Theistic Evolution.

In the Theistic Evolution man is not a special creation of God but at some point God took one of the creatures the great ape and he endowed him with his presence and that's how we became special. We were all part of this evolutionary cycle.

God looked down and said ok I like him and he picked him rather than the spider monkey he picked the great ape. It could have been the spider monkey or whatever it could have been the zebra but he picked the great ape and we became bearers of the image of God.

I say this one is absolutely unbiblical because that would say that God is essentially not creating us as special creations in his image. I don't think that one is biblical. Now Old Earth Creationism while I do not agree with it and some of you may leave here angry and I will say this there are guys like Hugh Ross and others who hold to an old earth view but do hold that man was a special creation of God and while I would disagree with him I don't think he is outside the kingdom.

I think he is wrong and there is a difference. I think on this issue we can disagree and still godly disagree. Hugh Ross and others take an old earth position but he still believes that man is a special creation of God.

He doesn't believe in theistic evolution. So there is a line there that I like to make I am a young earth guy. I don't believe that the earth needed to exist prior to man because the earth was created for man.

The earth was created for man to subdue and so why would it exist for 8 .5 billion years and then finally 7000 years ago God decided to do something with it. That for me is a logical question and a theological question.

Why do I need to believe that the earth is 8 .5 billion years old 8 .4 billion years old. If the bible says it was created for man to subdue that means the vast majority of time it's been here. Man wasn't even there to do what he was meant to do.

So the earth had no purpose outside of what God created it for he created it to be subdued and ruled over by man. That man would function in the earth as the governor of this earth as the image bearer of God.

So I tend to be a young earth guy for a theological reason and what I think is a logical reason. But I don't condemn an old earth guy as long as he does not deny that man is a special creation of God.

Some people would, some people would say those guys are out of the kingdom. They're absolutely condemned. I can't go there even though I fully disagree with a lot of people on a lot of things and I don't think they're necessarily out of the kingdom just because I disagree with them.

Now on this I do want to add something. The scientists who make the argument about young earth are often times ostracized from the overarching scientific community. And if you go into the science classroom and you talk about a young earth they will laugh you out of the room because they have already decided that it can't be true.

They work from a presupposition of anti-supernaturalism. Let me unpack that big phrase. They presume that there's nothing outside of the natural that everything is natural and the only way to get where we are now is naturally billions of years.

There were two men that were very important in the 1800's. One was the name of Charles Darwin I'm sure you're all familiar with him. There was also a man named Charles Lyell. If Charles Lyell had not written and taught what he taught Charles Darwin could not have written and taught what he taught because up until that time the belief was that the earth was not as old as they were saying 7 -10 thousand years maybe.