12. Happily ever after?
||2013-04-25 23:49:42, 조회 : 2,733, 추천 : 577
| Michelle Yim|
“Happily ever after…?”
I remember when I was in 4th grade, my art teacher gave us an interesting assignment that I still remember today. She told us that our project will be called “My Perfect World”. We had to paint a picture of what we thought a perfect world would be like. She put us in groups of 3 and preceded to hand each group a huge poster paper and paint/paintbrushes. With my group partners we brainstormed on what we were going to draw. With 20 minutes of giggling and talking about flowers, trees and birds, we finally got to work. This assignment led my imagination to run wild, and I drew everything that made me happy.
However, later on that day I got in trouble for talking excessively in my class, so my teacher had to write a note home to my parents. All the happiness and glee that I felt early on that day, quickly dissolved to miserable and anxiousness. When I was in my last period class, I thought “I wish I lived in that perfect world I drew”. Although I yearned for it, I knew the reality. I knew that when I got home I was going to get in trouble.
In a earlier chapter, Blanchard points that although we hope so much that hell does not exist, the reality is that it does. Unfortunately, throughout the many years people have created the “perfect world” religion where it always has a happy ending. One of the most popular beliefs that people trust today is called “Universalism”.
Blanchard explains that there are two types of Universalism. One is that “Everyone goes to heaven, with or without God. It doesn’t matter if the person was religious or not”. Basically, all you need to do is die and you will automatically go to heaven. In the previous chapter, we talked about the God of love, and that’s what many Universalists use to back up their belief. They believe that God is so loving that there is no way that He would ever sentence His own children to hell. Nevertheless, we can see from 2 Corinthians 5:8 that there is a distinct line between the wicked and the righteous. It states that the righteous will “be at home with the Lord” and that the wicked will sent to the “condemned cell”.
The other belief is that “hell isn’t permanent; Its only for a moment until you are purified”. A Scottish theologian named “William Barclay” stated that “No father could be happy while there were members of his family in agony. No father would count it a triumph to obliterate the disobedient member of his family. The only triumph a father can know is to have all his family back home”.
However, Barclay makes a mistake by believing that God is the father of ALL humanity. Jesus told his enemies “You belong to your father, the devil” (John 8:44). Blanchard says that in order to test Universalism, we must do it with the Bible.
If Universalists claim to find biblical support, than we must observe it in the very words of the Bible.
Was Jesus a Universalist?
“But I when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself” (John 12:32)
When Jesus stated this, was this pertaining to all of humanity or just a certain group? However reading the verse before it said
“The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life” (John 12:25).
This shows us two destinations for two men. Therefore when he said “all men” he was stating that to a particular group, not all of humanity.
Was a Peter a Universalist?
Peter was preaching and said “Repent then and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, the times of refreshing may come from the Lord and that he may sent the Christ, who has been appointed for you-even Jesus. He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets” (Acts 3:19-21)
When Christ returns, he is here to “judge the world with justice” (Acts 17:31), therefore he’s there to separate the righteous and the wicked. However, when universalists saw the “restore everything” they felt that perhaps God will restore the sins for all humanity, therefore leading everyone to go to heaven. But, the restoration that Peter was talking about in this particular verse was the “new heaven and earth”. It tells us exactly that on 2Peter 3:13 “a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness”. If Peter was a universalist he wouldn’t have pleaded with the people saying “Repent…and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out”. Why would he say that if eventually everyone will be going to heaven? There wouldn’t be a need to repent.
Was Paul a Universalist?
Paul stated “Consequently just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men” (Romans 5:18)
In this verse, Paul referred to the “one trespass” as Adam. Because he sinned and he was the head of all humanity, it brought condemnation for “all men”. However because of the result of the one act of righteousness “Jesus Christ”, justification brings life to “all men”. But this second “all men” wasn’t referring to all of humanity but rather a particular group. We can observe this in the verse right before it, which stated “For if by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, now much more of those who will receive Gods abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ”. This verse shows us that whoever doesn’t receive Gods abundant provisions will remain in the reign of death. Blanchard also goes on to explain that at this particular time, the Jews felt that there were superior than the Gentiles. Therefore when Paul said this, he was also trying to make a point to the Jews that God does not show discrimination. In Romans 27:11 it solidifies it by saying “God does not show favoritism”.
||No father could be happy while there were members of his family in agony. No father would count it a triumph to obliterate the disobedient member of his family. The only triumph a father can know is to have all his family back home”. 어떤 아버지도 그의 가족중에 한 사람이 고통을 당하는 것을 기뻐할 수 없다. 어떤 아버지도 불순종한 그의 가족을 없애는 것을승리로서 간주하지 않는다. 아버지가 알 수 있는 유일한 승리는 모든 가족들을 집으로 데리고 오는 것이다."
"할렐루야, 아멘. 그렇게 될지어다"라고 말하지 않을래야 않을 수가 없다. 너무도 아름다운 시가 아닌가 생각이 든다. 윌리암 바클레이가 쓴 사도신경 해석에서 늘 그의 신학에 대한 의문을 가지고 있었지만, 오늘 이 글을 읽고나서야 비로서 그의 정체(?)가 무엇인지를 알겠다.
먼저 우리는 윌리암 바클리의 이 말이 성경적으로 맞는지 맞지 않는지를 질문해야 한다. 이상하게 들릴지 모르지만 윌리암 바클리의 말은 100% 맞는 말이다. 자기 자식을 영원한 지옥에 보내고, 기뻐하는 부모가 없다고 한다면, 사랑의 하나님이 자기의 자식을 지옥에 있는 것을 알면서 기쁨을 잔치를 매일 한다는 것은 정신병자의 행동이기 때문이다. 그의 주장은 절대적으로 맞는 말이다.
마 24장에 보면 자기 자식이 땅 끝에 있다고 할지라도 하나도 잃지 않고 다 구원시키겠다고 말씀하신다. 예수님도 단 한 사람을 제외하고는 잃어버린 사람이 하나도 없이 구원을 하였다고 하였다. 과연 누구를 잃어버렸을까? 가룟유다를 잃어버렸다. 왜 예수님은 가룟유다를 잃어버렸을까? 성경은 사단의 자식이라고 직 간접적으로 암시하고 있다. 그렇다면 이 세상에는 임 미셀 선생이 말한 것처럼 모든 사람이 하나님의 자녀가 아니기 때문이다.
바클리는 모든 사람이, 모든 창조된 사람이 하나님의 자녀라고 오해를 하였다. 그런데 이 오해는 이 사람만 하는 것이 아니라, 알미니안 신학을 가진 기독교인과 모든 사람들이 하는 오해이다.
아니 이것은 오해가 아니라,
많은 사람들을 죽음으로 몰고가는 현대판 Holocaust이다.
사람을 죽이고 기뻐하는 것은 하나님이 아니라,
하나님은 자기 자식을 지옥에 보내고 기뻐하지 않는다고 하면서
많은 사람들의 신앙을 느슨하게 하는 모든 신학이 아닐까?
이런 면에서 블랭카드는 위대하고, 또한 이 책을 제대로 소화하는 미셀 선생도 위......대.....하....다.