How Will the People in Heaven View Hell?
Written by Amy K. Hall |
Thursday, September 23, 2021
Jesus is worthy of unleashing final judgment not because he’s righteous (though his righteousness made it possible), but because he died for our sins, purchasing people for God with his blood. His loving, self-sacrificial grace on the cross demonstrates the pinnacle of God’s glories, and all of God’s eternal judgment against evil must be seen in light of what Jesus first did for us—his suffering and death for his enemies.
I fairly regularly get asked this question in various forms: How will the people in Heaven view Hell? How can they enjoy the glories of God while others are suffering? My answer has two parts—a direct answer and a crucial context for that answer.
First, we get a sense of the direct answer in Revelation 19:1–6 as part of John’s vision of the end times:
After [the declaration of judgment against Babylon] I heard something like a loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, saying,
“Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God; because His judgments are true and righteous; for He has judged the great harlot who was corrupting the earth with her immorality, and He has avenged the blood of His bond-servants on her.” And a second time they said, “Hallelujah! Her smoke rises up forever and ever.” And the twenty-four elders and the four living creatures fell down and worshiped God who sits on the throne saying, “Amen. Hallelujah!” And a voice came from the throne, saying,
“Give praise to our God, all you His bond-servants, you who fear Him, the small and the great.” Then I heard something like the voice of a great multitude and like the sound of many waters and like the sound of mighty peals of thunder, saying,
“Hallelujah! For the Lord our God, the Almighty, reigns.”
Here is the direct answer: Those in Heaven praise God when they see his judgments against evil. We will praise him for fulfilling his role as the perfect judge. I’ve written before that “It’s Not Wrong to Long for Justice.” Justice is good. It’s desirable. It causes us to worship. And in the Revelation passage above, we see an example of that. In fact, if you read the psalms while looking for examples of God being praised for his judgments against evil, you might be surprised by how often you run into it. “Our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God” when he “inflicts his wrath” against it, according to Romans 3:5.
As I wrote,
Our love of justice is a reflection of our love for the perfections of God’s character. He is righteous. He is loving. He is good.
You Might also like
-
The Three Uses of the Law in Reformed Theology
The Reformed view of the Christian life is one of Guilt, Grace, and Gratitude: Guilt (Pedagogical: first use of the law), Grace (Gospel), and Gratitude (the Christian life: third use of the law). When we fail (guilt), the same order always follows. It is the gospel—our union with Christ—that brings us to life and provides us with the fuel and desire to live a life of gratitude.
In today’s world, numerous things are going haywire. Headlines flicker hourly across our social media feeds with the latest abuse of power, breaches in trust, shootings, riots, and protests. The spirit of anarchy is alive and well in our world. How is it possible for depraved individuals to even recognize evil? Why do we care about injustice? It is because we all have the Law of God written in our hearts (Romans 2:14-15). When we observe countless atrocities occurring on a daily basis, it is human nature to want justice to prevail.
In Christianity, there have always been disputes on how Christians should use the law of God and its role in our lives. Antinomians teach that the law has no place in a Christian’s life. Neonomians desire to make a new law from the gospel demanding faith and obedience for salvation. Understanding the proper distinction between the law and the gospel and being on the same page regarding the three uses of the law can help to provide us with greater harmony amongst Reformed Christians. It can also present us with a solid blueprint of how we can live our lives for the glory of God.
Law and Gospel
What does it mean to properly distinguish between law and gospel? In brief, the law commands and the gospel promises. The law is what we do and the gospel is what Christ has done for us. The law in its first sense reveals God’s requirement for eternal life—perfection (Galatians 3:10; James 2:10). The gospel shares the wonderful promise that Christ is our righteousness received through faith alone (Galatians 3:13-14).
Both the law and the gospel are God given and necessary in a Christian’s life. The law is good because it is an expression of God’s being. The gospel is good because it informs us of the work of Christ on our behalf. However, mixing them—glawspel—is bad. This leads to neonomianism and the error of the Judaizers.
As Herman Bavinck wrote, Reformed Christians perceive “the sharp contrast between law and gospel” and realize this is what restores “the peculiar character of the Christian religion as a religion of grace.” Conversely, “The law demands that humans work out their own righteousness, and the gospel invites them to renounce all self-righteousness and to accept the righteousness of Christ.”[1]
The Three Uses of the Law
With the proper distinction between the law and the gospel in place, the question is: What is the relationship of a regenerate believer to the law of God? In Reformed theology, we distinguish between the three uses of the law. We make these distinctions because we observe the law being utilized this way in scripture.
The three uses of the law are:Pedagogical (school master)
Civil/Moral (society)
Normative (the Christian life)First Use of the Law
The first use of the Law is to destroy the spiritual narcissist lurking within all of us. Calvin writes:
“First, by exhibiting the righteousness of God—in other words, the righteousness which alone is acceptable to God—it admonishes every one of his own unrighteousness, certiorates, convicts, and finally condemns him.”[2]
The law in this sense destroys our self-righteousness and arrogance. It puts the old Adam to death. In it, we realize that God does not accept us “just as we.” Outside of Christ, we do not stand a chance on Judgment Day. God’s Law requires perfect obedience and no fallen son or daughter of Adam can attain this. In and of ourselves, we are without hope. We cannot stand before the judgment seat of God and plead our good works since “all who rely on works of the law are under a curse” (Galatians 3:10). This first use of the law serves as a schoolmaster to drive us out of ourselves and to Christ.
Second Use of the Law
The second use of the Law is intended to protect our society from evil people who would cause us harm. Calvin says in his Institutes of the Christian Religion:
“The second office of the Law is, by means of its fearful denunciations and the consequent dread of punishment, to curb those who, unless forced, have no regard for rectitude and justice.”[3]
The commandments such as “do not murder”, “do not steal”, and “do not commit adultery” are also examples of natural law. These aspects of the law are written in all human hearts (Rom 2:14-15). It is intended to restrain evil and promote a harmonious existence in our world. “The moral law is of use to all men, to inform them of the holy nature and will of God, and of their duty, binding them to walk accordingly” (Westminster Larger Catechism, Q.95)
Our society can function only because we innately realize right from wrong. This aspect of the law promotes civil order and protects citizens from those who would cause harm. Hence, the second use of the law is a guide for morality and it equally applies to both believers and unbelievers.
Third Use of the Law
The third use of the law is only for regenerate believers. It does not apply to unbelievers. Calvin remarks:
“The third use of the Law has respect to believers in whose hearts the Spirit of God already flourishes and reigns.”[4]
This use of the law is also known as the “normative” use. When we state that something is “normed”, we mean that it is “patterned” after something. This aspect of the law reveals God’s righteous will for our lives: We are his workmanship created in Christ Jesus for good works (Ephesians 2:10). When we state that a believer is not under law, we mean that he is not under the law as a covenant of works—as a means of salvation. However, as Christians, we do not lay the law aside because of our faith, but we seek to uphold the law (Romans 3:31).
We strive to uphold the law, not as a means of salvation, but because it reflects who we are as new creations: children of God.
We maintain the law and strive to do good work because of our love and gratitude toward God for saving us. The third use of the law serves as a blueprint for how an already regenerate believer can live a life that pleases Him (Heidelberg Catechism, Q.86 and Westminster Larger Catechism, Q. 97).
Louis Berkhof wrote that the third use of the law is “a rule of life for believers, reminding them of their duties and leading them in the way of life and salvation. This third use of the law is denied by the Antinomians.”[5] If someone denies the third use of the law, then they are an antinomian. This is not good! Antinomianism perverts the grace of God into a license to sin (Jude 4).
Paul anticipated that some would interpret the gospel message as doing away with the law. He asks the rhetorical question: “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith?” He emphatically states: “By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law” (Romans 3:31). This is the third use of the law.
A good example of Jesus practicing the third use of the Law is found in Matthew 28:20—“teaching them [new disciples] to observe all that I have commanded you.” He meant that Christians should be taught all that he commanded. They were taught this in the third sense of the law because they were already believers. The first use of the law had completed its work. It is God’s desire that Christians “walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him: bearing fruit in every good work” (Colossians 1:10). The third use of the law is the “Law of Christ.” It shows us how to live a life of gratitude.
The Difference between the Lutheran and Reformed View of the Third Use
Confessionally, both Lutherans and Reformed acknowledge the third use of the law. The early Lutherans articulated it well in The Formula of Concord, Epitome, Article 6:
“People who truly believe in Christ and are genuinely converted to God have been liberated and set free from the curse and compulsion of the law through Christ, they indeed are not for that reason without the law. Instead, they have been redeemed by the Son of God so that they may practice the law day and night.”
This is a good definition and is compatible with Reformed theology. However, since Reformation times, it is difficult to find a Lutheran theologian who consistently articulates the third use in this way. I recently reviewed the Lutheran classic, The Proper Distinction of Law and Gospel by CFW Walther (1897). I was disappointed the third use of the law was not affirmed and appeared to be repudiated (Thesis 23).
Lutheran theologian David Scaer, Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology at Concordia Theological Seminary, believes Walther’s theses on the law and the gospel do not lend themselves to a developed doctrine of the third use of the law. He also points out that Gerhard Forde rejected the third use of the law as outlined in the Formula of Concord and thought it had no place in Lutheran theology.[6]
It’s noteworthy that Scaer believes this denial of the third use of the law was a significant factor in the decline in American Lutheran theology.
With these Lutheran views, it is not surprising that Bavinck (a contemporary of Walther) wrote:
“Lutherans do speak of a threefold use of the law, not only of a…civil use for the purpose of restraining sin, and of a pedagogical use to arouse the knowledge of sin, but also of a didactic use of the law to be a rule of life for believers. This last use, however, is solely necessary since…believers still continue to be sinners and have to be restrained by the law and led to a continuing knowledge of sin.”[7]
It is unknown which Lutheran theologian Bavinck had in mind (Walther?). However, it needs to be pointed out:
A “third use of the law” defined as merely a version of the first use is neither a confessionally Lutheran or a confessionally Reformed position.
Unfortunately, the non-confessional Lutheran view of the law (pedagogical only) seems to be the popular version on Twitter and social media. It is often passed off as the standard Lutheran view. Reformed Christians would do well by not integrating it with Reformed theology.
Concluding thoughts
It is critical to properly distinguish between the law and the gospel, but it is equally important to properly distinguish and affirm the three uses of God’s law. It is also important to remember that even the holiest people in this life have only a small beginning of obedience, yet they will have a sincere resolution (Heidelberg Catechism, Q. 114). We should never base our justification on our sanctification.
Our obedience is motivated by our gratitude. This is the epitome of the third use of law.
The Reformed view of the Christian life is one of Guilt, Grace, and Gratitude: Guilt (Pedagogical: first use of the law), Grace (Gospel), and Gratitude (the Christian life: third use of the law). When we fail (guilt), the same order always follows. It is the gospel—our union with Christ—that brings us to life and provides us with the fuel and desire to live a life of gratitude.
Anthony Charles lives in Los Angeles, California and recently transitioned from the PCA to the United Reformed Church in America (URCNA). He is married and has two adult sons. His Bachelor’s degree is in Theology from The Master’s University and he is a descendant of the French Huguenots. Tony also hosts the @ReformedTwitt3r account. You can read more about him here. This article is used with permission.[1] Bavinck, H. Reformed Dogmatics: Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation (Vol. 4, p. 453)
[2] Calvin, J. (1997). Institutes of the Christian religion. Institutes 2.7.6
[3] Calvin, J. (1997). Institutes of the Christian religion. Institutes 2.7.10
[4] Calvin, J. (1997). Institutes of the Christian religion. Institutes 2.7.11
[5] Berkhof, L. (1938). Systematic theology (p. 615)
[6] Scaer, David. Walther, the Third Use of the Law, and Contemporary Issues. Concordia Theological Quarterly Volume: 75 Number: 3 in 2011, p. 329.
[7] Bavinck, H. Reformed Dogmatics: Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation (Vol. 4, p. 455)
Related Posts: -
Queering a Tudor Warship
Written by Carl R. Trueman |
Tuesday, August 22, 2023
“Queerness as an interpretative tool” seems to be no more than the blunt assertion that today’s questions are the only ones worth asking and today’s categories the only ones worth applying. Never mind that when the ship sank, the crew drowned and that these artifacts spoke of real human lives that were lost and families that were presumably devastated. It is all about today’s categories such as gender and queerness. Difference need not be respected. Perspectives unsanctioned by modern Western progressivism need not apply.The anti-Western left has been exposed for its sexual imperialism over the last few months. Evidence is all around. American Muslims have led protests against the imposition of LGBTQ policies and curricula in schools, leaving American progressives uncomfortably caught between two pillars of their favored rhetoric of political thought-crime: transphobia and Islamophobia. The Washington Post opined that anti-LGBTQ moves in the Middle East were “echoing” those of the American culture wars—as if Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan had been listed by the Human Rights Campaign as favored vacation destinations until their ruling elites started reading the website of Moms for Liberty.
It is, of course, the nature of imperialism that everything, everywhere, is always to be measured by the imperialists’ standards. And that is also what makes them so impervious to spotting their own imperialism. “Queering the Mary Rose‘s Collection,” an article on the website of the Mary Rose Museum in Portsmouth, England, is a recent example of this. The Mary Rose was a Tudor warship that sank in 1545 and was raised from the seabed in 1982 in a groundbreaking act of marine archaeology. The museum is dedicated to displaying artifacts retrieved from the wreck, some of which are now being analyzed “through a Queer lens.”
The specific examples are an octagonal mirror, nit combs, a gold ring, and Paternosters. Apparently, looking into a mirror can stir strong emotions for both straight and queer people, and for the latter it can generate, for example, feelings of gender dysphoria or euphoria, depending on whether the reflection matches their gender identity. Combs would have been used by the sailors to remove the eggs of hair lice. Today they are reminders of how hairstyles can be the result of imposed gender stereotypes, but also make possible the subverting of these through hairdos that break with social expectations. Rings are a reminder of marriage and, of course, that the Church of England founded by Henry VIII, king during the Mary Rose’s working life, still does not allow gay marriage. Finally, the Paternosters remind us that the crew were “practicing” Christians and that, once again, Henry VIII, via his initiation of the English Reformation, facilitated the civil criminalization of homosexual acts.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Cultivating Truthfulness in Public Life
A clash between a conservative Senator and progressive law professor has served as a Rorschach test for culture warriors, with each side convinced it has coasted to victory on the strength of a few devastating sentences. Professor Khiara Bridges of Berkeley Law and Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) gave the pretense of speaking only for themselves at a July 12 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing ostensibly about abortion policy after Dobbs. Still, the reception of their tête-à-tête shows how our public discourse on the issue of gender theory and transgenderism is bogged down in shallow soundbites, with emotion substituted for argument. Both sides of the debate have vast incentives to stay stuck in the rhetorical mud, but it does our public discourse no favors. And it is a particularly bad strategy for gender theory’s opponents.
Both combatants in the Bridges-Hawley affair have reached the pinnacle of their fields, and serve as fitting captains of warring cultural teams. Both were well-suited to represent their sides, reflecting the deeper phenomenon at play, which is the widening chasm between Americans who cannot believe there is anyone who subscribes to gender theory, and those who cannot believe that anyone cannot believe it. It is a shallow debate for our shallow times.
You could not have picked more perfect figures to distill the argument into a few pointed soundbites. Bridges has made a career off of arguments exactly befitting most Americans’ idea of a Berkeley Law professor. She has made a career off of academic papers whose goals include “defending and rehabilitating the concept of white privilege by identifying poor white people’s race-based advantages,” and advocating a narrow understanding of what constitutes “life” to the point that “protecting fetal ‘life’ is no longer an interest that the state may legitimately pursue.”
Senator Hawley (R-MO) has made his fair share of waves by adopting the Nationalist Conservative mantle (and embracing the NatCons’ industrial-policy-and-trustbusting agenda), cosplaying a defiant revolutionary with raised fist during the January 6th, 2021 riot at the Capitol, and subsequently basking in the martyrdom of cancellation when his publisher dropped his book. (“A direct assault on the First Amendment,” he called it.)
On July 12, Hawley opened his remarks by asking Bridges to clarify what she meant by “people with the capacity for pregnancy” in her previous work.
Of course, he knew exactly what she meant: Female human beings with child-bearing capacities. But he also understood the emotions that gender ideology stirs. The fringe but increasingly popular idea that females can be men, males can be women, and people of both sexes can be any number of non-binary genders, still sounds ridiculous to most Americans. He wanted to hear Bridges repeat it.
Bridges was all too happy to oblige. “Many women, cis women, have the capacity for pregnancy,” she answered. “There are also trans men who are capable of pregnancy, as well as non-binary people who are capable of pregnancy.”
Media, social and mainstream alike, lit up. Conservatives touted the incident as proof that the left is so wrapped up in Orwellian jargon that it has lost its grasp of basic concepts. Progressives applauded Bridges for putting a man they see as a bigot in his place, with simple facts and logic. Within each group’s philosophical framework, they are right.
Another day at the theater. But we have seen this show before—many times, in fact. It is precisely the same as now—Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson saying she does not know what a woman is during her Senate confirmation hearing. It’s the same as Apple rolling out its pregnant man emoji, or the NCAA allowing biological males to compete in women’s sports. It is assuredly not a referendum on anything new—not even close.
For the umpteenth time, some viral moment revolves around whether transgender people are meant to be defined by their biological sex or by the gender with which they identify. That is all. If a biological female is properly understood as a man, then there is no novel inference to say that men can become pregnant and bear children. If a biological female is and can only be a woman, then only women can do so. And if one accepts the former proposition, the language of “people with the capacity for pregnancy” is simply an accurate term, however clunky.
Read More