hell and tears

“Though Scripture speaks plainly and boldly of Hell’s fury, it never does so without tears” (Carson, How Long O’ Lord, p. 104)

heaven, hell, and the fate of everyone who has ever lived

Where is Osama Bin Laden? Chris Brauns proffers three views and then recommends we turn to Scripture for the answer.

As I see it, here are the different views of where bin Laden is right now:

a) American cultural view: he is certainly (and happily for us) in hell because of his evil acts. This is the dominant view in America—I would be surprised if any American leader suggests that bin Laden is anywhere else but hell.

b) Evangelical view: he is probably (and tragically) in hell because—as far as we know—he never repented of his sins and received new life by trusting in Jesus.

c) Love Wins: he may already be in heaven. Bin Laden has always been a son of God, and when given the stark choice between going to hell or rejoicing at his Father’s party, he may have already chosen the latter. If not today, then maybe tomorrow. If not tomorrow, then whenever he finally wants it. God tends to get what he wants, and so bin Laden will probably give in eventually and go to heaven.

saved from god

From whom are we saved? A response by Chris Brauns:

R.C. Sproul:

. . . I said, “Do you want to know what you are saved from? In a word, you are saved from God.” They just gasped and to this day when I attend that convention people come up to me and say, “I had never thought of that until I heard your message.” It is God who saves people from God because his wrath is stored up against the day of wrath, and he most certainly will demonstrate, as he has demonstrated his love toward us “in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Commentary on Romans, 161, emphasis added).

Sproul references Romans 5:8 in making his point, but John 3:36 also comes to mind:

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him (John 3:36).

love and justice

"If God were not just, there would be no demand for his Son to suffer and die. And if God were not loving, there would be no willingness for his Son to suffer and die. But God is both just and loving. Therefore his love is willing to meet the demands of his justice." ~ John Piper, Fifty Reasons Why Jesus Came to Die

celebrating death

Below is Denny Burk's post on his thoughts regarding reactions to the death of Bin Laden.

1. Romans 13:4, “It does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.” If ever there were a just use of force, this was it. The U.S. government carried out its God-ordained task and has acted as the minister of God bringing His wrath upon one who practiced evil. The U.S. government isn’t God’s only minister of the sword. But tonight was our night, and I am grateful that justice was served.

2. Hebrews 10:31, “It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” Isaiah 33:14, “Who among us can live with the consuming fire? Who among us can live with continual burning?” I shudder to think of what Bin Laden is facing right now. I do not question the justice of it, but I can hardly bear to contemplate the horror of it. If my thinking is defective now, it won’t always be. The day will come when God will command me to rejoice in His justice in the damanation of the wicked (Revelation 18:20). Until then, the horror should serve as a motivation to warn people to flee the wrath to come (1 Thessalonians 1:10; 2 Corinthians 5:18-21).

3. I think Christians are right to contemplate how jubilation (like we see on TV right now) is consistent with Ezekiel 33:11, “I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live.” So I can understand why Christians may be asking, “If God is not delighting in the death of the wicked, then how can we?” I think there is confusion on this point because this verse is easily misunderstood. The second part of the verse is key to understanding its meaning. The text is not trying to say that God never delights in the death of the wicked. Rather, the verse means that God prefers for sinners to repent rather than to perish. If they refuse to repent, God delights in His own justice enough to punish them appropriately (Jeremiah 18:11). We have to be willing to praise God for His justice one way or the other (Revelation 19:1-3).

true repentance

R.C. Sproul:

In true repentance there is no rationalization. There is no attempt to minimize guilt. There is no attempt at self-justification, which is the human tendency (Commentary on Romans, 82).

HT:CB

is inclusivism arrogant

Trevin Wax tackles the arrogance of inclusivism, a view which "maintains the traditional Christian belief that 'Jesus is the only way to God' while denying the necessity of placing personal conscious faith in Christ for salvation. In other words, there is the possibility that other religious paths lead ultimately to God through Christ, even if the adherents never profess faith in Christ."

Here is Wax's argument (and I agree).

Some evangelicals find this view attractive because it softens the exclusive claims of Jesus without completely doing away with them. We can go right on saying “Jesus is the only way” while acknowledging the possibility that people outside the Christian faith may still be saved. It appears more humble and openminded than the traditional view that insists – not only that Jesus is the only way, but also that our response to Christ in this life matters for eternity.

Despite the veneer of humility, I believe the inclusivist position to be more arrogant than traditional exclusivism. Here are three reasons why:

1. If our response to Christ in this life doesn’t matter, then evangelism is merely an attempt to force one’s religious preference upon another.

Let’s say you’re trapped in the middle of a forest that is on fire. The blaze is all around you, and you don’t know how to escape the dense underbrush. Someone comes up to you and says, “There are multiple paths out of the forest, but I really think you should follow me out this one.”

“Why should I follow your path if I can escape the fire any other way?” you ask.

“Because my path is the best,” he says. “If you join me on my path, you’ll find that it’s the best possible way to live.”

“Thanks, but I’m not that concerned with the best path. I just want to escape.”

Transfer this illustration to the inclusivist position and you can see how smug it sounds. Evangelism for the inclusivist isn’t telling people, “Trust Jesus before it’s too late.” Instead, it’s telling people, “It may not matter what you do with Jesus in this life for your eternity, but I still think you should trust Him because He’s the better than all the other religious options.”

It’s one thing to say that Jesus is the only way and to call people to repentance based on that truth. That’s not arrogant; it’s loving. It’s another thing to say that there are multiple ways to God, but that people should still choose Jesus because He’s just better than Buddha, Mohammed, or another religion’s holy person. That’s like trying to force someone to choose your favorite flavor of ice cream.

2. Inclusivism is patronizing to non-Christians.

Evangelicals may feel better about themselves when they adopt inclusivism, but most of my non-Christian friends find it patronizing. That’s why Lisa Miller confronted Rob Bell about this matter. She took umbrage at the thought that her Jewish relatives wound up in heaven through Jesus when they most assuredly did not believe in Christ. She’s right. Inclusivism fails to take into account that our choices and beliefs in this present life really do matter and really do have eternal consequences.

Inclusivism lightens the burdened conscience of the Christian who is not active in fulfilling the Great Commission. It does not soften the offense of the gospel to those who want nothing to do with Christ.

3. Inclusivism isn’t as inclusive as the call to evangelism.

Evangelism takes place because the call of salvation is radically inclusive. We are to call all people everywhere to repentance and faith: people from every tongue, tribe, and nation; people of every color, ethnicity, and background; yes, even people who claim other religious identities.
The truly narrow-minded, prejudiced Christian looks at a Buddhist or a Hindu and stays quiet about Jesus. Their silence says this: Jesus isn’t for you.

On the other hand, the evangelistic Christian recognizes the radically inclusive call to salvation. It is because of the exclusive nature of Christianity that the offer of the gospel is so radically inclusive. Christ calls allpeople everywhere to repentance. Forgiveness in Jesus Christ is available for all… even those outside our faith.

a two handed god

John Calvin comments on 1 Peter 5:5:

We are to imagine that; God has two hands; the one, which like a hammer beats down and breaks in pieces those who raise up themselves; and the other, which raises up the humble who willingly let down themselves, and is like a firm prop to sustain them. Were we really convinced of this, and had it deeply fixed in our minds, who of us would dare by pride to urge war with God?

Taken from Calvin's Commentaries.

HT:JE

doctrine wins

Richard Lints writes:

With all of the furor surrounding Rob Bell’s recent book, Love Wins (HaperOne 2011) it may seem counterintuitive to say that interest in the book (as evidenced by the Time Magazine cover article on it) owes more to the enduring interest in Christian doctrine rather than to the ambiguity of belief so characteristic of Bell’s thesis. The fact that people still care about the doctrinal outlines of the Christian belief in heaven and hell is testimony that at the end of the day, doctrine wins. It does matter what one believes. It matters because doctrine shapes life and deep down most of us know this.

David Brooks, the New York Times OpEd columinist recently wrote, “Many Americans have always admired the style of belief that is spiritual but not doctrinal, pluralistic and not exclusive, which offers tools for serving the greater good but is not marred by intolerant theological judgments. The only problem is that [this view] is not quite true. Vague, uplifting, nondoctrinal religiosity doesn’t actually last. The religions that grow, succor and motivate people to perform heroic acts of service are usually theologically rigorous, arduous in practice and definite in their convictions about what is True and False” (New York Times, April 22, 2011).

When David Brooks, a nominal Jew, understands this, it seems all the more surprising that many evangelicals still seem predisposed to soften the edges of doctrinal conviction in order to be more acceptable to the wider culture. Doctrine wins because Truth matters to life. Would not the “living” nature of Biblical truth be a sufficient reminder of this?


HT:PC

read the book - why?

It's amazing to me that the standard defense of Rob Bell's error is "you cannot critique it/him if you haven't read the book." I think if I wanted to defend Bell I'd steer people away from Love Wins.

Does Bell think only some will be saved and the rest damned? He writes in regard to God condemning some to hell, “Can God do this, or even allow this, and still claim to be a loving God?”

But in another place he writes a somewhat Calvinistic thought, “Will all people be saved, or will God not get what God wants? Does this magnificent, mighty, marvelous God fail in the end?”

Later however he's a little Arminian, “Although God is powerful and mighty, when it comes to the human heart God has to play by the same rules we do. God has to respect our freedom to choose to the very end, even at the risk of the relationship itself.”

What does Bell believe? Well if you've read the book, he believes the first and uses the other two to support his real thinking. In the end, he is as Bertrand Russel who wrote in Why I am not a Christian, "There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ’s moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment.”

Bell is actually quite clear in his error on pages 173-175 where he reveals his true heart - he cannot accept the God of the Bible and uses minor distortions that we bring to the party as his justification:

Millions have been taught that if they don’t believe, if they don’t accept in the right way, that is, the way the person telling them the gospel does, and they were hit by a car and died later that same day, God would have no choice but to punish them forever in conscious torment in hell. God would, in essence, become a fundamentally different being to them in that moment of death, a different being to them forever. A loving heavenly father who will go to extraordinary lengths to have a relationship with them would, in the blink of an eye, become a cruel, mean, vicious tormenter who would ensure that they had no escape from an endless future of agony.

If there was an earthly father who was like that, we would call the authorities.

If there was an actual human dad who was that volatile, we would contact child protection services immediately.

If God can switch gears like that, switch entire modes of being that quickly, that raises a thousand questions about whether being like this could ever be trusted, let alone be good.

Loving one moment, vicious the next.

Kind and compassionate, only to become cruel and relentless in the blink of an eye. Does God become somebody totally different the moment you die? That kind of God is simply devastating. Psychologically crushing. We can’t bear it. No one can.

And that is the secret deep in the heart of many people, especially Christians: they don’t love God. They can’t, because the God they’ve been presented with and taught about can’t be loved. That God is terrifying and traumatizing and unbearable.

Because if something is wrong with your God, if your God is loving one second and cruel the next, if your God will punish people for all of eternity for sins committed in a few short years, no amount of clever marketing or compelling language or good music or great coffee will be able to disguise that one, true, glaring, untenable, unacceptable, awful reality

Sometimes the reason people have a problem accepting “the gospel” is that they sense that the God lurking behind Jesus isn’t safe, loving, or good. It doesn’t make sense, it can’t be reconciled, and so they say no. They don’t want anything to do with Jesus, because they don’t want anything to do with that God.

So Bell reinvents God in his imagine to make Him more agreeable. This is error.

bell continues to fail

In Love Wins, Rob Bell writes:

“No one can resist God’s pursuit forever because God’s love will eventually melt even the hardest hearts”

It is clear that Bell posits this as one of several views through history. On the other hand, he not only does not speak of it as an erroneous view, he words his questions in a way that lead the reader into error. To deny this is disingenuous and I'm saddened by many who do not see that.

Is God our friend, our provider, our protector, our father – or is God the kind of judge who may in the end declare that we deserve to spend forever separated from our Father?
Is God like the characters in a story Jesus would tell, old ladies who keep searching for the lost coin until they find it,
shepherds who don’t rest until that one sheep is back in the fold,
fathers who rush out to greet and embrace their returning son,
or, in the end, will God give up?
Will “all the ends of the earth” come, as God has decided, or only some?
Will all feast as it’s promised in Psalm 22, or only a few?
Will everybody be given a new heart,
or only a limited number of people?
Will God, in the end, settle, saying:
“Well, I tried, I gave it my best shot,
and sometimes you just have to be okay with failure”?
Will God shrug God-size shoulders and say,
“You can’t always get what you want”?
…
Could God say to someone truly humbled, broken, and desperate for reconciliation, “Sorry, too late?”
…
Which is stronger and more powerful, the hardness of the human heart or God’s unrelenting, infinite, expansive love?

Longing that no one will spend eternity in hell is not that same as what Bell is doing here. He confuses and misleads in a way that does damage to God's Word.

on heretics and schismatics

Interesting quotes from Martin Downes on heretics verses schismatics ...

Augustine eventually came to define heretics as those who "in holding false opinions regarding God, do injury to the faith itself," as distinguished from schismatics, who "in wicked separations break off from brotherly charity, although they may believe just what we believe."

Basil's distinction was only slightly different: heretics were "men who were altogether broken off and alienated in matters relating to the actual faith," and schismatics were "men who had separated for some ecclesiastical reasons and questions capable of mutual solution."

Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition, p. 69

Technorati Tags: heresy

more on false teaching

From the New Topical Textbook on false teaching ...

Destructive to faith. 2Ti 2:18.
Hateful to God. Re 2:14,15.
Unprofitable and vain. Tit 3:9; Heb 13:9.
Should be avoided by
- Ministers. 1Ti 1:4; 6:20.
- Saints. Eph 4:14; Col 2:8.
- All men. Jer 23:16; 29:8.
The wicked love. 2Ti 4:3,4.
The wicked given up to believe. 2Th 2:11.
Teachers of
- Not to be countenanced. 2Jo 1:10.
- Should be avoided. Ro 16:17,18.
- Bring reproach on religion. 2Pe 2:2.
- Speak perverse things. Ac 20:30.
- Attract many. 2Pe 2:2.
- Deceive many. Mt 24:5.
- Shall abound in the latter days. 1Ti 4:1.
- Pervert the gospel of Christ. Ga 1:6,7.
- Shall be exposed. 2Ti 3:9.
Teachers of, are described as
- Cruel. Ac 20:29.
- Deceitful. 2Co 11:13.
- Covetous. Tit 1:11; 2Pe 2:3.
- Ungodly. Jdj 1:4,8.
- Proud and ignorant. 1Ti 6:3,4.
- Corrupt and reprobate. 2Ti 3:8.
Try, by Scripture. Isa 8:20; 1Jo 4:1.
Curse on those who teach. Ga 1:8,9.
Punishment on those who teach. Mic 3:6,7; 2Pe 2:1,3.

false teachers

False teachings according to the Zondervan Bible Dictionary:

Scripture repeatedly warns against false teachings, which deny or distort some aspect of the gospel. The origin of such teachings is attributed either to human error or to demonic inspiration.

Examples of false teachings
Rev 2:14-15 See also Mt 5:19; 2Th 2:1-2; 1Ti 4:1-3; Rev 2:20

Qualities of false teachings
They are valueless Mt 15:9 pp Mk 7:7 See also Isa 29:13; Eph 5:6; Col 2:20-23; 1Ti 1:3-7
They are destructive in their nature 2Pe 2:1 See also Mt 7:15; Ac 20:29-30; Tit 1:10-11
They have the capacity to lead people astray Ac 20:30 See also Eph 4:14; 1Ti 6:20-21; Heb 13:9; 2Pe 2:14-15; 1Jn 2:26
They may be popular 2Pe 2:2 See also Mt 24:4-5 pp Mk 13:5-6; 2Ti 4:3; 2Pe 2:18-19; 1Jn 4:1-5
They may be accompanied by miraculous signs Mt 24:24 pp Mk 13:22 See also 2Th 2:9-10; Rev 13:11-15

The origin of false teachings
Demonic inspiration 1Ti 4:1-2 See also 2Co 11:3-4; 1Jn 4:1-3; Rev 16:13-14
Human error 2Pe 2:3 See also Col 2:8; 1Ti 6:20-21

Discerning false teachings
By their content 1Jn 4:2-3 See also 1Co 12:3; 1Jn 2:20-23; 2Jn 7-11
By the teacher’s lifestyle Mt 7:15-20 See also 2Co 11:20; 1Jn 3:7-10; Jude 4
By their effects 1Ti 6:3-5 See also 1Ti 1:3-4; 2Ti 2:16-18; Rev 2:20

The antidote to false teachings
Holding fast to the true gospel 1Jn 2:24 See also Gal 1:6-9; 1Ti 1:18-20; 2Ti 1:13-14
Shunning false teachers Ro 16:17-18 See also 2Ti 3:1-9; Tit 3:9-11; 2Jn 9-11

be warned

"Both our Lord and His apostles told us plainly that we would need to defend the faith against false prophets, vicious wolves in sheep's clothing (Matthew 7:15), minions of Satan disguised as angels of light (2 Corinthians 11:13-14), and corrupters of doctrine who arise within the church (Acts 20:29)." ~ Phil Johnson

Technorati Tags: heresy

forgiveness has meaning

Let's build on a right notion of forgiveness and not on the popular confusing way. First, read and re-read Chris Brauns' Unpacking Forgiveness. Then note that Rob Bell gets this, like many things, wrong. The only out I see is that Bell has is that he has redefined the terms such that we cannot know what he is really saying ... or should I say asking?

"Hell is full of forgiven people God loves, whom Jesus died for." (Bell, Velvet Elvis, page 146).

I agree with Brauns in that this is a very problematic statement. "The idea that someone can be forgiven by God, yet still go to hell, eviscerates forgiveness of any biblical meaning."

Further quoting Brauns referring to Bell;

In Love Wins (188-189), Bell has taken the next step when he argues that on the Cross, Jesus granted unconditional forgiveness apart from repentance or faith on the part of those who crucified Him. "Jesus forgives them all, without their asking for it. Done. Taken care of. Before we could be good enough or right enough, before we could even believe the right things. Forgiveness is unilateral. God isn’t waiting for us to get it together, to clean up, shape up, get up – - God has already done it."

Don't believe it. This is incorrect (Jn 3.36). Bottom line, whatever it is Bell is thinking, saying, suggesting, or asking, it isn't consistent with simple Scripture.

that's my king

I could listen to this over and over again ... That's My King by S.M. Lockridge ...



Do you know Him?

Here's John Piper on the Theology of Resurrection.

He is risen! And O the overflow of that single event. It was the cosmic Yes! from God the Father that the death had done all it was meant to do. And it was the beginning of the eternal existence of the God-Man in a glorious new body in which he would finally reign on the earth forever. And so much more.

There is a whole theology of the resurrection and its achievements in 1 Corinthians 15. Here’s a summary. Let each of these sink in. Savor each one. Then start your new week (the rest of your life) abounding in the work God calls you to “knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.”

1. Christ died for us and rose again.
Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and . . . He was buried, and . . . He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. (1 Corinthians 15:3-4)

2. He verified his resurrection by large public appearances.
After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep. (1 Corinthians 15:6)

3. Because Christ has risen, we are not still in our sins.
If Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. (1 Corinthians 15:17)

4. Because Christ has risen, our afflicted lives are not pitiable.
If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied. (1 Corinthians 15:19)

5. We who trust Christ will be raised from the dead at Christ's second coming.
For as in Adam all [his posterity] die, so also in Christ all will [his posterity] be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming. (1 Corinthians 15:22-23)

6. Christ now reigns invincibly over the universe.
For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death. (1 Corinthians 15:25-26)

7. Our resurrection body will be imperishable, glorious, powerful, and spiritual.
[Our resurrection body] is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. (1 Corinthians 15:42-44)

8. Living or dead, we shall be given new bodies in an instant at Christ's coming.
Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. (1 Corinthians 15:51-52)

9. Death now has no sting and will be swallowed up in victory.
But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, "Death is swallowed up in victory. Death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?" (1 Corinthians 15:54-55)

10. Christ suffered for sin and satisfied the law for us.
The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law; but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Corinthians 15:56-57)

11. Therefore, do huge amounts of Christ-exalting work because none of it is in vain.
Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord. (1 Corinthians 15:58)

he is risen

"We need not wonder that so much importance is attached to our Lord’s resurrection. It is the seal and memorial stone of the great work of redemption, which He came to do. It is the crowning proof that He has paid the debt He undertook to pay on our behalf, won the battle He fought to deliver us from hell, and is accepted as our guarantee and our substitute by our Father in heaven. Had He never come forth from the prison of the grave, how could we ever have been sure that our ransom had been fully paid (1 Corinthians 15:17)? Had He never risen from His conflict with the last enemy, how could we have felt confident that He has overcome death – and him that had the power of death, that is the devil (Hebrews 2:14)? But thanks be unto God, we are not left in doubt. The Lord Jesus really rose again for our justification." ~ J.C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels: Matthew

HT:Erik

third day - thief

critique of the apostle paul

I think this is great ... a satire written by Justin Taylor and Jared Wilson ... I posted it in its entirety here ...

Exclusive: In an exciting example of scholarly cross-collaboration and interdisciplinary research, textual critics and archaeologists have just published a translation of a recently discovered first-century letter, apparently authentic, written to the Apostle Paul himself. Scholars believe it was likely written in the late AD 40s or early 50s. The parchment was remarkably well preserved in a jar buried in a cave on the island of Satiricus. It is surmised that the author of the letter, Parodios, was an elder who had met Paul on one of his missionary journeys.

The translation, published here for the first time, reads as follows:

Parodios, a servant of the Lord Jesus Christ, to our brother Paulos.

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Our church recently received a copy of the letter that you sent to the church of Galatia. We hope you will not mind hearing our humble concerns. In the past we have noticed you are more interested in confronting people rather than conversing with them, but we hope you will receive this letter as an invitation to further dialogue.

First of all, we are uncomfortable with your tone throughout the correspondence. We know it is difficult sometimes to discern tone of voice from written communication, but you should keep this in mind as well. One could gather from your careless use of words that you are losing your temper. You certainly sound angry. This is unbecoming a spokesperson for the faith. As you say yourself, one of the manifest fruit of God’s Spirit is gentleness.

Aren’t you being a hypocrite to preach grace but not show it to our Judaizer brothers? They may not worship as you do or emphasize the same teachings you do, but our Lord has “sheep not of this fold,” and there is certainly room within the broader Way for these brothers. Their methodology may differ from yours, but certainly their hearts are in the right place.

You yourself know that our Lord required personal contact when we have a grievance against another. Have you personally contacted any of these men? Have you sat down to reason with them personally? Have you issued a personal invitation? Some of them may even reconsider their viewpoints if you had taken a different tack. We know that your position is likely that public teaching is open to public criticism, but we can do better than what is expected, can’t we?

In one portion of your letter, you indicate you don’t even know these persons! “Whoever he is,” you write. Our dear Paulos, how can you rightly criticize them when you don’t know them? It’s clear you haven’t even read their material, because you never quote them. We implore you to see that they are plainly within the tradition of Moses and of the Prophets. They understand the context of the covenant in ways you appear deaf to.

Similarly, we find your tone and resorting to harsh language not in keeping with the love of Christ. “Foolish Galatians.” “Let him be accursed.” “Emasculate themselves.” Really? Can you not hear yourself? You think this is Christlike? Does this sound like something our Lord would say? Do you think this flippant, outrageous, personal, vindictive manner of speech speaks well of God’s love or the church? It is clear you are taking this way too personally. Indeed, you ask the Galatians if you are now their enemy. Does everything have to be so black and white to you?

Paulos, what will unbelievers think when they read this letter? Do you think this will commend the gospel to them? This kind of harsh language just makes us look like a bunch of angry people. They see we can’t even love each other, and over what? Circumcision? This is a terrible advertisement for God’s love to an unbelieving world. You have given plenty of people permission now to disregard Jesus, if this is what his mouthpieces sound like.

We hope you will reconsider your approach. We know that you catch much more flies with honey than with vinegar. We are concerned that your ill-worded letter signals a divisiveness that threatens to fracture the church. We beg you to reconsider how important these minor issues are, and how in the future you may speak in ways that better reflect God’s love.

The grace—and the love!—of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brother.

It is unknown whether the Apostle Paul actually received and read this letter, and history has left no record of a response.

But we think we can make at least two observations.

First, Paul’s words to the Galatians were not inappropriate. They were true words, and they were loving words. Even if it runs contrary to our presuppositions and expectations, they were an example of “speaking the truth in love.” These words were inspired by the Holy Spirit, so that to critique Paul and his language is ultimately to critique God himself.

Second, this language was not Paul’s default. He did not respond to every controversy in the same way. He would be appalled if people took this letter to the Galatians and made it the norm for Christian discourse. Christians should seek to guard their tongue, using gracious speech seasoned with salt, delivered in love, and designed for edification (Col. 4:6;Eph. 4:15, 25, 29). But false doctrine and false teachers can infiltrate the church, and when the gospel is at stake, the means of being loving, edifying, salt-flavored, grace-filled may require harsh words in order to protect the flock, the church for whom Christ died.

May God give us much wisdom in how to speak the truth in love, especially when we have to call a spade a spade.