September 2011

The Christocentric Principle in action – The Question of Hell

Rob Bell moved from well-known to notorious with the publication of his book ‘Love wins’. Ironically, it generated more lambaste than love. The thing that got under the skin of the Evangelical church in general was the apparent denial of the reality of an eternal Hell for those who do not know Jesus as saviour.

I have defined the Christocentric Principle as ‘Interpreting the Bible and the world primarily through the lens of Jesus’ Words, Works, and the biblical revelation of His Nature, Character, and Values’
Take the last part of that definition first. Would the biblical revelation of the nature, character, and values of God, as reflected by Jesus, indicate that He desires to eternally punish people in Hell? 
Jesus grieved over Jerusalem when the Jews refused to receive Him (Matthew 23:37-39), He showed compassion for the crowds of lost and helpless people of the land (Matthew 9:36), and He extended grace to the Canaanite woman even though she was not part of the ‘chosen race’ (Matthew 15:21-28). So the answer must be ‘no, God does not desire to punish people eternally in Hell.’
Paul identified God’s love for all people when he instructed the church to intercede for the lost and then wrote; ‘This is good, and pleases God our Saviour, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth’ (1 Timothy 2:3-4).
However, Jesus had a fair amount to say about Hell, and perhaps His most well-known teaching was the story of the rich man and the beggar (Luke 16:19-31). There has been much scholarly discussion about the meaning of the word in this account translated as ‘hell’, but what cannot be escaped is the picture that Jesus paints – separation from God, torment, agony, fire, and so on. What Jesus revealed in His teachings on Hell was that there is indeed an eternal condition of separation from God that is the destiny of some. We can debate the ‘who will go to Hell?” question, but Jesus quite obviously believed and taught the existence of a real Hell, existing in another dimension, where some abide after death.
Application of the Christocentric Principle settles the question “Does Hell exist?” with a clear “Yes it does.” However, application of the same principle leads us to conclude that Hell is not God’s choice for anyone. If it isn’t God’s desire that people go to Hell, then why in fact do some go to Hell? The answer is too complex to develop in a short Blog post like this, but it goes something like this: Adam and Eve chose to separate themselves from God – to be separated from God is to experience all that is not of God (Hell) – many remain separated from God – therefore many are destined to continue to be separated from Him in the life to come (Hell).

Other posts in this series:  
A Divine Endorsement
The Christocentric Principle
The Key Further Revealed
The Key Revealed 
Seeking the Key
Jesus the Interpreter of Scripture

The Christocentric Principle in action – The Question of Hell Read More »

The Christocentric Principle in action – The question of self defence

I used to have a steel putter in a convenient place near my bed as some form of protection in the event of a break in. But then I sold my golf clubs and so was without a suitable means of protection. Was I wrong to want to be able to protect myself and family? Should I rather have relied entirely on God to protect me? Is self-defence an element of good stewardship or an obvious lack of faith?

When one asks this question, the answer one is often given is that Jesus commanded us to turn the other cheek and so it is clear that we should not seek to protect ourselves in any way. The problem is that this response entirely misses the point that Jesus was making. The Good News Bible translates the text in question as, “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But now I tell you: do not take revenge on someone who wrongs you. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, let him slap your left cheek too.” (Matthew 5:38-40).

The issue was retaliation, not self-defence. In any event, slapping a person on the cheek was more an act of insult and provocation than attack.
Jesus did in fact have something to say about self-defence. Luke 22:35-38 records His words to His disciples,’ “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they answered. He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfilment.” The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That is enough,” he replied.’ The essence of what Jesus was saying is, “Times have changed my friends, so now protect yourselves and each other”.

I have read several strained interpretations of this passage, but only the obvious sense makes any real sense. Jesus plainly instructs them to buy swords if they don’t already own one. The context doesn’t allow for metaphoric language and it is just silly to claim that Jesus’ “that is enough” is to tell His disciples to stop talking nonsense. Jesus refers to swords in other contexts where it is clear that He is opposed to aggression and retaliation (Matthew 26:51-52 for instance). However, in the matter of reasonable self-defence I believe that we have our answer by applying the Christocentric Principle.

 

The Christocentric Principle in action – The question of self defence Read More »

The Christocentric Principle in action

Series: Jesus the interpreter of scripture
The Question of Leadership Failure
How is the church supposed to treat leaders who fall from grace?

Over the last several years we have had quite a few dramatic examples of church leadership failure. Because of their public profiles most of us were aware of what happened to the Todd Bentleys of the Christian world. We also know a bit about what happened to them after their fall from grace.

A few years ago a fairly well known pastor in my area was found guilty of marital infidelity, for the second time. He was immediately fired as Pastor and asked to leave the congregation. I heard about what had happened but I had no contact with him until a couple of years later when he phoned me. “May I and my family come and worship at your church on Sunday?” he asked. “Of course”, I responded, “Why ever not. I would love to see you.” The line went silent for a long moment and when he spoke again there was a distinct choke in his voice. “Well last week I tried to attend a service at another church in the area. The pastor met me at the door and asked me to leave.”

This dear man and his family started attending our local church regularly and it wasn’t long before I received a delegation of several ministers in the area who wanted me to jointly sign a letter with them addressed to the ‘sinner’. The aim of the letter was to inform him that he was not welcome in the area and would not, under any circumstances, be allowed to assume any leadership position in any church at any time in the future. What would Jesus have said to these self-righteous men I wonder?

How is the church supposed to treat leaders who fall from grace? Stone them, ban them, or seek to restore them? 
We don’t even need to ask the hypothetical question “what would Jesus do?” He actually had to deal with leadership failure, so we know what he actually did do. Simon Peter was the designated leader of the church even before it was called a church. Peter enjoyed a special position of privilege. He witnessed the transfiguration, arranged the Last Supper, and attended Jesus in Gethsemane. Yet, at the crucial moment, he suffered moral failure and denied Jesus, not once, but three times. The man my fellow pastors wanted to ban for life had failed morally twice; Peter failed three times. The errant pastor betrayed his wife; Peter betrayed his lord. Which was worse do you suppose?

We know how Peter’s story ends. Jesus did not consign him to ignominy and permanent redundancy. Instead He ensured that Peter was repentant and had truly learned his lesson, and then Jesus reinstated him as the leader of the church. Application of the Christocentric Principle must therefore lead us to the conclusion that erring yet repentant church leaders should be confronted, corrected, rehabilitated and then… reinstated. But what does the church usually do to its wounded leaders? … it usually shoots them – metaphorically of course and with ‘I say this in love’ bullets.

In my next few posts I will be giving some examples of how to apply the CP to specific issues.

Other posts in this series:  
A Divine Endorsement
The Christocentric Principle
The Key Further Revealed
The Key Revealed 
Seeking the Key
Jesus the Interpreter of Scripture

The Christocentric Principle in action Read More »

A divine endorsement

Series: Jesus the interpreter of scripture
Sometimes the only way to really understand scripture is to encounter Jesus as you read it
Every alternate Sunday at our little church is an ‘encounter’ service. We are working through a series of twelve Gospel passages which reveal God’s nature and character in and through the Lord Jesus Christ. The idea is to describe the biblical scene in detail and then to invite the congregation to imagine what it would have been like to have been there. Those who want to then get an opportunity to share what Jesus revealed to them during this exercise concerning Himself. Recently the passage was Matthew 17:1-8, the Transfiguration.
What a glorious passage, in every sense of the word! Jesus met with Moses and Elijah. Moses, representing the Law, and Elijah representing the Prophets, confirmed Him and prepared Him for what was soon to take place. Earlier, when Jesus was choosing His disciples, Philip said to his brother Nathanael that, “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote — Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. (John 1:45).” When He preached the Sermon on the Mount Jesus said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them” (Matthew 5:17-18). Then again, after the resurrection, Jesus gave the two disciples on the Emmaus road a Bible study and, ‘beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself (Luke 24:27).
The account of what happened on the slopes of Mount Hermon climaxes with the declaration of God the Father from within the cloud of Shekinah glory, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!” John the Baptist heard words similar to the first part of this wonderful affirmation when he baptized Jesus in the Jordan. Now, however, the three elect disciples hear the crucial additional phrase, “listen to him.”
The Old Testament Law and Prophets affirm Jesus and point us to Him, but the voice of God the Father makes it clear that He, Jesus, is the one to whom we must listen. Years later the writer of the letter to the Hebrews captured this crucial injunction with the phrase, ‘In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son (Hebrews 1:1-2)
The scriptures, and more specifically, the voice of God the Father, confirm the Christocentric Principle. The Bible points us to Jesus and the Holy Spirit reveals Jesus to us through its pages. 
The scriptures record His words, deeds, and the revelation of the nature and character of the Godhead in and through Him. This revelation then becomes our yardstick of truth and our interpretive lens through which we view the Bible and life – the Christocentric Principle (CP).
In my next few posts I will be giving some examples of how to apply the CP to specific issues.

Other posts in this series:  
The Christocentric Principle
The Key Further Revealed
The Key Revealed 
Seeking the Key
Jesus the Interpreter of Scripture

A divine endorsement Read More »

About Me

My name is Christopher Peppler and I was born in Cape Town, South Africa in 1947. While working in the financial sector I achieved a number of business qualifications from the Institute of Bankers, Damelin Management School, and The University of the Witwatersrand Business School. After over 20 years as a banker, I followed God’s calling and joined the ministry full time. After becoming a pastor of what is now a quite considerable church, I  earned an undergraduate theological qualification from the Baptist Theological College of Southern Africa and post-graduate degrees from two United States institutions. I was also awarded the Doctor of Theology in Systematic Theology from the University of Zululand in 2000.

Four years before that I established the South African Theological Seminary (SATS), which today is represented in over 70 countries and has more than 2 500 active students enrolled with it. I presently play an role supervising Masters and Doctoral students.

I am a passionate champion of the Christocentric or Christ-centred Principle, an approach to biblical interpretation and theological construction that emphasises the centrality of Jesus

I have been happily married to Patricia since the age of 20, have two children, Lance and Karen, a daughter-in-law Tracey, and granddaughters Jessica and Kirsten. I have now retired from both church and seminary leadership and devote my time to writing, discipling, and the classical guitar.

If you would like to read my testimony to Jesus then click HERE.