The Afterlife

Volume Four—Chapter Ten THE AFTERLIFE

The reader should carefully review chapter 7 of volume 3, Salvation. It contains necessary background for several concepts in this chapter.

#The Rift Between Evangelical Scholars and Evangelical Laity

An important phenomenon began among Orthodox Christians well before the fourth and fifth century councils. Just after the end of the first century AD, Christian theology began to be formulated and propagated by scholars. This scholarly dominance continued through the period of the councils, which were attended only by scholars. It then continued to the time of, during, and after the Reformation. It continues even today. Christian theology has become complex and sophisticated. In fact, it has become difficult for the church laity to fully understand (and believe) their own theology.

I believe most among the Protestant laity retain the spirit or light of Christ (Moroni 7:16-17; D&C 93:2). It provides them with an innate capacity to understand and respond to eternal truths. This has caused some Protestants to resist some of the more complex perversions of the doctrines resulting from scholarly interpretations. A rift has thus developed between evangelical scholars (including the professional clergy) and lay Evangelicals. In some cases the clergy has been able to explain and persuade their members of the truth of some of their manmade doctrines. But in other cases, the laity has remained frankly uninformed and/or dubious.

One example is the Protestant doctrine of the Godhead. Those of us who have interacted with Evangelicals, particularly in the mission fields of the Church, have long observed that lay Evangelicals generally fail to understand or acknowledge the official Godhead doctrine of their churches. The creedal concept of the Godhead, including the Trinity doctrine, is complex. To the spiritually sensitive, it is wholly counter-intuitive. The spiritual intuition of many, if not most, of the world’s Protestants inclines them to believe instead in a loving, concerned, anthropomorphic God who is truly their Father. We have previously discussed that this hardly describes the official God of the Evangelicals.

This same rift occurs with other doctrines, including some pertaining to salvation. We will mention this rift as we review evangelical doctrines. In some cases, this rift has contributed to the proliferation of Protestant denominations.

#The Afterlife

Evangelical view. Blomberg writes: “The Bible describes only two options for all of humanity—heaven or hell. Those who have trusted in Jesus will enjoy eternal bliss with God and Christ in a re-created earth and heaven (Revelation 21-22); those who have rejected the gospel will spend eternity separate from God and all things good (2 Thessalonians 1:9)” (HWD, 170).

Apparently, at death those worthy of heaven will reside with God “in the spirit” until the time of Christ’s second coming. They will then be resurrected and receive a “perfectly glorified body.” Those consigned to hell will apparently also be resurrected. The physical bodies of those in hell likely will differ in some unknown way from the bodies of those in heaven.

Regarding the nature of heaven, Evangelicals generally resist the idea of multiple heavens. Some, however, wonder if there are degrees of reward in heaven. Although salvation (and thus “getting into heaven”) is entirely by God’s grace, some believe there will be different ways for believers to experience salvation based on how godly their lives were. They speak of different crowns, mansions, and varying responsibilities. They posit various capacities to appreciate heavenly bliss.

Evangelicals criticize LDS usage of 1 Corinthians 15:40-42 as evidence for three heavens:

There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the

glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is

raised in incorruption.

They claim that in 1 Corinthians 15:40 (“There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another”), Paul was responding to those who doubted there was a resurrection at all. They suggest it should instead be translated: “There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies, but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another.” They conclude that there is no basis for distinguishing different types of resurrected bodies or different heavenly kingdoms from this passage.

There are some Evangelicals interested in the idea that there will be differing degrees of suffering in hell. They reason that those in hell do not receive God’s grace and must be judged based on their works alone.

Blomberg expresses doubt that heaven will contain different degrees of reward but allows the possibility that there may be gradations of suffering in hell:

I have elsewhere argued . . . that the biblical texts that speak of the different experiences we will all have before God on the judgment day (such as 1 Corinthians 3:10-15) never suggest that such differences are perpetuated for all eternity. Indeed, the whole notion of heaven as a perfect place for people with perfectly glorified resurrected bodies logically precludes such gradation in reward. Historically, the idea of differing levels in heaven was an early Protestant attempt to salvage something of the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory. Luther, however, never accepted it . . .

On the other hand, the idea of degrees of punishment in hell does fit biblical teaching (Luke 12:47-48), and it makes sense logically. After all, the lost will be judged on the basis of works, not by grace, and unsaved people vary greatly in the amount of evil they perpetrate. It is not fair to imagine the Idi Amins and the Adolf Hitlers of this world experiencing the same punishment as the friendly, hardworking non- Christian homeowner down the street. However metaphorical or literal the biblical pictures of hell may be (another matter of debate among Evangelicals), the Bible is clear that if in this life people have heard the true gospel and have consciously rejected it, they will spend an unpleasant eternity apart from God and all his people (HWD, 173-74).

LDS view. In one sense, the evangelical view of the afterlife is correct. Immediately at death the spirits of the righteous and the wicked are judged and relegated to separate states. The spirits of the righteous are received into a state of paradise, or Abraham’s Bosom. They are sealed up to eternal life. But paradise is not the same as heaven. The spirits of the wicked continue their second-estate trial. A deadline is set and constantly looms before them. They must overcome their natural selves, repent of their wicked ways, accept Christ, or remain “filthy still” and be cast into outer darkness. They consequently suffer in a real hell subject to the malice of the devil and his angels (Luke 16:19-31; Alma 40:11-14).

We believe, however, this initial judgment at death (the “partial judgment” as defined by President Joseph F. Smith in his book Gospel Doctrine, 448) is a preliminary judgment. The celestial righteous are sealed up to eternal life in a state of paradise. This includes those judged by the Lord to be celestial even though they had little or no opportunity to hear the Lord’s gospel on earth (D&C 137:5-9). The rest are bound over for further trial in spirit prison or “hell.” During the period between preliminary judgment and final judgment, there is ample opportunity for repentance. The gospel is preached to the ignorant and rebellious spirits in prison, that they may repent and accept Christ (John 5:25-29; 1 Peter 3:18-19; 4:6). If they repent, they have the opportunity to be redeemed from Satan and inherit some degree of glory among the mansions of the Father.

It is interesting to observe the Protestants. Because they lack corroborative revealed information, they struggle to make sense out of the “strait jacket” of a single scriptural source. We admit that our concept of multiple heavens, though alluded to in the Bible (1 Corinthians 15:40-42; 2 Corinthians 12:2; also, most occurrences of “heaven” are actually plural in the originals), is not clearly defined there. The truth about the three degrees of glory derives from modern revelation (D&C 76; 137; 138).

The second estate ends at the moment of our resurrection. In the third estate there are “many mansions” (John 14:2). These mansions are the various levels of salvation, because there are various levels of belief and works among people (D&C 76:99-101). There will be as many degrees of glory among the mansions of the Father as there are degrees of individual behavior among the saved. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught, “If God rewarded every one according to the deeds done in the body the term ‘Heaven’ as intended for the Saints’ eternal home, must include more kingdoms than one” (TPJS, 10-11). These kingdoms are divided into three general kingdoms of glory: celestial, terrestrial, and telestial.

All earthly beings are resurrected, including those mortals later judged unworthy of a kingdom of glory. Satan and his “third part” of the hosts of heaven were cast down to earth during our premortal phase as spirits. They will never be resurrected. The celestial righteous will be resurrected and granted their reward between the Savior’s resurrection and the Lord’s second coming. The terrestrial righteous will be resurrected during the millennial thousand years and be admitted into that kingdom. The telestials

will come forth with telestial bodies at the end of the thousand years. Brother Robinson’s comment on the terrestrial glory is especially pertinent to our present discussion:

The . . . terrestrial kingdom is reserved for the honorable men and women of the earth, the “righteous,” who rejected the fulness of the gospel and the witness of the Holy Spirit during their mortal lives but changed their minds in the spirit prison (D&C 76:71-78). Their lot in eternity is to dwell with Jesus in glory forever, but without enjoying the separate presence of the Father and without enjoying continuing family relationships. From Prof. Blomberg I understand this to be a fair approximation of what Evangelicals expect heaven to be like: one being representing both the Father and the Son, no marriage or other family ties, glory beyond mortal comprehension, but with no chance of becoming literally like Christ. (This means that if the Mormons turn out to be right after all, most Evangelicals will still get just about what they had expected in an afterlife!) The terrestrial kingdom is also for those LDS who knew the “fulness of the gospel” in life but were not “valiant” in their commitment to Christ (D&C 76:79) (HWD, 152).

#Predestination

The Calvinists. The sixteenth-century French reformer, John Calvin, believed God created all things absolutely—that is, out of nothing (ex nihilo). God has absolute foreknowledge of all the outcomes of his creative acts. His foreknowledge is perfect and unimpeachable. So much so that all God foresees is actually predestined to occur by the very act of God’s foreknowledge. In applying this notion to individual salvation, Calvin believed and taught that some are predestined to salvation in heaven and the remainder are not. Because of God’s perfect foreknowledge, each man’s eternal fate is already determined. There is no changing it.

To the Calvinists, the concept of man’s agency is moot. Man does not truly have agency. He cannot resist or change what is already predestined, indeed pre- determined. He may feel he can think, speak, and act as he wishes, but actually every behavioral moment in his life is already pre-determined. His eventual eternal fate is quite unrelated to his “works” or behaviors. Thus, he does not possess the freedom to choose his actions or his eventual fate. All is already settled.

Calvinists are known for their famous theological acronym, T.U.L.I.P. This acronym makes five fundamental, affirmations:

1. Total depravity. Calvinist doctrine emphasizes that part of man that tends toward evil, man’s “natural self.” Humans are corrupt, sinful, and wholly unable to merit salvation.

2. Unconditional election. God has chosen (elected or predestined) those who will be saved. These are God’s “elect.” They will be saved. All of those not so chosen will not be saved in heaven. They are not the “elect.”

3. Limited atonement. Christ died only for the elect. All others have no need of the atonement, as they are doomed to spend eternity in hell.

4. Irresistible grace. Once God’s Spirit begins to draw an elect person, he or she will, of necessity, respond with saving faith. He or she will be saved.

5. Perseverance of the saints: Those who have been truly saved can never lose that salvation. They will “persevere” to the end. This concept, of course, is closely related to “unconditional election” and “irresistible grace.”

The ideas of “unconditional election,” “irresistible grace,” and “perseverance of the saints” have led to the Evangelicals’ notion that those people who “come to Christ” and “confess Christ” on earth reveal themselves as the elect. That is how Evangelicals identify those who are God’s elect. These will inevitably make the necessary spiritual progress to land them in heaven.

These three tenets of T.U.L.I.P. (“unconditional election,” “irresistible grace,” and “perseverance of the saints”) have also led to the negative concept of “cheap grace.” God’s grace is that aspect of his love for humankind that inclines him to extend blessings not really earned. It will be extended to the elect without their having to do much, if anything, to earn it. Not only is it cheap, it is essentially free of charge.

Here we also see the roots of the Evangelicals’ idea that works play little or no role in our salvation. After all, if the drawing power of God’s “unconditional election,” “irresistible grace,” and “perseverance of the saints” is so compelling, then works are of little significance.

The Arminians. Jacob Arminius, a Dutch Reformer who lived after Calvin, rejected all of that. He could not accept the idea of predestination. He rejected all five tenets of T.U.L.I.P. He believed that God’s foreknowledge does not actually interfere with man’s agency. All men maintain their agency, their free will.

The Evangelicals have observed the LDS belief in agency and our rejection of predestination. They suppose they understand just how it is we came to believe as we do. They contend “the LDS are Arminian in their religious philosophy.” While there is truth in this statement, it places the matter in an inappropriate context. We believe in

absolute and inviolable agency. It is an integral part of the restored gospel —not, however, because we espoused the Arminians’ religious philosophy. Our belief in agency does not stem from the insightful Jacob Arminius.

As might be predicted, Blomberg writes: “The nineteenth-century restorationist movement, which heavily influenced Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon, was thoroughly Arminian and roundly rejected Calvinist thought” (HWD, 168). There is no evidence Joseph Smith ever heard of Jacob Arminius or had access to his works. The LDS doctrine of man’s agency is simply a part of the restored, eternal gospel of Jesus Christ. Jacob Arminius came to the right conclusion because of his intuitive responsiveness to eternal truth. It is more accurate to say that Jacob Arminius is LDS in his thinking than that the LDS are Arminian in theirs.

There are elements of Calvinism and Arminianism recognizable among most all Evangelical Protestants today. Calvinism has heavily influenced Presbyterian thought. Originally, it was prevalent among Baptists, though that has changed. The various Reformed Churches (Dutch Reformed, Christian Reformed, Reformed Baptist) are Calvinist. Arminianism played a major role in the Methodist movement founded by John Wesley in the 1700s, in most Baptist denominations today, and in Roman Catholicism.

Today, the intellectual wing of Evangelicalism is predominantly Calvinist, especially in its colleges and publishing houses. For this reason, Evangelicalism is often equated with Calvinism. But at the grassroots level, some elements of Arminianism are often found in American orthodox Christianity. The more liberal Protestants and their evangelistic crusades most often say nothing about predestination. They emphasize responding to Christ in faith as one so chooses.

Though some Protestants are inclined toward Arminian principles, apparently none of them is purely Arminian. Elements of Calvinism are ubiquitous in the Protestant world. Speaking of Protestants as a whole, Owen and Mosser write:

Very few are Arminians in the strictest sense. Almost all who characterize themselves as Arminian would accept the doctrine of total depravity but would modify it slightly. Likewise, many Arminians would accept or modify [only] one or more of the other five points of Calvinism (FRB, 64, n. 143).

Here is another example of the rift between evangelical scholars and laity. The laity tends to reject the illogical and non-spiritually intuitive assertions of Calvinism. Instead, they are inclined toward the more commonsense views of Arminianism.

Blomberg writes:

Many Evangelicals do not find adequate biblical or logical

evidence for “limited atonement,” believing instead that Christ died for the sins of the whole world. Yet they still insist on “perseverance of the saints,” often called “eternal security,” embodied in the slogan “Once saved, always saved.” But virtually all Evangelicals agree that the proper way to harmonize the teaching of Scripture on faith and works is that only God’s grace, received by faith, brings us into a right standing before

God (HWD, 168).

1 For a discussion of the three degrees of glory, see “Three Degrees of Glory” in volume 3, chapter 7, Salvation.

2 See a discussion of agency in volume 1, chapter 13, Agency and Freedom.