N. T. Wright on Hell
An interesting short discussion.
Similar Posts
Gender Roles as Essential
ByhenryPeter Kirk has written an excellent post about the essentials of the Christian faith. I’ll let you go to his blog for the many references he has used in his discussion, and the reason for this post at this moment. My reason for commenting on it is simply that Peter has highlighted a number of…
Science and Genesis: Allister McGrath, John Polkinghorne, N. T. Wright, John Walton, et. al.
ByhenrySome very interesting points. It’s only fair that Herold Weiss, whose book Creation in Scripture I publish, would disagree with some of John Walton’s views, while affirming the broader ideas about how to read an ancient text. (HT: Allan R. Bevere)
Easter Blogging
ByhenryI got home from the sunrise service at my church, and found some really nice easter messages on the RSS feed to the Moderate Christian Blogroll. What the Church Should be DoingEddie Arthur calls attention to a message by the Archbishop of York. Wiping Out the Easter Bunny . . . Jay Vorhees in a…
Why Certain People Tend to Polarize
ByhenryScot McKnight asks why Mark Driscoll, John Piper, and Albert Mohler start a firestorm when they say certain things, while others, such as Tim Keller can believe and say those same things, but don’t get the same heated response. There’s an interesting discussion in the comments, which is worth reading. This whole topic led me…
Is Intelligent Design Religious?
ByhenryDavid Opderbeck has an excellent post on the question of whether intelligent design (ID) is religious and how this relates to our view of natural theology. (HT: Through a Glass Darkly) In the post, he gets into an issue that I have raised before, which is the question of whether we really want to advocate…
Craig Blomberg, Reviewed by Louis Markos, Commented by Mike Licona
Byhenry… or On the Meaning of Words, Particularly Inerrancy There’s a post on First Things titled Ehrman Errant. Now criticizing Ehrman is apparently great sport, and Blomberg has replied to some of the types of criticisms Ehrman presents in a book, which Louis Markos reviews. The reason I mention Mike Licona, a colleague of Markos,…
That is an interesting video/discussion. But that leads me to the question — if God does not really mean literally what He said about His description of hell, we’re in a whole heap of trouble in trying to figure out what really is factual and what is not.
p.s. I would love this guy to be right — I just don’t think he is.
I would make two points. First, I’m not sure exactly what he is saying that hell is, though I have an idea. I would need to hear more to be certain. Second, if what I think he is saying is correct, then I don’t think it’s any more pleasant of an idea than a fiery hell.
But while I have read a great deal of what N. T. Wright has written, I haven’t paid any great attention to his views of hell before this, so I’m not certain.
Yeah, I too was not quite what he was saying as to what hell is. And to be honest, it’s not something that I’m comfortable thinking about so I try not to but it’s real. But I got to say, salvation is — well, to come to salvation, we have to know what we’re being saved from. Jesus died to save us from something and the price He paid was unbelievable. If he’s saying it is something different that what we understand it to be, I would like to see his reasoning. But I have no reason to think it’s other than what Jesus described. Even if the story of Lazarus is a story but not a factual event that Jesus is relaying, it still lines up with the rest of scripture’s description of the unsaved.
oops on my typos! 🙁
Briefly, Wright is well intentioned. Considered in the light of Jesus and the witness of the New Testament, he is wrong.
Once again, N.T. Wright gets it right.
Scripture is vague on hell, with only a few references, each referring to places or conditions that are not clearly identical. It might feel good to proclaim certainty as to whether Wright is correct or not, but such certainty is a condition of the mind. The text offers us no such clarity.
And why should we expect to understand hell any better than we understand the notion of heaven? As Wright has pointed out, scripture gives us little indication that there is a heaven in the sense that it is typically imagined.
If clarity and understanding of these constructs mattered, one would expect that they would have been far more prominent in scripture, with far less left to fantasy. Maybe that’s the point. Except when speaking in the broadest sense, why would we even assume that condition after death is identical from one person to the next, any more than we would assume that the joys and the sufferings of any two human beings must be identical.