An interesting short discussion.
I found this post via if i were a bell, i’d ring, and find the arguments used interesting. Not being as conservative as the the post author, I have less policy concerns with Obama than he does, but I find his arguments very interesting.
I’ve been discussing essentials of Christianity, as I see them, and emphasizing the doctrine of the incarnation. In the process I’ve mentioned implementing and expressing doctrines. What do I mean by those two terms? First, I do not regard the expression and the implementation of the doctrine to be part of the essentials. I believe…
Earlier today I posted links to a video by Andy Stanley and a response by Michael Brown. Some people have commented on this issue indicating that it was unfair to “attack” Andy Stanley about his views. (These were not on my blog post or its Facebook link; the controversy is widespread.) I have a few…
Recently Dave Black made a comment regarding the way in which we hold certain correct doctrines (HT: Dave Black Online. I’m just going to quote one sentence here, which was as much as I could quote in a tweet: … sometimes even biblically correct positions can be reduced to a dogmatic narrowness, formalism, and fundamentalism….
Newsweek has an excellent interview with Billy Graham in their online edition. I think his response to the issue of the destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina was excellent. Very often we can only answer “I don’t know” to the “why” questions that people have in times of trouble. Graham provides an example and encouragement as…
… at Make-No-Wave United Methodist Church. For what it’s worth, I think the young pastor was absolutely right to push. May his tribe increase! (HT: John Meunier)
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.