N. T. Wright on Hell
An interesting short discussion.
Similar Posts
What Allegiance Comes First
ByhenryDr. Bob Cornwall posts his sermon today, on Acts 5:27-32, dealing with an issue that is quite controversial in the American church, though I think it should not be: Where is my first allegiance as a Christian? He tells stories of early Christian martyrs and refers to Dietrich Bonhoeffer. He concludes: Peter is asking us…
Sudan Missionary from Pensacola
ByhenryThere was an encouraging story in the Pensacola News Journal titled Big difference in Sudan about Jim Esson who is returning to the Sudan and working on building a medical clinic. This is a very positive form of mission activity. In the comments someone complains that the mission is out of town while there are…
An Evangelist for Evolution
ByhenryThe Rev. Michael Dowd is preaching a surprising message: Evolution is real and science points to the existence of God. (Source: .) Rev. Dowd also joins the growing group who acknowledge that accepting evolution does impact one’s theology in some ways. I find his specific take interesting. One theme that seems to get someone entry…
Responding to TGC on Sex and Power
ByhenryWell, I’m not responding. I found someone who wrote a better response than I could manage. That is J. R. Daniel Kirk. The payoff quote: When Jesus came and showed us what Christian manhood was all about, he did not conquer, but allowed himself to be conquered; he did not pierce, but allowed himself to…
From My Editing Work: What is Stewardship?
ByhenryI’m editing the manuscript for a new Topical Line Drives volume, Stewardship: God’s Way of Recreating the World, by Steve Kindle. It’s currently scheduled for the end of May, but I’m hoping we’ll get it out a bit earlier. Here’s a taste: The apostle Paul revealed to us the key to successful fundraising in his…
Reading the Bible Chronologically
ByhenryA number of bloggers have responded to Marcus Borg’s article at the Huffington Post on reading the New Testament chronologically. Responses include Gaudete Theology, Bill Heroman, and Philip J. Long. I’d suggest reading those responses before reading my few comments. Here are some points that struck me: Borg contends that there is a trajectory of…
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.