This post is by our friend, John Frye, and is a follow-up to his post last week.
LOVE MEANS NEVER SAYING THE WORD “HELL”
“Love means never having to say ‘I’m sorry’ ” is a classic line from the movie Love Story starring Ryan O’Neal and Ali MacGraw. This classic line has taken a theological twist. We now hear from some quarters of evangelicalism, “Love means never saying the word ‘hell’.” Ironically, the universalist-leaning thinkers and writers who are incensed about the misuse of scriptural imagery regarding hell, torment, and punishment coming from God, take three little Johannine words–God is love–and use them as a sieve. These novel “God is Love” proponents pour the whole contents of the Bible through their new found sifter and to their joyful wonder no condemnation, no hell, no judgment, no eternal fire, no rejection of one human being by a loving God makes it through. And they wonder at the misuse of the Bible by others! God is love and only love is the new good news.
A friend of mine remarked that the new defintion of God’s love means unconditional, endless tolerance and affection. Sweet, but so much wishful thinking. Discounting the perichoresis of the Trinity, the hard edge of love that compelled Jesus to voluntarily lay down his life for sinners is considered ‘bad parenting’ by God the Father, even divine child abuse. You can read it in many popular expressions of the new, soft, fireless, judgmental-less love. I think many of these new “God is love” proponents learned their definitions of love from Sesame Street rather than from the biblical text. What I think they mean when they say “God is love” is “God is nice.”
From the Old Testament term for love (‘hb), we cannot escape that, when used of God’s love, we have an encounter with the idea of election, choice. Love is an act of God and when God loves, God chooses and when God chooses, God chooses for a purpose. That is why the metaphor of marriage between Israel and God carries the weight of love. A choice, a commitment, a covenant purpose. The Ancient Near Eastern cognates for love also carry this same idea of choice and are also used of a marital relationship. When God loves, God enters into a purposeful, relational union. The hard edge of love is that it expects response. Yes, conditions are involved. Did I write ‘conditions’? I thought love was unconditional. Nope. In the Old Testament, when God loves, he forgives and he punishes. You won’t learn that on Sesame Street.
Israel fails as a faithful partner to God and Jesus enters history as God’s “beloved” whom God has chosen. These words were declared at Jesus’ baptism. As God’s Elect One, God’s anointed one, Jesus was on a mission. Love for Jesus had a purpose. A very hard purpose.
The New Testament’s combining God’s love (agape) with the “new covenant” (diathekes) ought to give us all a clue that choice and purpose are still driving love. Love is not democratic; it is monarchial. We don’t all get a vote; we are called to surrender. Some people don’t surrender to the love of God made known through the cross of Jesus Christ. Love will then take a hard edge. God does not wink at sin, does not tolerate the rejection of his Son, does not tolerate people living as their own kings when Jesus is King of Kings. Treason, mutiny, rebellion are not loved by God.
When we in our sweet attempts to make God nice read 1 John’s “God is love” without feeling the spikes in the hands and feet of Jesus Christ, we prostitute, we blaspheme the very idea of God’s love. God loves us not because he feels nice toward us but because God wants to radically change us. Love, God’s amazing love, is truly ineffable, yet it requires a choice. Always has, always will.
Hell is the hardest edge of God’s love. You can rant and rave about hell all you want. And I’m totally open to exploring all current ideas about judgment, hell, gehenna, hades, lake of fire and separation from God forever. What we can’t do is turn God’s love into grandma’s lap.
Well done. Thank you. I, too, am glad to explore “all current ideas about hell,” etc. I would love to find some wiggle room around “eternal conscious torment,” but “God is love” is inadequate to the task
What a crappy caricature.
I don’t think anyone has turned God’s love into grandma’s lap. The thought of cleansing after death being a terrible thing is taken very seriously even by those that are true Universalists. George MacDonald was very serious about holiness for that reason as were most others I have read who hold this opinion. I don’t think Rob Bell winks at sin and I don’t see George MacDonald or C.S. Lewis winking at sin, in fact, they seem to call people to live a holy life more than most christians.
The more I read this debate, the more it seems that the Wesleyans seem to have less trouble with at least some chance of salvation after death. Those that hold to a more Calvinistic view seem to have a difficult time with God not choosing you while you are still here on earth. Does it seem that way to anyone else? Wesleyans have been linked to holiness churches which call for a stricter lifestyle than most christians. I don’t see them being soft on sin, they just see the punishment of that sin for a different purpose.
While I can see what you’re driving at, I think I have to agree with Bob, this is a gross caricature of a number of pertinent discussions. Hell, Penal substitution, the God of the Old Testament and yes Love. To force them all through the Sesame Street sieve is not particularly helpful to the conversation, and really just boils it down to derisive name calling… The evangelical tradition is far wider and more diverse than many would have us believe.
I’ve seen anything but people avoiding talking about hell all together. Bell, for instance, wrote a lot about judgment, condemnation, etc. What I’ve seen being questioned, rather, is our theological, rather than scriptural, categories surrounding the questions of hell.
Well done. My church is using The Story from Zondervan and it has been an eye opening experience for many. We are able to see how God was clearly moving towards the day of Jesus birth. We have learned that God’s love is found even in his discipline. When we consider that God waited over 350 years before he exiled the people of Judah, calling them back to him and only after they refused to listen to his prophets did he exile them, partly out of discipline but also out of this love for them. The northern tribes had 208 years to turn around before God brought on their scattering. God is patient but he out of his love cannot let his people continue to disregard his covenant or to continue in ongoing rebellion. Why are we so hesitant to see this? Many may not agree, God has done every thing he can to make his love and expectations clear to a world that he loves. Our problem is that we do not like his ways nor like the terms. He is the Creator, he knows what we were meant to be and we still refuse to allow him to conform us to Christ-likeness.
I don’t think this is a caricature or name calling, I see a fairly apt description of what some people do. Granted, this is not only way people pass the words of scripture through a sieve, but it is one fairly popular way.
A side note, Tom #3 – There are more choices than just Calvinism or Wesleyanism. I know, you didn’t say there aren’t, but because I’m neither I just wanted to remind everyone
I agree that this perfectly describes the tone of many commenters I have seen post here at Jesus Creed. “God is Love” is a statement usually meant to end debate. Like “We know that God didn’t really command an execution of the previous inhabitants of Israel because God is love, and a loving God wouldn’t do that”
Huge sections of scripture (lots of the OT), or huge themes within scripture (Hell) are just brushed off, not through exegesis, but just by claiming that God is love, and since some sections or themes don’t jive with our notion of love, then we know they are false.
I’m not sure how anyone can read this and say that this is not a terrible caricature. I was actually chuckling to myself as I read this post. There may be a few people who fit into this silly definition. But to lump all people who emphasize love over wrath into this Sesame Street camp is laughable.
There is nothing here but straw. No universalist, at least no serious universalist, rests his entire argument on “God is love”. Neither do they deny that sin has consequences, and that these consequences could be described as hell. If you want to refute universalism, you should start by using the actual arguments that universalists make, not the arguments you want them to make.
What I would like to see is someone who believes in ECT square that with John’s statement that God is love. The real question is whether God’s discipline and justice is restorative in nature, aimed at restoring the sinner to fellowship, or merely punitive, a mere balancing of the scales.
Scot, thanks for sharing the post. What I find amusing is that the universalist-leaning crowd lampoon penal substitutionary atonement as “bad parenting” and “divine child abuse” but get all sensitive and their feelings hurt when Sesame Street or ‘grandma’s lap’ is used to caricature their stance. Go figure.
Love, God’s amazing love, is truly ineffable, yet it requires a choice. Always has, always will.
Well said.
There was a vigorous pushback to “Love Wins” and a counter-pushback to that.
On the “Love Wins” side, I have felt the heat of some bloggers and commenters who seem to think that the only reason someone would talk about hell is because they happen to like the idea, that it must be feeding something ugly inside the person.
Ralph Nader wrote “Unsafe at any Speed” not because he wanted the cars to hurt people but because he DIDN’T want the cars to hurt people. There are those who talk about hell, not constantly and not primarily, but they talk about it in due course precisely because they don’t want people to be hurt by it.
I have a very hard time talking about it and I can’t wrap my brain around it. Sometimes I just have to take a step back and take a phenomenological approach to God, to let him be what he is and try to see what he is as best I can.
John, I am not a “universalist-leaning” anything. But I do believe that it is Good News is that God is love.
I’m not sure where the “bad parenting” quote comes from. But I believe the “divine child abuse” quote is from Brian McLaren’s novel, “A New Kind of Christian.” Where else have you heard this used?
Shalom
That second sentence should read, “But I do believe it is Good News that God is love.”
@ 14 Nathanael, try “love wins” for the idea of God becoming a ‘bad parent’ where Bell describes God loving you one moment and scorching you with eternal fire the next. Bell asks what kind of parent would do that? Bell is one of latest novel proponents of “God is love.” Note the word “novel”, i.e., a new kind of ‘God is love’ approach driven purely by a drastic misunderstanding of the biblical theology of love.
By surfacing the concepts of election and choice in the Old Testament’s semantic range for “love,” I am not broaching ‘election/choice’ as misused in classic, deterministic Calvinism.
Judging from the strawman argument in the post and his snarky comment (see #11), it seems that John Frye is spoiling for a fight.
I did read “Love Wins.” And Bell clearly states (as he does in his sermons) that sin carries very real consequences in this life and in the next life. Sure, he questions some of the strongholds of traditional systematic theology. But he certainly does not fit the caricature you created above. He just doesn’t.
The average “man on the street” may instinctively say “God is Love, therefore no hell/judgment” but none of the recent treatments of the subject by thoughtful pastors and theologians have said any such thing.
Moreover, even the average person, when pressed, would probably admit that there are at least some people in the world who deserve punishment in the next life. The death of Osama bin Laden was proof enough of that, occasioning pronouncements of bin Laden’s eternal destiny by people who would probably be horrified to think that they or their loved ones deserved the same punishment.
So, instead of attempting to correct a view that rarely exists in reality, let’s see what we can do to help people understand why we all deserve punishment and why we need God’s love and grace and what we need to do and/or believe in order to fully apprehend that love and grace in this life and the life to come.
@ 17 Jeff, “snarky” is in the eye of the reader. I’ve yet to read one comment about the OT concept of love (‘hb) and its carry-over into the NT. A few commenters are in a huff over the caricatures. What is good for the goose is good for the gander IMO. Tell me what is “straw” about ‘hb.
John Frye (orig post & #11)-
Wow!
But I think your understanding of “love” requires a change to I Cor 13.
Love is patient.
Love is kind.
But the patience and kindness can only lasts so long and then it’s time to start beating the $#!+ out of someone.
Put in me in the group with Bob, Tarun and Nathanael.
@18 Nathanael, you asked where the idea of bad parenting came from. I answered. And please, please, readers and commenters, don’t let *Love Wins* be your source of ‘theology proper’, your only source for a view of God for God’s sake and the sake of humanity. I really liked parts of *Love Wins* and I really question the theological validity of parts.
Isn’t it amazing that when traditonal views of the atonement and the eternal state are wildly misrepresented and caricatured, hey, no big deal? But don’t dare question the novelty and sheer fanciful, wishful thinking of universalism ideas that are erupting. How PC: we need a more ‘compassionate’ view of God.
When I read “straw man” I hear “I just don’t like this.”
Thank, you Nathanael (comment #9). What he said.
And to #20-
So from reading the NT, here’s what I understand about the OT understanding of love.
By the time Jesus preaches the sermon on the mount, “love your neighbor” has apparently been juxtaposed with “hate your enemy.” Jesus fixes that OT understanding of love.
And then in Luke 10 when the question of who’s my neighbor is asked, Jesus answers with “Go do like [the Good Samaritan - an enemy who has the wrong religion]”
Jesus’ concept of love just doesn’t sound very “conditional” to me. I can see, though, how an OT (mis)understanding can appeal to some folks, especially when they want a God who will kick some @$$ for them.
I agree essentially, John. The failure comes from letting scripture say what is says. Somehow discounting that. From Genesis through Revelation there is judgment by God of unrepentant sinners. There is no way to get around that without essentially changing the Story.
I do think the best attempts to read it differently do try to do justice to exegesis, dare I say, better than Rob Bell did in “Love Wins.” But I don’t think they succeed.
Though like you say, let’s keep looking at the biblical text together, working on trying to understand it better.
@ 21 Kenton,
When I as a pastor and theologian read that PSA is divine child abuse and God the Father is a abusive Parent, you bet I will beat the &$@! out of those ideas. BTW, I am thoroughly aware that PSA is not the only metaphor for Jesus’ redemptive work (see Scot McKnight’s *A Community Called Atonement*). I like the way you pull out 1 Cor 13 to push back on my entry. That in itself helps prove the point of my post. Thanks.
I’m reminded of a quote from the movie “Gettysburg”, “Any man who judges by the group is a pea-wit. You take men one at a time.”
Some people are so overwhelmed with the reality of God’s love that they cannot reconcile God’s love with the concept of Hell. As for me, such never was a problem; when I believed in Hell for others I assumed that such was in some way an outworking of God’s love. But after much prayer and study of scripture I’ve come to accept in faith that Jesus really is the savior of all humanity (1 Tim. 4:10), that Jesus really does reconcile all of creation to God (Col.1:20), that the sacrifice of Christ ultimately accomplishes righteousness and life for everyone and is more powerful than the sin of Adam which worked sin and death for everyone (Rom. 5:18), that Jesus will draw all humanity to Himself through judgement and casting down Satan (Jn. 12:31-32). In fact, it was studying scripture concerning the penalty of sin, judgement, and especially Gehenna that freed me to believe that God’s will shall be accomplished, His kingdom shall overrun everthing in creation, and ultimately all shall be reconciled to Him, everything in heaven, on earth, and under the earth! Every knee shall bow in worship and every tongue shall joyfully proclaim allegiance to the one who redeemed us by His blood!
And your comment #26 proves mine.
@ 24 Kenton,
It might be good to put Jesus’ statements within his theological worldview. Everything he said and did, he said and did within a covenant framework with Israel. His cross work was covenant work: “This cup is the New Covenant in my blood…” Love cannot ever be divorced from Covenant realities and responsibilities. Yes, God has in grace acted toward this rebellious planet of human beings. He acted from within himself–no conditions. But once God has acted so graciously and lovingly, his actions call for a human response. Of course, we are called to love our enemies. But to make a leap from ‘loving our enemies’ to the idea of univeralism is at best sheer fancy.
John,
Great stuff, as always!
The frustration with this post is that is misses much of the nuance that accompanied the “bad parent” caricatures.
John W. Frye if part of your claim is that those who are “soft” on hell are avoiding scripture, or at the very least not comprehending scripture accurately you’re not doing yourself any favors by misrepresenting their views – which you are doing.
Bell is attacking a caricature, but he is doing so admittedly. Are there pastors and theologians who hold to PSA in a way that does not sound like a bi-polar angry father? Sure. But the average person sitting in the pew holds a view of God that is better described as an angry parent. I saw it day in and day out when I worked in a church and when I worked with other churches. Yes, “bad parent” is a caricature, but unfortunately it is deeply embedded in the minds of most lay evangelicals, and way too many preachers. More importantly it is the understanding that many people who have rejected the church have of what the church communicates.
The Sesame Street caricature is unfair, and unless you are attacking a commonly held view rather than one you prescribed to authors with whom you disagree this conversation will go nowhere. Yes, there are Christians who don’t like to talk about judgment, don’t want to deal with the texts, and portray a view of God that is not reflective of Scriptures, but the authors to whom you have alluded do not fit into that category. You may not like what they are doing but you haven’t provided any evidence that they don’t talk about hell in a way that seriously deals with scripture, you’ve just dismissed them.
Reading comprehension and generosity goes a long way in furthering dialog and truth.
And I’m on board with all of that as I’m sure most of the fans of Love Wins are (except for how your last sentence dips into snarky caricature once again).
The problem is that you’re missing the point of the new covenant.
They wanted to make Jesus king. In the context Jesus was living in that meant kicking some ass of the Roman occupiers. Jesus whole point was NOT kicking ass. That love of enemy means being slain like a lamb instead of slaying like a lion. And yes,it most certainly demands a response of taking up our own cross and following! But if we go back to the idea of Jesus eventually kicking some ass, then we’re not living in the new covenant, we’re living in the old one. That’s what we’re called to repent from!
May I insert one of my favorite quotes as posters on both sides are trying to prove their points: “But while I’m getting over certainty/Stop helping God across the road like a little old lady” – Bono
Who cares? Seriously, I am not sure I have met a single person on this earth in my lifetime who has changed a single behavior based on a belief or disbelief in hell, other than getting a dunking and saying a prayer.
If faith is all that is required to avoid hell, then hell isn’t a punishment for sin but rather something that is done by God to enforce proper theology. God as a watchblogger, heh.
Sherman@27
As I am sure you are aware, there are answers to each of the Scriptures you quote (which I am sure you already know), but I am glad that you chose to speak to Scripture, which, in the end is all that matters. I have also studied and come to the opposite conclusion (there is a real hell, etc.).
So, help me understand how you handle Rev 20. Specifically, v10 that indicates the “lake of fire” is a place of torment “forever and ever”, and v15 that indicates 1) some are in the “book of life” and some are not; and 2) those who are not are cast into the lake of fire?
Plenty a spanking has been handed out on Grandma’s lap, so maybe try another metaphor! And try being a bit fairer to Bell (not to mention others trying to talk to you) in the process. Critiques might actually start getting somewhere. The strawman has taken a beating.
LOVE MEANS NEVER SAYING THE WORD “HELL”
This statement seems, to me, to completely misunderstand the arguments being made. That argument reduced to its simplest form is:
Christianity is NOT about escaping hell.
The evangelical environment that we exist in has placed hell as the most important part of our theology. We USE Jesus to escape hell instead of worship him for who he is.
John-
I am admittedly one of those “universalist leaning,” evangelical Christians who takes great offense at your poor and lazy caricature of our position. Scot, I’m really disappointed that you posted this here. I’ve never hesitated in referring people to your blog, but this particular post gives me pause not because of the position it espouses, but because of the poor level of scholarship.
I want to start out by responding to your comment (#11) to Scot about caricatures and work my way back towards your post. I take no offense at your grandma and/or Sesame Street comments because they simply don’t apply to a well thought out and biblically based, evangelical universalist position. Instead of getting upset at your comments, I’m instead upset that you have failed to understand a position properly before critiquing it in cyberspace. It grieves me that someone would use vitriolic comments towards fellow believers, but I guess you are utilizing the “hard edge” of love when you do as such.
The whole cosmic child abuse comment towards PST is directed at caricatures of the position and not the position as properly sketched. This means that our response should not be sarcastic comments back or caricaturing other positions in a vengeful, snarky way, but should be a correct dogmatic and biblical sketch of the position that attempts to show how the caricature does not apply.
I would ask you this: where are you gathering your definition of “love” as defined by universalists? Which particular thinkers are you utilizing? Why did you not quote any of them as support for your sketch of their views? Without do so, you have left yourself completely open to accusations of caricaturing a position with no defense.
I am perfectly fine with critiques of the universalist position as long as they are based on accurate or at least semi-accurate readings of the position and the best adherents of the position. What gain is there in critiquing a poor caricature of a position or even the least effective thinker on a position? This does nothing to further the conversation but make the critic feel (unjustly) justified in having “conquered” a position. I sense a certain prideful and chest thumping tone in your post that does not befit Christian scholarship and loving critique. I guess I should expect no less from someone who emphasizes a particular strand of the notion of God’s love.
I’d ask you to read and read fairly, Bell’s book and other evangelical universalist literature such as the work of Robin Parry, Tom Greggs, Nik Ansell, Bradley Jersak, and Thomas Talbott. Please respond particularly to those thinkers and their conception of universalism and love; they do not have the caricatured conception of love you’ve sketched above. Far from it. But to respond to these stronger views of love and (ones that would actually agree with your view of love above) would require more thought and effort.
The position you have attempted to critique above is an amorphous, non-Christian universalism. Not even Rob Bell believes that humanity doesn’t have to respond to be saved and if you’ve read his book as such, you are in the smallest minority of readers I’ve encountered. The problem in Bell’s book would be that he does not account for the Holy Spirit in the work of humanities response (not even in an Arminian way; see Galli’s book God Wins). The other thinkers all have a place for human response and it is a prominent place because of the unique nature of universalism, God’s sovereignty, human response, and some idea of free will.
@22 John- (one further thing)
You realize that by defining straw man as simply “I don’t like this” you are attempting to shut off further conversation and critique of your own position? Is your position invulnerable to criticism and critique with only you being able to offer comment on other positions? This is essentially what you’ve done by posting the above.
This is not the way to have theological conversation on disputed topics. Your position is a straw man and it isn’t because I don’t like it, but it is because it does not paint an accurate picture of the evangelical universalist position of Rob Bell or any other evangelical universalist I know for that matter.
@John Frye – How does ‘hell’ follow from the judgment described in the OT? Israel is judged, but they aren’t banished to hell – In fact, is it off base to say that their banishment is thought of as a chastisement for the sake of repentance? … I think your caricature is more of a quick stereotype, and that you are right to correct those who would embrace God’s love and ignore his judgment. But, you seem to assume that hell is just the ultimate, final form of God’s judgment, the “hard edge” of God’s love. I can’t make that theological jump.
Following on Jeff’s comment #40, Paul seems to suggest in Romans 11 that all Israel will ultimately be saved (how’s that for universalism!). I don’t understand that passage, and it doesn’t seem fair to me, but that’s what’s written….
Morgan (35),
The image of a dragon and hybrid beasts being tormented in a lake of fire is a symbolic vision. It is not intended to be understood literally.
Interestingly, those who take the traditional view of hell usually don’t take the vision literally, or at least not all of it. They will concede that the beasts are symbols, that the lake is a symbol and that the fire is a symbol. But for some reason they take the statement about torment to be a literal description of reality. No, the torment is part of the vision.
Both times that humans are mentioned (20:14-15, 21:7) John is careful to explicitly interpret the lake of fire symbol for us: the lake of fire is the second death. And no, death does not mean being kept alive in torment forever.
I’m always fascinated when traditionalists read straightforward, didactic passages and interpret simple words like “death” and “perish” figuratively, but insist on understanding symbolic visions and parables literally. It’s like everything they normally believe about sound hermeneutics goes out the window when defending a traditional belief.
To those who chastize John over the use of what they deem to be unkind caricatures I hope you were as offended by the thesis offered by Rob Bell. If memory serves me correctly their was not a theological point made by Mr. Bell that did not first require the presence of some sort of caricatured evangelical strawman. From “Ghandi’s in Hell” guy, “Grandma’s creepy, emotionally scarring painting”, “Turn or Burn” protesters, reducing ECT arguement to two sentence web cite proclamations and several other unkind caricatures, Bell himself never accurately portrays or engages with any nuanced or exegetical criticism of his position.
Randy @37 says and asks…I am perfectly fine with critiques of the universalist position as long as they are based on accurate or at least semi-accurate readings of the position and the best adherents of the position. What gain is there in critiquing a poor caricature of a position or even the least effective thinker on a position? ….To those who are uncomfortable with Mr. Bell’s claims, we wholeheartedly concur and would ask for the same level of scholarship.
As to the specifics, let both sides quit the caricature…ignore the fight Rob Bell picks. How inclusive is God’s love? What are the limits of forgiveness? Is forgiveness conditional to my response? Does God Judge? Or have I already “judged” based on my response? Is judgement intrinsicly unloving? To what degree am I responsible for my life, our lives together, my salvation, your salvation? Can I choose by deed or word to be eternally seperated from God? Could that seperation be described in of itself as torment, both eternal and conscious?
No pitchforks, no fire, no torture; just seperation. Freely chosen by me.
Saying “God is love” is equivalent to “Grandma’s lap” is as silly as saying “God’s righteousness” = “a torture chamber”.
Come on, can we attempt even a little nuance here? Yikes.
Now, if you want to say “God’s love is like Grandma’s love”, now we might be getting somewhere. But if you think “Grandma’s love” equals not being called on your misbehavior and your “wrong-trackedness”, then you’ve got a different kind of grandma than I do.
To me the image or metaphor is far less important than the understanding of the overall goal. Personally I think the ultimate intention is reconciliation (in as much as it is potentially possible) and the harmonizing of all that exists. And I am equally frustrated by those who assume God just overlooks bad behavior (as if overlooking it actually deals with it – NOT!) as I am with those who assume the only way to understand consequence and judgment of bad behavior is eternal suffering or destruction.
Morgan @35, you’re welcome and I’d gladly get into a detailed discussion with you and others on this issue. You’re welcome to contact me by email for such. Concerning the LoF, in short, note that:
1. LoF is in the presence of the Lamb and the angels (14:10) (a blast-furnace of the revelation of the atonement and supernatural benevolent provision of God).
2. Brimstone, sulfur, theon, means divine fire,
3. Sulfur was burnt as incense for physical healing and spiritual purification.
4. Hot sulfur springs were widely known for their healing properties.
5. Sulfur was and is used as medicine for many ailments.
6. Note the connection between torment, basinizo, and the purification of metals by fire.
7. Note that in Revelation before the LoF the nations and kings are anti-Christ, following the beast, but after the LoF they are worshipping God.
When I put this together, the LoF to me speaks of the all-consuming, healing, delivering, purifying presence of God especially as revealed in the atonement! I don’t know about you, but it was the revelation of the atonement that burnt the hell out of me.
Also though, I tend to not appeal to Revelation to establish doctrine because it is so metaphorical and can be interpreted from such drastically different perspectives (historical, metaphorical, preterist, and futuristically). I believe if ECT was true, it would have been warned of specifically and repeatedly in scripture, especially in the Law and the Prophets, but as you know it’s not.
Jesus came to set the captives free, to deliver humanity from this present evil age, the kingdom of darkness, to reconcile all of creation to God; and I trust that He will not fail is anything God has given Him to do. I believe He overcomes the kingdom of darkness completely by liberating all oppressed therein.
But I could be wrong, misunderstand scripture, and Jesus could fail to save some; and then my hope and faith in Christ to save others would be misplaced. But the more I study scripture, pray, and fast, the stronger my faith in Christ for the salvation of others becomes. This is really different from what I was raised in. Shoot, we weren’t completely assured of our salvation; but we were very confident of damnation for others not part of our little group.
Sherman-
“Jesus could fail to save some”
Not sure if you meant it that way, but did you mean it would be a failure on Jesus’ part?
Rick @46,
If Jesus came to save everyone, and doesn’t save some, then He failed to save some. Just like a lifeguard that tries to save 10 people but only saves 9, fails to save 1. Of course, if Jesus only came to save some, and only saves some, then He doesn’t fail to save any.
Sherman #47-
Can God fail (at anything)?
Does Jesus ever say He is going to (promises, guarantees to) save everyone?
Like love, or perhaps better put, as love’s fullfillment, salvation isn’t an absolute but rather an offer, an invtation.
Extended to all, accepted by some. In this way Christ neither succeeds or fails. People choose. As perverse as it seems some may choose to love evil and reject God’s offer. It does already seem so among the living.
To Rick, #48 – I think it’s important to consider that we don’t know what Jesus said ;} We know what the gospel writers quoted Jesus as saying, and we should consider Jesus’ quotes in the broader context of the whole gospel in which they were written. Picking Jesus quotes that seem to say what we’re looking for, either for or against our preconeived notions, is problematic … I don’t think Jesus ever gives any excursus on who’s getting thrown into hell; he more or less uses the idea (whether literal or firgurative) of hell to prove his larger points of discipleship. That the actions that we easily dismiss as being inconsequential are actually deserving of ‘gehenna’; Jesus’ ideas of righteousness are more profound than our own.
LOL. So, now Grandma is the ‘bad parent’ who spanks the kids! Good grief. When will this stop? My wife and I are grandparents and we do not spank our grandkids.
Rick,
“Can God fail (at anything)?”
I don’t think so, but I could be wrong.
“Did Jesus ever say He is going to…save everyone?”
Jesus said that He came to save the cosmos, Jn.12:47, which I take to mean everyone and everything. It thus seems that His purpose was to save everyone. Whether He promises of guarantees such, well, that doesn’t play into whether or not that was His purpose. If He came to save everyone, but doesn’t save everyone, then He fails to save everyone. Of course, if He only came to make salvation available to some, then He wouldn’t “fail” even if no one was saved. So, the question is then, did Jesus intend to save everyone or only intend to save some or make salvation available to everyone. If He only makes salvation available, then salvation is dependant upon man, not God; and in regards to salvation man is sovereign, not God.
I believe that Jesus came to save everyone and everything, the whole kosmos, to reconcile all of creation to God, everything in heaven, on earth, and under the earth (pretty much covers everything). I believe that’s why He was born and lived as a man, died on the cross, and rose again – to reconcile all to God. And I believe that He has accomplished, is accomplishing, and will accomplish that goal, so that even Death and Hades are destroyed, overwhelmed by life and ressurection. But I could be wrong and there could be no end to the kingdom of darkness, death, and Hades, this present evil age as Paul calls it.
Yes, I am aware of more Bible-based, theologically-driven views of universalism (though, as has been pointed out, the out-of-context verses used to support universalism can be and have been interpreted within a non-universalism eschatology). The more informed folks generally do not comment on the “Jesus Creed” site. I’ve seen Sherman Nobles’ comments numerous times, but most univeralist-leaning commenters here offer drivel when countering ECT or hell or retributive justice (which BTW I never brought up ECT as something I espouse). I’m interested in the new breed of “God is Love” proponents who try best as they can to eradicate the fiery side of God; they cannot seem to see a connection between ‘God is Love’ and ‘God is Just/Judge’ to save their lives. We cannot have a mean God as they apparently want to define “mean.”
First of all, I don’t see this as a constructive response.
“God loves us not because he feels nice toward us but because God wants to radically change us. Love, God’s amazing love, is truly ineffable, yet it requires a choice. Always has, always will.”
That’s all fine. But it seems to me that in responding to universalist unconditional acceptance you have devalued grace. It seems that you have taken your stance (at least here) out of reaction rather than out of careful reflection. You choose to try and maim the other side rather than thoughtfully engage and challenge them in serious debate. You choose to oversimplify rather than deal with the real issues. We all deserve better than that.
Scot:
As with some other commenters above, I too was surprised you posted this, especially after the thoughtful discussion on Talbott just a couple posts ago. Does John represent your understanding of the universalists’ arguments, or were you just stirring up discussion with this post?
John:
You’ve repeatedly responded to the straw-man accusation by saying that the other side does it too. And perhaps they do. But that doesn’t get you off the hook for your own caricatures. You are responsible for what you write, not what the “other side” does. Having even briefly read some works by universalists such as Talbott, Perry, DeRose, etc., I see no resemblance between their universalism and what you’ve described above. (I’ll stay out of the whole Rob Bell discussion for now.) As a scholar, it behooves you to respond to the best scholarship, rather than caricatures. And if you are intentionally delimiting your comments to a certain sub-category of lazy universalists rather than the best current scholarship, you should be explicit about it up front.
John, I appreciate this post as an attempt to place justice and correction/discipline within the context of love. Yes, God is love, and God paid an awful price for our lack of love. I think of Paul’s amazing words that he was filling up what was lacking in Jesus’ suffering with his own. (Colossians 1:24) We could expend all our efforts in the “pursuit of happiness” & in avoidance of suffering as we try to avoid discipline. We could avoid the discipline of God, parents & community which is for our individual benefit, & to the benefit of our community. I just blogged on the progression of youth –> adult, simple –> wicked, disciplined –> wise in Proverbs, which Paul picks up on in 1 Corinthians. We cannot read 1 Cor. 13 as if it were disconnected from Paul’s direct chastisement of the Corinthians for their divisive, immoral and exclusive behavior. An undisciplined love produces unloving people. Our suffering should lead to greater maturity: perseverance, character and hope that won’t disappoint.
Parenting & pastoring aren’t for the faint of heart, those wanting to be nice all the time, or those short on courage. God, the Father, sees deeper into our darkness than we dare to plumb, and yet loves and redeems us through grace & mercy in Christ Jesus.
FYI, a couple of days ago, I read a PCUSA pastor’s column that he’d received insults & opprobrium rather than “adulation and victory” he’d come to expect in ministry. I couldn’t help but wonder if he was stuck on the triumphal entry to Jerusalem & refused to proceed to the cross. Sad.
@John Frye (#53),
If you are interested in this new breed of “God is love” thinkers, do you mind informing us of who they are? I’ve yet to encounter them in a serious forum. Yes, I’ve seen a wacky website here or there, but have never from a scholarly and serious standpoint encountered someone who denies “God is just” along with the fact that “God is love.” Again, it would behoove you to respond to the strongest proponents of an opposing position; otherwise your time and thought is wasted in refuting a position that no one or no one serious actually adherents to in practice. This does not further the conversation.
I have absolutely no problem with saying that God is just or that he punishes retributively either. It would be the further purposes of God’s justice that I would want to expand, namely in adding that it is also ultimately restorative.
Further, to dismiss all universalist exegesis out of hand with a sweeping statement such as above is again poor scholarship and theological discussion. Rather than make a generalization please do the following: refrain from comment or sketch your exegetical views on specific verses and why you feel as if your exegesis is more correct than the universalistic strand of evangelicalism.
One more thing:it is slightly insulting to some here for you to say that you assume the “more informed” sort of universalists aren’t around at Jesus Creed. What does that mean? That we are too “liberal” to frequent a blog such as this? In fact, this is probably my favorite and most frequented blog. I am an evangelical who would be typified as such by all major evangelical groups except on my beliefs about the nature and purpose of hell and everlasting punishment.
Typically, the test for a strawman argument is to say “have I restated someone’s belief in a way that they would say accurately represents it”? If not, then it is quite likely that you’ve created a strawman.
In the case of this article, Comment #2 sums it up pretty accurately.
Certainly, Steve Chalke’s “divine child abuse” analogy (or Bell’s “Bad Parent” analogy) could be strawmen, as well – but I don’t every recall Jesus teaching we ought to respond to a wrong with a wrong of our own.
And even so, the “divine child abuse” comparison is accurate when a proponent of Penal Substitutionary Atonement does not do a very good job of explaining the view (or tries to go too far by saying that it is the only valid metaphor for the reason Jesus had to die).
In the case of this article, though, I too know of no Christians who believe in Universal Reconciliation (I’m NOT one of them, FYI) in any sort of Sesame Street manner than excuses sin.
Bell (who is not a universalist or a UR proponent) does resort to some generalizations in Love Wins, but even in doing so is pretty accurate to what I have witnessed from those he’s criticizing. If I had a dime for every time I heard “we cannot preach the Gospel if we do not preach hell (as eternal conscious torment)”, I’d be a rich man.
So yes, this article is pretty much just a sad caricature of something nobody believes.
“Can God fail (at anything)?”
Actually, Bell’s answer to this question I believe (and agree with) is “yes” – but it is not a failure that can be blamed on Him, but rather a demonstration of His love in granting free will to mankind.
In the gift of free will, God allows for the possibility of man’s rejection of Him. Because God does not force us to love Him, but gives us the choice, He allows for the possibility that He will not get what He wants – because to do so would not be loving on His part.
Chris #58 and others: I would not be so quick to abandon the “divine child abuse” analogy (although it is admittedly a bit crude).
If someone said that God does not punish sin at all and that to do so would constitute child abuse, I would wholeheartedly disagree. In fact, I would call that child abuse, just as it would be if a human father didn’t discipline his child for doing something that put himself or others at risk.
On the other hand, to punish a child infinitely (or even to extinguish them) for a finite crime seems like it at least merits discussion as to whether the child abuse analogy fits (not to mention whether there is sufficient Scriptural support for it). This is where Rob Bell and Brian McLaren part company with ECT and since ECT is the default evangelical position, I don’t think it is a straw man at all.
Sesame Street Tim here
a flow of thoughts, trying to work things through for myself…
Love= passion
Passion= suffering
Suffering= hell
Hell= Christ meeting us as we murder him without violent
retaliation
Not retaliating while receiving lethal violence= not mamby-pamby-wimpy-shrimpy-grandma’s lap-love
The choice I see= “God who violent sacrifices others” versus the “God who is violently sacrificed”
Or= “radical, redemptive, risky, ultimate suffering love” versus “vindictive, punishing revenge”
Or= “inflict hell upon others” versus “receive hell from others”
I don’t know if this makes me sound like “Sesame Street.” If it does, then I honor John’s challenge and correction. I’m really praying about it. I even looked up the “Sesame Street” lyrics. The lyrics certainly offer young children comfort without threat, a sense of home and safety. For the sake of the team, I will be the one to live the caricature.
Insofar as I do not meet others in hell, then I’m only offering an easy-peasy love. John is right to challenge that! Easy-peasy love is apathetic, avoiding suffering, seeking personal comfort/safety/security. As a Jesus-follower, I am called to be passionate, to demonstrate redemptive, suffering-for-the-healing-of-others love.
Thank you, John, for holding up a mirror so that I might take a good, hard look at myself. All the best! SS Tim
@61 Tim, sounds like you’ve been reading Romans 3
@ 38 and @ 55,
Don’t put any blame on Scot for my post. I am surprised you would try to disparage Scot for my thoughts. Sure, he allowed it on his website, but I wrote it. As far as I know even Scot might not agree with it or parts of it. Why do you want to suppress views other than your own?
Some you need to get out more. Emotionally driven, feel-good about everything and everybody are now the prevailing attributes of “the new kind of” God.
@ 63, John W Frye, rather than assuming that they just want to silence differing view points you might consider that they just weren’t pleased with the level of scholarship, logic, or charity that you put forth. They’ve argued that you used a caricature to fight a caricature and if that is true it the standards on Jesus Creed are usually a bit higher.
John is opining between the horns of a theological dilemma. N Wolterstorff says it brilliantly:
to act out of love is perforce not to treat the recipient as one does because justice requires it; to treat someone as one does because justice requires it is perforce not to be acting out of live.
John says there is a third way. One that is loving and just but too many want to wipe justice away to be loving.
I am thankful for the caricature John has offered to those of who are “hell skeptics”. We need to be honest, fair, gracious, biblical and take the reality of seriously. I, personally, am owning the Sesame Street label to see what it is saying about my faith. I am guilty of preferring comfort to threat. I think it is the better, more healing way to read the Bible. If it makes me look bad, then so be it. Then I count on Jesus even more!
Scot (#65)-
Nope. Sorry. John’s not proposing a 3rd way, he’s reiterating part 2 of the Wolterstorff quote. Now there is a 3rd way out there…
Scot (#65),
I don’t know of any serious evangelical universalist who wants to “wipe justice away,” that is, unless justice is defined as eternal conscious torment, which would seem to beg the question. Who would you say “wipes justice away” for the sake of love? And since we’re talking horns of a dilemma here, what serious evangelical “wipes love away” for the sake of justice? Wolterstorff is a serious thinker, but if his quote here is to be used in this conversation, then I would say that it too is offering a caricature of the debate. Everyone wants both justice and love; they just want an understanding of the two that is mutually compatible, i.e., not internally contradictory.
I think you’re being generous to your friend John here, which I suppose is a good thing to be to a friend. But the post above is not caracteristic of “third way” thinking. It blasts those who don’t hold to the traditional view and does so in a way not recognizable to those who hold the view he purports to be describing.
Scot (#65), would you mind sharing the source of that Wolferstorff quote?
I have to ask a neutral, but sincerely curious, question about our ability to comprehend the concept, “justice.” Our contemporary model is the fallible and finite system in which –ideally– the punishment is comparable to the crime. This may represent for some an egregious theological deficiency on my part, so let me preface by saying I’m at least familiar with the classic arguments. That being said… I still struggle with the seemingly disproportioned idea of eternal punishment placed under the umbrella of ‘divine justice.’ So what am I missing? And maybe similar follow-up question about our ability to comprehend divine “love.”
I think I can see where you’re coming from, D.C. Cramer. Yes, everyone has an explanation for everything, I’m thinking on the scholarly level. I also think I know where Scot is coming from: justice and judgment/wrath are not handled in a way which comports with the full biblical Story. Yes, at the cross justice and mercy met. But there is still the call to repentance, and warning of the judgment to come.
I have to wonder if you, D.C., and John and Scot- aren’t talking a bit past each other.
Perhaps, Ted. Maybe if John’s post focused on the biblical narrative more and on the pot-shots less it would be easier to evaluate the actual argument. But, as far as I can tell, I understand the words John and Scot are using, and I’m responding to what they’re saying. So, while I acknowledge that we could be talking past each other, I would need someone to point out precisely where we are misreading each other. Otherwise, I can only respond to what I understand them to be saying. Any help here, Ted?
I struggle a lot trying to understand this issue of God’s love/mercy/grace and his justice/holiness and wrath. I sure haven’t figured this out, but I tend to lean on the side of love/mercy and grace. Others, because of their experience and temperament might lean more toward the latter. I found this article from the EO perspective fascinating. It’s a lengthly article but worth the read. It discusses this very issue. I can’t speak to how well accepted this is within EO.
http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm
Is anyone familiar with the collection of essays in the book “Nonviolent Atonement”? These essays deal with some of the concerns of the “hell skeptics” like me. I’m wondering if any of the “traditional” folks have read this book and what they think
Tim, are you referring to J. Denny Weaver’s Nonviolent Atonement? Or is there another collection by that same name? As far as I can tell, Weaver isn’t coming at this issue from the perspective of hell as much as from the perspective of Anabaptist nonviolent views of God. But I’m sure the two issues would be related.
D.C., I wish I could enter into this discussion better. I haven’t read enough to do so, sorry to say. I certainly can’t speak for Scot, or John. Nor can I speak for you. You folks are a world apart from where I am in knowledge.
My guess where Scot is coming from is based on his exegetical work, and from that how that carries over into the unfolding of the biblical Story. I think the biggest issue arises over exegetical differences as well as interpretation of passages.
That is where I’d love to hear both sides talk. Rob Bell for all the good he has wrote, is surely not the best one to bring into this discussion, though what he writes especially due to his influence has to be taken seriously. I’d like to see scholars such as you and Scot (with all due respect to John, who is quite learned, but for decades has been a pastor) discuss this on the levels needed.
But a couple issues for sure would be God not acting in judgment, but letting people suffer the consequences of their sin. Hell being remedial and restorative rather than retributive. Etc. I’m not saying you would necessarily disagree with Scot, D.C. I’m just saying I wonder where those who want to leave the traditional understanding on God’s love and justice are landing. And if their exegesis and interpretation can be included as alternative ways of understanding these themes, or seem to be a departure which in the end makes elements in the biblical Story contradict their retelling of the Story.
Richard Beck has provided a very persuasive case for Christian universalism. You will have to read a lot but if you want to openly consider this subject, his blog does loving justice to it (pun intended). See http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2009/12/universalism-summary-defense.html and http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2006/11/why-i-am-universalist-summing-up-and.html
Thank you for the article.
Yes, D.C., that is the book. It deals with PSA so I thought it relatesvto this conversation
Ted, I’m flattered by your comparison of me and Scot. He’s a world renowned scholar, and I’m just a lowly PhD student. As to the issues, the weird thing is, I agree with Scot on most theological issues. As far as I can tell, we both lean Arminian in soteriology, Anabaptist in ethics and political theology (though perhaps I lean a bit stronger in that direction), egalitarian in gender discussions, post-conservative (to use Roger Olson’s term) in our approach to Scripture, etc. On the issue of personal eschatology, my only argument today is that he (or at least John, who Scot seems to be endorsing) is not giving the universalists a fair shake. (Note: I am not advocating universalism myself.) Maybe the liberal universalists of the early 20th century were soft on justice (maybe, though I’d need to see the evidence before making that claim with confidence), but the most scholarly evangelical universalists today are nowhere near denying justice or judgment. John’s post today shows no evidence of any interaction with these universalists, though he makes broad claims to know their arguments and motivations. I believe Scot has recently been reading some universalist writing (based on his Talbott post from a couple days ago and his posts on Parry some time ago), but I’m not sure he’s been able to feel the full thrust of their arguments yet either. Part of this may have to do with the fact that Talbott, DeRose, and some of the other most articulate universalists are analytic philosophers rather than biblical scholars, but having an MA in philosophy of religion, I don’t count that fact against them. I will say that it seems odd to me that apparently unless one believes God punishes someone unceasingly, everlastingly, and consciously, one is “soft” on justice or overemphasizing love. It seems to me that that’s like arguing that unless someone holds to the death penalty, one is soft on crime. I would be happy to discuss the universalist literature and the relative strengths and weaknesses of their arguments with Scot anytime on this blog or elsewhere, as long as I don’t end up getting getting thrown under the bus the way these universalists have. Of course, I don’t think Scot would do that intentionally, but it does seem a temptation for some.
God’s love is not a wishy-washy glob of feeling. God’s love is the strongest force in our world, and it’s power is greater than all the deception, the loss, the death, and the destruction that the kingdom of evil has enslaved our world with. Christ’s death on the cross was the ultimate expression of God’s love as His Son was willing to let go of Him in order to demolish the wall Satan had inserted between God and the human race.
To think that God’s love is not great enough to achieve His stated will that all people will be saved smacks of unbelief. Why are some Christians so determined that some of their fellow human beings will spend eternity tormented in hell? Why aren’t we praying with our whole hearts that God’s love will prevail and that our fellow human beings will be saved from the grasp of the kingdom of evil?
God’s love is strong and it purifies us. As we learn the power of His love in our prayer closets, we will be able to manifest that love to the world. God’s love will not fail and it will prevail.
This discussion seems a clear example of what tends (perhaps inevitably) to happen when we cannot separate what is happening in the church at large from what is happening in more academic/theological discussions. Perhaps John himself created this confusion. But he is dead-on right about the “grandma’s lap” view of God’s love among regular church members (i.e. those who would not read “Love Wins” or anything more sophisticated). Among those who read such literature we have the more nuanced, alert readings that generate the kinds of criticisms in many of the comments (which may well be correct). But I suggest those miss the point I felt John was trying to make about the prevalence of God as “grandma’s lap” love in the church.
Why are some Christians so determined that some of their fellow human beings will spend eternity tormented in hell?
Because they sincerely believe that the Bible actually teaches such a thing. And they will likely continue to believe such a thing until they are shown that their interpretations of the relevant passages are mistaken.
I don’t believe that philosophical inferences based on what you think the love of God requires will do the trick.
ISTM that Ted #76 and Lee #82 hit on what seems, from my POV, the nexus of why John & DC may be talking past one another. John has spent years listening to the theology of the people, those on the street, those who we are called to disciple. Those are far different voices than the academic voices of theologians debating universalism, eternal hell, Calvinism or Arminian theology.
One of the reasons I appreciate Scot’s work and this blog is that he seems to bridge the chasm well between academy and people. My experiences as a hospice & hospital chaplain are similar to what John writes of. God is expected to be “nice”, not just, because being just wouldn’t be “loving” (as they understand love). I cannot count the times where I’ve had to question carefully & thoughtfully to help people facing death unravel why they had such deep misunderstanding, fear and false “faith” — I’m speaking of people who were life-long church attenders, elders, deacons and escapees from church politics or abusers. John writes as if he were a pastor who helped his congregation(s) face hard questions of love, justice, truth, grace & mercy beyond the appearances of churchiness. I met few people at the end of life who experienced that kind of pastoring; although, I’d also guess they didn’t need a hospice chaplain because their pastors would still be pastoring the patient & family, then!
DC, academic discussions may bring light to a few, but if that pursuit means we can’t listen deeply to people God wants to reach before they die, for their sake & their families’ & loved ones’ sakes, there’s no Love to hold onto in us. This is Who chaplains & pastors find themselves to be in others’ dying moments – the present assurance of God’s eternal Love, Justice, & yes, Mercy.
Why are some Christians so determined that some of their fellow human beings will spend eternity tormented in hell?
This is an example of what I was trying to get at in #13 with my analogy to “Unsafe at any Speed.” A belief that hell exists is not an implication of desire for people to go there.
I don’t know why you’ve written this, John, if you didn’t want feedback. You can say you wanted it, but you’ve responded so defensively to everyone, it would be hard to believe you. I recommend cooling down and rewriting your thoughts clearly, and then maybe disabling comments.
Also, about this, from number 63: “Some you need to get out more. Emotionally driven, feel-good about everything and everybody are now the prevailing attributes of “the new kind of” God.” You sound like a paranoid housewife who has been listening to her uneducated pastor. Really?
From a scholarly perspective, I lastly recommend differentiating between thinking theologically and biblically. While people can do this in the same strand, not everyone thinks they should. The idea of “God is love” can be a very theological framework in which to understand everything else, even the Bible. This might not be so bad.
D.C. Cramer, Well, I see you as a young, upcoming Scot McKnight. Haha. No actually yourself, but that’s good, the same kind of thinker as Scot in your own unique mold. Anyhow I’ve much appreciated your blog. And I see a post may carry this discussion further on today. Too bad I’ll be absent most of the day from the Internet, though will try to sneak a peak here and there.
Thanks to everyone for the comments. I’ve been helped by the conversation especially by those who have pushed back the hardest. I have read many snarky comments belittling traditional views of hell, etc. and wrote the post in response. Since Scot so graciously allows varied viewpoints on ‘Jesus Creed’ I asked if he’d post it. He did. Admittedly, it is not an entry for a theological journal and I feel bad that some of you thought it should be a treatise on hell and universalism. Admittedly, I used some imagery to spark conversation because I see so many unthinking people wanting so badly to erase judgment, punishment for sin, and wrath. As I mentioned I am well aware of thoughtful, theologically nuanced universalism and I do not have those proponents in mind. I have in mind those who want a “feel good afterlife” and will grasp at any published malarky to support their need.
As some commenters made evident, ordinary people who don’t exegete the text and don’t read theological books (by anyone), who don’t swim in the academic world are believing and saying things about how good God is and how happy they are to learn the OT God had been replaced by the NT Jesus. Sweet, God is Love Jesus. I see and listen to these folks and I wonder, “My God! What kind of mush are we creating that is literally putting people’s eternal futures in jeopardy. So I wrote my thoughts. The Jesus Creed website is not ‘The Evangelical Quarterly.’ Sorry.
Is “Love Story” about Al and Tipper?
i think love has two hands, mercy on the one hand and justice on the other. justice does not feel “nice” but love without justice would be enabling. and love without mercy would be severe. balance.
Ann (#84),
I appreciate your perspective and concern to keep things practical for the common believer. I happen to be a licensed minister along with working toward an academic degree. (I received an MDiv at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and have served in a church for the last three years.) I don’t think creating a sharp dichotomy between the academy and the church is helpful for either, so my goal is to encourage clear thinking in both spheres, and when necessary, to make it accessible to those without a certain amount of training. Since both Scot and John have PhDs in theological fields, I felt it was OK to speak with them on a certain level. My conversation would sound different with someone in my church. But there is a difference between presenting an idea simply and accessibly and presenting a caricature. Despite protests to the contrary, I still think this particular post is an instance of the latter.
Thanks, Randy Boswell, for your comment at #38. You make excellent points!
I read Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins, and see nothing to fear there in regards to him being “heretical” or any other “negative” thing. I also read Robin Parry’s book (pseudonym…Gregory MacDonald), The Evangelical Universalist, and see much of value there as well. So I guess you could say I have “universalist leanings” but they are CHRISTIAN universalist leanings. I am a “hopeful” Christian universalist…I HOPE that all will be saved through Jesus. I cannot know that will happen and things that Jesus said seems to indicate that some will not be saved. There appear to be people that simply revel in evil and it’s hard to imagine that they would sit at the same table with Jesus.
DC, thanks for your response. It’s interesting that some of us didn’t read John’s words as you did. Perhaps I’ve met enough “characters” who match John’s analogies, that “caricature” is inaccurate!
John & you both brought up good points in your back & forth, although it was clearly uncomfortable at times. The best take-away that I see for future posts/discussions would be to understand who the audience is, the intent of the post, and who the subjects are. I worked & served in reconciliation ministry for years, and as a mediator our goal was to get beyond the surface argument to find the core “interests” all the flames & fury were protecting.
I think we know, now, who was protecting whom, or what “interest”. Protection of an interest isn’t necessarily a “bad” thing, but it helps to be aware of what is driving us.
(and whatever that driving force is, it needs to be subject to Christ in our interactions w/others over it!)
May you know God’s grace & blessings in your ministry & studies, DC.
Thank you, John, for highlighting how poor theology has real-life implications which I’ve also faced with patients & families.
Ann,
Thanks for your feedback and assessment of the discussion. I still think one would be hard-pressed to find a believer, even those soft, uneducated universalists out there, who when asked their view of God would respond: “I like to think of God in terms of Sesame Street.” Or, “When I think of God, the picture that comes to mind is my grandma’s lap.” So, I would be happy to conceded that there are many people who have a deficient view of God, and that John may even have a good bead on these people as a long-time pastor. I would just object to some of the language he used to describe them, which seemed to generate more heat than light.
“I would just object to some of the language he used to describe them, which seemed to generate more heat than light.”
Good point, D C Cramer.