I thought I'd start the week off right after all the trouble from last week and dive right into a few more thoughts I've had concerning hell.
I recently listened to a couple of interviews with Brian McLaren, and a large part of the interviews discussed hell. Essentially McLaren and the emergent reject the idea of hell and our traditional teachings of it, by in large, because it just "isn't fair." The general argument against God sending people who reject Him to hell is this: To punish a finite being for a finite number of sins for an infinent amount of time doesn't seem very loving or just.
But my question to people who reject hell because it doesn't seem fair is, how do you justify Christ's sacrificial death? He was perfect, God incarnate (though this is another thing the emergent don't seem to always accept), sinless, and innocent. How is that fair? God had to send His Son to us and kill Him for us to even have a chance at salvation. Christ laid down His life to save us. How is that fair? If you want to play the "life isn't fair" game, justify that! God poured out all His wrath upon His only Son for a wretched bunch of sinners (ooh that's a naughty word among the emergent as well). He poured an infinent amount of wrath upon the only man to ever live sinlessly and perfectly. Can you imagine the pain, emotionally, Christ experienced upon that cross? He was completely sinless, even after having been tempted in every way we are, and His Father poured His wrath upon Him, His Father withdrew from Him, it's heart breaking to see Christ cry out "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Yet, Christ knew why He was there. He never lost sight of what He was accomplishing on the cross. But what of the Father?
Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed; he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper his hand. (Isaiah 53:10, emphasis mine)
It pleased the Father? What satisfaction could come from the death of His Son? The depth of the answer to this question escapes me. As much as I may understand, I know it goes beyond what I can even begin to comprehend. It doesn't seem fair to kill one for the sins of others yet we accept this. This is the core of Christianity. Christ died to pay the price for our sin. It doesn't make sense that Christ should die so that we may live, but we accept it. It is a teaching that is laid out clearly through out the scriptures. And we accept it.
So why do we reject other teachings that are laid out just as clearly? When the Bible says everlasting punishment, why do we seek out another meaning? Why do we think that surely the choice of words must be a mistake? Are we honestly so arrogant to believe we know what the Bible means better than it's writers? Better than God? Nobody on earth would say yes to that question, but when you reject something that was taught that is what you are saying. You're saying "I know better than Paul, Peter, John, and yes, even Jesus about the character of God."
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. (1 Corinthians 13:12)
Do we truly believe - are we so arrogant to think we can fully know the mind of God? Especially when we are submerged in sin? But if Jesus, who is God, spoke of sin, death, hell, and eternal fire - why do we try to twist His words to fit into our way of thinking? This doesn't speak well of our regard for Scriptures and it certainly doesn't speak well of our overwhelming pride.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
i think alot of this discussion has come out of the mainstream tendency to lead people to Christ by telling them about hell. it's like there's too often an over-emphasis on hell, rather than sharing abundant life. the message boils down to, "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life, or you can burn forever in sulfuric hell. have a nice day." and that rings disingenuous.
as usual, the emphasis goes the other way, perhaps to far, to compensate. i'd rather see the issue balance somewhere in the middle, taking into account God's love and His justice in a way that brings more glory than our tendency-to-judge-others often allows. all that to say, i don't think there's anything heretical going on closer to the middle of all that.
for me, the question starts around the "saved by grace" part: if we're not saved by works, why are we then condemned by them? i've always been bothered by the notion that "just believe" isn't itself a "good work". i understand that it's God's grace working through us to do that "just believe" part and that it's no real push on our part besides giving room for that to happen - but isn't that still something we do, more than something God does? maybe it's not sin that condemns us....... whoops, don't want to sound heretical there.
Obviously there are extremes. Beating people over the head with hell isn't going to do anyone any good, but is ignoring it's existance doing them any good? I would love to see a balance found, indeed I think there is one to be found without compromising God's sovernty or scaring people into a false commitment to Christ.
understand that it's God's grace working through us to do that "just believe" part and that it's no real push on our part besides giving room for that to happen - but isn't that still something we do, more than something God does? maybe it's not sin that condemns us....... whoops, don't want to sound heretical there.
But the question is, can one just believe if God hasn't first reached out to us? Can one come to Christ without Him calling? I don't think they can, other wise we'd be coming under our own strength and in a sense we'd be saving ourselves because we sought it out.
He calls us, He puts the desire in us, and then we respond.
I'm wondering, if it isn't sin that condemns us what is it then?
"lack of relationship" - the parables of Jesus lean towards "I never knew you", with religiousness and sacrifice taking a backseat to real odedience. for all the condemnation talk in the gospels, most of it comes to folks who think they've got all their i's dotted and t's crossed, but who don't know God with a real relationship. that's the direction i'm leaning these days - more than actual acts of transgression, the real transgression is in not knowing, and not wanting to know, the Lord.
Hi you two.
Re:
"But the question is, can one just believe if God hasn't first reached out to us? Can one come to Christ without Him calling? I don't think they can, other wise we'd be coming under our own strength and in a sense we'd be saving ourselves because we sought it out."
Do you see how this question gets more complex and why many of us (I was a Regent Grad, evangelical to the core) are coming to different conclusions?
If you followed the thread of your previous quote, you're only logical outcome would be a strict calvinism --God choosing some and damning others. And that then opens up a whole nutha bag-o-worms.
Have you read Mclaren's "THe Last Word..."? I think you really should try it if not, you might be surprised.
-Leif
Hello there Leifh, thanks for stopping bye!
But what if there is a balance to be found, what if God gives us the choice? What if He really is ominpresent and sees who will accept and who will reject Him? Isn't it then up to Him what will be done with/ to us?
This goes beyond a little bit of sin. This is more than "I was just having some fun, you know living life to the fullest. No regrets, man." Sin at it's core is more than just having a little fun it is an open rebellion against God's intent. Our goverment doesn't stand for open and hostile rebellion, why would God?
I have read half the book, need to read the other half. I'm glad you stopped by.
"Our goverment doesn't stand for open and hostile rebellion, why would God?"
Because God is not our goverment (;
Hallelujah!
Here are some hints from scripture:
"Forgive 7*70"
"But God has made clear his love to us, in that, when we were still sinners, Christ gave his life for us"
"But I tell you, love your enemies"
"If someone strikes you on the one cheek, turn to him the other"
"Forgive them for they know not what they do" (said after some pretty open hostile behavior...)
This gets at the heart of the matter --its an understanding of justice. There are some great books on the subject starting to come out, helping us to see how Christ's radically different understanding of justice got twisted into a message of vengeance. Let me know if you'd like some sources.
Learning with ya,
-Leif
"Our goverment doesn't stand for open and hostile rebellion, why would God?"
Because God is not our goverment (;
Hallelujah!
So you are saying God stands for open and hostile rebellion, that there's nothing holding me back from getting away with doing whatever I want on a spiritual level? Yay! I'm gonna go knock over my local bank and shoot up my neighbors if that's true! ;) (I'm not actually, but surely you must admit that is absurd. God allows sin to go unpunished but we don't?) What about the old tried and true: The wages of sin is death? That sounds like a form of punishment to me.
As far as the Scriptures telling us to forgive each other goes, I'm with you. We should be forgiving each other. But ultimately justice and vengance is God's. That's scriptural. If there was no reprecussion to sin, why would God talk about vengance. And that's His wording, not mine.
And I'd love resources, I'm always up for some reading!
(Sorry for the delay on my response)
Yes and No.
Yes. Look at the cross. Need I say more?
(And besides, though the hermeneutics are tricky, don't forget how Jesus says things like "You have heard an eye for eye, tooth for tooth (ie vengeance), but I tell you..."
No. Of course there are consequences to our sin --natural, human, and in some way from God, for "God disciplines those he loves" (which we are told, is everybody).
But remember, before we get off track, that this wasn't originally a question of whether there were consequences or discipline or 'hell to pay' for our sin....we started off talking about whether our sin could keep us from the love/salvation of God --and that if it could, we were basically saying we are saved by our works.
Thank God, we're not.
we started off talking about whether our sin could keep us from the love/salvation of God --and that if it could, we were basically saying we are saved by our works.
Thank God, we're not.
Jesus said that no man could come to the Father but by Him, right? Right. How can we begin to approach Him without repentance for our sins, without acknowledging the payment for sin is death, without accepting His payment for our sin?
If we reject the cross, how can we expect salvation to be attained? We see this being underlined throughout Scripture. We need a sacrifice to come to God, without it we are lost. It is not our strength that brings us to Him but Christ's.
The Bible speaks of turning from our sin, and asks "for why will ye die, O House of Israel?"
What is the significance of the sacrifice if there is nothing to be saved from? What makes Christ someone worth worshipping if His death accomplished nothing?
What is the significance of the parable of Lazarus and the rich man from Luke 16?
If there wasn't something bad on the other side of death, why would the rich man want to warn his family to repent?
Obviously one could argue that it is an picture to show the stubbornness of man, that even if they were sent a message from the depths of hell they wouldn't turn from their sin. But is that really all there is to it?
What of the judgment of Satan and his followers in Revelation 20:10-15? If we are going to chalk it up to some fun imagery, why not the entire book? Why assume Christ is going to return and defeat Satan?
If we are going to say one thing is imagery, why not both things? They both have been talked about in more places than just Revelation, so if we are going to toss one out we should be tossing both out.
But I truly believe Christ will return, that my salvation rests solely upon His shoulders, and that in the end if He says there is a hell, there will be one.
Post a Comment