Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Re-examining Hell?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re-examining Hell?

    Brian McLauren’s 5 proposals for reexamining hell.
    Think we can stick to the message and leave the messenger alone?

    First, I’d suspend the common assumption that every time the word judgment occurs in the Bible, it means “going to hell after you die,” or every time the word save occurs, it means “going to heaven after you die.”

    Second, I’d encourage people who say, “Well, what about Matthew 25:41?” or some other specific passage to also pay attention to the reasons those passages give for people experiencing those negative consequences. Jesus never says, “If you don’t believe in a particular theory of atonement . . .” or “If you don’t accept me as your personal Savior by saying the sinner’s prayer . . .” then you’ll experience the lake of fire. That’s not what he says.
    Third, we need to re-sensitize ourselves to Jesus’ use of figurative language. We act as if “metaphorical” were a small thing, and concrete/literal were a big thing, but that’s the reverse of what I see in Jesus’ teaching. I think about John 6, for example, where Jesus talks about people eating his flesh and drinking his blood, and then says his flesh and blood are real food and drink. They take his statements non-metaphorically and concretely, and they miss the point.
    Fourth, we should consider the possibility that many, and perhaps even all of Jesus’ hell-fire or end-of-the-universe statements refer not to postmortem judgment but to the very historic consequences of rejecting his kingdom message of reconciliation and peacemaking. The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 67-70 seems to many people to fulfill much of what we have traditionally understood as hell.
    Finally, I think we can leave some theoretical questions unanswered because what we need to know is very clear: God is love. God is gracious. God is just. God is holy. And these things are never in tension, but are always perfectly integrated. God’s love and mercy are always just and holy. God’s justice and holiness are always loving and merciful. God shows his perfect integration of love and justice through sending his Son to live and die as one of us. We see God’s love and justice perfectly expressed as the Word-made-flesh spreads out his arms on the cross to offer himself as the perfect sacrifice for all sin, once and for all, saying, not “Father, repay them for their evil deed,” but “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
    http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ou...clarens_1.html

  • #2
    Brian McLaren... Nope.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by mikebr View Post
      Brian McLauren’s 5 proposals for reexamining hell.
      Think we can stick to the message and leave the messenger alone?












      http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ou...clarens_1.html


      The problem is McLaren oversimplifies each interpretation. You have to remember that he is bringing a radical hermeneutic to the Scripture - essentially, it's based on the 'gut reading' or placing the Scripture within our own context. We learn what Scripture means for today rather than what it meant at that time.

      Though Jesus' discussion of Hell as a place of brimstone and fire might be metaphorical, what isn't metaphorical is the idea of a place of separation postmortem does exist. The concept of Hell is found more in His parables than in His actual direct teaching. Often He uses the term "weeping and gnashing of teeth" in order to emphasize that those who are not ready or do not ascribe to a certain belief will, in fact, be tormented for eternity.

      Hell, thus, is an actual place where people go because they didn't commit their lives to Christ (they were unprepared). This involves both theological systems (of the essential kind) and committing one's life.

      Comment


      • #4
        Think we can stick to the message and leave the messenger alone?
        Guess not! I'm amazed. Can't we just one time look at the proposals without who they came from. I posted this without his name and it was deleted.


        .........suspend the common assumption that every time the word judgment occurs in the Bible, it means “going to hell after you die,” or every time the word save occurs, it means “going to heaven after you die.”

        Can you comment about this without mentioning McLauren?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by mikebr View Post
          Guess not! I'm amazed. Can't we just one time look at the proposals without who they came from. I posted this without his name and it was deleted.


          .........suspend the common assumption that every time the word judgment occurs in the Bible, it means “going to hell after you die,” or every time the word save occurs, it means “going to heaven after you die.”

          Can you comment about this without mentioning McLauren?
          I have no idea who McLauren is, but I still reject his suggestions.
          ----------------------------------------------
          When the plain sense of Scripture make sense, seek no other sense.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by mikebr View Post
            Guess not! I'm amazed. Can't we just one time look at the proposals without who they came from. I posted this without his name and it was deleted.


            .........suspend the common assumption that every time the word judgment occurs in the Bible, it means “going to hell after you die,” or every time the word save occurs, it means “going to heaven after you die.”

            Can you comment about this without mentioning McLauren?
            No. McLaren is the one who made the comment so we have to look at what his interpretation method to understand why it's flawed.

            Regardless, I offered up a reply on why he's wrong - or why the arguments are wron.

            Comment


            • #7
              Hey, McLaren said we should take a five year moratorium on the issue of homosexuality. In a more serious setting I'd take the time to examine his thoughts. For now there's apothanein who does a splendid job of this.

              But if you mention the name McLaren, it's almost not worth the effort... That'll come and bite me in the arse.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Literalist-Luke View Post
                I have no idea who McLauren is, but I still reject his suggestions.

                Why.......................?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by apothanein kerdos View Post
                  The problem is McLaren oversimplifies each interpretation. You have to remember that he is bringing a radical hermeneutic to the Scripture - essentially, it's based on the 'gut reading' or placing the Scripture within our own context. We learn what Scripture means for today rather than what it meant at that time.

                  Though Jesus' discussion of Hell as a place of brimstone and fire might be metaphorical, what isn't metaphorical is the idea of a place of separation postmortem does exist. The concept of Hell is found more in His parables than in His actual direct teaching. Often He uses the term "weeping and gnashing of teeth" in order to emphasize that those who are not ready or do not ascribe to a certain belief will, in fact, be tormented for eternity.

                  Hell, thus, is an actual place where people go because they didn't commit their lives to Christ (they were unprepared). This involves both theological systems (of the essential kind) and committing one's life.

                  So Hell exists. What in the name of Santa Clause Jones does that have to do with the truth or error of his statements?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Xel'Naga View Post
                    Hey, McLaren said we should take a five year moratorium on the issue of homosexuality. In a more serious setting I'd take the time to examine his thoughts. For now there's apothanein who does a splendid job of this.

                    But if you mention the name McLaren, it's almost not worth the effort... That'll come and bite me in the arse.

                    Apothanein did nothing. McLauren didn't say lets re-examine the existence of Hell only what scripture says about it.

                    If its not possible to discuss the comments without discussing McLauren the why are you posting on a thread where you were specifically asked not to.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by apothanein kerdos View Post
                      No. McLaren is the one who made the comment so we have to look at what his interpretation method to understand why it's flawed.

                      Regardless, I offered up a reply on why he's wrong - or why the arguments are wron.

                      What is his interpretation method and what does it have to do with what is said here?

                      Fourth, we should consider the possibility that many, and perhaps even all of Jesus’ hell-fire or end-of-the-universe statements refer not to postmortem judgment but to the very historic consequences of rejecting his kingdom message of reconciliation and peacemaking. The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 67-70 seems to many people to fulfill much of what we have traditionally understood as hell.

                      Can you prove biblically that Jesus' comments were talking about a future fiery existence?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        So Hell exists. What in the name of Santa Clause Jones does that have to do with the truth or error of his statements?
                        You're misunderstanding McLaren - it's better to understand your source before trying to use it or defend it.

                        When McLaren refers to Hell as a metaphor or a figure of speech, he is stating that it probably doesn't exist. This is seen in his point #4:

                        Fourth, we should consider the possibility that many, and perhaps even all of Jesus’ hell-fire or end-of-the-universe statements refer not to postmortem judgment but to the very historic consequences of rejecting his kingdom message of reconciliation and peacemaking. The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 67-70 seems to many people to fulfill much of what we have traditionally understood as hell.

                        In other words, he's theorizing that Hell is most likely something that occurs on earth and doesn't occur in the afterlife.

                        I was stating that Biblically, this is impossible. Hell is most assuredly real as Christ goes to great lengths to describe it and even offers a parable (Rich man and Lazarus) that shows there is postmortem torture.

                        What is his interpretation method and what does it have to do with what is said here?

                        Fourth, we should consider the possibility that many, and perhaps even all of Jesus’ hell-fire or end-of-the-universe statements refer not to postmortem judgment but to the very historic consequences of rejecting his kingdom message of reconciliation and peacemaking. The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 67-70 seems to many people to fulfill much of what we have traditionally understood as hell.

                        Can you prove biblically that Jesus' comments were talking about a future fiery existence?
                        I can't prove that Christ is saying that Hell is literally fire and brimstone - it is very possible this is figurative language. I can prove (as I did in my previous paragraph by pointing to the parable of the rich man and Lazarus) that Hell is most certainly postmortem. It isn't something that takes place on earth, but instead takes place after our souls leave the body. Likewise, though Revelation is figurative and metaphorical, even the Lake of Fire gives the indication that this occurs after death. The soul is judged, re-embodied, then cast into the lake of Fire (whether it is a literal lake or not we do not know, but we do know it exists).

                        As for how McLaren's interpretative method skews his view on this subject matter: As I said, he attempts to read our modern context into Scripture. Since Hell is a taboo subject in the modern American psyche, he finds it easier to explain away hell as something we endure on earth by neglecting the commandments of God rather than dealing with hell for what it is. That's how his interpretative method fails in successfully interpreting the Bible.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by mikebr View Post
                          Apothanein did nothing. McLauren didn't say lets re-examine the existence of Hell only what scripture says about it.

                          If its not possible to discuss the comments without discussing McLauren the why are you posting on a thread where you were specifically asked not to.
                          If you're re-examining what 'scripture says about Hell', then you are re-examining Hell. In regards to Apothanein, I don't understand how you're missing what he's been saying

                          Let's put it this way. You can discuss Hell two ways. You can discuss Hell, or you can discuss those parts of the biblical text which address Hell. In the same way we can examine McLaren's 'proposals', or we can examine where exactly McLaren is coming from such that he's made these proposals. The former in both cases is much more superficial than the latter, which necessarily involves deeper reflection.

                          His name is McLaren by the way, not McLauren.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            If all McLaren meant was that we need to re-examine if Hell is literally fire and brimstone, or if those are allusions to something more sinister, then I'd have no problem. Personally, I'm on the fence on whether or not Hell is literally fire and brimstone (some of the men I look up to in theology believe it is, some of them don't). However, in all of this I still believe Hell is a real place, we just may not know what it is exactly like.

                            McLaren, however, is proposing the idea that Hell may be figurative period (in contrast to his friend Tony Campolo who believe Hell does actually exist in order to execute the justice of God).

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by apothanein kerdos View Post
                              You're misunderstanding McLaren - it's better to understand your source before trying to use it or defend it.

                              When McLaren refers to Hell as a metaphor or a figure of speech, he is stating that it probably doesn't exist. This is seen in his point #4:

                              Fourth, we should consider the possibility that many, and perhaps even all of Jesus’ hell-fire or end-of-the-universe statements refer not to postmortem judgment but to the very historic consequences of rejecting his kingdom message of reconciliation and peacemaking. The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 67-70 seems to many people to fulfill much of what we have traditionally understood as hell.

                              In other words, he's theorizing that Hell is most likely something that occurs on earth and doesn't occur in the afterlife.

                              I was stating that Biblically, this is impossible. Hell is most assuredly real as Christ goes to great lengths to describe it and even offers a parable (Rich man and Lazarus) that shows there is postmortem torture.



                              I can't prove that Christ is saying that Hell is literally fire and brimstone - it is very possible this is figurative language. I can prove (as I did in my previous paragraph by pointing to the parable of the rich man and Lazarus) that Hell is most certainly postmortem. It isn't something that takes place on earth, but instead takes place after our souls leave the body. Likewise, though Revelation is figurative and metaphorical, even the Lake of Fire gives the indication that this occurs after death. The soul is judged, re-embodied, then cast into the lake of Fire (whether it is a literal lake or not we do not know, but we do know it exists).

                              As for how McLaren's interpretative method skews his view on this subject matter: As I said, he attempts to read our modern context into Scripture. Since Hell is a taboo subject in the modern American psyche, he finds it easier to explain away hell as something we endure on earth by neglecting the commandments of God rather than dealing with hell for what it is. That's how his interpretative method fails in successfully interpreting the Bible.

                              So you can prove biblically that in every place that Jesus used Gehenna that He most certainly was not talking about the million plus Jews who were literally piled in the Valley of Hinnom and whose bodies were burned. You know; a place where the fires never went out and where there were maggots and flies swarming around constantly?

                              You can prove that biblically?


                              As for Lazarus and the Rich we'll get to that later.
                              Last edited by mikebr; Jul 29th 2008, 05:32 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X