The Slippery Emergent Slope

[Socialite]

Before this thread becomes a 3-stepper debate, let's get back to hell

You see, some of us actually believe John 3:16:

For God so Loved the World,

That He gave his only Son,

That whoever believes on Him would not perish but have eternal life.

And this is why we believe there is something significant about having your name written in the Lamb's Book of Life. If it wasn't, bad things happen

John 3:36,
“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.”

Richard Niebuhr characterized the ongoing attempt of liberal Christians to deny hell as “a God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.” Jesus said more about hell than about any other topic. Amazingly, 13 percent of his sayings are about hell and judgment; more than half of his parables relate to the eternal judgment of sinners.

And to quote a recent Mark Driscoll blog (a guy who I admit sometimes can come off quite arrogant):

In a very important sense God doesn’t send anyone to hell. The only ones there are those who have rejected his revelation, choosing to suppress the truth he made plain to them. God made people in his image, after his likeness, with the power to say no and to reject the universal revelation of himself. Subsequently, sinners have no one to blame but themselves if they are damned.

To get to hell someone must reject the God who shows them his goodness and out of love for all “gives to all mankind life and breath and everything”; reject the Spirit who “convicts the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment”; and reject the crucified Son who said, “I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” Obviously, God has been exceedingly gracious to sinners.

People who reject Jesus in this life will not rejoice in him after this life. Hell is only for those who persistently reject the real God in favor of false gods. So in the end, people get to be with the god they love. To paraphrase C. S. Lewis, either people will say to God, “Thy will be done,” or God will say to them, “Thy will be done.” Not only is God loving, but he is also just. Heaven and hell are the result of his love and justice.

[Socialite]

More from the recent Driscoll blog:

Annihilationism is simply not what the Bible teaches. Daniel 12:2 says, “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” Jesus teaches the same thing and speaks of those who “will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” Grammatically, there is no difference here between the length of time mentioned for life and that for punishment; rather, there is simply eternal life and eternal death.

In response to temporary punishment...

However, there is not a shred of evidence for post-mortem repentance. The continual teaching of the Bible is that we die once and are then judged, without any second chance at salvation. As one clear example, Hebrews 9:27 says, “It is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment.”

[Socialite]

While Driscoll is set on the idea that Hell is a literal fire pit, that's not the critical point he makes. Where he finds agreement with most of the Christian community is in the concept of eternal death, and through the figurative language, we understand this is not a place of pleasure, but rather a miserable, torturous void.

[crakjak]

To Driscoll's main point, that folks can know the goodness and holiness of God, in other words can truly know God and yet reject HIM is, in my opinion, blasphemous.

To "know" Him is to love, HIM, I do not believe any human can truly know God and still reject Him. That is the whole point, that in the end, all will be exposed to God as He is, and will literally be UNABLE to reject HIM.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by crakjak

To Driscoll's main point, that folks can know the goodness and holiness of God, in other words can truly know God and yet reject HIM is, in my opinion, blasphemous.

To "know" Him is to love, HIM, I do not believe any human can truly know God and still reject Him. That is the whole point, that in the end, all will be exposed to God as He is, and will literally be UNABLE to reject HIM.

And that's a Calvinist point (Irresistible Grace) that I don't fully accept.

I also believe in a form of predestination -- that is, that God knows the individual's response to God's good gifts, and in real-time, he elects those whom he foreknew.

Quite possibly, there are those who know God, but whose rebellion refuses to accept God and to know him more fully.

As far as you not believing people can reject God's goodness, that's your opinion to have, and one I'm okay with. The alternative view is surely not blasphemous and I think you're being a little over-reactive, even for your theology. Driscoll speaks of being aware of God, at the same level Paul would in Romans 1-2.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Socialite

And that's a Calvinist point (Irresistible Grace) that I don't fully accept.

I also believe in a form of predestination -- that is, that God knows the individual's response to God's good gifts, and in real-time, he elects those whom he foreknew.

Quite possibly, there are those who know God, but whose rebellion refuses to accept God and to know him more fully.

As far as you not believing people can reject God's goodness, that's your opinion to have, and one I'm okay with. The alternative view is surely not blasphemous and I think you're being a little over-reactive, even for your theology. Driscoll speaks of being aware of God, at the same level Paul would in Romans 1-2.

I completely understand that men can become reprobate toward God in this life, because we only "...see thru a glass darkly..." God in essence hides Himself from man, so that man can experience the alternative to God in this life. Much like a wise human father, allows his children to experience the results of bad decisions, so that they may receive understanding.

But then, we will see "face to face", and all questions and hesitation will be removed. I am fully sure that no man can "see" God, and resist Him. So, no overreaction at all, He is that good, and that complete, His holiness is perfect.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by crakjak

I completely understand that men can become reprobate toward God in this life, because we only "...see thru a glass darkly..." God in essence hides Himself from man, so that man can experience the alternative to God in this life. Much like a wise human father, allows his children to experience the results of bad decisions, so that they may receive understanding.

But then, we will see "face to face", and all questions and hesitation will be removed. I am fully sure that no man can "see" God, and resist Him. So, no overreaction at all, He is that good, and that complete, His holiness is perfect.

You are making the assumption that we are able to come to repentance after the Judgment. And that's a very large, incredible assumption that has against a whole litany of scriptures, including the words of Jesus.

Yes, of course He's good. But by your logic, a God that is love would not send his own Son to die a horrific death. The justice of God is very clear. He has bore the sins for all who will believe. With every Gospel statement like John 3 is the idea that those who don't believe will have their own will be done, even until eternal separation from God.

[Socialite]

Rob Bell gets it handed to him in an MSNBC interview where he looks like a deer in the headlights

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg-qg...layer_embedded

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Rob Bell gets it handed to him in an MSNBC interview where he looks like a deer in the headlights

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg-qg...layer_embedded

Martin is very highly developed in asking the questions that flow directly from the traditional view of heaven and hell. His questions in the context of Bell's book are irrelevant, they are not important questions, they are defensive of an erroneous doctrine.

Is it important for folks to respond to Jesus in the life? Of course it is, but not for the reason's that tradition believe.

Martin was very hard on Bell in the interview, that's his job, but that doesn't lessen the message of the book in the least.

[Socialite]

Bell should reconsider going on his media blitzkrieg to promote his book, he got mangled pretty badly. You can point to Martin's questions all you want. Bell wants it both ways. And at some point, a straight answer is a good thing.