Skip to main content

Hell?

One day I'll get round to this one, but until then here is a post on the subject from Tim Keller, here is a response to it from the fundaMentalist Pyromaniacs, and here is a totally different approach to the subject. Personally I think most peole when they read or talk about Hell are working with a concept that has been defined more by medieval superstition (and popular culture) than biblical research, so you might be able to guess which of the above approaches I tend to lean towards (but maybe not, I like to keep you in suspense). But more to come later . . .

[Edit. Sorry, I wrongly assumed that the Pyro's were discussing the Tim Keller article on Hell I had read, but they weren't it was this one. Same guy but different article. Thanks Glenn!]

Comments

  1. I created a three part podcast series on this (part one is here).

    One thing though - If you wish to persuade people who hold a more traditional view on this subject, it's probably best not to write them off as "fundaMentalists." You might become surprised at how many are actually willing to listen to a challenge.

    ReplyDelete
  2. One other thing - the Tim Keller that you linked to here is not the Tim keller article that Pyromaniacs are responding to. Check their link to Tim's article.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I should have previewed before posting! I meant that "the Tim Keller article that you linked to here is not the Tim Keller article that Pyromaniacs are responding to."

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm trying to work out if Jon's being ironic about the FundaMentalists bit. It sounds like the kind of thing the Pyro's would call themselves in jest.

    Of course, the Pyros hold to the good old truths of the Reformation, on the whole. Not sure they'd fit in that well with a fundamentalist gathering.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Come on now... perhaps Pyro's doesn't line up completely with the historical definition of fundamentalist (being Reformed and all), but they absolutely fit the modern understanding of fundamentalist, in that they enthusiastically and regularly place themselves at the far conservative end of the culture wars. Just read their recent posts on gambling or the Manhattan Declaration if you want proof of that.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Glenn, thaks for that, see edit. Seriously, where have you been all my life? How much would you charge to proof read my masters thesis? :-) I look forward to checking out the cast when I get a moment.

    Glenn, Phil, Rhett: As for the Pyro's, they are frequently very funny, but I'm not convinced that they are open to persuasion. Notwithstanding, I maintain that my finger slipped and no offence was intended, guvna!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Dr Charles Stanley is not a biblical preacher

Unusually for me I was watching the tele early on Sunday morning and I caught an episode of Dr Charles Stanley preaching on his television program. Now I know this guy has come under some criticism for his personal life, and that is not unimportant, but it is also not something i can comment on, not knowing the facts. His preaching is however something I can comment on, at least the one sermon I did watch.

He started off by reading 2 Timothy 1:3-7. Which is a passage from the Bible, so far so good. He then spent the next 30 minutes or so talking about his mum and what a great example of a Christian mother she was. Now nothing he said or suggested was wrong, but none of it actually came from scripture, least of all the scripture he read from at the beginning. It was a lovely talk on how Stanley's mother raised him as a Christian despite considerable difficulties and it contained many useful nuggets of advice on raising Christian kids. All very nice, it might have made a nice…

That one time Jesus got the Bible wrong

It's so typical isn't it? You are preaching all day long, training your disciples, sparring with the Pharisees, encouraging the poor and down trodden, healing the sick and casting out demons, all day, day after day, and even when you go up a mountain to get a rest the crowds hunt you down and follow you up, and then the one time you get a bit muddled up with some of the details of a biblical text . . . that is the one they write down in the first gospel - verbatim. At least Matthew and Luke had the good sense to do some editing. But Mark, he always had his eye on giving the public the "historical Jesus" whoever that is supposed to be . . . warts and all. Thanks a lot Mark!

Some think I made the mistake on purpose, just to show the Pharisees up.

For some there is no mistake worth mentioning, only a slightly ambiguous turn of phrase.

Others think I am doing something tricky with Abiathar's name, getting him to figuratively stand in for the priesthood.

It really has…

The Addictive Power of End Times Speculation

The mighty Rhett Snell has picked up his blog again (I wonder how long he'll last this time), check out his theory on why people get so into annoyingly unbiblical end times nonsense.

I think that where codes-and-calendars end times theology is dangerous, is that it can give a sense of false growth. We read a theory online, or hear it from some bible teacher, and we come to think that we have mastered an area of our faith. A bit like levelling up in a computer game, or Popeye after he’s eaten some spinach. At worst, we begin to believe that we’ve taken a step that other Christians have not; that we’ve entered an elite class of Christianity.