Are you sure about that?
Recently a friend encouraged me to read Velvet Elvis by the emergent church guru Rob Bell. Here's an interesting quote. What do you think?
"Heaven is full of forgiven people. Hell is full of forgiven people."
"Heaven is full of forgiven people. Hell is full of forgiven people."
posted by Daniel | 10:45 AM
22 Comments:
I think I would need a little more in the way of context before I could comment on that quotation. He could mean Heaven is full of people who have been forgiven by God while Hell is full of people who have forgiven themself. If that were the case, I'd agree. Again, context would be key here.
In Christ alone,
mike
There is only one way for the people in hell to have their sins forgiven and that is somehow the punishment they deserve has been paid for by them in hell. Then they could be annihilated.
However I don't hold to this doctrine.
I think that it is impossible for man to pay for their sins even in hell hence it is a place where the worm does not die. And it goes on forever and ever. There is only one man who can pay for sins and he has done so for the sake of the elect namely Jesus Christ so that they would never go to hell.
If I was to hazard a guess at his context though I would say what he meant was
"Heaven is full of forgiven people. Hell is full of forgiven people."
Here you can see that everyone has been forgiven. In other words he thinks that Jesus on the cross paid for every single persons sins eg he might use "The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" and by this he would mean that it is up to us to activate our fogiveness/grace to go to heaven and that is the difference. Either way we are all still forgiven.
"either way we are all still forgiven" fits with my understanding that God loves each and every one us, whether we accept him or not, whether we end up in heaven or not.
it's like healthy parenting: you love your children and forgive them even while you allow them to suffer the consequences of their choices.
my personal belief is that God deeply mourns the loss of those who go to hell.
My question would be, by whom were the forgiven?
Interesting quote,
Doug
Wilsford,
God may love those condemned to Hell but what does that mean in relationship to forgiveness. Had God forgiven them and had Jesus already paid their penalty on the cross, they would not be in Hell.
In Christ alone,
mike
"Had God forgiven them and had Jesus already paid their penalty on the cross, they would not be in Hell."
ahh, i see your logic.
but i am a firm believer that God is not bound by our logic.
that being said, i will mull it over. perhaps i might rather mean that God loves us rather than forgives us even though we end up in hell.
i don't think that our understanding of the answer is a deal-breaker and note it as a minor point of faith, and recognize that most people have their own definition of 'minor points.'
There are no Christians in hell!!!
Rob Bell calls the deceiver Marcus Borg, who denies the existence of an afterlife, a mentor.
Rob Bell trusts in his own wisdom and not that of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Beware the company you keep!
One of the Church Fathers said, "The fires of Hell burn with the love of God." Which has been broadly interpreted as that perhaps Hell and Heaven are the same place experienced in two ways. For those who have accepted God's love and forgiveness, it is Heaven and joy to live surrounded by that love. For those who have not allowed God to forgive them, it would be Hell to be surrounded by that annoying love.
All in all, it seems to me like you guys are primarily focused on Heaven/Hell/Salvation in juridical terms. Isn't there more to our salvation than an eternal punishment/reward?
The Church Father who wrote about Hell and Heaven being the differing experiences of God's love was St. Isaac the Syrian. Here is a link that talks about what the early church believed on Hell and what the Orthodox Church today believes on Hell. The early church fathers, after all, were Orthodox Christians.
http://www.vic.com/~tscon/pelagia/htm/b24.en.life_after_death.07.htm#par2
but i am a firm believer that God is not bound by our logic.
You probably do not mean this. Our Logic states that A cannot equal Not-A in the same sense at the same time.
Make A = God.
God cannnot be not-God at the same time and when 'God' is used in the same sense.
Hopefully you agree. God created a world and ordered it in such a way that it works. That is why Science can work because God created the world in a certain way which is revealed in General Revelation. Therefore, in the same way that the Law of Gravity can apply, so to can the Law of non-Contradiction.
that being said, i will mull it over. perhaps i might rather mean that God loves us rather than forgives us even though we end up in hell.
And that is slowly moving towards the more biblical position. I do believe that God loves all whom He has created. I think the bible clearly teaches that He loves his elect more than the reprobate, but that is another discussion.
In Christ alone,
mike
Here is a link that talks about what the early church believed on Hell and what the Orthodox Church today believes on Hell. The early church fathers, after all, were Orthodox Christians.
If you want to make an argument then feel free to do so but lets leave out the obvious equivocation fallacies.
In Christ alone,
mike
I was being playful, although it is historically accurate to claim that the early church was what we would call Orthodox. At least for the first 10 centuries, that is.
The early church, often referred to as the Great Church, was orthodox in their beliefs. There were heretics occasionally (often in fact) but they were always dealt with in tiime.
However, since "Orthodox" has been taken as a name by a particular institution the word does not mean the same thing. So now we make distinctions between capital Orthodox and lower-case orthodox. The same is true about the word Catholic. It is correct to say that the early church is catholic, but we make the distintion between that word and Catholic. In fact, we could probably even say the same thing about Evangelical/evangelical.
So, the early church would be considered orthodox, catholic, and evangelical, but let us not assume that any of those three words give any creedence to what the modern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, or Evangelical church believes.
In Christ alone,
mike
Point taken. However, the writings of the early church fathers reveal a theology that is very different from American Evangelical theology, and is the same theology still taught by the Orthodox Church.
I would love to discuss that validity of that statement with you, but I'm not convinced Daniel's blog is the best place for it.
In Christ alone,
mike
but i am a firm believer that God is not bound by our logic.
"You probably do not mean this. Our Logic states that A cannot equal Not-A in the same sense at the same time"
indeed, i probably do mean this. what need have i of a God so small that he cannot transend my capacity for reason? not that God is unreasonable; rather, that God is a much bigger picture than humans can comprehend.
this is compatible with God setting up an ordered world—albeit a world ordered, at times, on principles beyond our scientific knowledge.
God ordered the world in a way that is reasonable - that is why he urges us "Come, now and let us reason together". He has given us the ability to ascertain certain things about His created order.
We do not know everything, but we can know somethings.
One such thing is principles like the Law of Non-Contradiction.
Are you even suggesting that A and Not-A could be true at the same time and in the same sense?
Let's look at that argument with what we are talking about. "A" will be your position that God does not fit into our logic.
God does not fit into our logic and God does fit into our logic in exactly the same way.
Obviously you do not agree with that statement because you are disagreeing with me. The very fact that you disagree means that you are assuming the Law of Non-Contradiction to be true.
ok, there are two separate issues here. i will ponder a response separately.
first, this "Law of Non-contradiction" as you have applied it assumes that we know all there is to know of an event.
referencing this from your framework, i am suggesting that your "A cannot equal not-A' may not always be a valid application simply because we do not know always have a complete picture.
is it such a bad thing to trust beyond our understanding? i don't believe so.
to take the opposite stance from what yours seems to be: i choose faith over fact, i value unknowing over knowing, and embrace a willingness to be wrong over a self-assuredness that I have God figured out to the last, cold, detail.
can we agree to disagree agreeably?
is it such a bad thing to trust beyond our understanding? i don't believe so.
You know quite well that I haven't said this. I would ask is it so bad to use t he understanding that God has granted us regarding himself?
to take the opposite stance from what yours seems to be: i choose faith over fact, i value unknowing over knowing, and embrace a willingness to be wrong over a self-assuredness that I have God figured out to the last, cold, detail.
I have not said what you believe my stance to be so I must wonder where you get half of this from.
I think also you have created a false dichotomy between Faith and Reason. The bible often puts the two together. No reason to drive a wedge between the two.
can we agree to disagree agreeably?
If you post I will respond. If you don't post I don't really have anything to respond to. The ball is in your court.
In Christ alone,
mike
well, actually, i was hoping for a bit more of a conversational (as opposed to confrontational) tone.
some of your replies ( you probably do not mean this and you know quite well i haven't said this )indicate to me that you are rather quick to take offence. i do not wish to offend as much as to learn and grow.
you may not be that way in person at all, but, i have stomached enough "in Christ" rancor to not want to continue in this tone.
thank you, however, for inviting my reponse.
i was hoping for a bit more of a conversational
As I stated before. Feel free to comment and I will provide responses where I feel appropriate.
In Christ alone,
mike
Post a Comment
<< Home