DISCLAIMER: If for some reason you don't want to know what conclusion they reach...you shouldn't be reading a review of the book!
Anyway, you can't be a 22 year-old evangelical Christian who has a Facebook without having heard the buzz about Francis Chan's new book, Erasing Hell (written with Preston Sprinkle). How many of my Facebook friends posted this youtube video in May and June? I don't know, but I know the answer is along the lines of several.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkxOelCjMFU
Now, I read the book (it ended up getting released last month instead of July 5th). As should surprise absolutely nobody, they conclude that Hell is...a place of eternal torment! Yes. But despite the fact that I disagree with their position, I actually think the book is a worthy read for other reasons.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Literal and Innerrant Are Not the Same Thing
DISCLAIMER: This blog post will refer to passages of the Bible that use ungodly sexual language that is innappropriate to ever talk about.
(I'm being sarcastic of course, making a point of how context matters and speaking of certain subjects, even in mixed company, is not always innappropriate or ungodly, since God Himself uses such language...)
Now, it has been said by some believers (much more so today than throughout time) that the Bible must be completely literal. After all, it is God's infalliable word to mankind, so it must mean exactly what it says. Also, since it is for all people, God mustn't use figurative language or metaphors that would not be readily understood by everyone. If we don't read it literally, how can we ever know what it really means? How can we really know if something is figurative vs. literal? And what would keep someone from just saying anything they don't like is just figurative (like most unbelievers do when they talk about Jesus as a great guy who didn't really die and rise from the grave)?
(I'm being sarcastic of course, making a point of how context matters and speaking of certain subjects, even in mixed company, is not always innappropriate or ungodly, since God Himself uses such language...)
Now, it has been said by some believers (much more so today than throughout time) that the Bible must be completely literal. After all, it is God's infalliable word to mankind, so it must mean exactly what it says. Also, since it is for all people, God mustn't use figurative language or metaphors that would not be readily understood by everyone. If we don't read it literally, how can we ever know what it really means? How can we really know if something is figurative vs. literal? And what would keep someone from just saying anything they don't like is just figurative (like most unbelievers do when they talk about Jesus as a great guy who didn't really die and rise from the grave)?
Monday, June 6, 2011
"If The Bible Wanted To Teach Annihilationism, It Would Have Said It Clearly!"
It is often claimed that the Bible never explicitly says anyone will cease to exist (since the ubiqitous references to the lost being destroyed use words that technically don't have to always mean absolute annihilation 100% of the time). Because it does not explicitly say that all men do not exist forever, it is argued then that it must teach eternal existence of all people.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Bad Philosophy Has No Place In Good Theology - Part 1: The Unevangelized, God's Love, and Free Will
Hello all. Today, I thought we'd take a look at how bad philosophy can interfere with good theology.
I will probably make a something of a series of this, because I have no end of material to draw off of.
Today, I'm going to look at a particular view on God's love, free will, and how it relates to the especially thorny issue of the unevangelized. Regarding the first two points, it is not an uncommon position that people have some degree of a free choice in choosing to follow Jesus or not, and that some people are not saved because they choose against God. This position is almost always accompanied by the claim that God loves everybody. God desires that everyone be saved, but real love means letting them choose. Although God easily could make everyone love and follow Him, He instead chooses to let people have a choice, because He loves them.
I will probably make a something of a series of this, because I have no end of material to draw off of.
Today, I'm going to look at a particular view on God's love, free will, and how it relates to the especially thorny issue of the unevangelized. Regarding the first two points, it is not an uncommon position that people have some degree of a free choice in choosing to follow Jesus or not, and that some people are not saved because they choose against God. This position is almost always accompanied by the claim that God loves everybody. God desires that everyone be saved, but real love means letting them choose. Although God easily could make everyone love and follow Him, He instead chooses to let people have a choice, because He loves them.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
The List of Top Phrases (that are not actually) From the Bible
Here are some fairly common sayings in Christian circles, some of which are actually mistaken by some to be in the bible, and some of which are merely treated as much.
"Children should be seen, not heard."
"God helps those who help themselves."
"(Anything to do with) your immortal soul."
"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.'"
"God is a gentleman."
"Only three things last forever: God, God's word, and the souls of people."
More to come...
"Children should be seen, not heard."
"God helps those who help themselves."
"(Anything to do with) your immortal soul."
"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.'"
"God is a gentleman."
"Only three things last forever: God, God's word, and the souls of people."
More to come...
Sunday, April 17, 2011
A Word About Universalism
I am a conditionalist, as you all know by now. Now, because it is the most popular view in Christian circles (and historically has been so), and because so much has been written about it, I tend to focus my efforts towards refuting the traditional view of Hell as a place of eternal torment or suffering of some sort. However, I also can't ignore the other immortalist view, that being universalism. If it is true that the wicked are all destroyed, then just as they can't be around for eternity to suffer, it also cannot be the case that they all end up being saved and given eternal life.
The following is another small portion from "The Bible Teaches Annihilationism." The full scriptural argument against universalism is long and not really appropriate for a blog. However, here are a few points to consider.
The following is another small portion from "The Bible Teaches Annihilationism." The full scriptural argument against universalism is long and not really appropriate for a blog. However, here are a few points to consider.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
THE “IMPLICATIONS” OF CONDITIONAL IMMORTALITY
Here is another excerpt from "The Bible Teaches Annihilationism," available for free on my website http://3-ringbinder.weebly.com/
It is not uncommon when reading a defense of the traditional doctrine for an argument to be made not from scripture, not even from philosophy, but simply from the possible negative effects of preaching annihilation. The two most common, which are fairly similar, are that annihilationism hampers missionary zeal, and that if you preach annihilationism, people will be less likely to repent.
It is not uncommon when reading a defense of the traditional doctrine for an argument to be made not from scripture, not even from philosophy, but simply from the possible negative effects of preaching annihilation. The two most common, which are fairly similar, are that annihilationism hampers missionary zeal, and that if you preach annihilationism, people will be less likely to repent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)