First, George Marsden's Biography Jonathan Edwards; A Life is fantastic! No matter where you land with Edwards, if you love a good biography, you'll love this.
Second, I made an Amber Ale recently for our home group that turned out wonderful. It's got a nice sweet, honey finish and fruity Simcoe hop aroma. We're in for a good spring woodstock home community!
Third, I had a wonderful day with my little guy. He continues to be an incredible blessing, even in the difficult moments. I love him and his huge personality so much.
Fourth, it was good to see "Jimmer" and BYU lose. He can chuck a 3 with the best of them, unfortunately that's about all the team has. I'm glad I don't have to hear the announcers verbally make love to him in any more games.
Finally, if you want to see an uncomfortable interview, don't miss the MSNBC interview with Rob Bell. Fascinating that an MSNBC reporter can tear apart a book with a simple read, it's hard to believe Christians who plant themselves in the scriptures can't easily see through it as well. But I suppose if you want to believe something bad enough, you'll do whatever it takes. Kevin Deyoung also has a lengthy, thorough, and overwhelmingly convincing critique here.
As an aside, I'm not a Rob Bell hater by any means. I thought his book Sex God was really good and I love a lot of his Nooma videos.
5 comments:
"But I suppose if you want to believe something bad enough, you'll do whatever it takes."
Good point, although, one should ask themselves why it is they want so badly to believe that most people will be tortured for eternity after they die.
Kevin DeYoung? Seriously?
By your comment I'm guessing you only read stuff by people you like and agree with? That's a great way to go if you never want to have to think about anything or have your thinking challenged. How's that working out for ya?
Haha. And the uppercut from Bagby.
Sorry for being snarky. I disagree with much of what I read. I've read a little Piper, Carson, Packer, etc. I even suffered through a book by DeYoung once. I just really think all these neo-calvinist guys are on the wrong track.
I didn't agree with everything in Bell's book either; no doubt he makes some missteps. (The Evangelical Universalist by Gregory MacDonald is a better book on the subject) I just think the whole concept of eternal conscious hell is really, really problematic for a hundred reasons, and it puzzles me why these guys want to defend it so passionately. When you think of all the epistemological commitments, and interpretive decisions it takes to get there; on some level it seems like they must want to believe it, just as Bell, as you say, really wants to not believe it.
BTW, I'm pretty sure Hauerwas, who you plugged on your blog doesn't believe in eternal literal hell either.
"Sorry for being snarky. I disagree with much of what I read. I've read a little Piper, Carson, Packer, etc. I even suffered through a book by DeYoung once. I just really think all these neo-calvinist guys are on the wrong track."
It's alright, I agree, I'm not a big fan either. I've read a few Piper books and didn't enjoy them. Some of Carson's commentary stuff is good, but his other books haven't done much for me either. But I thought DeYoung had some good thoughts in the critique. I never want to disregard what people have to say just because they're in a different "camp" so to speak. But I know that's hard to do.
"I didn't agree with everything in Bell's book either; no doubt he makes some missteps. (The Evangelical Universalist by Gregory MacDonald is a better book on the subject) I just think the whole concept of eternal conscious hell is really, really problematic for a hundred reasons, and it puzzles me why these guys want to defend it so passionately. When you think of all the epistemological commitments, and interpretive decisions it takes to get there; on some level it seems like they must want to believe it, just as Bell, as you say, really wants to not believe it."
I've been wanting to read The Evangelical Universalist for a while, I am planning on getting to it in the next few months. There are two major difficulties that I have with the idea of universal reconciliation which I will just state as concisely as possible:
1. It seems that if you were to take this route, God would be just as much of a determinist as the strong Calvinist's God. It seems like this would violate the will. He's created every person to be saved and you have no choice in the matter, at least eventually you will have no choice.
2. I still haven't seen anyone deal with the judgment/distinction texts in a convincing way to make me think that Jesus wasn't serious about those. Obviously Matthew 25 is a big one, but even Matthew 7. Was Jesus lying to scare people? Was he mistaken? I'm not sure what Robin Parry (G.Macdonald) does with those texts but I'll be interested to read them. I've read what John Hick did with them in "Death and Eternity" and it was very unconvincing.
Of course everyone wants to believe that all people will be reconciled to God. I certainly do, and I hope that is the case. But from what I've read Jesus saying, that doesn't seem likely.
"BTW, I'm pretty sure Hauerwas, who you plugged on your blog doesn't believe in eternal literal hell either."
I like Hauerwas a lot, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything he says. I also like Moltmann quite a bit, but I think he's off-based in his arguments for universalism (as evidenced most recently in his book "Sun of Righteousness-Arise".
Post a Comment