Comments on: Sunday Morning Meditation: N.T. Wright on Hell

By: Scott Arany

Scott Arany — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 20:34:53 +0000

I’ve often wondered how God’s goal to “make all things new” (rev 21:5) can include the idea of eternal tormenting hell? If heaven and earth are made one, also in Revelation, where does that leave room for evil to continue existing?

I’ve also wrestled with how, if one is outside of Christ, having rejected salvation for whatever reason and means, how they can continue to exist? A large part of what Christ promises as part of salvation is eternal life. Taking that to the extreme logical conclusion (for me) implies that to reject Christ and salvation does not bring eternal life, and eternal torment in hell would be a form of eternal life, albeit with a much lower standard of living index .

Guess I see the eternal punishment of hell from a perspective that to be truly, utterly annihilated and removed from God’s presence is the worst possible punishment and exacting of God’s wrath possible.

So I’ve really appreciated NT Wright’s language and conversation on this issue than what I was raised with (which was a much more dogmatic and fundamentalist approach to annihilationism, which in full disclosure was from Adventism).

By: Pastoralia » Sunday Morning Meditation: John Piper on Hell

Pastoralia » Sunday Morning Meditation: John Piper on Hell — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 12:06:09 +0000

[...] John Piper gets his turn at bat here on Pastoralia concerning the subject of hell. Does what he’s saying here contradict what NT Wright was saying last week? [...]

By: Matthew Johnston

Matthew Johnston — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 23:46:19 +0000

Thank you Bram.

By: brambonius

brambonius — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 22:45:45 +0000

I live in a country where there is no such thing as the emerging church yet. And no traditional conservative reformed churches either… I grew up between cultural catholicism and pentecostelism, until my father started a vineyard chuch and I came in touch with the vineyard, and later with more mainstream evangelicals… None of those traditions would say that the bible clearly says what you say it does. And I don’t see why the NPP would be less biblical that any other view. And I don’t believe that any systematic theory is needed to be saved, I believe that we need to have faith in a person, Jesus, who calls us to follow Him. All those discussions are cool and entertaining and so, but they will more likely lead people away from God than towards Him if you go on heresy-hunting with people of other traditions of tribes of the Christian faith… None of our theories about the bibel will ever be perfect and the last word about anything, but we need them to grow closer to Our Saviour…

God bless you

Bram

By: Matthew Johnston

Matthew Johnston — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 22:06:25 +0000

Question: Why does one always think that one who is Reformed in their theology perscribes to ‘Reformational Worship’ [full of traditions that are given far too much attention] ? And why does one assume to their own detriment, that one who is a Calvinst – adheres to all the all ‘reformed traditions’?

Answer: It is a means by which many in the weak, emergent, comprimising camp use to belittle the advocate of biblical mandates CLEARLY laid out in Scripture. – We are not to accomodate the sins of others in order to comfort them.

Reactionary cop outs.

By: brambonius

brambonius — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 17:43:42 +0000

As someone who is not part of the ‘reformed tradition’ I don’t see any reason why its bible interpretations would be right and everything that tries to explain the bible differently heresy… It’s just one traditional grid which is placed on the bible before reading, nothing more… The traditions of man are not the infallible Word of God (which I would say is Jesus Himself, and not the bible, but that’s one more discussion)

but to be on-topic, the orthodox view of hell makes a lot of sense to me, more than the protestant/catholic one. so yes I like NTWs outlook on this subject. I’m not sure what my position on the subject is, but I will trust Gods love and grace more than our own logic and deductions…

By: Jason Coker

Jason Coker — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:24:12 +0000

Hi Clay, thanks for the comments and the encouragement. Obviously I let the comments here drift off toward the Wright controversy, but that’s to be expected. He’s a bit of a lighting rod in certain circles. Besides, I express my opinions pretty strongly in many of my posts, so it wouldn’t be fair to not allow the same thing for my commenters : )

By: Clay

Clay — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:18:21 +0000

Jason – just wanted to say thanks for your blog. I read regularly. Your posts are always thought provoking. I know these comments went off topic from your original post. I kind of wish I hadn’t commented b/c I suspected it would end up where it did. Reformed folks need to recognize that their “NT Wright is a heretic” rhetoric gets them no where with people like me who are not married to any particular theological system, but are open and seeking a historically honest biblical interpretation. No one who reads Wright objectively could possibly conclude that he is out of the bounds of Christian orthodoxy. Thanks again!

By: Matthew Johnston

Matthew Johnston — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 04:10:41 +0000

I was encouraging the man to pray……………..

Do as you will.

By: Matthew Johnston

Matthew Johnston — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 01:41:39 +0000

[Editor's note: Matthew, this last comment crossed the line of smugness for my taste. I don't mind you arguing for a Reformed view of justification here - although, I'm still waiting for you to do so - but I do mind you being condescending about it. Again, please watch your tone.]