Get E-Mail Updates

Interview with Brian McLaren About 'A New Kind of Christianity' (Part 2)

100218-a-new-kind-of-christianity[continued from part 1]

At times I felt your "Can we find a better way of viewing the future?" chapter overlooks folks from denominational traditions like mine, whose systematic theologies solve much of the glaring hopelessness in others -- no "secret" rapture, no eternal torment -- but still envision a future not completely reconciled. What do you say to people who can't fathom a future in which God wins over every heart?

Yes, I focus on the conventional Catholic and Protestant view that the future is predetermined and described in the Bible. Other views, like the views of Adventists and Universalists, have arisen in recent centuries seeking to modify various features of the conventional view, trying to make it more humane or reasonable. But all of these views share two things in common, I think. First, they read passages in Daniel and Matthew 24 and the Apocalypse as referring to an end of the world in the future. And second, they assume that the story ends in an eternal state of heaven or hell, however many people are assumed to be in each.

I'm questioning both assumptions. First, I'm suggesting that much in those passages thought to be about the end of the world, and maybe most of them, and perhaps even all of them, are in fact referring to the end of the world as Jesus' contemporaries knew it. That world -- centered in temple, sacrifice, priesthood, holy city, and an elite chosen ethnic group -- came to an end in AD 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed. I'm inviting people to spend some time letting that possibility sink in enough to disturb the assumptions we have inherited about the future.

If people can't fathom a future in which God wins over every heart, I don't think I can help them much. I'm concerned about helping people who can't accept that God would destroy good things, including the precious image of God which I believe lies at the heart of all people. If people can believe that God will destroy good things along with evil things, I don't expect I can help them much.

As for the lake of fire imagery, I think that any fire associated with God must be a purifying fire, not an indiscriminately destructive fire, and the only things destroyed are evil things, not good things. If it makes people feel better to think that some people are purely evil, that there isn't a shred of anything good left in them to be saved through the fire, I'd want to ask them what negative consequences they could imagine flowing from that belief that they need to guard against. Because in the end, they're responsible for the unintended negative consequences of their beliefs, just as I am of mine.

What makes these various positions you take in the book different than what one might label a "post-modern creed"?

Thanks so much for asking this, because it's really important. First and foremost, I'm not offering the positions in the book in that way at all. In most cases, I'm simply reporting on what's already happening, what's already being said among those who are on a quest for a new kind of Christianity. In a few cases, I may be offering something with some fresh elements to it, but when I do so, I'm offering it like an opening volley in tennis -- not as a slam to win the game, but simply as my contribution to an ongoing conversation.

It's interesting that the Bible itself doesn't give us creeds. It gives us stories and poetry and letters and other forms of literature, from which people constructed creeds for various reasons at various times. Perhaps there are postmodern creeds to be written; I'm not sure. In some ways, the very idea seems oxymoronic. At any rate, my focus in this book is on raising worthwhile questions that will promote constructive conversations that will in turn foster friendships as we move forward on the quest or journey of faith. That may be a quest that never ends. After all, what limit could there be to God's unfolding creativity and goodness? Will we ever be able to say we have fully explored it?

Melvin BrayMelvin Bray is the coordinating author of The Stories in Which We Find Ourselves: A Bible Story Project to write/collect re-tellings of biblical narratives that resonate with various emerging, missional, 'post-ism' and/or otherwise progressive sensibilities.

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: CJTiger

02-20-2010 @ 2:29pm

Rick, thanks for taking the time to respond. I disagree, but appreciate your heart. Your response is filled with things you think, but can't come close to proving. The plain reading of the text is that Saul disobeyed God by not wiping out the Amaleklites. Our sovereign God commanded judgment for their sins. We don't do ourselves any favors by making up a God we like better, because he's nicer.

by: Patricia

02-19-2010 @ 2:48pm

I have to say that, as a Catholic, this is the first time in my life (which included nearly 12 years of Catholic schooling and numerous years - none of your business how many :)! - of adult education) that I've heard that we believe in predetermination! As far as I know, we certainly do not. Perhaps Mr. McClaren should inform Benedict :)?

by: CJTiger

02-20-2010 @ 2:31pm

That God doesn't change. God is the same in the Old and New Testament. I don't have a problem with it.

by: Patricia

02-20-2010 @ 2:46pm

Please don't let anyone else know this, but there is quite a bit of agreement between Catholics and Baptists - that's a secret, though :).

by: ckgmail

02-20-2010 @ 3:19pm

You don't have a problem with God commanding Moses to kill the men, boys, and married women and save the virgins for themselves? God may never change (although the Bible does say he changes his mind on occasion) but people's perception of God changes. And the Bible is a written record of people's perceptions of God (among other things) over time. Who incited David to number Israel? Was it Satan, or the LORD? (See 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1)

by: squeaky

02-19-2010 @ 4:56pm

What do you think Brian means by predetermination? That individual's salvation is predetermined, or that the future history of the world is predetermined? I think he means the latter--is that not what Catholics believe (Revelations)? I don't really know for sure..Just asking.

by: ckgmail

02-20-2010 @ 3:22pm

Okay. Just between us. But I was years into my Baptist ministry before I figgered it out. Some Baptists (and I imagine some Catholics) still haven't.

by: CJTiger

02-20-2010 @ 3:27pm

God sovereignly used Satan to achieve his purposes. At the same time, David is responsible for his sin.

Hey, God doesn't have to answer to me.

by: edwardfudge

02-20-2010 @ 4:17pm

For details, reviews and interviews on THE FIRE THAT CONSUMES: A BIBLICAL AND HISTORICAL STUDY OF THE DOCTRINE OF FINAL PUNISHMENT, plus many other resources including audio and video presentations, please go to http://www.EdwardFudge.com/written/fire.html .

by: Patricia

02-19-2010 @ 5:27pm

As far as I know, neither is accurate.

Regarding the future history of the world, the Catholic church does not interpret Scripture (including the Book of Revelations) literally.

Regarding individual's salvation, no.

We believe God KNOWS, but He does not predetermine, if that makes any sense.

by: squeaky

02-20-2010 @ 5:37pm

Thank you sir!

by: Mennoman

02-20-2010 @ 8:09pm

Squeaky, I think that Martin Luther held to this position as well. Maybe Edward Fudge can comment on that.

by: ricklannoye

02-26-2010 @ 2:42pm

Yes, thank you, I was aware that there are a number of scholars who believe this was an interpolation, and it's certainly possible that it is. That said, even if it is, it represents a view of God that was still alive and well in the early centuries of Christianity, and that was consistent with the earliest and most reliable texts in which Jesus presents God as forgiving, loving, healing and accepting, even when we don't respond in kind.

So, even if it was not included in the original autograph, it does provide evidence of the strong tradition in early Christianity for a Jesus whose God did not cause suffering, but wants to relieve it.

Rick
www.thereisnohell.com

by: PASTOR JEFF

02-20-2010 @ 10:10pm

Some of my best friends are catholics. ;-) No seriously...

by: GeronimoJackson

02-26-2010 @ 8:05am

His response: "You don't know what spirit is inspiring this kind of talk!" Presumably, it was NOT the Holy Spirit. He went on, trying to explain how he had come to save, heal and relieve suffering, not be the CAUSE of it.
Dear Rick, Newer translations from the original documents do not contain the narrative of Jesus' response that you quote. I assume, perhaps wrongly, that these words were somehow added into the King James translation. I have to admit that they do sound pretty good and your explanation also works for me.

by: MommaN

02-24-2010 @ 3:08am

Your comments are interesting. I can't help feeling, considering how prevalent the jealous God of the OT is, that it is somewhat an oversimplification of the story, but maybe in this forum you just don't have enough space to fully develop your thoughts.

My interpretation of scripture, a kind of Naomi-ese (really its a blend of many great thinkers and my pastor growing up) is that no Scriptural story was told for no reason. And no story was preserved for no reason. If there was something important about the story of King Saul and the Amelkites about who God is and how we should serve Him, the story would be told. If there was nothing edifying in the story, it would eventually be abandoned. Instead of finding how God fits into our understanding of the world, shouldn't we be approaching these scriptures to teach us about who God is?

As for the question of hell, I put and inordinate amount of weight on Scriptural passages such as this one in 2 Corinthians: "We are the aroma of Christ to those who are being saved and those who are perishing. To one we are the smell of death, to the other the fragrance of life." Perhaps, to those who have loved God and honored Him, the awesomeness of His presence is a joy unsurpassed, but to those who have "hardened their hearts" His presence is unbearable. Perhaps there is no difference between heaven and hell, we simply enter into the presence of God, and respond accordingly.

by: ricklannoye

02-21-2010 @ 11:09am

Well, if you want to take that passage "as is," then you have to take a whole bunch of other passages and make them say something very different, such as, "Thou shalt not kill," or "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," or "For God so loved the world...."

Remember, Samual claimed the order from God was to kill EVERYONE, and that included, not just the Amalekite armymen, but the old, the disabled, the sick, women (some of whom were pregnant) and children! And who was it that sinned? Well, if you go back to find out, it was actually one priest that belonged to their tribe, that's it! And it's not like he killed anyone, but mouthed off! So even if there was a need for "judgment" (let's face it, the more accurate word would be "revenge"), even killing that one Amalekite priest would have been in violation of a "plain reading" of Moses' law restricting punishment to "an eye for an eye"!

No, there's a reason why we have come to think of God as "nice"--because that's the kind of God Jesus, as THE Word of God, (mind you, the Bible is not the Word of God, Jesus is!) the full and final Expression of God, showed us!

When you get a chance, check out my book at www.thereisnohell.com where I explain all of this in full detail.

by: PASTOR JEFF

02-21-2010 @ 11:12pm

Yeah, the Americanized version calls for a border fence, free market capitalism, commands the wearing of flag lapel pins and the destruction of terrorists at all costs, and ends with the ever memorable "God Bless America" in place of the time-worn "Even So,Come Lord Jesus"

by: squeaky

02-21-2010 @ 10:37pm

Yes. And that seems contradictory, and not anything to be dismissed, but rather to be wrestled with, from any side of the issue.

Thanks for your response.

by: ckgmail

02-21-2010 @ 4:16pm

I agree, if not 100%, 99.4%. People still ask God for advice, and hear what
they want to hear. On the matter of temptation, it is well to hear James,
maybe the brother of Jesus, maybe another James: "No one, when tempted,
should say, 'I am being tempted by God,' for God cannot be tempted by evil,
and he himself tempts no one. But one is tempted by one's own desire, being
lured and enticed by it." (James 1:13-14) So, we can't say, "God made me do
it. He just made me that way." Or, "The devil made me do it."

by: ricklannoye

02-21-2010 @ 3:59pm

Right! So the trick is how to best determine what those originals said! Well, this is where the arts of textual and literary criticism comes in. Scholars have actually come up with quite a number of techniques to help weed out mistakes or intentional changes to the hand written copies of copies of copies of the originals, and this is what they do with all copies of ancient texts, from Beowulf to Homer.

Rick Lannoye
www.thereisnohell.com

by: ricklannoye

02-21-2010 @ 3:49pm

This is horrific story found in Numbers, Ch 31. Of course, back in those days, it was not uncommon for military victors to kill all the males and the non virgins, as a way to ensure that any children born to the virgins they carried away as sex slaves, would belong to them, and thus, ensure the loyalty of their mothers. They feared that any children of those whom they conquered might rise up to get revenge, so they routinely murdered them.

But just because that was standard procedure back then, doesn't make it right! Clearly, putting God's stamp of approval on these slaughters was just a way of justifying it, but the God of Jesus could never, ever had anything to with such an evil!

Rick Lannoye
www.thereisnohell.com

by: Jesusistheway

02-21-2010 @ 3:26pm

Reading through Numbers and God's call for Israel to occupy Canaan, it's worth noting that God calls on the Israelites at times to wipe out its enemy. Apparently, God can destroy what He creates. Of course, I'm reading the Bible in Spanish so it's probably not up to snuff with the Americanized version....

by: John Mulholland

02-19-2010 @ 7:33pm

"I wish he would try to be clearer. What is the point of vagueness? Is it to avoid the post-modernist allergy to certainty of any kind?"

Hahahaha. Good luck. Brian does one thing very well, he states everything by stating nothing. That way, he can say silly things like, "I'm just an English teacher trying to start a conversation".

by: ricklannoye

02-19-2010 @ 9:26pm

It might be good to note here that Jesus himself did not believe in Hell. His view of God would have made that impossible.

I've actually written an entire book on this topic--Hell? No! Why You Can Be Certain There's No Such Place As Hell, (for anyone interested, you can get a free ecopy of Did Jesus Believe in Hell?, one of the most compelling chapters in my book at www.thereisnohell.com), but if I may, let me share one of the many points I make in it to explain why.

If one is willing to look, there's substantial evidence contained in the gospels to show that Jesus opposed the idea of Hell. For example, in Luke 9:51-56, is a story about his great disappointment with his disciples when they actually suggested imploring God to rain FIRE on a village just because they had rejected him. His response: "You don't know what spirit is inspiring this kind of talk!" Presumably, it was NOT the Holy Spirit. He went on, trying to explain how he had come to save, heal and relieve suffering, not be the CAUSE of it.

So it only stands to reason that this same Jesus, who was appalled at the very idea of burning a few people, for a few horrific minutes until they were dead, could never, ever burn BILLIONS of people for an ETERNITY!

True, there are a few statements that made their way into the copies of copies of copies of the gospel texts which place "Hell" on Jesus' lips, but these adulterations came along many decades after his death, most likely due to the Church filling up with Greeks who imported their belief in Hades with them when they converted.

Bear in mind that the historical Protestant doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures applies only to the original autographs, not the copies. But sadly, the interpolations that made their way into those copies have provided a convenient excuse for a lot of people to get around following Jesus' real message.

by: PASTOR JEFF

02-19-2010 @ 9:51pm

What? The King James isn't inspired? Drat!

by: ricklannoye

02-19-2010 @ 11:05pm

Yeah, and what's worse, the KJV isn't even the bible Jesus used!!!

by: squeaky

02-19-2010 @ 11:07pm

WHAAT?! HERETIC!!! =)

by: CJTiger

02-20-2010 @ 2:42am

Interesting, what do you make of God commanding Saul to wipe out the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15)?

by: ricklannoye

02-26-2010 @ 4:42pm

Yes, thank you, I was aware that there are a number of scholars who believe this was an interpolation, and it's certainly possible that it is. That said, even if it is, it represents a view of God that was still alive and well in the early centuries of Christianity, and that was consistent with the earliest and most reliable texts in which Jesus presents God as forgiving, loving, healing and accepting, even when we don't respond in kind.

So, even if it was not included in the original autograph, it does provide evidence of the strong tradition in early Christianity for a Jesus whose God did not cause suffering, but wants to relieve it.

Rick
www.thereisnohell.com

by: ricklannoye

02-20-2010 @ 12:20pm

Well, have you ever told someone something, and they took it all the wrong way, largely because they interpreted what you said through their internal, mental filters containing a number of bad expectations due to all the "baggage" they were still carrying around? If so, then it's not too hard to understand why the prophets in the OT were lucky to understand anything God was trying to say!

God's real message to Samuel was probably something like, "I want you to tell King Saul to share my love with the Amalekites, and don't leave anyone out, not even their dogs and cats." But by the time that message got inside Samuel's head and ran through the gauntlet of his bad-view-of-the-world filter, it turned into, "I want you to tell King Saul to go kill all the Amalekites, and don't leave anyone out, not even their dogs and cats!"

You might say, God was in a bad relationship with Israel (actually, he's thought to have said as much by a number of prophets), and it showed a lot in all the times they didn't get him! Sometimes, he'd get through, but more often than not, his word either never made it to them in one piece, or if it did, it was soon turned inside out.

What was God to do? He still loved them, but the Israelites were not ready for a healthy relationship. So, you might say he tried to take them to therapy, and work with them, one step at a time to bring them around.

According to Jesus, God decided to just give them little bits and pieces of what he really wanted, to get them going in the right direction, to make some sort of forward progress, however short the distance might be. This is why Jesus took many of the divine proclamations in the OT and viewed them as "hardness of heart" commands, things God told them that, sadly, allowed them to continue doing bad things, but for the purpose of keeping them from doing really, really, really worse things.

This is why he said, "you've heard it said, 'an eye for an eye', but I say, return good for evil! In the OT, God was just trying to stop the Israelites from taking dozens of eyes for an eye (you know, completely blinding not only the person who gouged out someone else's eye, but his entire family). He put a cap, in other words, on so many of the evils going on, as an interim solution.

Jesus explained Moses' law about divorce as a "hardness of heart" declaration, designed to keep men from dumping a female sex slave, but in such a way, that no other man would take her and, thus, leave her on the street to either starve (if she was old and sick) or become a whore. Moses' law put a deterrant on this sort of "divorce" by saying once you get rid of her, you can't have her back, and you have to put it in writing so she can prove that's she's free to be with another. He didn't try to tell men at the time of Moses, "It's wrong to purchase women as sex slaves!"

God wasn't really all that happy about slavery either! But he knew they weren't ready for an emancipation proclamation. So he gave them a law that said, "You have to stop all work at least one day a week" to, literally, give the slaves a break! And even Jesus didn't break it to them all at once about God wanted all to be free. He just tried to say, "Look, the Sabbath was made for man, not the other way around."

God didn't really want them to sacrifice animals! He finally got this through to the prophet Hosea, when he said, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice." But the Israelites were definitely not ready for that. So, God started from where they were. He basically said, "If you're gonna kill and shed blood, thinking this is gonna somehow make me happy, then at the least, don't be killing any people!" So he made it clear that they were not to pass their children through the fires of Moloch. And he also told them, in gross detail, how to kill the animals in such a way that it would be quick and virtually painless, by forbidding the strangling of animals (a slow and painful death that, no doubt, attracted some real sickos to their priesthoods!)

Behind this and all of his Hardness of Heart commands, there was the underlying message that God doesn't like suffering! He didn't even want the animals to suffer pain, much less human suffering. But it was only when Jesus came along, THE Word of God, when he just came right out with it, and even then, the church began to filter a lot of what he said.

Hope that helps!

by: ckgmail

02-20-2010 @ 12:31pm

Well, darn, Patricia. You're a Catholic, and I'm a Baptist! How could it be that a Catholic and a Baptist could be in such wide agreement? The millenium is almost here!

by: ckgmail

02-20-2010 @ 12:36pm

Well what do you make of the incident where God told Moses to wipe out all the men, boys, and married women in a certain group, but they could keep the girls and the virgin women for themselves? You suppose Moses might have heard what Moses wanted to hear? Is that God really the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ? (I can't give chapter and verse for this. It's somewhere in the wilderness wanderings.)

by: Jonwards

04-03-2010 @ 12:40am

(just saw what follows while computering!)

PRETRIB RAPTURE SECRECY

by Dave MacPherson

The word "secrecy" when applied to Christ's return can refer to two different things: time and visibility. Before 1830 the only coming Christians looked for was the "every eye shall see him" second advent to earth - secret only in point of time.
Enter Margaret Macdonald in 1830. She saw "the one taken and the other left" before "THE WICKED" [Antichrist] will "be revealed" - and added that her pretrib rapture would not be "seen by the natural eye" but only by "those who have the light of God within." Her rapture was doubly secret: at an unknown day and hour and also invisible to "outsiders."
Desperate to eliminate Margaret as the pretrib rapture originator and the Irvingites as the first public teachers of pretrib, Darby defender Thomas Ice foolishly claims that they taught a secret POSTTRIB coming even though he knows that when Hal Lindsey teaches "one taken" etc. before the Antichrist "is revealed" Lindsey is expressing the kernel of the pretrib view - what MM and the Irvingites clearly taught before Darby did! Google "X-Raying Margaret" and "Edward Irving is Unnerving" to see why they are properly labeled "pretrib.")
As early as June 1832, Irving's journal taught that only "to those who are watching and praying...will Christ be manifested...as the morning star. To the rest of the church, and to the world, this first appearance will be...unintelligible." ("Present State of Prophetic Knowledge" etc., p. 374)
Always trailing and "borrowing" quietly from the Irvingites who in turn had "borrowed" from Margaret, Darby in 1845 finally sounded like them when he wrote that "the bright and morning Star...is the sweet and blessed sign to them that watch...And such is Christ before He appears [at the final advent to earth]. The Sun will arise on the world....The star is before the [Sun], the joy of those who watch. The unwakeful world, who sleep in the night, see it not." ("Thoughts on the Apocalypse," p. 167)
And Lindsey's "Late Great Planet Earth," p. 143, says that "the second coming is said to be visible to the whole earth (Revelation 1:7). However, in the Rapture. only the Christians see Him - it's a mystery, a secret."
My bestselling book "The Rapture Plot" (available at online stores including Armageddon Books) has 300 pages of such documentation and proves that Margaret was the first to "see" a secret, pretrib rapture, that the Irvingites soon echoed her in their journal (which Darby admitted he avidly read), and that Darby was last on all of the crucial aspects of dispensationalism.
Shockingly, all of the earliest pretrib development rested solely on unclear OT and NT types and symbols and NOT on clear Biblical statements. Margaret's rapture was inspired by Rev. 11's "two witnesses." And her "secret visibility" rested on the "types" of Stephen, Paul, and John - all of whom saw or heard what others couldn't see or hear.
For 30 years Darby's pretrib basis was the rapture of Rev. 12's "man child" - actually his plagiarism of Irving's usage of this "pretrib" symbol eight years earlier!
As I said at the start, the "second advent to earth" is secret in point of time with its unknown "day and hour," as Christ stated. Pretribs assert that if Christ returns for the church after the tribulation, we could count down the days and figure out the actual date of His return - which would contradict Christ's words.
But pretribs deliberately ignore the fact that Christ said that the tribulation days will be shortened - and He didn't reveal the length of the shortening!
Our opponents also assume that the "watch" verses prove the "any-moment imminence" of Christ's return. But do they? II Peter 3:12 says we are to be "looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God" which all premills claim is at least 1000 years ahead of us and therefore hardly "imminent"! What's the difference between "watching for" and "looking for"?
Another gimmick has pretribs saying "Would you want Jesus to return at any moment and find out you're sinning?" But Jesus ALREADY knows all about us! And the Holy Spirit, who's also God, is ALREADY here (Rom. 8:27)!
You have just learned a few of the many secrets that the Secret Rapture Gang has hidden for a long time. Evidently they have forgotten Luke 12:2's warning that "there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed"!
For the ultimate in uncovered secrets, see engines like Google and type in "Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty."
P.S. - For more info on the pretrib-originating Macdonald, see "Miss Macdonald's 'Vision' Located" on Joe Ortiz' "End Times Passover" blog (Mar. 9), also "Pretrib Rapture's Missing Lines" on Ortiz' "Our Daily Bread" (Mar. 27).

[The above message was NOT approved by the I.L.L. (Ice, LaHaye, Lindsey) Consortium of the Rapture Defense League!]

by: John Mulholland

02-20-2010 @ 1:49pm

Why, He was in "Vengeful Tribal God" mode influenced by Greco-Romanism, of course.

by: CJTiger

02-20-2010 @ 2:29pm

Rick, thanks for taking the time to respond. I disagree, but appreciate your heart. Your response is filled with things you think, but can't come close to proving. The plain reading of the text is that Saul disobeyed God by not wiping out the Amaleklites. Our sovereign God commanded judgment for their sins. We don't do ourselves any favors by making up a God we like better, because he's nicer.

by: CJTiger

02-20-2010 @ 2:31pm

That God doesn't change. God is the same in the Old and New Testament. I don't have a problem with it.

by: Patricia

02-20-2010 @ 2:46pm

Please don't let anyone else know this, but there is quite a bit of agreement between Catholics and Baptists - that's a secret, though :).

by: ckgmail

02-20-2010 @ 3:19pm

You don't have a problem with God commanding Moses to kill the men, boys, and married women and save the virgins for themselves? God may never change (although the Bible does say he changes his mind on occasion) but people's perception of God changes. And the Bible is a written record of people's perceptions of God (among other things) over time. Who incited David to number Israel? Was it Satan, or the LORD? (See 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1)

by: ckgmail

02-20-2010 @ 3:22pm

Okay. Just between us. But I was years into my Baptist ministry before I figgered it out. Some Baptists (and I imagine some Catholics) still haven't.

by: CJTiger

02-20-2010 @ 3:27pm

God sovereignly used Satan to achieve his purposes. At the same time, David is responsible for his sin.

Hey, God doesn't have to answer to me.

by: edwardfudge

02-20-2010 @ 4:17pm

For details, reviews and interviews on THE FIRE THAT CONSUMES: A BIBLICAL AND HISTORICAL STUDY OF THE DOCTRINE OF FINAL PUNISHMENT, plus many other resources including audio and video presentations, please go to http://www.EdwardFudge.com/written/fire.html .

by: squeaky

02-20-2010 @ 5:37pm

Thank you sir!

by: Mennoman

02-20-2010 @ 8:09pm

Squeaky, I think that Martin Luther held to this position as well. Maybe Edward Fudge can comment on that.

by: PASTOR JEFF

02-20-2010 @ 10:10pm

Some of my best friends are catholics. ;-) No seriously...

by: ricklannoye

02-21-2010 @ 11:09am

Well, if you want to take that passage "as is," then you have to take a whole bunch of other passages and make them say something very different, such as, "Thou shalt not kill," or "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," or "For God so loved the world...."

Remember, Samual claimed the order from God was to kill EVERYONE, and that included, not just the Amalekite armymen, but the old, the disabled, the sick, women (some of whom were pregnant) and children! And who was it that sinned? Well, if you go back to find out, it was actually one priest that belonged to their tribe, that's it! And it's not like he killed anyone, but mouthed off! So even if there was a need for "judgment" (let's face it, the more accurate word would be "revenge"), even killing that one Amalekite priest would have been in violation of a "plain reading" of Moses' law restricting punishment to "an eye for an eye"!

No, there's a reason why we have come to think of God as "nice"--because that's the kind of God Jesus, as THE Word of God, (mind you, the Bible is not the Word of God, Jesus is!) the full and final Expression of God, showed us!

When you get a chance, check out my book at www.thereisnohell.com where I explain all of this in full detail.

by: johnchristophersunol

04-07-2010 @ 7:58pm

as for the rapture, I can assure you it is coming and coming soon, but when date and time I do not know nor I am focusing on the rapture pre-trip, post trip or mid trib; Instead I am focusing on the rising of the Beast of Revelations in todays society and how we must handle this. God will look after the raprtyure and it will come in his timing.

by: fundamentalist

02-19-2010 @ 2:15pm

It appears that McClaren has embraced universalism with a dash of pergatory. In other words, all mankind will eventually go to heaven, though some will first go through a fire to cleanse them of evil. Does anyone know enough about his theology to confirm or deny? I wish he would try to be clearer. What is the point of vagueness? Is it to avoid the post-modernist allergy to certainty of any kind?

by: squeaky

02-19-2010 @ 2:42pm

I suggest reading some of the works by Edward Fudge. There are Scriptural and historical arguments supporting a theology that Hell is not a place of eternal suffering, which Fudge explores at length. Advent Christian's argue that a person who does not accept Christ has no eternity whatsoever and ceases to exist upon death, so it is an idea found within some traditional churches, as well. You would have to explore the theology on your own; it's quite involved and complex (ie, more involved and complex than I have time to get into), but I think compelling. It does get to the question of why do we believe what we believe. Things we take for granted as true, without really exploring them.

The question I would like to put out there is this: Imagine, if you will, there is no hell (apologies to John Lennon). Or that hell is only a one time moment of suffering followed by the person ceasing to exist. Or that hell is a purgatory that a person goes through to be cleansed, and then gets to be in Heaven. What are the implications of any one of those scenarios to your faith? I"m not asking whether you agree or disagree with any of those tenets. I'm asking you to imagine that one of them is actually true, and then trying to jive that with Jesus--who He is, and how you approach the Gospel.

On a side note...in the universe that God created, there is the law of conservation of matter. No matter is created or destroyed. If a person bound for Hell is completely destroyed, that would go against that law. In other words, not even that person's molecules or atoms would be incorporated in another living thing, or even in a rock, liquid, or gas, ever again. Completely and utterly destroyed forever.

by: Patricia

02-19-2010 @ 2:48pm

I have to say that, as a Catholic, this is the first time in my life (which included nearly 12 years of Catholic schooling and numerous years - none of your business how many :)! - of adult education) that I've heard that we believe in predetermination! As far as I know, we certainly do not. Perhaps Mr. McClaren should inform Benedict :)?

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: fundamentalist

02-19-2010 @ 2:15pm

It appears that McClaren has embraced universalism with a dash of pergatory. In other words, all mankind will eventually go to heaven, though some will first go through a fire to cleanse them of evil. Does anyone know enough about his theology to confirm or deny? I wish he would try to be clearer. What is the point of vagueness? Is it to avoid the post-modernist allergy to certainty of any kind?

by: fundamentalist

02-19-2010 @ 2:15pm

It appears that McClaren has embraced universalism with a dash of pergatory. In other words, all mankind will eventually go to heaven, though some will first go through a fire to cleanse them of evil. Does anyone know enough about his theology to confirm or deny? I wish he would try to be clearer. What is the point of vagueness? Is it to avoid the post-modernist allergy to certainty of any kind?

by: squeaky

02-19-2010 @ 2:42pm

I suggest reading some of the works by Edward Fudge. There are Scriptural and historical arguments supporting a theology that Hell is not a place of eternal suffering, which Fudge explores at length. Advent Christian's argue that a person who does not accept Christ has no eternity whatsoever and ceases to exist upon death, so it is an idea found within some traditional churches, as well. You would have to explore the theology on your own; it's quite involved and complex (ie, more involved and complex than I have time to get into), but I think compelling. It does get to the question of why do we believe what we believe. Things we take for granted as true, without really exploring them.

The question I would like to put out there is this: Imagine, if you will, there is no hell (apologies to John Lennon). Or that hell is only a one time moment of suffering followed by the person ceasing to exist. Or that hell is a purgatory that a person goes through to be cleansed, and then gets to be in Heaven. What are the implications of any one of those scenarios to your faith? I"m not asking whether you agree or disagree with any of those tenets. I'm asking you to imagine that one of them is actually true, and then trying to jive that with Jesus--who He is, and how you approach the Gospel.

On a side note...in the universe that God created, there is the law of conservation of matter. No matter is created or destroyed. If a person bound for Hell is completely destroyed, that would go against that law. In other words, not even that person's molecules or atoms would be incorporated in another living thing, or even in a rock, liquid, or gas, ever again. Completely and utterly destroyed forever.

by: squeaky

02-19-2010 @ 2:42pm

I suggest reading some of the works by Edward Fudge. There are Scriptural and historical arguments supporting a theology that Hell is not a place of eternal suffering, which Fudge explores at length. Advent Christian's argue that a person who does not accept Christ has no eternity whatsoever and ceases to exist upon death, so it is an idea found within some traditional churches, as well. You would have to explore the theology on your own; it's quite involved and complex (ie, more involved and complex than I have time to get into), but I think compelling. It does get to the question of why do we believe what we believe. Things we take for granted as true, without really exploring them.

The question I would like to put out there is this: Imagine, if you will, there is no hell (apologies to John Lennon). Or that hell is only a one time moment of suffering followed by the person ceasing to exist. Or that hell is a purgatory that a person goes through to be cleansed, and then gets to be in Heaven. What are the implications of any one of those scenarios to your faith? I"m not asking whether you agree or disagree with any of those tenets. I'm asking you to imagine that one of them is actually true, and then trying to jive that with Jesus--who He is, and how you approach the Gospel.

On a side note...in the universe that God created, there is the law of conservation of matter. No matter is created or destroyed. If a person bound for Hell is completely destroyed, that would go against that law. In other words, not even that person's molecules or atoms would be incorporated in another living thing, or even in a rock, liquid, or gas, ever again. Completely and utterly destroyed forever.

by: Patricia

02-19-2010 @ 2:48pm

I have to say that, as a Catholic, this is the first time in my life (which included nearly 12 years of Catholic schooling and numerous years - none of your business how many :)! - of adult education) that I've heard that we believe in predetermination! As far as I know, we certainly do not. Perhaps Mr. McClaren should inform Benedict :)?

by: Patricia

02-19-2010 @ 2:48pm

I have to say that, as a Catholic, this is the first time in my life (which included nearly 12 years of Catholic schooling and numerous years - none of your business how many :)! - of adult education) that I've heard that we believe in predetermination! As far as I know, we certainly do not. Perhaps Mr. McClaren should inform Benedict :)?

by: squeaky

02-19-2010 @ 4:56pm

What do you think Brian means by predetermination? That individual's salvation is predetermined, or that the future history of the world is predetermined? I think he means the latter--is that not what Catholics believe (Revelations)? I don't really know for sure..Just asking.

by: squeaky

02-19-2010 @ 4:56pm

What do you think Brian means by predetermination? That individual's salvation is predetermined, or that the future history of the world is predetermined? I think he means the latter--is that not what Catholics believe (Revelations)? I don't really know for sure..Just asking.

by: Patricia

02-19-2010 @ 5:27pm

As far as I know, neither is accurate.

Regarding the future history of the world, the Catholic church does not interpret Scripture (including the Book of Revelations) literally.

Regarding individual's salvation, no.

We believe God KNOWS, but He does not predetermine, if that makes any sense.

by: Patricia

02-19-2010 @ 5:27pm

As far as I know, neither is accurate.

Regarding the future history of the world, the Catholic church does not interpret Scripture (including the Book of Revelations) literally.

Regarding individual's salvation, no.

We believe God KNOWS, but He does not predetermine, if that makes any sense.

by: John Mulholland

02-19-2010 @ 7:33pm

"I wish he would try to be clearer. What is the point of vagueness? Is it to avoid the post-modernist allergy to certainty of any kind?"

Hahahaha. Good luck. Brian does one thing very well, he states everything by stating nothing. That way, he can say silly things like, "I'm just an English teacher trying to start a conversation".

by: John Mulholland

02-19-2010 @ 7:33pm

"I wish he would try to be clearer. What is the point of vagueness? Is it to avoid the post-modernist allergy to certainty of any kind?"

Hahahaha. Good luck. Brian does one thing very well, he states everything by stating nothing. That way, he can say silly things like, "I'm just an English teacher trying to start a conversation".

by: ricklannoye

02-19-2010 @ 9:26pm

It might be good to note here that Jesus himself did not believe in Hell. His view of God would have made that impossible.

I've actually written an entire book on this topic--Hell? No! Why You Can Be Certain There's No Such Place As Hell, (for anyone interested, you can get a free ecopy of Did Jesus Believe in Hell?, one of the most compelling chapters in my book at www.thereisnohell.com), but if I may, let me share one of the many points I make in it to explain why.

If one is willing to look, there's substantial evidence contained in the gospels to show that Jesus opposed the idea of Hell. For example, in Luke 9:51-56, is a story about his great disappointment with his disciples when they actually suggested imploring God to rain FIRE on a village just because they had rejected him. His response: "You don't know what spirit is inspiring this kind of talk!" Presumably, it was NOT the Holy Spirit. He went on, trying to explain how he had come to save, heal and relieve suffering, not be the CAUSE of it.

So it only stands to reason that this same Jesus, who was appalled at the very idea of burning a few people, for a few horrific minutes until they were dead, could never, ever burn BILLIONS of people for an ETERNITY!

True, there are a few statements that made their way into the copies of copies of copies of the gospel texts which place "Hell" on Jesus' lips, but these adulterations came along many decades after his death, most likely due to the Church filling up with Greeks who imported their belief in Hades with them when they converted.

Bear in mind that the historical Protestant doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures applies only to the original autographs, not the copies. But sadly, the interpolations that made their way into those copies have provided a convenient excuse for a lot of people to get around following Jesus' real message.

by: ricklannoye

02-19-2010 @ 9:26pm

It might be good to note here that Jesus himself did not believe in Hell. His view of God would have made that impossible.

I've actually written an entire book on this topic--Hell? No! Why You Can Be Certain There's No Such Place As Hell, (for anyone interested, you can get a free ecopy of Did Jesus Believe in Hell?, one of the most compelling chapters in my book at www.thereisnohell.com), but if I may, let me share one of the many points I make in it to explain why.

If one is willing to look, there's substantial evidence contained in the gospels to show that Jesus opposed the idea of Hell. For example, in Luke 9:51-56, is a story about his great disappointment with his disciples when they actually suggested imploring God to rain FIRE on a village just because they had rejected him. His response: "You don't know what spirit is inspiring this kind of talk!" Presumably, it was NOT the Holy Spirit. He went on, trying to explain how he had come to save, heal and relieve suffering, not be the CAUSE of it.

So it only stands to reason that this same Jesus, who was appalled at the very idea of burning a few people, for a few horrific minutes until they were dead, could never, ever burn BILLIONS of people for an ETERNITY!

True, there are a few statements that made their way into the copies of copies of copies of the gospel texts which place "Hell" on Jesus' lips, but these adulterations came along many decades after his death, most likely due to the Church filling up with Greeks who imported their belief in Hades with them when they converted.

Bear in mind that the historical Protestant doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures applies only to the original autographs, not the copies. But sadly, the interpolations that made their way into those copies have provided a convenient excuse for a lot of people to get around following Jesus' real message.

by: PASTOR JEFF

02-19-2010 @ 9:51pm

What? The King James isn't inspired? Drat!

by: PASTOR JEFF

02-19-2010 @ 9:51pm

What? The King James isn't inspired? Drat!

by: ricklannoye

02-19-2010 @ 11:05pm

Yeah, and what's worse, the KJV isn't even the bible Jesus used!!!

by: ricklannoye

02-19-2010 @ 11:05pm

Yeah, and what's worse, the KJV isn't even the bible Jesus used!!!

by: squeaky

02-19-2010 @ 11:07pm

WHAAT?! HERETIC!!! =)

by: squeaky

02-19-2010 @ 11:07pm

WHAAT?! HERETIC!!! =)

by: CJTiger

02-20-2010 @ 2:42am

Interesting, what do you make of God commanding Saul to wipe out the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15)?

by: CJTiger

02-20-2010 @ 2:42am

Interesting, what do you make of God commanding Saul to wipe out the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15)?

by: ricklannoye

02-20-2010 @ 12:20pm

Well, have you ever told someone something, and they took it all the wrong way, largely because they interpreted what you said through their internal, mental filters containing a number of bad expectations due to all the "baggage" they were still carrying around? If so, then it's not too hard to understand why the prophets in the OT were lucky to understand anything God was trying to say!

God's real message to Samuel was probably something like, "I want you to tell King Saul to share my love with the Amalekites, and don't leave anyone out, not even their dogs and cats." But by the time that message got inside Samuel's head and ran through the gauntlet of his bad-view-of-the-world filter, it turned into, "I want you to tell King Saul to go kill all the Amalekites, and don't leave anyone out, not even their dogs and cats!"

You might say, God was in a bad relationship with Israel (actually, he's thought to have said as much by a number of prophets), and it showed a lot in all the times they didn't get him! Sometimes, he'd get through, but more often than not, his word either never made it to them in one piece, or if it did, it was soon turned inside out.

What was God to do? He still loved them, but the Israelites were not ready for a healthy relationship. So, you might say he tried to take them to therapy, and work with them, one step at a time to bring them around.

According to Jesus, God decided to just give them little bits and pieces of what he really wanted, to get them going in the right direction, to make some sort of forward progress, however short the distance might be. This is why Jesus took many of the divine proclamations in the OT and viewed them as "hardness of heart" commands, things God told them that, sadly, allowed them to continue doing bad things, but for the purpose of keeping them from doing really, really, really worse things.

This is why he said, "you've heard it said, 'an eye for an eye', but I say, return good for evil! In the OT, God was just trying to stop the Israelites from taking dozens of eyes for an eye (you know, completely blinding not only the person who gouged out someone else's eye, but his entire family). He put a cap, in other words, on so many of the evils going on, as an interim solution.

Jesus explained Moses' law about divorce as a "hardness of heart" declaration, designed to keep men from dumping a female sex slave, but in such a way, that no other man would take her and, thus, leave her on the street to either starve (if she was old and sick) or become a whore. Moses' law put a deterrant on this sort of "divorce" by saying once you get rid of her, you can't have her back, and you have to put it in writing so she can prove that's she's free to be with another. He didn't try to tell men at the time of Moses, "It's wrong to purchase women as sex slaves!"

God wasn't really all that happy about slavery either! But he knew they weren't ready for an emancipation proclamation. So he gave them a law that said, "You have to stop all work at least one day a week" to, literally, give the slaves a break! And even Jesus didn't break it to them all at once about God wanted all to be free. He just tried to say, "Look, the Sabbath was made for man, not the other way around."

God didn't really want them to sacrifice animals! He finally got this through to the prophet Hosea, when he said, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice." But the Israelites were definitely not ready for that. So, God started from where they were. He basically said, "If you're gonna kill and shed blood, thinking this is gonna somehow make me happy, then at the least, don't be killing any people!" So he made it clear that they were not to pass their children through the fires of Moloch. And he also told them, in gross detail, how to kill the animals in such a way that it would be quick and virtually painless, by forbidding the strangling of animals (a slow and painful death that, no doubt, attracted some real sickos to their priesthoods!)

Behind this and all of his Hardness of Heart commands, there was the underlying message that God doesn't like suffering! He didn't even want the animals to suffer pain, much less human suffering. But it was only when Jesus came along, THE Word of God, when he just came right out with it, and even then, the church began to filter a lot of what he said.

Hope that helps!

by: ricklannoye

02-20-2010 @ 12:20pm

Well, have you ever told someone something, and they took it all the wrong way, largely because they interpreted what you said through their internal, mental filters containing a number of bad expectations due to all the "baggage" they were still carrying around? If so, then it's not too hard to understand why the prophets in the OT were lucky to understand anything God was trying to say!

God's real message to Samuel was probably something like, "I want you to tell King Saul to share my love with the Amalekites, and don't leave anyone out, not even their dogs and cats." But by the time that message got inside Samuel's head and ran through the gauntlet of his bad-view-of-the-world filter, it turned into, "I want you to tell King Saul to go kill all the Amalekites, and don't leave anyone out, not even their dogs and cats!"

You might say, God was in a bad relationship with Israel (actually, he's thought to have said as much by a number of prophets), and it showed a lot in all the times they didn't get him! Sometimes, he'd get through, but more often than not, his word either never made it to them in one piece, or if it did, it was soon turned inside out.

What was God to do? He still loved them, but the Israelites were not ready for a healthy relationship. So, you might say he tried to take them to therapy, and work with them, one step at a time to bring them around.

According to Jesus, God decided to just give them little bits and pieces of what he really wanted, to get them going in the right direction, to make some sort of forward progress, however short the distance might be. This is why Jesus took many of the divine proclamations in the OT and viewed them as "hardness of heart" commands, things God told them that, sadly, allowed them to continue doing bad things, but for the purpose of keeping them from doing really, really, really worse things.

This is why he said, "you've heard it said, 'an eye for an eye', but I say, return good for evil! In the OT, God was just trying to stop the Israelites from taking dozens of eyes for an eye (you know, completely blinding not only the person who gouged out someone else's eye, but his entire family). He put a cap, in other words, on so many of the evils going on, as an interim solution.

Jesus explained Moses' law about divorce as a "hardness of heart" declaration, designed to keep men from dumping a female sex slave, but in such a way, that no other man would take her and, thus, leave her on the street to either starve (if she was old and sick) or become a whore. Moses' law put a deterrant on this sort of "divorce" by saying once you get rid of her, you can't have her back, and you have to put it in writing so she can prove that's she's free to be with another. He didn't try to tell men at the time of Moses, "It's wrong to purchase women as sex slaves!"

God wasn't really all that happy about slavery either! But he knew they weren't ready for an emancipation proclamation. So he gave them a law that said, "You have to stop all work at least one day a week" to, literally, give the slaves a break! And even Jesus didn't break it to them all at once about God wanted all to be free. He just tried to say, "Look, the Sabbath was made for man, not the other way around."

God didn't really want them to sacrifice animals! He finally got this through to the prophet Hosea, when he said, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice." But the Israelites were definitely not ready for that. So, God started from where they were. He basically said, "If you're gonna kill and shed blood, thinking this is gonna somehow make me happy, then at the least, don't be killing any people!" So he made it clear that they were not to pass their children through the fires of Moloch. And he also told them, in gross detail, how to kill the animals in such a way that it would be quick and virtually painless, by forbidding the strangling of animals (a slow and painful death that, no doubt, attracted some real sickos to their priesthoods!)

Behind this and all of his Hardness of Heart commands, there was the underlying message that God doesn't like suffering! He didn't even want the animals to suffer pain, much less human suffering. But it was only when Jesus came along, THE Word of God, when he just came right out with it, and even then, the church began to filter a lot of what he said.

Hope that helps!

by: ckgmail

02-20-2010 @ 12:31pm

Well, darn, Patricia. You're a Catholic, and I'm a Baptist! How could it be that a Catholic and a Baptist could be in such wide agreement? The millenium is almost here!

by: ckgmail

02-20-2010 @ 12:31pm

Well, darn, Patricia. You're a Catholic, and I'm a Baptist! How could it be that a Catholic and a Baptist could be in such wide agreement? The millenium is almost here!

by: ckgmail

02-20-2010 @ 12:36pm

Well what do you make of the incident where God told Moses to wipe out all the men, boys, and married women in a certain group, but they could keep the girls and the virgin women for themselves? You suppose Moses might have heard what Moses wanted to hear? Is that God really the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ? (I can't give chapter and verse for this. It's somewhere in the wilderness wanderings.)

by: ckgmail

02-20-2010 @ 12:36pm

Well what do you make of the incident where God told Moses to wipe out all the men, boys, and married women in a certain group, but they could keep the girls and the virgin women for themselves? You suppose Moses might have heard what Moses wanted to hear? Is that God really the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ? (I can't give chapter and verse for this. It's somewhere in the wilderness wanderings.)

by: John Mulholland

02-20-2010 @ 1:49pm

Why, He was in "Vengeful Tribal God" mode influenced by Greco-Romanism, of course.

by: John Mulholland

02-20-2010 @ 1:49pm

Why, He was in "Vengeful Tribal God" mode influenced by Greco-Romanism, of course.

by: CJTiger

02-20-2010 @ 2:29pm

Rick, thanks for taking the time to respond. I disagree, but appreciate your heart. Your response is filled with things you think, but can't come close to proving. The plain reading of the text is that Saul disobeyed God by not wiping out the Amaleklites. Our sovereign God commanded judgment for their sins. We don't do ourselves any favors by making up a God we like better, because he's nicer.

by: CJTiger

02-20-2010 @ 2:29pm

Rick, thanks for taking the time to respond. I disagree, but appreciate your heart. Your response is filled with things you think, but can't come close to proving. The plain reading of the text is that Saul disobeyed God by not wiping out the Amaleklites. Our sovereign God commanded judgment for their sins. We don't do ourselves any favors by making up a God we like better, because he's nicer.

by: CJTiger

02-20-2010 @ 2:31pm

That God doesn't change. God is the same in the Old and New Testament. I don't have a problem with it.

by: CJTiger

02-20-2010 @ 2:31pm

That God doesn't change. God is the same in the Old and New Testament. I don't have a problem with it.

by: Patricia

02-20-2010 @ 2:46pm

Please don't let anyone else know this, but there is quite a bit of agreement between Catholics and Baptists - that's a secret, though :).

by: Patricia

02-20-2010 @ 2:46pm

Please don't let anyone else know this, but there is quite a bit of agreement between Catholics and Baptists - that's a secret, though :).

by: ckgmail

02-20-2010 @ 3:19pm

You don't have a problem with God commanding Moses to kill the men, boys, and married women and save the virgins for themselves? God may never change (although the Bible does say he changes his mind on occasion) but people's perception of God changes. And the Bible is a written record of people's perceptions of God (among other things) over time. Who incited David to number Israel? Was it Satan, or the LORD? (See 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1)

by: ckgmail

02-20-2010 @ 3:19pm

You don't have a problem with God commanding Moses to kill the men, boys, and married women and save the virgins for themselves? God may never change (although the Bible does say he changes his mind on occasion) but people's perception of God changes. And the Bible is a written record of people's perceptions of God (among other things) over time. Who incited David to number Israel? Was it Satan, or the LORD? (See 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1)

by: ckgmail

02-20-2010 @ 3:22pm

Okay. Just between us. But I was years into my Baptist ministry before I figgered it out. Some Baptists (and I imagine some Catholics) still haven't.

by: ckgmail

02-20-2010 @ 3:22pm

Okay. Just between us. But I was years into my Baptist ministry before I figgered it out. Some Baptists (and I imagine some Catholics) still haven't.

by: CJTiger

02-20-2010 @ 3:27pm

God sovereignly used Satan to achieve his purposes. At the same time, David is responsible for his sin.

Hey, God doesn't have to answer to me.

by: CJTiger

02-20-2010 @ 3:27pm

God sovereignly used Satan to achieve his purposes. At the same time, David is responsible for his sin.

Hey, God doesn't have to answer to me.

by: edwardfudge

02-20-2010 @ 4:17pm

For details, reviews and interviews on THE FIRE THAT CONSUMES: A BIBLICAL AND HISTORICAL STUDY OF THE DOCTRINE OF FINAL PUNISHMENT, plus many other resources including audio and video presentations, please go to http://www.EdwardFudge.com/written/fire.html .

by: edwardfudge

02-20-2010 @ 4:17pm

For details, reviews and interviews on THE FIRE THAT CONSUMES: A BIBLICAL AND HISTORICAL STUDY OF THE DOCTRINE OF FINAL PUNISHMENT, plus many other resources including audio and video presentations, please go to http://www.EdwardFudge.com/written/fire.html .

by: squeaky

02-20-2010 @ 5:37pm

Thank you sir!

by: squeaky

02-20-2010 @ 5:37pm

Thank you sir!

by: Mennoman

02-20-2010 @ 8:09pm

Squeaky, I think that Martin Luther held to this position as well. Maybe Edward Fudge can comment on that.

by: Mennoman

02-20-2010 @ 8:09pm

Squeaky, I think that Martin Luther held to this position as well. Maybe Edward Fudge can comment on that.

by: PASTOR JEFF

02-20-2010 @ 10:10pm

Some of my best friends are catholics. ;-) No seriously...

by: PASTOR JEFF

02-20-2010 @ 10:10pm

Some of my best friends are catholics. ;-) No seriously...