 |
|
|
Don't be disturbed when people accuse you of thinking you're God. The more you get to be like Me, the more they're going to think that way of you. They crucified Me for claiming that I was God. But I didn't claim I was God; I just claimed I walked with Him and that He was in Me. Hallelujah. That's what you're doing.
-- Kenneth Copeland, "Voice of Victory" Vol. 15, No. 2, 2/87
|
|
| |
Preterism: Brian McLaren: Five proposals for reexamining our doctrine of hell
Posted on Thursday, May 11 @ 06:18:35 PDT by Virgil |
|
Christianity Today's Leadership Journal today published an interview with Brian McLaren on the topic of hell. Brian provides more insight into how he understands the teachings of Jesus, and offers five suggestions for rethinking our traditional understanding of hell. Not surprisingly, all his five points are ultimately quite "preteristic" in nature; as a Preterist I was pleasantly surprised by Brian's words.
Click here to read the Out of Ur interview with Brian McLaren.
|
| |
|
|
Average Score: 5
Votes: 1
 |
|
|
^^Go to Top -  E-mail to Friend -  Print -  View PDF -  Subscribe -  Comments RSS
Re: Brian McLaren: Five proposals for reexamining our doctrine of hell (Score: 1)
 by jmarvin on Thursday, May 11 @ 07:03:45 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Thank you for posting the article. I too have reevaluated my understanding of "hell" as a preterist and I'm interested in knowing Brian McLaren's view (and others) on the mortality/immortality issue as it relates to "hell." I can see how reevaluating the issue of "hell" in the light of metaphorical language can be a part of one's journey to seeing the possibility of "universal reconciliation" (I may not understand this term well enough yet; but the idea that all are or will eventually be saved???), though it does necessarily have to lead to this conclusion. So my question is this: If immortality is only brought in through the Gospel implying that man was not created immortal from the beginning and the New Covenant has been consummated thus the "change" in I Corinthians 15 is a covenantal reality today, what about those who are not "in Christ" thus they have not this immortality? If as McLaren suggests, that the "hell" references in view of the destruction to come in AD70 (which I find very tenable), then what is to become of those who are not "in Christ" as we've come to understand this? Anyway, time for work. Thank you in advance to one and all who share with me your insights.
jmarvin |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by jmarvin on Thursday, May 11 @ 07:05:53 PDT
- by Virgil on Thursday, May 11 @ 07:29:32 PDT
- by davo on Thursday, May 11 @ 07:44:23 PDT
- by Barry on Thursday, May 11 @ 08:56:34 PDT
- by Paige on Thursday, May 11 @ 08:47:47 PDT
Re: Brian McLaren: Five proposals for reexamining our doctrine of hell (Score: 1)
 by Virgil on Thursday, May 11 @ 07:24:52 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | I want to recap the five points Brian is proposing really quick:
1. The word "judgment" does not mean "going to hell after you die" every time it is being used in the Scripture. The same goes for "saved" meaning "going to heaven after you die."
2. Jesus never presented any version of the modern theories of atonement, such as "If you don’t accept me as your personal Savior by saying the sinner’s prayer" then you end up in the lake of fire.
3. Reconsider the use of figurative language by Jesus and its extent.
4. Consider the possibility that many, and perhaps even all of Jesus’ hell-fire or end-of-the-universe statements refer not to postmortem judgment but to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
5. We do not have to answer all questions that we do not understand - what we need to know was provided to us.
Now, all this rough reiteration of his points come very close to the things I have been saying before I even heard of Brian.
It is quite interesting to see the power of Covenant Eschatology and how much it forces someone to rethink theology.
I have even seen "lists" of salvation steps on some web sites, where there are nine points and steps through which one has to go through in order to be "saved." The human requirements put on atonement are simply mind blowing. Modern theology has created a lot of imaginary requirements for atonement that cannot be found anywhere in the Scripture - salvation anymore consists of satisfying men rather than God.
I may not have all the answers (which is why I believe it is OK to say "I don't know") but I am convinced of two things:
1. The world around us (both spiritual and physical) is much more complex than we can even begin to understand. It is the height of arrogance for any human in particular to claim to understand all these things. This is why I admire and promote the idea that Christianity is a journey in itself where we grow, learn and struggle with our understanding of God, Scripture, science, humanity. Like Jacob who was marked for life by his own fight with God, our aim should also be to get ahold of God best we can and wrestle away blessings, new paradigms and who knows...perhaps even a little love.
2. The implications of Preterism run deeper than many of us realize. Preterism is not an end in itself, but a beginning. It has prompted me to reconsider the traditional ideas of hell, reconciliation, creation and flood. This is why I encourage all of you to not settle on Preterism...if you do then you are no better off then when you were a futurist. Continue to learn, grow, ask questions, try to answer them, listen to others, and most of all be generous in your love and understanding of other points of view.
|
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by davo on Thursday, May 11 @ 07:41:04 PDT
- by Virgil on Thursday, May 11 @ 07:50:23 PDT
- by davo on Thursday, May 11 @ 07:55:42 PDT
- by psychohmike on Thursday, May 11 @ 18:27:16 PDT
- by davo on Thursday, May 11 @ 20:37:13 PDT
- by psychohmike on Thursday, May 11 @ 20:46:24 PDT
- by davo on Thursday, May 11 @ 22:09:33 PDT
- by Everlasting on Friday, May 12 @ 04:07:46 PDT
- by Islamaphobe on Thursday, May 11 @ 08:39:05 PDT
- by Virgil on Thursday, May 11 @ 10:22:08 PDT
- by Ozark on Thursday, May 11 @ 14:07:20 PDT
- by Virgil on Thursday, May 11 @ 14:24:29 PDT
- by Ozark on Thursday, May 11 @ 16:34:12 PDT
Re: Brian McLaren: Five proposals for reexamining our doctrine of hell (Score: 1)
 by psychohmike (imapreterist before the @ and gmail.com after it) on Thursday, May 11 @ 08:51:53 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Ok ok...now wait just a cotton pickin minute!
So if hell isn't Dante's Inferno then where do I relegate those who don't agree with me?
Virgil...you and Brian are going to...to...to.
Dah...Blast it all
8) |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by davo on Thursday, May 11 @ 08:57:05 PDT
- by Virgil on Thursday, May 11 @ 12:22:32 PDT
[No Subject] (Score: 1)
 by davo on Thursday, May 11 @ 08:54:28 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) |
Brian McLaren: Jesus never says… “If you don’t accept me as your personal Savior by saying the sinner’s prayer . . .” then you’ll experience the lake of fire.
True, in fact NOWHERE are we told to "make" Jesus Lord. Now I most certainly DO believe in accepting Christ's Saving Lordship – it's what brings us into the call of God for service, but it was God Himself that declared [made] Jesus both Lord and Christ – that was His call:
Acts 2:36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”
davo
|
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by NB9M on Friday, May 12 @ 12:51:28 PDT
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
| 
|
