Re: Where are the dear departed? (was Re: [asa] Sin, animals, and salvation)

Quoting Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>:

> Hi Bernie, Merv,
>
> The primary issue here is, to my mind, the problem of a "misplaced" judgment.
> Consider; if one wants to be faithful to the NT idea of a post-resurrection
> judgment AND suggest we die and go immediately to heaven / hell, then one is
> arguing that the order is; death, temporary stay in heaven / hell (without
> judgment!), resurrection, judgment, and permanent assignation to heaven /
> hell. I don't find such a schemata satisfactory, and I don't see that I can
> until somebody explains how the problem of a "misplaced judgment" might be
> gotten around.
>
>
> The issue, as I hope I clarified above, is one of chronology - do the
> unrighteous go DIRECTLY to hell? If so what do YOU, Merv, do with Jesus' talk
> of a FUTURE resurrection which must occur BEFORE the eternal fates of the
> righteous and unrighteous are established?
>
> Here it's all very well and good trying to critique MY position - but please
> think of what you're actually asserting in doing so.
>

To be honest, I've never worked out details on any of this! I'm weak on
eschatology primarily because I don't see attempted "knowledge" of this at the
heart of faithful Christian life. It is my reaction against those who try to
write off notions of heaven and hell (or dualism) entirely as nothing more than
Greek mythology. And I would guess that we agree in part on some of this. But
you have challenged me to go a level further in recognizing more accommodation
than I previously had considered. I agree that there is plenty of room for
figurative points in Jesus' parables (and the most die-hard "fundamentalists" I
personally know would think it absurd to insist on literal bosoms, etc...) BUT,
I had at least always taken this as strong evidence of the judgment of hell,
whether or immediate or not or in what sequence --I have no idea, and can't
begin to answer your challenge. Now you have challenged me to see beyond those
details to consider whether the point of the story had anything to do with the
nature of hell. I'll be thinking about this. Thanks for your thoughtful replies.

I'll just conclude my thoughts here: I still think that the point of plucking
out one's eye IS to impress on us just how seriously we would take all this if
we could only see the judgment that is to come --and that it will be terrible
for the unrighteous. If I understood you correctly, you might agree on that, I
guess.

--Merv

> > ...tormeneted rich man may plead for mercy but an impassable gulf
> > separates him from Lazarus in Abraham's bosom... All from the
> > heart of Scripture --multiple gospels -- none of them in Revelation.
>
> This is all well and good as a challenge to MY position, but to me the above
> comment about what you're actually asserting rings loud and clear here;
>
> It's fine to argue that this story teaches that heaven and hell are actual
> places where the good and the bad go. But do we REALLY want to claim that the
> righteous (all of them!) are going to spend eternity reclining on Abraham's
> bosom? Or that the righteous / unrighteous will be able to converse across
> the impassable gulf? I don't believe people want to assert these things, yet
> they want to take certain other elements of the story (usually the torments
> of hell) as literally correct. I find this curiously selective.
>
> My view is that this passage is NOT teaching about the nature of heaven and
> hell at all. Rather it is, to my mind, the MOST OBVIOUS example of
> accommodation in all of Jesus' teaching. I believe that reading the passage
> in it's context is that he's taking a commonly held (but erroneous) first
> century Jewish notion of eternal reward / punishment and turning it on its
> head in order to offer a challenge to the religious leaders' notions of
> wealth, righteousness and reward. And perhaps more importantly, this critique
> is grounded in a fundamental challenge to Jewish assumptions about the Law
> and to Jewish assumptions about their status as descendants of Abraham. So to
> see it as a teaching about heaven and hell is, frankly, to miss the entire
> point of the story.
>
> Now, one is welcome to take the story literally but I'd point out one further
> curious point: in the story we see the rich man talking to Abraham - which
> means that one CAN'T take "Abraham's bosom" in a symbolic sense. So, if the
> rich man is an actual person, condemned to a literal fiery hell, than it
> seems to follow that Abraham is a literal person upon whose literal bosom an
> actual Lazarus reclines. In consequence, if this story teaches a literal
> fiery hell, then it even more strongly teaches that EVERY person ever saved
> will end up reclining on Abraham's bosom. And I've never heard anybody defend
> THAT claim even though I've met dozens who've wanted to take the rich man and
> his fiery torments literally. This seems to me more a case of self-righteous
> schadenfreude inspired by Dante's Inferno than the result of sound,
> consistent, sober Biblical exegesis.
>
> I'll close by merely reiterating - and I here direct this remark to Merv more
> than Bernie: it's all well and good throwing out a bunch of passages as a
> challenge to MY position - but please think of what you're actually asserting
> in doing so.
>
> Blessings,
> Murray Hogg
> Pastor, East Camberwell Baptist Church, Victoria, Australia
> Post-Grad Student (MTh), Australian College of Theology
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 20 14:02:46 2008