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

Hi Merv,

You wrote:
> 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 appreciate the tone of the response, Merv. I don't so much expect you to change your view - you certainly don't need to respond to my challenge, but thanks for understanding my reservations in respects of the "accepted" reading of the texts you cited. I guess I'm just strong on people making a theological and/or exegetical application of the teaching about removing the log in one's own eye before pointing out the splinter in somebody else's. Not that I follow that principle consistently myself, of course, that would be FAR too difficult!

I agree, incidentally - and I note that Bernie made the same point - that perhaps the reason this eschatological material is not VERY clear is because there ARE more important things. Very sad when people become so fixated on eschatological speculation that they seem to loose focus on living the Christian life in the present - or, at least, it seems to me to be an imbalance. Again, please don't feel you need to "answer" my "challenge" if you feel you have better things to spend your time on. I am, as I said, only pointing out why I feel the "received" interpretation doesn't fly.

I even think I can get around Bernie's appeal to Phil 1 - I acknowledge that I may not be I'm doing so legitimately, but I won't loose sleep over it as I'm sure I have far more important issues to deal with! :)

>
> 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.

Yes, I do agree. In fact, I think the idea that one might miss out on the blessedness of eternity with God is itself a sufficiently horrendous thought that one doesn't need to spice it up (no pun intended!) with talk of fire and brimstone. If one loved God enough to dread the idea of ever being separated from him, then one would understand the reason why Jesus gives such dire warnings to motivate us to flee the coming judgment. It's not because God is a terrible wrathful vengeful sadist - but precisely the opposite - that makes the idea of judgment and ensuing separation so terrible. It's not what the unrighteous are condemned to but what they're separated from which ought to be the defining consideration. Or, at least, that's my view of it.

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.
Received on Thu Nov 20 15:40:22 2008