My Blog:
http://wsimpson.wordpress.com/2010/05/23/truth-in-this-age-of-apostasy/

Scot McKnight’s review: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/article_print.html?id=86862

I think it’s a bit more generous than the others I’d read, and I’m more inclined to assent to his depiction as he affirms McLaren’s earlier work instead of decrying him as a heretic.

Grace and peace,
Eric

Haven’t finished the book, but my first thought aligns exactly with what your first point is: McLaren is drawing lines in the sand and asking people to choose sides.

I know a Pastor (a Liberal one at that) who says those who don’t agree with homosexual activity haven’t had an Acts 10 Spirit-led conversion. Instead, they are stuck in Acts 11 and the Spirit hasn’t led them there yet.

In other words, Liberals are hypocritical — and arrogant at that! McLaren’s writing, although I agree with SOME of it, is largely attempting to be “humble” but reeking of arrogance…

I am not gleeful about watching division take place. I do however think that clarity on the gospel and on the essential doctrines of Christianity is a good thing. So if McLaren is clearly differentiating his views from evangelicalism, then I think it’s a good thing. It leads to less confusion and helps us know where he stands. It’s not a celebration of division. But I am glad that he is finally saying what he really thinks.

If you look up my questions earlier in the thread you’ll find that they had nothing to do with the discussion on hell at all.

I simply wanted to know if I misread you and if not, how you’d see the whole “camp paradigm” as helpful.

I’m not sure I want to keep this post on the “let’s prove that hell exists” trajectory, which is why I’ve refrained from responding. I’d rather keep it on the original subject of the post.

We insist that eternal torment is coming to those who don’t believe because the Bible insists this. Joh 3:18 “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”
Mat 25:41 “Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand (these are people), Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting (how long is everlasting?) fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:”

Mat 18:8 “Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.”

And by the way let’s not leave out the “apocalyptic” literature because it is clear on this point. Rev 20:15 “And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.”

If you think my two questions were having a trajectory you’d rather avoid having a discussion on, that’s fine too.

A quick note from you would still be helpful, so I don’t have to keep second guessing why no response has come so far.

Of course, we don’t do the changing, but we insult the Gospel and lead people astray if we tell people you can stay a Muslim or Hindu and that is just as good as being a Christian. Those that lead people astray have a millstone waiting to be tied to their necks.

Mr. McLaren can play word games and redefine up to be down and left to be right. He may reject the labels liberal, but if you fit right into the local UCC church, you are a liberal.

Check out the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ygIay4OcNw .

McLaren offers up syncretism, pelagianism and many other long rejected heresies. The Episcopal denomination will continue to pay him big bucks to egg them on in their turn to apostasy, and they will continue their decline into oblivion.

“Are you suggesting, then, that Jesus was actually talking about it being okay to cut off your hand if it causes you to sin?”

The fact that Jesus’ statement is hyperbolic doesn’t mean that everything therein is meaningless. The nature of the statement doesn’t negate the meaning of “hell” any more than it negates the meaning of sin.

“Do you pretend to know what happens to sinners once they die, aside from casting into outer darkness (e.g. Gehenna, a metaphor using the name of the place outside of Jerusalem dedicated for waste and garbage) with the weeping and gnashing of teeth? Do you preach that all sinners will burn for eternity?
“

I think it’s wise to allow Scripture to claify its own meaning, as 2 Thess. 1 clearly does here. If there was any doubt about what Jesus was alluding to here (and I don’t think he’s quite so vague as you suppose), Paul speaking of Jesus “inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus” and saying that they will “suffer the punishment of eternal destruction” seems to help us quite a bit in understanding what’s at stake here.

“Any teachings on the negative aspects of the afterlife are not only sporadic, indicating that they are less important than what the Kingdom was to look like…”

So first there was only one reference, now they’re sporadic. Which is it? How many times does Jesus have to say something for it to matter?

“…but are also vague enough to make it totally unclear what will happen apart from eternal separation.”

And the language that’s used to describe that “eternal separation” (unquenchable fire, weeping and gnashing of teeth, torment, vengeance) makes it pretty clear that it is to be feared. Jesus said as much in one of the references I provided you where he made the point that we shouldn’t fear those who kill but rather the one who can cast into hell.

“So why do we focus on that as a scare tactic instead of on living out the gospel as we were instructed to do?”

I don’t think anyone who has heard my preaching would use “scare tactics” to describe it, but that term aside, this is clearly a false dichotomy. Why do we tell people about hell when we should just live out the Gospel? My point remains, why don’t we just do both? It seemed to work pretty well for Jesus.