It was time
I liked Paul, especially at first. He had a fresh sound. But at this point in the competition I was neither surprised nor very upset to see him depart. Sure, I like him better than Stefano, Jacob, and Lauren, but I don't expect to always get my way.
Now if only those 3 can be the next 3 to go.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Thursday, April 07, 2011
Idol #9
I haven't been blogging... again
But I have been watching American Idol
So why not blog about that like I used to?
Let me just say that I am shocked and appalled. Pia was the best pure singer on American Idol this season and she was also, seemingly, one of the nicest people in the shows history. She also happened to be maybe the prettiest girl the show has ever had (perhaps Brooke White?).
So why is she gone?
This is a mystery. Not a mystery like the Trinity or the tension b/w divine sovereignty and human free-will, but a mystery nonetheless. Was she not entertaining enough for some people? Were the mostly female voters just jealous? Did all her fans just assume she was safe and not vote?
The show must go on. With Pia gone, I will be pulling for Casey Abrams. My current standings are as follows:
105 Casey
102 James
98 Jacob
97 Scotty
94 Haley
93 Paul
93 Lauren
90 Stefano
Rankings are based 50% on my opinion and 50% on how they come off from the show (judges comments, contestant comments/attitude, production storyline, etc.). By the way, Pia was rated 105 and her departure marks one of the first times my stats have ever been way off.
But I have been watching American Idol
So why not blog about that like I used to?
Let me just say that I am shocked and appalled. Pia was the best pure singer on American Idol this season and she was also, seemingly, one of the nicest people in the shows history. She also happened to be maybe the prettiest girl the show has ever had (perhaps Brooke White?).
So why is she gone?
This is a mystery. Not a mystery like the Trinity or the tension b/w divine sovereignty and human free-will, but a mystery nonetheless. Was she not entertaining enough for some people? Were the mostly female voters just jealous? Did all her fans just assume she was safe and not vote?
The show must go on. With Pia gone, I will be pulling for Casey Abrams. My current standings are as follows:
105 Casey
102 James
98 Jacob
97 Scotty
94 Haley
93 Paul
93 Lauren
90 Stefano
Rankings are based 50% on my opinion and 50% on how they come off from the show (judges comments, contestant comments/attitude, production storyline, etc.). By the way, Pia was rated 105 and her departure marks one of the first times my stats have ever been way off.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Wesley vs. Wesleyan
The title of this post could be taken in a number of different ways, but I wish simply to ask the following questions:
1. What was Wesley's view of Hell?
2. What is a 'Wesleyan' view of Hell?
The answer to the first questions seems entirely clear. Wesley believed that Hell is a place of eternal torment. This is proved by the following quotations.
"[Both we Protestants and Roman Catholics believe that the] unjust shall after their resurrection be tormented in hell for ever" (Letter to a Roman Catholic)
It is a vain thought which some have entertained, that death will put an end to neither the one nor the other; it will only alter the manner of their existence. But when the body "returns to the dust as it was, the spirit will return to God that gave it." Therefore, at the moment of death, it must be unspeakably happy, or unspeakably miserable: And that misery will never end. (Sermon 'On Eternity')
The answer to the second question is, perhaps, more difficult. Are Wesleyans bound to agree with John Wesley about everything? I don't think even Wesley would be comfortable with such a notion. I think, as Outler argued, Wesley would want us to continue to pursue truth through what we call the 'Wesleyan Quadrilateral.' We are to find truth primarily through Scripture, but also by using reason, tradition, and experience.
If the 'Wesleyan' view is to pursue the truth using the quadrilateral then we may, in fact, come to different conclusions than Wesley did on a given doctrinal subject, including that of Hell. I, for one, believe the best Scriptural case (our primary tool for finding truth) can be made for a view that doesn't include eternal torment. I also believe reason supports this position. I think tradition is more open to alternatives than Wesley may have imagined.
So Wesley believed hell was a place of eternal torment, but a 'Wesleyan' may very well come to a different conclusion.
1. What was Wesley's view of Hell?
2. What is a 'Wesleyan' view of Hell?
The answer to the first questions seems entirely clear. Wesley believed that Hell is a place of eternal torment. This is proved by the following quotations.
"[Both we Protestants and Roman Catholics believe that the] unjust shall after their resurrection be tormented in hell for ever" (Letter to a Roman Catholic)
It is a vain thought which some have entertained, that death will put an end to neither the one nor the other; it will only alter the manner of their existence. But when the body "returns to the dust as it was, the spirit will return to God that gave it." Therefore, at the moment of death, it must be unspeakably happy, or unspeakably miserable: And that misery will never end. (Sermon 'On Eternity')
The answer to the second question is, perhaps, more difficult. Are Wesleyans bound to agree with John Wesley about everything? I don't think even Wesley would be comfortable with such a notion. I think, as Outler argued, Wesley would want us to continue to pursue truth through what we call the 'Wesleyan Quadrilateral.' We are to find truth primarily through Scripture, but also by using reason, tradition, and experience.
If the 'Wesleyan' view is to pursue the truth using the quadrilateral then we may, in fact, come to different conclusions than Wesley did on a given doctrinal subject, including that of Hell. I, for one, believe the best Scriptural case (our primary tool for finding truth) can be made for a view that doesn't include eternal torment. I also believe reason supports this position. I think tradition is more open to alternatives than Wesley may have imagined.
So Wesley believed hell was a place of eternal torment, but a 'Wesleyan' may very well come to a different conclusion.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Am I Still Wesleyan?
A good friend asked me a good question today. In my own words, the question was "Can you, as a Wesleyan who has agreed with the Wesleyan articles of religion, in good conscience believe and/or teach the conditional immortality view of Hell?" Here is my response:
The Articles of Religion section XXI is about the destiny of all people.
I will quote it below with my comments in CAPS
250. We believe that the Scriptures clearly teach that there is a conscious personal existence after death.
I ALSO AGREE THAT THERE IS A CONSCIOUS PERSONAL EXISTENCE AFTER DEATH FOR EVERYONE. I AM NOT ENTIRELY CONVINCED THAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS UNBROKEN FOR THE WICKED (THEY MAY BE UNCONSCIOUS UNTIL JUDGMENT DAY) NOR AM I CONVINCED THAT THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE WICKED CONTINUES ON FOREVER (THEY MAY EVENTUALLY CEASE TO EXIST).... BUT SINCE I DO BELIEVE THERE WILL BE AT LEAST SOME PERIOD OF CONSCIOUS PERSONAL EXISTENCE, MY BELIEF FALLS WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE STATEMENT.
The final destiny of each person is determined by God's grace and that person's response, evidenced inevitably by a moral character which results from that individual's personal and volitional choices and not from any arbitrary decree of God.
I CERTAINLY AGREE WITH THAT
Heaven with its eternal glory and the blessedness of Christ's presence is the final abode of those who choose the salvation which God provides through Jesus Christ,
CERTAINLY AGREE WITH THAT
but hell with its everlasting misery and separation from God is the final abode of those who neglect this great salvation.
OBVIOUSLY THIS WOULD BE THE STATEMENT MOST AT ODDS WITH MY OWN VIEW. I WOULD HAVE LITTLE PROBLEM WITH THE 'SEPARATION FROM GOD' PHRASE. MY ISSUE IS WITH THE PHRASE 'EVERLASTING MISERY.'
I THINK THE PEOPLE WHO MADE THE STATEMENT CERTAINLY BELIEVED IN THE ETERNAL TORMENT VIEW, BUT I ALSO THINK I CAN, IN GOOD CONSCIENCE, SUPPORT THE STATEMENT WITH MY OWN INTERPRETATION.
NOTICE IT SAY 'ITS' (HELL'S) EVERLASTING MISERY. IT DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY SAY THE WICKED WILL RECEIVE EVERLASTING MISERY. I DO BELIEVE THAT HELL WILL FOREVER BE A PLACE OF TORMENT (FOR SATAN AND HIS MINIONS), BUT I DO NOT BELIEVE WICKED HUMANS WILL FOREVER REMAIN CONSCIOUS IN HELL.
IN OTHER WORDS, I DO SUPPORT THE STATEMENT THAT HELL IS A PLACE OF EVERLASTING MISERY, BUT I DO NOT NECESSARILY THINK THAT HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS REMAINS FOREVER THERE. AND I THINK THE STATEMENT IS FLEXIBLE ENOUGH TO ALLOW THIS INTERPRETATION.
SO WHAT SAY YOU? AM I TAKING TOO MANY LIBERTIES? SHOULD I RESIGN THIS VERY HOUR?
The Articles of Religion section XXI is about the destiny of all people.
I will quote it below with my comments in CAPS
250. We believe that the Scriptures clearly teach that there is a conscious personal existence after death.
I ALSO AGREE THAT THERE IS A CONSCIOUS PERSONAL EXISTENCE AFTER DEATH FOR EVERYONE. I AM NOT ENTIRELY CONVINCED THAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS UNBROKEN FOR THE WICKED (THEY MAY BE UNCONSCIOUS UNTIL JUDGMENT DAY) NOR AM I CONVINCED THAT THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE WICKED CONTINUES ON FOREVER (THEY MAY EVENTUALLY CEASE TO EXIST).... BUT SINCE I DO BELIEVE THERE WILL BE AT LEAST SOME PERIOD OF CONSCIOUS PERSONAL EXISTENCE, MY BELIEF FALLS WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE STATEMENT.
The final destiny of each person is determined by God's grace and that person's response, evidenced inevitably by a moral character which results from that individual's personal and volitional choices and not from any arbitrary decree of God.
I CERTAINLY AGREE WITH THAT
Heaven with its eternal glory and the blessedness of Christ's presence is the final abode of those who choose the salvation which God provides through Jesus Christ,
CERTAINLY AGREE WITH THAT
but hell with its everlasting misery and separation from God is the final abode of those who neglect this great salvation.
OBVIOUSLY THIS WOULD BE THE STATEMENT MOST AT ODDS WITH MY OWN VIEW. I WOULD HAVE LITTLE PROBLEM WITH THE 'SEPARATION FROM GOD' PHRASE. MY ISSUE IS WITH THE PHRASE 'EVERLASTING MISERY.'
I THINK THE PEOPLE WHO MADE THE STATEMENT CERTAINLY BELIEVED IN THE ETERNAL TORMENT VIEW, BUT I ALSO THINK I CAN, IN GOOD CONSCIENCE, SUPPORT THE STATEMENT WITH MY OWN INTERPRETATION.
NOTICE IT SAY 'ITS' (HELL'S) EVERLASTING MISERY. IT DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY SAY THE WICKED WILL RECEIVE EVERLASTING MISERY. I DO BELIEVE THAT HELL WILL FOREVER BE A PLACE OF TORMENT (FOR SATAN AND HIS MINIONS), BUT I DO NOT BELIEVE WICKED HUMANS WILL FOREVER REMAIN CONSCIOUS IN HELL.
IN OTHER WORDS, I DO SUPPORT THE STATEMENT THAT HELL IS A PLACE OF EVERLASTING MISERY, BUT I DO NOT NECESSARILY THINK THAT HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS REMAINS FOREVER THERE. AND I THINK THE STATEMENT IS FLEXIBLE ENOUGH TO ALLOW THIS INTERPRETATION.
SO WHAT SAY YOU? AM I TAKING TOO MANY LIBERTIES? SHOULD I RESIGN THIS VERY HOUR?
Friday, March 18, 2011
3 Views of Hell
About 5 years ago I was studying and struggling through the issue of the fate of the wicked. I felt pretty lonely as I slowly became more and more convinced, from Scripture, that torment does not likely go on forever. Over the past 5 years I've become more concrete that this view (conditional immortality) is correct, though I am still open to change.
I don't feel as lonely now. The issue of hell has been raised afresh by Rob Bell's book which caused a fire-storm before it was even read. I don't know what Bell concludes (sounds like he's closer to the universal reconciliation view), but he's proven to be enough of a name to bring this issue front and center. A number of prominent scholars and church leaders have chimed in.
Ben Witherington, for instance, just said this on his blog...
"I am open to persuasion either to eternal torment or anihilationism, but I just think on the whole the latter view explains more of the Biblical evidence and is more consistent with the full character of God. But I freely admit, I could be wrong."
I am comforted to see another well-respected evangelical testify, at least, to the legitimacy of the debate and, in this case, actually be willing to place himself in the camp of the minority. This is sometimes necessary before a large scale doctrinal shift can take place.
If you're new to this issue and have some time for a short audio introduction to the 3 views, click HERE. I consider Steve Gregg not only a friend, but also my favorite Bible teacher.
I don't feel as lonely now. The issue of hell has been raised afresh by Rob Bell's book which caused a fire-storm before it was even read. I don't know what Bell concludes (sounds like he's closer to the universal reconciliation view), but he's proven to be enough of a name to bring this issue front and center. A number of prominent scholars and church leaders have chimed in.
Ben Witherington, for instance, just said this on his blog...
"I am open to persuasion either to eternal torment or anihilationism, but I just think on the whole the latter view explains more of the Biblical evidence and is more consistent with the full character of God. But I freely admit, I could be wrong."
I am comforted to see another well-respected evangelical testify, at least, to the legitimacy of the debate and, in this case, actually be willing to place himself in the camp of the minority. This is sometimes necessary before a large scale doctrinal shift can take place.
If you're new to this issue and have some time for a short audio introduction to the 3 views, click HERE. I consider Steve Gregg not only a friend, but also my favorite Bible teacher.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)