I’m not so sure that when this life is over that all possibilities for salvation are over. I read in Ephesians 4:9-10 a passage that can be interpreted to describe a Jesus who descends into “the depths below the earth” to bring captives up to God. I read in 1 Peter 3:19 about a Jesus who goes to preach to those in the prison house of death, and I believe these Scriptures show Jesus doing something for people after they are dead, as we understand death. This reveals Jesus to be the “hound of heaven.”Does not Hebrews 9:22 say that we die and then comes judgment? Does not Luke 16 tell us that if we do not listen in this life, we surely will not listen in the next? Perhaps these two passages to which Campolo appeals "can be" interpreted that way, but they do not "have to be," and in light of all of Scripture, it seems that they must not be interpreted that way.
Why does Campolo feel the liberty to take a differing position?
He then says,
Yes, I believe there will be people in hell eternally, but somehow, I believe from Scripture—note I said from Scripture—that in the end everybody gets a chance to choose.Does not Romans 1:19-21 address this when it says that all men know the eternal power and divine nature of God and choose to reject it?
Perhaps my history is bad, but it seems like the growing chorus of questioning long held theological beliefs is not in the best interests of Christianity. It seems that many are attempting to soften the justice of God by resorting to aberrant views on the doctrine of eternal conscious torment, views such as universalism, annihilationism, and second chances.
Why would we preach with urgency in this life, if there is a chance in the next life? Is this not the perfect opportunity for us to get "all this and heaven too." It seems that Jesus and the apostles preached with urgency precisely because there is no second chance. We should not do less.
5 comments:
Your quotes don't prove anymore than Tony's. He is just saying that there is a possibility. Can't you concede that he has a point?
My position is compatible with Campolo's verses. His verses prove no contradiction for my position. Campolo's position is not compatible with the verses I cite. Therefore, we have to rule his out as a biblical option. If a position cannot account for all of Scripture, then it cannot be biblical. His position has that problem.
It worries me, when you have Dawkins ridiculing the bible and saying things like:
It's time to question the abuse of childhood innocence with superstitious ideas of hellfire and damnation. And I want to show how the scriptural roots of the Judeo-Christian moral edifice are cruel and brutish . . . What in the 21st century are we doing venerating a book [the Bible] that contains such stuff? . . . . The God of the Old Testament has got to be the most unpleasant character in all fiction --
Then leaders such as Campolo and Mclaren putting into question the very existence of hell itself. What on earth will we end up like. No accountability for any action taken.
When you try to build a kingdom here on earth with a Social Gospel, then there really is no need for too much reflection on the afterlife.
For a good exposition on whether Jesus Descended into hell or not read this; http://www.midbible.ac.uk/html/theo4.htm by Dr. Calvin Smith of Midlands Bible College.
I like your blog by the way
Vee
By the way, if there was a second chance as Campolo is suggesting, who in the world would be dumb enough not to take it.
All shall be saved then I guess.
To answer Vee's question, those whose hearts are hardened. Even if there is the possibility that there will be a second chance, Scripture indicates that there will be some who will not choose eternal life even then. Vee's query does not erase the possibility.
Post a Comment