Glenn Peoples, "Isaiah, Worms and Fire"

Dr. Glenn Peoples was fairly instrumental to me in providing a compelling case for annihilationism. Here is his newest post on ReThinking Hell. Enjoy.

Peoples:

Imagine that you had never heard of “hell.” The eternal misery of the damned in dungeons of fire, Dante’s Inferno, Jonathan Edwards’ classic sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” you hadn’t heard of any of it. And now imagine that you were about to open a book that tells us what the judgement of God on his enemies will be like. You read this:

The LORD will come in fire, and his chariots like the whirlwind, to pay back his anger in fury, and his rebuke in flames of fire.

For by fire will the LORD execute judgement, and by his sword, on all flesh; and those slain by the LORD will be many.

From new moon to new moon, and from sabbath to sabbath, all flesh shall come to worship before me, says the LORD.

And they shall go out and look at the dead bodies of the people who have rebelled against me; for their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.

(Isaiah 66:15-16, 23-24)

It’s pretty fearsome stuff, granted, but beyond that, what would you make of it? Endless suffering? Torment forever in the fires of hell? Not likely. Such ideas would never even occur to you when reading a passage like this. Anyone able to read the above passage can see what it describes: Death. Any claim that Isaiah 66 contains anything that would lend support to the doctrine of the eternal torments of the damned in hell is indefensible, even laughable. You cannot find a doctrine like that in this text on the basis of any standard methods of responsible exegesis.

But things do not end there when it comes to this text in Isaiah 66. As those familiar with the evangelical discussion of final judgement are well aware, Jesus is said to have quoted this passage when teaching people to avoid sin. In the Gospel of Mark, this teaching of Jesus marks his first use of the word Gehenna, literally referring to the Valley of Hinnom (it is the Greek equivalent of Gehinnom, “valley of Hinnom” in Aramaic). Mark 9:47-48 reads,

If your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, ‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’

If all we knew about Jesus’ teaching on hell is that he said this and where he got it, there could be no doubt what he is saying. Sin is so serious that we would be better off without an eye that leads us into sin, than to lose not only our eye, but our entire self in Gehenna, ending up like those enemies of God in Isaiah 66 – dead and gone. Outside of disputes of the doctrine of hell, New Testament commentators apparently see this without difficulty. 

 For the link, enjoy it HERE. Beware, it's quite in-depth. Which is cool.

 --Nick

The Beauty of My Sin, or Confessions

Here are some things that I ought to confess. Not in any sense of guilt (though some of them do make me cringe), but more out of obligation and simply getting it out there. And I enjoy getting to know people's quirks, and offering my own seems to work well enough.

I figure I'll start with 10.

1. I hate how I look in pictures. That is why I often don't smile.

2. I'm going bald, and it really doesn't bug me. But I do wish I had long straight hair that I could blow out of my face. So I guess it kinda does bug me.

3. I'm still terrified of going to hell, or the thought of anyone being there. This is a childhood fear. One that really bothers me.

4. I talk too much when others need to talk. I need to listen better and more.

5. I don't think I'll be successful in life and I do wonder if this is as good as it gets. Which is scary in it's own way.

6. There are days I doubt the existence of a good god. Not in any sense of agnosticism, but of a healthy fear and realization of my own nature.

7. I wish I had studied theology more while at Biola, and had been more serious about pursuing some sort of scholarly academia.

8. I wish I wasn't studying various theological topics, and that I was ignorant. Yes, this conflicts with number 7.

9. I wish I was better for her.

10. I need to love more. 

What about you?

--Nick

David Congdon, "Universalism & Christology"

 I'm currently looking through the best arguments (both theological and philosophical) for universalism. David Congdon of Princeton and IVP was recommended to me via Robin Parry's The Evangelical Universalist. In looking up David on google, I found his blog. Which is quite good. He has a book coming out in 2013 that should provide a sketch of universalism. Which I look forward to.

And I started to pour over his material in favor of universalism and was struck by this:

Congdon:

To begin, universalism is like a doctrine of the atonement: nowhere in the Bible is any “doctrine” to be found, because Scripture is not a collection of propositional truths. Scripture is the authoritative witness to the event of God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ, and this witness authorizes the rational (though not rationalistic) exposition of the faith based on the narrative of God’s being-in-act in the kerygma. Doctrines and dogmas are explications of what is testified to in the Scriptures, and these doctrines allow for the further interpretation of the biblical text. Some doctrines function as hermeneutical keys or categories which provide a rule for reading the biblical text in a way that coheres with the proclamation of the gospel in the communion of saints.

Universalism is thus accepted or denied based on a complex framework of hermeneutical principles which are situated in the church as the people of God.

David has written much on this subject, and his conviction and arguments are striking. Enjoy them HERE.

--Nick

Micah Murray, "In the Beginning God"

 I'm glad Micah and I are friends.

Micah:

In the beginning, God.

Really, this is the perfect way to start. It’s easy to get caught up in all the details of the Bible and forget how it begins. Not as a theological dissertation. Not as a scientific revelation. Not as a book of rules. No, it’s a story. And it starts with God.

I love the idea that God is the beginning. That He was there before all of this, and that whatever we have now has somehow flowed out from Him. I think this applies to everything, really. The Bible, for sure. Human history also. Even my own life.

In the beginning, God.

I can’t imagine my story starting any other way. (It would be so terribly cold and lonely.) But this… this is hope. That before the opening credits, there He was.

It’s interesting how God chooses to describe Himself. Somehow even His own words don’t do Him justice. I suppose that makes sense; a Being that was there before the beginning probably couldn’t be contained by language. But we have glimpses, wrapped in mystery.

I am.

I have no idea what it means, other than that He was there at the beginning, and in the middle, and at the end. Somehow, all at once. There are more words too: Just. Holy. Merciful. Wise. (How could a force so powerful be so personal?) All these words circling around the mystery of God, like planets around a star. Just a glimpse.

And I have a feeling that while these words attempt to define God, really God is defining those words. After all, isn’t He the purest source and form of justice, holiness, mercy, wisdom? Isn’t He the beginning?

For the rest, please journey HERE.

--Nick

Jeff Cook, "Could Believing in God Harm Your Soul?

Cook:

Could Believing in God Harm Your Soul?

Throughout Christian history it has been common to judge those who do not believe in God as not simply unwise, but morally suspect. That if a person did not believe in God, this was not simply a cognitive conclusion; it was a mark against that person’s character. Yet I know many men and women who want God to exist, know far more about the philosophical arguments for God-belief than I do, yet fail to embrace theism. Such folks are by all accounts honest and often doing the best with what they have—and this is a puzzle.

Perhaps those of us who wrestle with God belief are actually in the precise place God desires us to be. Perhaps times of non-belief and the experience of God’s absence can have real value. That was my experience (which I chronicle here), it’s the experience of many I care about, and it is common experience in the Bible.

Do you think “believing in God” can be detrimental to faith, God-belief, the soul — as Jeff Cook explains this in the post? Can God-belief diminish desire for God?
 
God’s hiddenness points to the fact that God values our desires more than our beliefs. I have argued over the past month that wanting God to exist is more important than believing in God (here and here), because I hold that pursuits of the heart are more important than rational deductions and one’s ontology. Both are important of course, but I think there are good reasons for seeing reason as secondary. In my own experience, the material that moved me most in reconsidering God belief was all about desire and it came form a French mathematician named Blaise Pascal.

I can hear it now, “What, the wager guy?” If all you know of Pascal is the Wager Argument prepare to have your heart explode. I have placed some of the Pensees below in an order that I find compelling, and because Pascal’s quotes are so good I couldn’t help adding my reflections in brackets to push the argument. I would love to hear your thoughts, particularly from those of you who have trouble believing in God.

I love Jeff's writings and have followed him for the past few months. It is his honesty and passionate search for truth that I value most. I'm looking forward to reviewing his new book. You can finish the rest of this post HERE.

--Nick

McKnight, "Campbell & The New Perspective Revised"

McKnight:

In Mike Bird’s new book, The Apostle Paul, there are four views of Paul: the Reformed view by Tom Schreiner, the Catholic view by L.T. Johnson, the post New Perspective view by Douglas Campbell, and the Jewish view of Mark Nanos. Today’s post will look at Campbell’s piece.

What do you see as the major problems with the traditional reading of Paul? What do you see as the major problems with the New Perspective on Paul? Do you think Campbell’s reading helps us forward?

In essence, and Campbell gets this right when many don’t, the core of the New Perspective is a new view of Judaism and a new view of Paul rooted in that new view of Judaism. The “old” perspective on Paul, it is argued, overcooked Judaism into a works-based religion. This led to religion being man’s attempt to justify himself, and the whole gospel of Paul was read as a response to this fundamental anthropological pride. Hence, we read in folks like Tim Keller of two options: 

performance vs. grace/faith. 

I see this all over, so Keller’s not alone. The New Perspective calls this into question because it argues that “performance” stuff emerges from a view of Judaism and from a Judaism Paul was opposing.

Campbell, however, goes beyond anything being said by the New Perspective, though he agrees completely with its view of Judaism. He thinks the New Perspective explanations of Paul — Dunn, Wright, oddly not really dealing with Sanders — are not good enough and so he revises those explanations. I would say he radically revises.

For the entire review, enjoy it

--Nick

The Campaign, a review

Jay Roach has probably the easiest job in regards to this film. His only mission is to cut out the overabundance of political gaffes, crazy tactics and sub-sexual liaisons that permeate real-life politics. And, for the most part he succeeds. He gets the dream of team of two seasoned comedians with the fertile ground of current political shenanigans, and simply lets the cards fall.

Will Ferrell plays a sleazy congressman who has his election tied up. That is until a multi-trillion dollar corporation decides to kick him out and run a dark horse candidate. Who? You guessed it. Zack Galifianakis.

TECHNICAL

Well, this is a comedy. There aren't many technically crazy moments. There is a moment where a baby is punched in the face. And they show it. Ripples and everything. It's actually really funny.

The cinematography isn't distracting, the editing hits most of the jokes fairly well and the pacing rarely flags.

NARRATIVE

Jay Roach marshalls a seasoned supporting cast. John Lithgow, Jason Sudeikis and Dan Aykroyd are all involved and offer chuckles throughout. Mostly through reactions to the increasing absurdity of the political conundrums.

I will highlight three things that stuck with me:

1. The ability of the writers and director to make dinner scenes both uncomfortable and hysterical. Both families offer unique and funny ways to integrate family dysfunction and political hilarity into a fairly potent comedic concoction. Phew.

2. There is baby punching.

*spoiler*

3. The implication of telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Ferrell channels Rick Perry filtered through Bill Clinton (ick?) and Zack Galifianakis channels...himself. Or, maybe Billy Mays and Rick Santorum? Who knows. The acting is solid and the jokes actually work. Each scene has something amusing and often highlights the stupidity of the political process, particularly dirty tactics.

THEMES

Should we actually tell the truth? Would the American populace actually be better off know the sins of our leaders? Would we actually care? At what price truth?

Of course the film isn't interested in answering the question. It's a comedy. However, the fact that it broaches the subject is quite nice. As with Ferrell's last comedy The Other Guys, it belays a distrust of corporations and the political process, entities that deserve a good tongue lashing from time to time.

CONCLUSION

Does this qualify for a passing grade under my 10 minute rule? Yes. I actually laughed about once every ten minutes. Will Ferrell is funny, Zack is funny, the film rarely gets bogged down and there is enough in here to offend conservatives and liberals.

For America, Jesus and Freedom.

4 stars out of 5.

--Nick

The Bourne Legacy, a review

Honestly, I had no real interest in seeing a re-imagining/remake/redo/recall of a previous trilogy. My concerns were multiple, but can be summed up in one word:

Why?

Why see this film when I could watch the first one? Why not watch Ghost Protocol? Why not stuff myself in a dryer and achieve the same sensation as watching the second and third Bourne films?

Well, because I like explosions. Anyway. Onto the review.

Jason Bourne was the tip of the ice berg, and the CIA/NSA/Shady Government Agency wants to create more controllable killing machines. I do think it would simply be easier to go the route of SkyNet and just get John Connor on and over with.

Aaron Cross the next Jason Bourne, and soon he has to go on the run with his beautiful handler/doctor. The government chases him. It's as simple as that. And we're off!

TECHNICAL

Do not assume that my cavalier attitude belays any sinister motives. I loved the technical prowess Tony Gilroy brought again. The shaky cam is kept to a minimum and the action scenes smoke, particularly the hand to hand combat. Though there is nothing quite as intense as the knife fight in The Bourne Ultimatum, there is plenty of inventive and brutal choreography. The typical car chase finale is swapped out for a motorcycle dual between an uninteresting assassin and Aaron Cross that echoes the invulnerability of The Terminator, especially when Cross dons sunglasses and takes numerous bullets.

It's quite simple. Aaron Cross simply isn't human. He has taken pills long enough and undergone enough military experimentation to be virally self-sufficient. He IS The Terminator with a prettier female sidekick. At times during the end, this feels more like a gritter XXX than it does a Bourne film.

But make no mistake, the film is technically well crafted. The sound design whizzes, the editing (save for some pacing issues) is crisp and the film clips along at a decent pace.

NARRATIVE

The Bourne series is known for intricate and ambiguous storylines, with espionage and danger at every corner. The Bourne Legacy instead feels like the aforementioned XXX. The story becomes about Aaron scoring a major and final fix as to maintain his pill popped fighting skills. Because of this, the second half becomes increasingly simplistic and reliant and fight scenes instead of plotting.

There are several convenient plot holes, such as an escape from a factor that has no reason to be locked down. The entrance is additionally weak, reliant on the recognition of characters that isn't established. 

Jeremy Renner surprised me. Not because he is a bad actor at all (Hurt Locker is still outstanding) but because I wasn't impressed with Ghost Protocol. Here, he adopts the physicality and flexibility of Aaron Cross, giving us a fighting machine who has a lot more soul than Jason Bourne, even if he lacks an intriguing aspect. Rachel Weisz is outstanding as a paranoid doctor who has to assist our intrepid hero. She is empathetic and adds additional stakes and character motives.

THEMES

As the previous Bourne films dealt with memory, the existential fear of recovering past sins is largely absent. Instead, we see political corruption and a blatant distrust of government. Works for me. However, this is a very interesting comment made by a villain in reference to Aaron being a "sin eater." Conceptually, this almost feels out of place, but it adds a hidden dimension to the film. In a delusional government, what is "sin"?

We take on the sin within ourselves as to avoid it affecting other people. Sounds familiar. However it is not explored. But it is still interesting.

CONCLUSION

The actions scenes are well-done for the most part, the acting is solid and the story is very simple. As with most of films, my criticism rests mostly on the pacing and lapses in character feats, as exemplified by Aaron's super-man ability to flip on sunglasses and take several bullets.

But, this all works if we get to see someone thwacked with nails, thrown through windows and see cars crash down a crowded freeway. All's well in a super-spy's day. And it's a better action film than Total Recall.

 3 stars out of 5.

--Nick