Post Series
0: Intro
1: Narrative Question
2: Authority Question
3: God Question
4: Jesus Question
5: Gospel Question
Theological Foundation Recap
6: Church Question
7: Sex Question
8: Future Question
9: Pluralism Question
10: What-Do-We-Do-Now Question
11: Final Thoughts

It is becoming clear that for Brian, the Christian faith should not really be about Jesus Christ, but God. As one commenter said: “it really does look like [Brian] is trying to move away from a Christocentric understanding of God towards a more open/inclusive concept…When Brian speaks of ‘God,’ he isn’t speaking about the Triune God of the Bible, but some generic pan-deity. Its the least common denominator of God.”

Unfortunately, Nathan is dead on.

For Brian the biblical narrative does not climax in the redemption of humanity through Jesus Christ alone; the Text itself does not pivot around the revelation of God exclusively in Jesus Christ; the Bible does not actually reveal God to the world, but merely human conversations about their understanding of God; and Jesus Himself is not God, but is simply “the highest, deepest, and most mature view of the character of God.”

At this point, just three questions in, Brian’s theology is no where near orthodox, no where near Christian. This becomes increasingly clear when we examine his understanding of Jesus Himself. In the Jesus question, Brian asks: Who is Jesus and why is He important?

Brian begins by characterizing—or rather caricaturing—the Jesus of conservative evangelicals. He quotes one of his most “loyal and dedicated critics,” Mark Driscoll—though I really do not understand why he leaves him unnamed and unsourced. After arguing, and rightly so, that “many different saviors can be smuggled in under the name ‘Jesus’” he quotes Driscoll’s characterization, which apparently is built on the Greco-Roman six-line narrative, a constitutional reading of the Bible, and an interpretation of God based on these two sources (120):

In Revelation, Jesus is a prize-fighter with a tattoo down His leg, a sword in His hand and the commitment to make someone bleed. That is the guy I can worship. I cannot worship the hippie, diaper, halo Christ because I cannot worship a guy I can beat up.

On this point Brian and I agree: this characterization of Jesus is just stupid.

While this question is almost like watching Jim Carey’s and Jeff Daniels’ characters in the movie Dumb and Dumber—like the movie, by the end you have a hard time deciding who is dumber; in the end both portrayals of Jesus are unsatisfying and unpalatable—I do grant Brian’s points that we are guilty of “letting Jesus be re-imaged according to contemporary tastes” (121). Unfortunately, although he cites the white Supremacist Jesus, the prosperity-gospel get-rich-quick Jesus, colonial Jesus, male-chauvinist Jesus, and homophobic Jesus, Brian’s own biases blind him to the ways in which he and his like make Jesus in his image, such as: the Oprah Winfrie Jesus, Depok Choprah Jesus, Al Gore Jesus, and Sojo Jesus.

I would also argue that the view espoused by Driscoll is in no way mainstream and is used, yet again, by Brian as a rhetorical Straw Man. He pulls such an extreme example in order to attempt to gain easy trust from his readers that the “other sides” view of Jesus really is utterly detestable and unbelievable. This simply is not the case, however. While I am certainly no Driscoll apologist, Driscoll is being his typical over-the-top, polemical self. For Brian to trumpet his view as representative of all conservative evangelicalism is pitifully weak.

In order to refute said Straw Man, Brian launches into an explaination of the text from which he claims such a view of Jesus comes: Revelation 19:11-16. It reads as follows:

Then I saw heaven opened, and there was a white horse! Its rider is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems; and he has a name inscribed that no one knows but himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, wearing fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron; he will tread the wine press of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name inscribed, “King of kings and Lord of lords.”

Over against the Driscoll and other conservative evangelical types, McLaren interprets the passage as follows (bear in mind, however, that Brian continues to remain consistent with his pet rule: “thou shalt not cite any authoritative primary or secondary sources other than my own!”) (124-124):

this image of Jesus as a conqueror reassures believers that the peaceful Jesus who entered Jerusalem on a donkey that day wasn’t actually weak and defeated; he was in fact every bit as powerful as a Caesar on a steed. His message of forgiveness and reconciliation—conveyed as a sword out of his mouth (not in his hand, as my loyal critic asserted–quite an important detail)—will in the end prove far more powerful than Caesar’s handheld sword and spears. And the blood on his robe—that’s not the blood of his enemies. It’s his own blood, because the battle hasn’t even begun yet, and Revelation has already shown us Jesus “as the lamb standing as if it had been slaughtered” (5:6). And it may also recall the blood of the peaceful martyrs (6:9-11), since in attacking them, violent forces were also attacking Jesus, the Prince of Peace, who taught them the way of peace.

In fact, rather than being violent, “Revelation actually tells us, that the humble man of peace is Lord. It confesses, in the midst of persecution and martyrdom, that the poor unarmed Galilean riding on the donkey, hailed by the poor and hopeful, is the one to trust. It invites us to pledge allegiance to the one who rules by his own example of service and suffering rather than by making examples of others.” And in response to the suffering servant’s name, “every knee will gladly bow.” (emphasis mine. 126)

While all of this sounds lovely and convincing, there is one slight problem: he is simply wrong; Brian is no exegete and he twists the text to conform to his agenda.

If Driscoll portrays Jesus as another incarnation of The Rock, McLaren portrays him as Ghandi, perfectly peaceful without a care for judgment. In so denying judgment (a theme which we will address in more detail in chapters 9 and 9), he twists and contorts the Revelation passage to mean everything else but a portrait of Judge Jesus.

In this passage we have “the most expanded description of Christ’s defeat and judgment of the ungodly forces at the end of history.”¹ The defeat of the beast, the false prophets, and their followers (who are all the ungodly) is portrayed in the climax verses in 17-21. Christ’s word of truth imaged in the sword coming out of his mouth is His weapon of judgment² Christ rides in on a while horse in promise of judging “the wicked in order to vindicate his name and his followers, and he will be ‘faithful and true’ in fulfilling his promise.”³ His eyes are “a flame of fire,” evoking His role as divine judge as is clear from 14-21 and 2:18-23.⁴ “In Ch 2. the point was that Jesus as ‘Son of Man’ always knows the spiritual condition of the ungodly who claim to be members of the covenant community, which results in their judgment…The link with the same phrase in chs. 1-2 suggests the apostate are among those judged in the present scene.”⁵ The symbolic meaning of the “unknown name” is that while Christ has not yet thoroughly revealed his promise of salvation and judgment, when he comes to carry out his vindication of his followers all His character of grace and justice will be revealed; “only his people will experience the full revelation of his grace, whereas his opponents will experience the full expression of his justice.”⁶

The final expression of his judgment is the image of Jesus’ “robe dipped in blood.” Contrary to Brian’s assertions that this blood is his or his followers who’ve been martyred, it is the blood of his enemies and those he has judged. Here John is clearly referencing Is. 63:1-3: “…your garments are red, like those of one treading the winepress…I have trodden the winepress alone; from the nations no one was with me. I trampled them in my anger and trod them down in my wrath; their blood spattered my garments, and I stained all my clothes.” John is affirming “Isaiah’s prophecy of God as a warrior and identifies Christ as that divine warrior. In Isaiah the warrior judges to achieve ‘vengeance’ and ‘redemption’ on behalf of his people…the stained garments symbolize God’s attributes of justice, which he will exercise in the coming judgment.”⁷ Here in the Revelation passage in vs. 11-16, the blood symbolizes attributes that Christ Himself will exercise judgement over the wicked; it is through the judgment that they are exercised and demonstrated. In the Apocalypse “blood” can refer to the suffering of the judged or to judgment itself, the most decisive use is in 14:18-20, where “blood” is used with winepress metaphors and clearly refers to the judgment of unbelievers.⁸

I realize this was a data-dump of sorts, but the information was given to expose the lie that Brian insists Jesus will not come as judge. At the end of chapter 14 he says, “In response to the crucified one’s name—not Caesar’s or any other violent human’s—every knee will gladly bow. (emphasis mine. 126). Gladly? If only that were true! Brian falsely inserts this word in order to give the appearance that in the end all will be saved, that Jesus will not judge because everyone will gleefully bow before Jesus Christ as King and Lord. As Peter T. O’Brien states, however⁹:

It ought not to be assumed that the bending of the knee by all will be glad acknowledgement of Jesus’ lordship. Since the following words of 10c, which explain the meaning of ‘every knee’, include both good and evil beings who acknowledge Jesus’ rule rather than voluntarily confess or praise him, one ought to understand the bowing of the knee as an act of submission to one whose power they cannot resist.

Phil 2:10-11 come from Is. 45:23-24, which is also quoted in Rom. 14:11, a passage that endorses the idea that ‘we will all stand before God’s judgment seat.’¹⁰ The context of Is. 45 precisely fits the notion that all beings and powers (righteous and wicked) will bow before Jesus Christ’s authority in submission, rather than all finding salvation in the end in that bowing, which Brian suggests is the case. The verses are christological, not eschatological.¹¹

It is clear that Brian (along with many others within the emerging church conversation) cannot handle the idea of judgment, let alone a Judging Jesus. I agree that Jesus Christ did not come “merely to ‘save souls from hell’…he came to launch a new Genesis, to lead a new Exodus, and to announce, embody, and inaugurate a new kingdom of as the Prince of Peace (Isa. 9:6).” (135) This is not the full story, however. While Brian tries to assert the “day of the Lord” will bring liberation for the oppressed and accountability for the oppressors (135), it’s far more (and really different) than that.

“The Day of the Lord” is “the time of the decisive visitation of Yahweh, when he intervenes to punish the wicked, deliver and exalt the faithful remnant who worship him, and establish his own rule. Both judgment and salvation are especially prominent aspects.”¹² In the NT it is identified with the return of Jesus Christ who, as the Creeds assert, “comes to judge the living and the dead.” Because Jesus Christ is Lord and Messiah, and is Himself YHWH, He is the one who will intervene “to punish the wicked, deliver and exalt the faithful remnant who worship him, and establish his own rule.”

Brian cannot say this, however. He refuses. On the one hand, “Jesus serves as the Word-made-flesh revelation of God’s character,” which means He Himself is not God/YHWH. (128) (Which, again, serves his agenda to pluralize God and minimize Jesus Christ as exclusive Lord and Messiah) On the other hand, “So many are like my loyal ciritic; they have so utterly bought into the six-line, black-and-white, soul-sorting heaven-or-hell Greco-Roman narrative that it has become the precritical lens through which they see everything…” (136) Part of that so-called “six-line narrative” is the reality of judgment, the reality that Jesus Christ will come as judge. While the good news of Jesus does include “a new Genesis, a new Exodus, and a new Kingdom come,” there is also separation and judgment.

But Brian, if Jesus and the gospel bring salvation to everyone who believes (Rm. 1:16), from what are people saved and what about the people who do not believe. Does not Jesus Himself explicitly explain what He Himself will do with those who stand in defiant opposition to Him and His Kingdom?

In my book, (un)offensive gospel of Jesus, I wrote about the tension of telling a better, more compelling Story that explores how Jesus and His gospel are inherently, good, and reassuring, while also being honest about “That Other Place.” Here is a portion of what I wrote:

While I think the prospect of a universal re-creation is possible, I find it hard to reconcile that idea with all the different teachings of Jesus which show a separation of people who choose belief from those who choose unbelief. Jesus Himself seems to insist that there is a separation between those who choose to entrust their stories and lives to Jesus in total commitment and those who hold onto the Way of Self while actively vandalizing shalom and rebelling against God and His Rhythm of Life.

I asked my friend Andy about his own struggle with judgment and hell. Like many of us, myself included, he has struggled with the idea that people will be judged and punished forever because of sin. The idea the some will receive eternal heavenly bliss, while others sit in hell has been a struggle for Andy. Recently, though, he’s begun to understand why judgment seems to make sense. “For the longest time both judgment and hell made me shudder, leading to a rejection of their existence. But in doing that I rejected the reality of our world. The reality is that there are consequences to our rebellion, which I think is hell. Now it makes sense that there is a hell and judgment because of that reality.”

In trying to tell a more compelling Story, Brian completely neglects and ignores the reality of judgment, which in the end decimates the gospel and changes it completely. We will explore how he does this in more detail with the next question: the gospel question.

Popularity: 1% [?]

1. Beale, Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 948. [↩]
2. Beale, Revelation, 949. [↩]
3. Beale, Revelation, 950. [↩]
4. Beale, Revelation, 951. [↩]
5. Beale, Revelation, 951. [↩]
6. Beale, Revelation, 956. [↩]
7. Beale, Revelation, 957. [↩]
8. Beale, Revelation, 959. [↩]
9. O’Brien, Philippeans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1991), 243. [↩]
10. O’Brien, Philippeans, 243. [↩]
11. O’Brien, Philippeans, 243. [↩]
12. “The Day of the Lord,” Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2000), 324. [↩]

Post Series
1. Introduction
2. Pagitt and Pelagius On Human Nature
3. Pagitt and Pelagius On Sin
4. Interlude on Sin
5. Pagitt and Pelagius On Salvation
6. Pagitt and Pelagius On Discipleship and Judgment
7. Conclusion
8. (Final Thoughts)

UPDATE: Please not in point #3 I accidentally suggested that Doug’s leader is Pelagius by typing LEADER instead of LEAD. I did not mean to suggest that Doug’s “leader” is Pelagius, but rather wanted to convey my dismay over Pagitt not following Pelagius’ LEAD in his strong views on sin and judgment. Sorry for that, Doug! I need to proof read these posts better…

ON DISCIPLESHIP AND JUDGMENT

As we saw in the last post on salvation, while Pelagius and Pagitt agree that the example and pattern of Christ is primary for our “salvation” and “integration with the life of God,” they go about it in different ways. Pagitt denies the penal essence of the event of the cross by dismissing the suffering, bloodshed, and death of Christ as reflective of ancient Greek blood god myths. Pelagius on the other hand, acknowledges that Christ’s suffering, shed blood, and death actually does something for us. While a more exhaustive study of Pelagius’ soteriology is necessary, it appears likely that he believes the cross is penal in essence, recognizing Jesus’ suffering and bloodshed provides justification for, salvation from, and forgiveness of sins, while needing the example of Christ to carry us to the end. Pagitt’s theology of salvation reduces the cross to mere example. In fact, in so doing he is left only with the example, pattern, way, and teachings of Christ. This is likely why Pagitt and the broader Emerging Church focus on following the teachings and example of Jesus: without the penalty of the cross that is all that is left.

Here is where Pagitt agrees with Pelagius: in order to live a life of righteousness, a new example and pattern must replace the old ones found in Adam and others. The cross does not save, but the example of Jesus does. While Pelagius believes the cross provides for the forgiveness of past sins through faith and “the holy lather” of baptism, Pelagius does not stop with faith alone, but rather requires disciplined following after the example of Christ to provide for future salvation. Both Pagitt and Pelagius, then, rely upon the example of Christ for ultimate, eschatological salvation, in addition to the inner goodness of humanity to obey and choose integration with God.

This theology of “salvation by example” influences how Pagitt views discipleship and eschatology (end things). Those who decide to follow this new pattern are invited into God’s work now, for “the kingdom-of-God gospel calls us to partner with God, to be full participants in the life God is creating, to follow in the way of Jesus as we seek to live as people who are fully integrated with our Creator.”¹ Instead of choosing to live lives of disintegration, we are called to be fully integrated with God now. This is possible because 1) we are “inherently godly,” having the “light of God” within us; and 2) “we can change the patterns wired into us from our families and create new ways of relating and being.”² Discipleship, then, is about choosing to live well with God in this life.

The problem comes when the question, “Why?” is asked. Why must we live lives of integration? Pagitt does not address judgment or what happens when one does not choose to live a life of integration with God, or better put, when a person intentionally chooses not to “partner with God” or seek to live as a person who is fully integrated with their Creator. Instead, Pagitt assures the world that “God will dwell among us, that God will be with us, that the whole of creation will be healed and restored and fully integrated with God. Earthly life will be made new as it is transformed into the Kingdom of God.”³ While Pagitt reflects Pelagius in calling people to find salvation and life in the example of Jesus and calls all people to follow Jesus’ pattern of integration with God, he does not go as far as Pelagius does.

Pelagius places a premium on discipleship and takes judgment very seriously. In To Demetrias he says, “The bride of Christ must be more splendidly adorned than anything else, since the greater one whom one is seeking to please the greater the effort which is required to please him.”⁴ The bride is called to live a life that is “blameless” and “guiltless” in order to reign with Christ in the end, “for nothing is worthier of God, nothing can be more dear to him, than the blamelessness should be maintained with all possible circumspect.”⁵ Why? What is the promise for those who fail to live such a life post-baptism? Judgment and hell. Pelagius makes plain in On Divine Law that those who believe in Christ and receive him through baptism and renounce the devil and the world are called to pay attention to the things which are forbidden and to diligently fulfill the things commanded, because “the punishment of hell is promised to all of us who do not live in righteousness.”⁶

Not only does Pelagius believe in hell for those who do not believe, he also believes hell is reserved for those who fail to choose righteousness, to (in the words of Pagitt) “live in sync with God” after they first have faith in Christ through baptism. Pagitt does not go this far, however. Instead he merely suggests that “the afterlife isn’t a place. It’s a state of being.”⁷ That state of being is vaguely defined as the state in which God’s hope and dreams for the world are fulfilled and come to fruition in the Kingdom right now, with no mention of judgment or a “state of being” for those who do not “faith” in Christ or even partner with God and His dreams.⁸ While Pagitt agrees with Pelagius in that humans are called to “[align] their lives with the things of God, with the work of God,” he does not go as far as Pelagius to suggest what happens to those who don’t, or even those who were aligned and then fall out of alignment.

A few parting thoughts and questions:

1) While both Pagitt and Pelagius respectably believe followers of Jesus are called to live “lives of integration with God”—this presumably means to follow His commands—both believe we can do so on our own. The grace of God and power and power of the Holy Spirit. Instead, we because we are still “inherently godly” we can on our own live “in sync with God.”

2) Pelagius had a very strong view of sinning after baptism, which was the point of forgiveness, salvation, and regeneration. This strong view led to a very strong view of judgment, in that those who fail in this Christian endeavor receive the punishment of hell. For him, every human is in control of their will to such an absolute extent that when they sin after salvation/baptism, having their sins washed away, it is really bad. So bad that “the punishment of hell is promised to all of us who do not live in righteousness.”

3) Unfortunately, Pagitt doesn’t follow his leader Pelagius’ lead (WOAH this was a major typing mistake! I mean to write LEAD, not LEADER.)⁹ in this regard, because he has a low view of sin and a non-existent view of judgment. For Pagitt, the afterlife—whatever that even means; it is so vague and vanilla but seems to point to a “heaven-type” state—is a “state of being.” The only time this idea of a post-death, post-Jesus coming event is even mentioned is this one time on page 222. Even then that “state” is where “all of God’s hopes for the earth, all of God’s desires for this partnership with humanity, come to fruition.”¹⁰ This cashes out as the present “kingdom” which is “in all of us, through us, and for us right here, right now.”¹¹ While I appreciate the “here-ness” of Pagitt’s perspective on the Kingdom, he forgets the “not-yet-ness” which is explicit in the teachings (particularly the parables) of Jesus. Which leads to my first question…

4) Question for Doug: It is obvious you are a universalist and do not believe in a literal judgment, a separation of good and bad. What do you do with Jesus Christ’s teachings on the subject, 25% of which make-up his teachings, especially his parables.

5) Question for Doug: In light of your rejection of a real, literal judgment, what do you do with Jesus’ parables of the Nets in Matthew 13 and Wedding Banquet in Matthew 22? Both have an EXPLICIT eschatological orientation and teach about a time of judgment, where the righteous and wicked will be 1) separated and 2) punishment.

In the case of the Parable of the Nets, it is the final bracket that, along with the Wheat/Weeds, emphasized severe judgment for neglecting the ethical implications of the Kingdom. Both parables emphasize a gathing and separating process at which the wicked are rejected and thrown into a fire. Whether this is a literal fire is not important. Paralleling the Wheat/Weeds, the Nets envisions the Son of Man, who is Jesus Christ himself, sending angels to do the separating and punishing.

From a Jewish perspective, this “net” imagery would have made sense: fishing imagery has a long OT history of representing hardship, captivity, and judgment from God (Hab 1:14-17; Ezek 32:3). A net, then, could be expected to evoke thoughts of judgment for the Jewish hearers. “The primary concern of this parable is tht separation will occur, that at the end the evil will be excluded from God’s kingdom.”¹² Because people themselves are wicked—they aren’t simply broken or live after bad patterns—because they are ethically morally rebellious. The basis of this separating and judgment is ethical, and those who are worthless/evil will receive eternal punishment, which the Sheep and Goats emphasizes.

In the case of the Wedding Banquet, I’ve included parts of the section from my own book that deals with the subject:

Here we face a story of a king who sends out his servants with an appeal to those already invited to his royal wedding banquet. In the Jewish and ancient Near Eastern cultures, social gatherings and parties had a double-invite: The first one told of the event and sought initial acceptance; the second was a reminder and told the guests that all was ready and they should come. In the story the slaves are not sending out an invitation; they are calling on those who have already been invited and accepted to remind them to come.

These people have already accepted the first invitation, but now they make excuses to reject the second invite. This was a huge act of betrayal because huge social significance was attached to rejecting the second invitation. Apparently, they had better things to do and they put their selfish concerns over their obligations to the king. They cared more about their “farms” and “business” than their social obligation to attend the royal banquet of the king. They even go so far as to subject the king’s messengers to violence and death!

In this parable, Jesus is speaking to two religious groups: the Chief Priests and Pharisees. Jesus reminds these leaders of the nation of Israel of their original invitation and subsequent rejection, directly tying into the next part of the story.

Because these originally invited people failed to respond to the second invitation, the king opens the door to everyone in the city. People from all corners of the city are invited to come to the royal banquet and enjoy a feast and festival. All people, both good and bad are invited, irrespective of person. The invitation did not depend on who the person was, but on whom the king chose to invite; he chose to invite everyone in his Kingdom and it didn’t matter who they were.

We have two groups contrasted: those who think they have the right to their position as invitees, the right to a place at the banquet table and who think they are “in.” Then there are those who are unexpectedly promoted and surprisingly invited to the feast.

Originally, the Jewish people were invited to covenant with God to be His people. They received the first invitation. But throughout their history they did not live up to their obligations to that invitation. In Jesus’ story, they are replaced by an unexpected collection of street people. The first invited group who rejected the second invitation are replaced with a second group. As Jesus says, “The first will be last, the last will be first.” To be a member of the new group and new nation is no more guarantee of salvation than to be born into old Israel; it still depends on a persons reaction to the invitation, here symbolized by the wedding clothes.

In this story, we come to a man who is wandering around the king’s royal wedding banquet in completely inappropriate attire. He is the guy in Rustler jeans and a Hanes t-shirt at your wedding reception. A sight to behold for sure! The king notices him, calls him friend and asks how in the heck he got into the party without the proper wedding clothes.

The event to which this man was invited required him to make a change, to change his clothes into something that was appropriate to the event for which he was invited. The parable assumes the man had time to change and come in appropriate attire anyone might have. While the cultural context of the parable didn’t require a specific type of clothing, any invited person was to come clothed in a way fitting this specific event, nonetheless. Instead, the man made no preparations to wear clothes fitting to the feast he himself chose to attend!

So here’s the question: How are we coming to the banquet at judgment? What clothes are we wearing? How are we coming to this grand banquet at the Day of the Lord?

The first invitation goes out indiscriminately to every person. The second invite begs a response. This second invitation is the other side of the paradox between divine grace and human responsibility. The first invitation was the announcement proclaimed by the Heavenly Hosts in chapter 8: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth shalom to all humans, on whom His favor rests!” This announcement heralded the coming Lamb of God, the coming Rescuer, an invitation to take part in this new act of rescue by the Creator. The second invitation was by Jesus himself, which we will consider in the next chapter. In this invitation, Jesus announces to the entire world that the good news for which all humans have been waiting (the Kingdom of Heaven) has arrived. We are invited to respond in repentance, belief, and following.

I get the feeling from this parable, though, that there are a whole lot of people who have accepted God’s invitation to salvation and shalom. Of course everyone wants everlasting life and re-creation at some level. Many people, though, will respond by coming dressed to the banquet as a lumberjack or in their frat house sweatshirt.

This lavish banquet with Jesus as host is for us, and the question is: how are we coming? Are we following the social customs of this Kingdom, or going inappropriately dressed to meet our Creator? Are we clothing ourselves with the righteousness that God requires or are we simply coming, not as we are, but as we insist on being?

These are the questions we need to ask as we think about “That Other Place” and who will or will not go there in judgment. Often, people make hell and judgment out to be God problems, as if the idea of eternal judgment somehow makes Him out to be less than the hyper-relational Lover that He is. Hell and judgment are not God problems, they are human problems. Just as rebellion and the consequences of rebellion are human problems, how we are judged for our willful vandalism of shalom and willful rebellion against the Creator and His Rhythm of Life are also our problems.

Popularity: 1% [?]

1. Pagitt, Christianity, 226. [↩]
2. Pagitt, Christianity, 137, 141, 167. [↩]
3. Pagitt, Christianity, 230-231. [↩]
4. Pelagius, “To Demetrias,” from The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers. Ed. B. R. Rees, 123. [↩]
5. Pelagius, “On the Christian Life,” from The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers. Ed. B. R. Rees, 118. [↩]
6. Pelagius, “On Divine Law” from The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers. Ed. B. R. Rees, 99. [↩]
7. Pagitt, Christianity, 222. [↩]
8. Pagitt, Christianity, 222. [↩]
9. I did not mean to suggest that Doug’s “leader” is Pelagius, but rather wanted to convey my dismay over Pagitt not following Pelagius’ LEAD in his strong views on sin and judgment. Sorry for that, Doug! I need to proof read these posts better… [↩]
10. Pagitt, Christianity, 222. [↩]
11. Pagitt, Christianity, 223. [↩]
12. Snodgrass, Parables with Intent, 491. [↩]

This is my Confession on Eschatology, which I wrote for my Systematic Theology 3 class. I thought I would post it here for your reading pleasure.

This confession on eschatology subscribes to an amillennial perspective for an examining committee that would expect a general survey of last things.

Read more

Popularity: 1% [?]