Francis Chan talks about hell in preparation for a forthcoming book. Thoughts?
– W. Travis McMaken begins a series looking at baptism as it has been understood by the church in North Africa over time here and here.
– James McGrath argues that there will be no Second Coming here. If this is true I wish I could know because I’d be done with this Christianity thing. I guess I’ll have to stick with the historic church on this one.
– Ray Hollenbach talks about the challenges of “church discipline” here.
– Katie of WIT explains what the war on drugs and the war on terror have in common here.
– Rodney Thomas asks which doctrine is used to scare people into conversion more: Satan? Hell? The rapture? The Second Coming? Answer here.
– Jim West challenges the idea of praying to saints here. Michael Barber begins a series of responses here.
– James Sawyer talks about being a learner here.
– Bruce Reyes-Chow asks why you do or do not comment on blogs here.
– Derek Ouellette reviews Richard Horsley’s Jesus and Empire here.
– T.C. Robinson cracks into Tony Evans’ Oneness Embraced here.
– Amanda Mac shares some thoughts on Horton’s The Christian Faith here.
– Jim DeYoung post pt. 2 of his review of Rob Bell’s Love Wins here.
The following new reviews have been added to the Review of Biblical Literature and listed on the RBL blog (http://rblnewsletter.blogspot.com/):
Margaret Barker
Creation: A Biblical Vision for the Environment
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=7479
Reviewed by John Painter
Allen Dwight Callahan
The Talking Book: African Americans and the Bible
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=5478
Reviewed by Nyasha Junior
David J. A. Clines, ed.
The Concise Dictionary of Classical Hebrew
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=7504
Reviewed by Gilbert Lozano
Jörg Frey, Jens Herzer, Martina Janßen, and Clare K. Rothschild, eds.
Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion in frühchristlichen Briefen
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=7994
Reviewed by Christoph Stenschke
Mladen Popovic, ed.
Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=7788
Reviewed by Stefan C. Reif
Sol Scharfstein
Torah and Commentary: The Five Books of Moses: Translation, Rabbinic and Contemporary Commentary
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6715
Reviewed by David M. Maas
Konrad Schmid
Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel’s Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=7684
Reviewed by Richard E. Averbeck
Ian W. Scott
Paul’s Way of Knowing: Story, Experience, and the Spirit
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=7040
Reviewed by David M. Allen
Michael B. Shepherd
The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=7854
Reviewed by Stephen Moyise
Samuel I. Thomas
The “Mysteries” of Qumran: Mystery, Secrecy, and Esotericism in the Dead Sea Scrolls
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=7408
Reviewed by Stephen Reed
the archives near Emmaus 
I thought Francis Chan was supposed to sell all his belongings and disappear somewhere in Asia? Did I hear that wrong?
The age-old argument that because God’s ways are higher than our ways and thoughts higher than our thoughts——that means our sense of justice or morality must be fundamentally flawed lacks biblical support. Romans 1 argues that a fundamentally TRUE sense of morality is instilled every person by which we discover our need for God. It is God who instills this universal sense of moral law in all humanity. So then to turn around and say it’s fundamentally incorrect is self-defeating. If my sense of right and wrong is fundamentally flawed, then why think that I’m a sinner at all? Why think that God is just at all? Who could know?
In fact, the context of the passage which Chan quotes makes clear that the thoughts and ways of God which are vastly different and superior to man’s thoughts and ways are his mercy and restoring power——not his judgment and punishment.
I’m saddened by this video. In so many ways Chan seems to be a innovator and a leader. In this area, he does not appear innovative nor leading——only following the masses into anti-Bell hysteria, and scrambling to buttress their position. I don’t plan to read Chan’s book because I’m not interested in a reading a rebuttal of Love Wins that simply seeks to reaffirm all the traditional dogmas. If you’re going to write a book in light of Love Wins, you’ll have to come up with a new approach. I’ve heard all the traditional arguments for eternal conscious torment, I don’t need Chan to repeat them for me.
Brian,
I have some thoughts on the Chan video. On the one hand, I agree wholeheartedly with the theme of the video. I want to recognize that God’s ways are above my own, and I want to approach the scriptures with humility, and I do not want to throw away things that the bible says about God, simply because I do not want God to be that way. I also appreciate his critique of the tone of much of the conversation about “hell” lately; and his apparent recognition that these issue aren’t quite as clear as one might assume.
On the other hand, as the video went on, it became clear that the call for humility, the exohortation to search the scriptures (and to accept them for what they say about God), and to recognize that God’s ways and thoughts are not our own, all seemed to be directed at people who do not believe that the bible teaches a doctrine of eternal conscious torment. This was made obvious by the examples that he used, and by the fact that he appeared to be insinuating that those who do not believe in ECT reject on the basis that “they just don’t believe that a loving God would ever do that”.
So in the end, while it appeared, at first glance, to be a very humble attempt at starting a conversation, it ultimately deteriorated into a condescending plea for those who disagree with him to stop ignoring the obvious and get on board with his agenda. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he has been wrongly taught a charicature of anti-ECT positions, and is basing his opinions on that. Of course, there are hermeneutical issues which he could also be unaware of.
I hope he is being true to his declaration in the video with regard to open, honest, and humble discussion; even if he does not change his point of view. I do believe though, that he needs to come to a better understanding of why (hermeneutically, exegetically, and theologically) more and more people are becoming convinced that ECT is not the biblical teaching (no matter which alternative option is chosen.
I saw the Chan video for the first time today. It’s intriguing. I do think that Chan’s exhortation is solid.
Though, I am worried that this is going to be the new debate. I’m just awaiting the Bellers and Channians to arise.
Who’s ready for the NPH (New Perspective on Hell)? The title of my forthcoming book is “Hell in Fresh Perspective.” It’ll be released August 18th. 🙂
Hey Brian, the video link is broken.
Here’s a good one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qnrJVTSYLr8
@David: I think he is in San Francisco: https://nearemmaus.wordpress.com/2011/01/26/francis-chan-to-san-francisco/
@T.C.: He misreads Rom 9 in my opinion as well. It don’t think it has anything to do with what he said. It has everything to do with God’s faithfulness to secure a remnant from that lump called Israel. So as you said, it is about mercy and grace.
@Brian: It did take that rhetoric as a starting place for why others are wrong. The logic is circular. Maybe Chan’s logic isn’t God’s and therefore he is not thinking God’s thoughts. It could be turned on him.
I think overall it is much better to have Chan talking than some of those in his circles, but yes, I think this video misplays the whole conversation from his opening exegesis of Rom. 9.
@Daniel: Thanks, I updated the video. So is the NPH connected to NPP in any way? 🙂
I think its ironic that Chan attacks the “analogy of being” as a methodology for knowing God (i.e. contrasting God with man, whether positive or negative); and yet Chan’s theological Calvinism is shaped and provided trajectory by that very methodology.
In the end though, I agree that hell is ECT.
@Bobby: Agreed, it isn’t the argument for some sort of hell that is bad, it is his starting point which basically says without saying, “If you disagree you are not thinking God’s thoughts with me.”
@Brian,
And this seems to be the level that we need to all start at if we’re ever going to get anywhere other than simply exchanging Scriptures; i.e. the real question, I think, is one of methodology. We may still disagree de facto (in the details), but we shouldn’t disagree de jure or in principle; i.e. that methodology is the dog that wags the tail.