Chan on Hell

I love this guy's heart and his style (and what a lovely voice). Of course, I know where he is going and I think that he is mistaken but I like his way of getting there. It is a wise way to travel, even if he is heading in a wrong direction.
I can live with that.
I can get on with a bloke like this.


Alex Smith said…
Yes, I think you're right Robin. Although it's heartwrenching to see such humility, passion for the truth and God's transcendence, caught in the grasp of theology that conflicts with his conscience :( Oh, that God would let him see His amazing love.
Ted said…
Seems to be playing Bell at his own game: heart-felt questioning, powerful communication, slick video format. More effective for the traditional view (which I assume he has, but could be wrong) than Driscoll's shouting or Piper's dismissing.

I'd be interested to hear why you think he's mistaken, Robin, as this is likely to do the rounds among those suspicious of Bell and universalism.
Anonymous said…
Chan: When we make statements like “Well, God wouldn’t do this would he?” Do you understand that at that moment you’re actually putting God’s actions in submission to your reasoning? You’re saying, “Well, God wouldn’t think that way or act that way because….”

Tom: Does he mean they way Abraham objected to God’s plans for Sodom with “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked?...Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?” It looks like Abraham does what Chan says we shouldn't do.

I think we can and often do use God to justify our own misconceptions. And like Chan, I don’t want to do that. But that can’t mean there are no conceivable evils which believers are ever justified in refusing to attribute to God (which is all Abraham did) because, after all, God's ways are not our ways (and the Isaiah passage is another thing altogether!).

I think Chan landed on the answer at 6 min’s in when he finally talks about Jesus as expressing the heart of God. He OUGHT to use that as a means of interpreting all the objectionable stuff that's attributed to God in the Old Testament (that Chan mentions). But instead Chan lays them all up on the same level, which looks to me to be a failure to be truly ‘Christ-centered’ at this point in his hermeneutic.

puddleglumswager said…
Ok. God's ways are higher than our ways. Given this, I'd like to know how Chan knows which god is True God, and which revelation is True Revelation. There are quite a few to choose from...

No. God is good, and we jolly-well know what good means. If not, then your guess about God is as good as mine.
Robin Parry said…
Here is a gentle but helpful critique of this video from Jeff Cook.

Popular Posts