Annihilationism & Universalism

So we were recently learning in College about these two beliefs that exist within the Christian church, and they've been going back and forth in my head. Now universalism seems easy to dispute, because if everyone does in fact end up at heaven in the end whether they come to Christ in this lifetime or not, then surely it makes Jesus an immoral liar, bluffing people into the Kingdom of God with scary stories of torment in hell. It also renders our evangelism and outreach useless, as living a salvation lifestyle for the benefit of others doesn't make a difference: they are already saved. Annihilationism is slightly harder to combat. In fact it is far preferable for those who have had friends and family pass away without salvation to think that in Hell they are destroyed rather than punished. But again this belief conflicts with scriptural text (Mark 9:46-48, 12:38-40 etc). Now I do not think that the images we are given in the Bible of hell are to be taken literally; they are offered in such a way that humans can apply understanding to something that is outside our own world. But it still seems clear that these views are not how Christians are meant to percieve salvation and life after death.

The point where it becomes difficult however is when we think about why these beliefs originated in the first place. The problem people of these faiths have is that to our eyes it is morally unfair to punish someone infinitely on the grounds of finite sins that occured in this lifetime. It doesn't seem to measure up. Furthermore it seems strange that when God has conquered evil and has emerged victorious after the final chapters of the story, that He will install a place of torture and suffering in the new ordered Kingdom. It seems incompatible with the God of Love.

I have thought about this problem at some length over the last while, and I am still no closer to a conclusion.

While it seems sometimes to be the Christian's cop-out answer, I guess I have to lay my faith in the fact that God's sense of love and justice is far greater than my own. My love is based on personal relationship, trust and such human concepts as these, while the love we talk about with God is a totally different thing, something far beyond my own understanding. Perhaps a place of infinite punishment clashes with my idea of justice purely because my idea of justice is plagued by human emotion.

For example, if a close friend of mine is killed, I would see justice being done in the killer paying for his action. Now, does that justice have to be wrought upon the killer himself? If someone else paid the life sentence in prison (as Christ paid our sentence) would I see justice as being done? Of course not! I would want the one resposible to be held accountable. But God does not see the world in this way. While I may not understand it, if God is willing to account for mankinds sin by allowing someone else to suffer for it, then His sense of judgement and righteous suffering is far different from my own. And if I truly accept that God is Lord of earth and has saved me by His grace, then I must be willing to accept that His view is to be trusted, not my own.

Musings on Bart Campolo's "heresy"

So this is my first time writing on one of these things, and I'm not even sure if I'm hoping people respond, just kind of thinking and putting my thoughts down on the computer. So this article surfaced a few years ago now, but I only read it for the first time a couple of months ago, Bart Campolo's "The Limits Of God's Grace." It was published in a Youth Journal but was pulled after people claimed it was heretical.

I've been a big fan of Bart's ever since he spoke at Summer Madness a few years back (check out "Jesus vs. the American Dream" on iTunes), and was intrigued to read it. I've linked it at the bottom in case you have trouble finding it online.

The problem I'm having with it at the minute is that it definitely seems to have flaws and I struggle to see how his basis for it is upon scripture (and therefore God), yet I can't help agreeing with him on an awful lot of what he says! My main issue would be the point where he openly says that he will dismiss or rationalise any scripture which combats his chosen idea of God. Obviously it's easy to say that you cannot ignore scripture just to fit your own ideas, but when I think of it how often do we do this ourselves? How much of scripture do we twist and distort to suit us? I would never dream of saying that I have it all sorted out, but I would say that certain things are scripturally wrong, like excessive drinking and promiscuous sex, yet I know Christians who engage in these things and who I have argued over the Bible with in terms of how they interpret it. Or the huge debate over homosexuality, which, while 50 years ago was adamantly opposed in Christian culture, many churches are now becoming increasingly acceptive of. So is Bart merely saying out loud what many of us either keep hidden or don't even realise we're doing? Not that I'm standing behind his approach, where he openly says it and doesn't seem to see that it's wrong.

I'm a long way off knowing where I stand with regards to this, just figured I'd throw it out there.

Bart Campolo's 'The Limits of God's Grace'