Guest Blog: The Last Word and The Word After That

It's a honor to have Brian McLaren here today, posting at Paradoxology and responding to your thoughts and questions concerning his just-released book: The Last Word and The Word After That.  This is a great opportunity to dialog with Brian about his book, so don't be shy (Chris). If you haven't read the book yet, you may want to go and read this excerpt.

Brian McLaren's Initial Posting: 

Hi, everyone - it's an honor to be your guest and have a bit of conversation about my newest book, "The Last Word and the Word After That."

One of the discoveries that led to the book came to me several years ago, but I don't remember exactly how.  I remember noticing that a number of Old Testament writers didn't seem to believe in an afterlife.  It was obvious in Ecclesiastes, but you know - that whole book seems odd.  It struck me in some of the Psalms especially.  Then I noticed this lack of belief in afterlife in other places, and I realized that Sheol wasn't the same as hell.

Then I began to notice that Jesus talked about hell a lot, which let me know that something must have happened between the end of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New.  I was curious about what happened during that time.

I think things basically stayed at that level of development in my mind until I was asked by Todd Hunter to prepare a talk on hell and heaven for a gathering of young Vineyard leaders.  I had been thinking that I eventually wanted to dig into the subject; Todd's request forced me to do it sooner rather than later.

That's when I realized that the picture wasn't nearly as simple or neat as I had been taught, and those investigations led to the book.

I'd be interested in knowing what ideas from the book were most helpful or difficult for some of you - if you've read it, and if you have any questions you'd like me to address.  I'm looking forward to hearing from several of you!

__________________________________

*Be sure to check out the other sites participating in Brian's blog-tour today:

Tall Skinny Kiwi - http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/

Jordan Cooper's Blog - http://www.jordoncooper.com/

Jen Lemen's Blog - http://www.jenlemen.com

Dwight Friesen's Blog - http://dwightfriesen.blog.com/

Adam Cleaveland's Blog - http://cleave.blogs.com/pomomusings/

Comments

[Keith Seckel]

Hi Brian (& Chris, et al),

I'm headed out the door to work, but wanted to get this quick post in to say how much I will enjoy reading the comments/conversations here when I have a chance later today! I've not read your book (yet!) but am looking forward to that as well.

Thanks for your part in our Story!

~ Keith

[Shane Pavlak]

Brian,
Do you think there is still an appropriate way to talk about hell without it meaning what most churches today intend it to mean. Would it still be appropriate to use it to imply God’s judgment on things that are unjust in today’s world, and things that are in need of restoration?
If not, Do we need to find a different way to talk about the need for justice in the world?
-Shane

[Lorrie]

Brian - what sort of response have you had or do you expect from the Catholic community?

[kristen]

In dialoguing with Reformed (Calvinist) friends, how can I discuss hell/heaven and get around their insistence on God only "saving the elect"?

[Benjy]

Brian, thank you so very much for all of your work, it has helped far more of us than you will ever realize. I have enjoyed certain things about each of your books, but what I really appreciate about this new one is that it is a topic almost everyone is interested in. Although I wanted to recommend the other 2 to others, not all of them would be helped by them. With this newest book, you don't really have to explain anything about postmodernism or emergent, you can just the book out.

I recenly watched a documentary on the history channel on the history of hell,which really helped a lot to go along with your book.

As you have discussed this topic before, what seems to be the biggest or most common criticism that you have received? Thanks again.

[Chris]

Brian, I think the book will indeed open up the dialogue re: hell. It's a concept that is sorely in need of deconstruction. So, I have two questions:

As people grapple with various understandings of hell, justice, judgment, etc., how can we encourage them to embrace the inherent theological 'tensions' associated with these themes and avoid seeing them as being mutually exclusive?

The book's character, Dan, (probably like most folks), tend to want things 'nailed down', yet scripture repeatedly seems to underline the mysteries of our faith, bidding us to trust more deeply. Learning from views other than our own goes both ways, right?

[Eric]

So far (I just finished chapter 21), this book is a lot more challenging than the others I've read (the first two in this series and Generous Orthodoxy, which introduced me to you). You wrote that you'd like to know the most difficult and helpful (or in some cases, both, I've found) things we've encountered in the book.

I am humbled to admit that Peter's use of Tartarus was a shock, and I found myself wishing that I didn't know that. Part of me would rather remain ignorant. In college in '92 I went through the whole "liberational theology" thing with Bishop Spong, et al, and it left my faith shattered. Then I got swept up into the "Word faith" movement and felt so secure again. Somehow I thought I'd found a balance, being an "open and affirming inclusive faith preacher," I guess. Generous Orthodoxy really gave me what Dan was looking for - something to call my beliefs, which I guess is still that modernist mindset of wanting to classify things. The Last Word is showing me how much even a lib-er-al like myself (as Neo would say) has so much that has been unexamined in my own life. Thank you so much for putting into words so many things we've struggled to express, and then challenging us to open even more doors.

[Seraphim]

Brian,

my friend desertpastor asked that I stop by and say hey.

Hey. overall i've really liked your stuff. I must say I was surprized by Generous Orthodoxy (how much i really liked it) and a little disappointed in The Last Word.

I just really think the exchange between Neo and Dan where you have Neo explain to Dan

"But what about when Job says something about knowing that his redeemer lives and asserting that he will see God in the flesh?"

Neil replied, "I think Job is saying that he believes he'll recover from his terrible illness and be vindicated--not as a soul in heaven but in this life, in his own body. At least that's how I see it."

Is so incredibly lame. And that the bad part is that EC and POMO folk will now use Neil's answer to Dan as some sorta Dead Sea Scrolls way to explain away Hell.

You usually talk about the question being more important than the answer, and that answers arn't all that neat. You must have forgot that pages 46 thru 50 something.

Overall you say some really good stuff. But you need to be more careful. I mean some of the folk I know treat your words like they're inspired.

Sigh.

If nothing else you are making Christians think.

God knows that needed to happen.

Love you in Christ.

I'shalom
Seraphim

[brian McLaren]

Hi, all - great questions! Here are some brief replies ...

Q:
Brian,
Do you think there is still an appropriate way to talk about hell without it meaning what most churches today intend it to mean. Would it still be appropriate to use it to imply God’s judgment on things that are unjust in today’s world, and things that are in need of restoration?
If not, Do we need to find a different way to talk about the need for justice in the world?
-Shane
Posted by: Shane Pavlak | May 9, 2005 07:36 AM

A: Shane - great question. Here's an analogy. We need to teach the passages of Scripture that talk about slavery. But every time we teach them, we also need to teach how they have been abused, and we need to give some narrative context so people understand what they did and didn't mean to their original hearers. I think we need to do something similar today regarding hell. Meanwhile - yes, we need to talk much more (in my opinion) than we've been doing about judgment - that we all are accountable to God, and that right now counts forever.

Q: Brian - what sort of response have you had or do you expect from the Catholic community?
Posted by: Lorrie | May 9, 2005 08:00 AM

A: Lorrie - the Catholic community has a wide range of people, just as the Protestant community does. There are "religious right" Catholics, left-wingers, liberals, moderates, etc., etc. I've heard from a few conservative Catholics who respond very much like Protestant fundamentalists. I've heard from many Catholics who appreciate what I'm doing ... one priest, for example, wanted to take a character from The Story We Find Ourselves In and create a parallel trilogy for Catholic folk.

Q:
In dialoguing with Reformed (Calvinist) friends, how can I discuss hell/heaven and get around their insistence on God only "saving the elect"?\
Posted by: kristen | May 9, 2005 08:39 AM

A: I think this is risky. For some reason, there seems to be a higher percentage of highly aggressive people among Calvinists (in my experience, at least.) More temperate Calvinists need to urge their brethren to become less pugilistic and more charitable, imho. But if you have Calvinist friends who are open to rethinking ... I'd begin with the idea of election. I discuss this a bit in "A Generous Orthodoxy."

Lesslie Newbigin (the great British missiologist) used to say that the greatest heresy in the history of monotheism is a misunderstanding of election - namely, that election is to elite, exclusive privilege. No, he said - election is to service and even suffering: we are chosen to serve for the benefit of others, not to the exclusion of others. We are chosen not just to be blessed (in this life, or the next), but we are blessed to be a blessing to others. All this flows from the original calling of Abraham. (See "The Open Secret" for more on this.)

This radical rethinking of the meaning and purpose of election opens the door to a lot of other ideas. N.T. Wright writes helpfully about this too.

Q: Brian, thank you so very much for all of your work, it has helped far more of us than you will ever realize. I have enjoyed certain things about each of your books, but what I really appreciate about this new one is that it is a topic almost everyone is interested in. Although I wanted to recommend the other 2 to others, not all of them would be helped by them. With this newest book, you don't really have to explain anything about postmodernism or emergent, you can just the book out.

I recenly watched a documentary on the history channel on the history of hell,which really helped a lot to go along with your book.

As you have discussed this topic before, what seems to be the biggest or most common criticism that you have received? Thanks again.
Posted by: Benjy | May 9, 2005 09:46 AM

A: Thanks, Benjy. I saw that history channel show too - I wish it had been available when I first began my research - it was hard to find anything on the subject! The most common criticism ... "Who do you think you are to question something the church has held without diversity of opinion forever?" The assumption behind the question, by the way, is flawed - there has been, from ancient times to contemporary times, a persistent "minority report" on hell. I'm not the first and won't be the last.

Q: Brian, I think the book will indeed open up the dialogue re: hell. It's a concept that is sorely in need of deconstruction. So, I have two questions:

As people grapple with various understandings of hell, justice, judgment, etc., how can we encourage them to embrace the inherent theological 'tensions' associated with these themes and avoid seeing them as being mutually exclusive?

The book's character, Dan, (probably like most folks), tend to want things 'nailed down', yet scripture repeatedly seems to underline the mysteries of our faith, bidding us to trust more deeply. Learning from views other than our own goes both ways, right?
Posted by: Chris | May 9, 2005 01:10 PM

A: Great questions, Chris. I think Paul's writings on "eating meat sacrificed to idols" (Romans 14-15, I Cor. 9-10) are very instructive. I'd begin by having people grapple with those passages (especially interesting when correlated with the Jerusalem Council in Acts). Paul doesn't require uniformity of practice or opinion ... he does require common commitment to love. (I Corinthians 13 wasn't really written for weddings - but for churches with diversity of opinions, practices, and gifts!)

If we acknowledge this diversity and learn to hold both our opinions and our communities in love ... I think we'll be able to learn more, appreciate mystery, and maintain humility.

Q:
So far (I just finished chapter 21), this book is a lot more challenging than the others I've read (the first two in this series and Generous Orthodoxy, which introduced me to you). You wrote that you'd like to know the most difficult and helpful (or in some cases, both, I've found) things we've encountered in the book.

I am humbled to admit that Peter's use of Tartarus was a shock, and I found myself wishing that I didn't know that. ....Posted by: Eric | May 9, 2005 02:15 PM

A: Eric - ah, yes. This is the downside of education. It leads us into discomfort at times! Some describe the move from naivete to disillusionment to a new, higher, tested, wise simplicity (the second naivete). I hope you'll find a straight path to the second naivete as you continue to pray, think, dialogue, etc.

As an analogy ... I have an oft-quoted article that talks about Dorothy and the Wizard of Oz. This doesn't imply that I believe they are real historical people, right? Can the Bible writers similarly refer to stories or concepts from their times and not be expected to be affirming of their complete historicity?

Q:Brian,
my friend desertpastor asked that I stop by and say hey.
Hey. overall i've really liked your stuff. I must say I was surprized by Generous Orthodoxy (how much i really liked it) and a little disappointed in The Last Word.
I just really think the exchange between Neo and Dan where you have Neo explain to Dan
"But what about when Job says something about knowing that his redeemer lives and asserting that he will see God in the flesh?"

Neil replied, "I think Job is saying that he believes he'll recover from his terrible illness and be vindicated--not as a soul in heaven but in this life, in his own body. At least that's how I see it."

Is so incredibly lame. And that the bad part is that EC and POMO folk will now use Neil's answer to Dan as some sorta Dead Sea Scrolls way to explain away Hell.

You usually talk about the question being more important than the answer, and that answers arn't all that neat. You must have forgot that pages 46 thru 50 something.
Overall you say some really good stuff. But you need to be more careful. I mean some of the folk I know treat your words like they're inspired.
Sigh.
If nothing else you are making Christians think.
God knows that needed to happen.
Love you in Christ.
I'shalom
Seraphim

A: If we had time, I'd like to know why you think that Neo's response is so lame. Be assured - I believe in resurrection! But I don't think that is necessarily what Job was talking about. Taken in context of the whole book - he's not very exccited about saying, "Yeah, it's OK that I'm suffering because in heaven it will all be better." Don't you agree?

But listen - if you hear anybody taking my words as more than just one guy's honest thinking - which is tentative, fallible, and never to be taken as more than that - please tell them I don't approve!

By the way - please be assured that I'm not trying to explain away hell! I'm trying to properly understand it's history, meaning, and use by Jesus and the apostles. An important distinction.

[Postmodernegro]

Brian,

I have been thinking about your commentary on the "threat" passages of Jesus in the gospels as a direct challenge to the rigid exclusiveness and marginalizing practices of the religious/political elites. In light of how this played out in the gospels, as a teaching Pastor, how do you see churches discipling Christians to be able to read the text this way. The difficulty in dealing with issue like justice, hell, mercy, and love seems to me a matter of how Christian are "disciples" or "formed". What practices can Christians encourage each other with in order to see Jesus' threats of hell in a more profound and challenging way that you have described in the book?

[Chris]

Brian,

Once we've disconnected from modernist notions of hell, and stop using it as a fear-based means of motivation, how do we affirm passages such as:

Moses said to the people, "Do not be afraid; for God has come only to test you and to put the fear of him upon you so that you do not sin." Exodus 20:20 (NRSV)

I've never been all that comfortable with the oft-cited belief that the 'fear of God' is merely respect. Rudolph Otto's understanding of mysterium tremendum and the 'awefulness' of God seems to point to the flipside of the coin. And so I'm wondering: is there a purpose within the kingdom of God for such a 'fear of God'? How do we eliminate the fear of hell while retaining the fear of God?

[Seraphim]

Brian you said:

"If we had time, I'd like to know why you think that Neo's response is so lame. Be assured - I believe in resurrection! But I don't think that is necessarily what Job was talking about. Taken in context of the whole book - he's not very exccited about saying, "Yeah, it's OK that I'm suffering because in heaven it will all be better." Don't you agree?"

First thought. Ultimate questions should not have easy, pat answers. The scripture reads:

(Job 19:25) But as for me, I know that my Redeemer lives. In the end, he will stand upon the earth.

(Job 19:26) After my skin is destroyed, then in my flesh shall I see God,

I recognize that until 2nd Temple Judisim there wasn't much talk of an afterlife. However, I think that in light of the relationship Job had (has) with God, and allowing that the text is God breathed and dare I say Inspired... I think Neal saying that Job was just hoping he'd 'get better' is lame.

Things like the afterlife, or what is the Eucharist etc, shouldn't have easy answers.

I mean you have such scholars as Luther and Zwingli trying to work out Symbol or Real presence? Then you get a scholar like Oecolampadius to come along study the Aramaic and figure out Yes. Bread and wine and also somehow Body and Blood. Still no easy answers. Which to me is how it should be.

I don't think that Job was "offering up his suffering in the hope he'd be blessed in the next life" as much as affirming that there was a next life, that this valley of tears isn't all that there is... and even though the earthworms devour his flesh, he knows in the flesh he'll see God.

I see echoes here of "What can separate us from the Love of Christ?" I don't see "It will all be better in the sweet by and by" Eternal Life starts now.

Most helpful to me is the fact that you do an excellent job of showing what we're saved unto not just from.

Go with God. I'shalom

[Mike]

Hey Brian,

Mike Clawson here. We met at a youth pastors retreat in Minneapolis this past November. Anyhow, thanks for writing The Last Word. I found it very helpful and a good starting point for reconsidering my assumptions about hell. However, I have to admit that I was somewhat disappointed at the end of the book. I felt like a lot of valuable deconstruction of our traditional concept of hell had occurred, but that there wasn't enough reconstruction for me to look to as an alternative. I was left really not knowing what to think about hell. I realize that was probably your intent, i.e. not to tell us what to believe, but simply to prod our thinking and encourage further conversation. So I guess that leads to my first question: Can you provide me with recommendations for conversation partners (in book form) to help me continue this journey? In other words, are there any authors you'd recommend that spell out more clearly where you're headed in your conception of hell? Anyone who defines more specifically an alternative to the traditional views of hell who I could be reading?

My second question has to do with Markus' comment at the end of chapter 23 about how we are saved by grace but judged by works. I wish you had elaborated more on how you think grace, salvation, and judgment all work out. One of the criticisms I've often heard of emergent folks is that we are reinstating a works based salvation. I think there is that impression because you and others (Tony Jones for example) seem to return so much focus to questions of spiritual formation and the process of becoming like Christ as key to what salvation really is all about (i.e. learning to live according to kingdom ways). The implication then seems to be that if we therefore don't succeed in becoming like Christ (i.e. if we're not perfect) then we aren't really saved. I know you wouldn't want to put it that way (and as a fellow emergent Christian, neither would I) but how would you put it? Where does grace come in? Does bringing sanctification (or theosis) back into the picture of what it means to be truly saved place too heavy of a burden on those of us who struggle day by day with our own sinfulness? Was there any value to Martin Luther's move to separate justification from santification?

I realize that's a pretty heavy question and probably worthy of a whole book in itself, but any thoughts you could offer would be appreciated.

Thanks,

-Mike

[pavel/addai]

Well I'm joining the discussion late..

I was wondering if the idea of the developement of theology and the nature of the Church as developings "organically" has been explored at all.

That is one idea that I talk about a lot when I get into some theological discussions with people. Especially as an Orthodox (Coptic) Christian talking to more modern evagelical Protestants.

Things like Hell. The Belief in the Trinity many things happen over a long stretch of time. They happen over various theological battles, discussions and even in coming into contact with different cultures (The belief in Hell for instance from coming in contact with Persian Zoroastorianism, while the the Trinity with Greek Hellenic phisophy).

Anyway there is belief in Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy that God guides the Church. And does so progressively over the centuries, he doesn't necessarily lay it all out there at once. So I was just wondering what you thought about that.

[Matthew Miller]

Brian,
I am one of those from what would be classified as a "mainline" perspective and have been drawn to the postmodern thinking of the emergent conversation. I confess to not having read this book and wonder if you engage the idea of "The Harrowing of Hell" as suggested by 1 Peter. Does the creedal confession "(Jesus) descended into hell," based on this text offer a way of pairing judgement with mercy?

[Rick]

Does what you believe cause you to love God and people more? That was the most helpful over-arching idea I received from "The Last Word".

At first I thought the book would spur me toward digging deeper into the questions of hell but it actually did the opposite. I found myself moved toward greater concern over the present realities of my relationship with God and others. It's not that the concept of hell isn't important but I'm just not motivated by it...right now...maybe in time...maybe not.

The whole "heaven as the carrot and hell as the stick" concept seems to forgo the immediate reality of kingdom of God in the present.

Hope that's an encouragement to you Brian.

Grace and peace to you,

Rick

[Steve]

Sounds like a bunch of worldly relativism to me. May I refer you to Albert Mohler's column on such "wisdom of the world" today. Such talk about no hell sounds like what our "itchy ears" want to hear.
Link http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohler/?adate=4/11/2005#1323494

Moralistic Therapeutic Deism is very much like the deistic God of the 18th-century philosophers. This is not the God who thunders from the mountain, nor a God who will serve as judge. This undemanding deity is more interested in solving our problems and in making people happy. "In short, God is something like a combination Divine Butler and Cosmic Therapist: he is always on call, takes care of any problems that arise, professionally helps his people to feel better about themselves, and does not become too personally involved in the process."

The conclusion of this study........

Moralistic Therapeutic Deism consists of beliefs like these: 1. "A god exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth." 2. "God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions." 3. "The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself." 4. "God does not need to be particularly involved in one's life except when God is needed to resolve a problem." 5. "Good people go to heaven when they die".

Of course, if there is such a thing as heaven....or hell.

BTW...there is no "word after that". God's Word is complete and true. Making it into something more palatable is not only wrong, but worthy of ETERNAL CONDEMNATION.

[Mike]

If you think that Brian or anyone else here is advocating what you describe as "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism" then you obviously haven't read the book or been listening very closely to what people are saying. Your "MTD" sounds more like a strawman to me. Easy to fabricate and knock down, but not really representative of what anyone (or at least, anyone in the emerging church) really believes.

[steve]

I haven't read this book, but the title gives the whole thing away. There is no "word after that". Adding to or changing the bible is worthy of ETERNAL CONDEMNATION.

I have read up on this "emerging church" stuff, however. Apparently, this is a euphemism for changing bible truth to make it more palatable in todays sensitivites. The truth of the matter is that Jesus died to save us from an eternity in hell. If you don't understand that, then the need for a Savior is very relative. Certainly, your level of gratitude to Jesus, and a heart for the lost is negligible.

The comment..."open and affirming inclusive faith preacher," hmmmm sounds very un-Christian to me. Jesus was not open and affirming. The was very closed to the reality of an eternity in heaven, and said that only "through Him" can you get there. Only those who repent of their sins and receive Him as Savior will be saved(from an eternity in hell). And what does "affirming" mean? In today's society, it usually means "to declare positively or firmly" sinful behavior. Jesus never did this? He told the adulterous woman to go and "sin no more". Those who consider themselves Christians and willfully live a sinful lifestyle, must examine their faith. Jesus said that "if you are truly my disciples, you will do what I say". Saving faith includes Lordship, and if you are not following the Lord, then maybe you don't have saving faith.

Another quote from Albert Mohler on the "emerging church"
Mohler concludes that McLaren and other leaders in the Emergent Church represent “a significant challenge to biblical Christianity.”
“Unwilling to affirm that the Bible contains propositional truths that form the framework for Christian belief, this movement argues that we can have Christian symbolism and substance without those thorny questions of truthfulness that have so vexed the modern mind,” Mohler writes.
“The worldview of postmodernism—complete with an epistemology that denies the possibility of or need for propositional truth—affords the movement an opportunity to hop, skip and jump throughout the Bible and the history (of) Christian thought in order to take whatever pieces they want from one theology and attach them, like doctrinal post-it notes, to whatever picture they would want to draw.”

Jesus was very clear on the reality of an eternity in hell for those who do not recieve Him as Savior. Eternity is a long time. The life we live here on earth is a blip....a vapor. Do not be afraid of discussing (with the Holy Spirit's prompting) the reality of hell to unbelievers, Jesus didn't. The gospel is very simple and easy to understand. All this "emerging" nonsense may just make some folks feel good enough about themselves to reject the simple reality of the truth of scripture and spend an eternity in hell. That is why Paul was so "astonished" at the folks in Galatia, and why he was adamant about them being eternally condemned.

[tammy]

"After my skin is destroyed,"

hey seraphim my friend -- maybe Job was referring to the destruction of his skin because of the boils. and that he believed his flesh would grow back.

just another POV.

[Anthony]

Steve,

You said:

"Do not be afraid of discussing (with the Holy Spirit's prompting) the reality of hell to unbelievers, Jesus didn't."

Where did Jesus do that exactly? Talk to "unbelievers" about hell? In the gospels? Where exactly I'd like to know.

Anthony

[steve]

How about these 2.... just 2 of many

Mark 9:45-45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where "their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched." Everyone will be salted with fire.

Luke 13:22-30 Then Jesus went through the towns and villages, teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem. Someone asked him, "Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?"
He said to them, "Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, 'Sir, open the door for us.' "But he will answer, 'I don't know you or where you come from.' "Then you will say, 'We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.' "But he will reply, 'I don't know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!' "There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God. Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last."

[steve]

oops....Mark 9:45-49

[Seraphim]

Tammy, thanks for the new POV, but I don't think so. Love ya though.

Steve, you say:

"haven't read this book, but the title gives the whole thing away. There is no "word after that". Adding to or changing the bible is worthy of ETERNAL CONDEMNATION."

what can I say, but Sigh. Here you are defending the Bible, the Word of God. IN which Paul said he'd go to Hell if he thought it could save some of his countryman. A stance that seems the opposite of you telling us someone is worthy of eternal condemnation....what you must remember is that we are all worthy of not being with God and only Jesus changes that.

When the Last Word of the Bible is fulfilled. When all the books are opened, read and shut, there will still be a Word after the Last Word. Jesus The Christ. The God-Man. The Logos of God, the Word of God is not repeat not a book. The Book important as it is, points us to the Word of God, the Logos who is Jesus Christ. Check you tude dude, alot of us are going to be in Heaven. You'll have to learn to deal with us eventually, unless of course you arn't there with us...

I'shalom

Seraphim

[Mike]

Not to mention that you're making false assumptions about what's being referred to in the title Steve. "The Last Word..." isn't referring to the Bible per se, and therefore "...the Word After That" is not in any way a claim to be adding to scripture. I could be wrong about this - and perhaps Brian could clarify if he's still checking this blog - but my understanding is that "The Last Word" is referring to our eschatological theories, i.e. our complex theological systems regarding heaven, hell, the afterlife, etc. And "the Word After That" is grace, i.e. that after we are done trying to sort out what we believe about the nature of heaven and hell and who exactly goes there, we still need to come back to the unconditional, overwhelming, redeeming grace of God.

Peace,

-Mike