Careful with N.T. Wright. He’s N.T. Wrong on many doctrine issues.

Thank you, Dee. It’s always refreshing to hear from Rev. Wright.

Robert Herrera,

Rev. Wright has, in various talks, affirmed that he reckons that he is probably mistaken in about 1/3 of his ideas, but he’s not sure which 1/3 is mistaken.

Given the vast diversity of opinion that exists within the churches (to which doctrine-centric Protestantism in its myriad flavors is a junior late-comer), if he actually is right in 2/3 of his ideas, he’s “batting” better than most of us.

On the main topic of this Q&A, “resurrection”, there is little doubt in my mind that Wright is making a sound critique of a widespread misunderstanding in the churches.

IMO, we need more people like Wright. I hope that his students have long and productive careers.

Robert Herrera: Careful with N.T. Wright. He’s N.T. Wrong on many doctrine issues.

Wrong according to whom?
Can you provide examples?

R’as al Ghul,

I think that NTW alarms some in certain parts of Protestantism, and especially among the Reformed, because he insists on reading Jesus’ prophetic language, addressed to Israel, in the context of Israel’s historical situation (and in the context of Israel’s prior history in its relationship with YHWH and with the surrounding Gentile nations). This is laid out in order in his (IMO outstanding) book Jesus and the Victory of God.

I think this alarms many because it undercuts the Biblical justification for infernalism.* And that’s a problem for many churches — if we can’t scare people into the Kingdom, how will our churches continue to thrive in the future?

* for the record, personally I think that infernalism is not proved from the Biblical text, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t true. It might be true but not provable from the Biblical text. Personally, I think that textual arguments for annihilationism, or for “conditional immortality”, or even for universalism are stronger than textual arguments for infernalism, but that none are definitively established. IMO we’re still in the situation of OT Israel in this regard, with too little revelation to answer all the questions we want to ask.

Samuel Conner: Personally, I think that textual arguments for annihilationism, or for “conditional immortality”, or even for universalism are stronger than textual arguments for infernalism, but that none are definitively established.

“Conditional immortality” meaning the wicked just don’t get resurrected, but just remain dead?
As in “They didn’t make it.”?

That WOULD solve The Abominable Fancy problem at the cost of all those lurid superdetailed descriptions/visions of Eternal Hell. (None of which visions resemble each other in the slightest.) The resurrected grieving over those who didn’t make it, as they did when those others originally died.

And would also fit with the stories of Padre Pio, who would often be asked about a dead loved one’s eternal destiny. Unlike a lot of preachers, the worst he would answer was a simple sorrowful “there is no hope”, i.e. “He/She didn’t make it.”

dee: I always enjoy reading your comments. It appears you struggle as I do on infernalism. That is a new word for me. Thank you. I do believe that much of what is taught is based on Dante’s work.

I think we (most of us here) struggle with infernalism because we are the great, great, great, grandchildren of the enlightenment, and do not endorse cruel and unusual punishment (thanks to our founding fathers).
In the Bible, there is no such thing as The Rights of Man (Thomas Paine).
You (generic you) were at the whim and fancy of some potentate or another up to and including the Big Kahuna in the sky, no recourse, and certainly no appeal through channels.

dee: you struggle as I do on infernalism

I think that most people do who have lost loved ones who died seemingly without what one considered to be sound faith. And people of tender heart generally; a firmly infernalist OPC minister under whose teaching I sat for a couple of years was plainly distressed by the fate of the reprobate. I suspect that this teaching has led to a significant amount of despair, depression and even mental illness among tender-hearted believers. That doesn’t mean that it can’t be true, but might be a hint that it deserves close scrutiny.

I think I first encountered the term in a book by Hans Urs von Balthasar, “Dare we hope that all men be saved?”, in the form “infernalists”, referring to advocates of the teaching. His use of the term was not complimentary.

The most helpful work I have encountered that touches on the subject, aside from Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God (which, to be clear, is not about individual eschatology at all, but which touches on the subject in terms of the meaning of Jesus’ gehenna sayings), is Brad Jerzak’s Her gates shall never be shut, especially the chapter which discusses the two widely divergent Hebrew textual precedents/contexts through which one can view Jesus’ prophetic warnings. Interestingly, the Hebrew precedent that most resembles Evangelical thinking at this point is not the OT precedent but an extrabiblical precedent in the Book of Enoch.

I think that the “right” answer is: “not enough data/data not unequivocal/we don’t know.” Which leads me to suspect that maybe the question isn’t as important as we believe it to be, as an explanation of why the Scriptures don’t give less equivocal answers at this point.

dee: [infernalism] is a new word for me.

I prefer it to “ECT” (as in, eternal conscious torment). I don’t think I can prove this, BTW, but I have a strong feeling that theologians are less in love with TLA’s than, say, management consultants are.