Keller on Hell...er

In yesterday's post I mentioned that the normal way of articulating hell by traditionalists involves making the unrepentant go there by choice rather than God sending them there. In my estimation it is a move to try and help God's public image. No one likes to think of their God as a 'big meanie' (Or in this case the 'biggest meanie') and it's not like traditionalists have nothing to work with. The Christian god who sends people to hell is also said to be merciful, just, compassionate, gracious, and not just loving, but that God is love. A loving god sending sinners to eternal torment seems like a contradiction.

As an example of what I'm referring to, here are a few excepts from a lengthier quote by Tim Keller a well respected leader in America:

"Hell and heaven essentially are our freely chosen identities going on forever."

"Hell is a self-centered ego going on for a billion years"

"Hell is God giving you the life you want, on into eternity."

"Therefore, in a sense, nobody ever goes to hell in the Christian understanding unless they want to. "

"In some ways, the fairest understanding of the afterlife is the Christian one, which says God gives you what you want. If you want to live with God forever, that’s heaven, and you get it. If you want to be your own person, your own savior, your own lord, that’s hell, and you get that – and you stay wanting it; you do not suddenly change your mind."

Tim Keller "Evolution, Creation, and Christian Lay-people"

Here is part of an article by Tim Keller written for BioLogos:

In my estimation what current science tells us about evolution presents four main difficulties for
orthodox Protestants. The first is in the area of Biblical authority. To account for evolution we must see at
least Genesis 1 as non-literal. The questions come along these lines: what does that mean for the idea that
the Bible has final authority? If we refuse to take one part of the Bible literally, why take any parts of it
literally? Aren’t we really allowing science to sit in judgment on our understanding of the Bible rather than
vica versa?
The second difficulty is the confusion of biology and philosophy. Many of the strongest proponents
for evolution as a biological process (such as Dawkins) also see it as a ‘Grand Theory of Everything.’ They
look to natural selection to explain not only all human behavior but even to give the only answers to the
great philosophical questions, such as why we exist, what life is about, and why human nature is what it is.
Doesn’t belief in the one idea—that life is the product of evolution—entail the adoption of this whole ‘world
-view’?
The third difficulty is the historicity of Adam and Eve. One way to reconcile what current science says
about evolution is to propose that the account of Adam and Eve is symbolic, not literal, but what does this
do to the New Testament teaching of Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 that our sinfulness comes from our
relationship with Adam? If we don’t believe in an historical fall, how did we become what the Bible says we
are—sinful and condemned?
The fourth difficulty is the problem of violence and evil. One of the greatest barriers to belief in God
is the problem of suffering and evil in the world. Why, people ask, did God create a world in which violence,
pain, and death are endemic? The answer of traditional theology is—he didn’t. He created a good world but
also gave human beings free will, and through their disobedience and ‘Fall’, death and suffering came into
the world. The process of evolution, however, understands violence, predation, and death to be the very
engine of how life develops. If God brings about life through evolution, how do we reconcile that with the
idea of a good God? The problem of evil seems to be worse for the believer in theistic evolution.

John Meunier ponders the gospel debate

I found a post on the gospel by John Meunier, a part-time pastor.

In it, he cites an interview with Tim Keller on Trevin Wax's blog about the gospel needing to keep the salvation of the individual central. As you can imagine, I couldn't disagree more. This was the comment I left on the blog:

I think the real problem is that real conversation isn’t taking place. McKnight et al are still being misunderstood and lumped into a 'kingdom' or social gospel rather than their actual view of Jesus as the fulfillment of Israel's story and the promises of God to make a people for himself (which contains individuals necessarily) through which to redeem the whole creation. The individualism of Keller and others at TGC is not the gospel according to scripture. I used to define it that way, but after reading McKnight's book on the subject and rereading the entire New Testament and studying every instance of the noun and verb 'gospel(led)' it is clear who is using the term correctly. It is not as though individuals aren't saved, that justification isn't by by faith, or that the gospel has nothing to do with the forgiveness of sins, but that is a misdirected and narrow view that is simply not the focus of the gospel as defined by the New Testament.

After reflecting a little more, I'm not sure that McKnight really is misunderstood as much as I outline here, but that his methodology is being ignored. Keller is not using the whole of the Bible to define the gospel and I think that if individual salvation is thought to be central then the passages that are being used are not being understood properly. The gospel is about Jesus, but even if you say the gospel is about salvation it should be stated that it is the salvation of God's people, which includes individuals when they put their faith in Jesus. Even Paul continues to say that God's people is Israel. We are simply grafted in (Rom 9-11).