Again–thanks for answering so clearly and openly. =).

Tell me more about this lake of fire–what are the details about it–where is it, how hot is it, what fuels the fire, how did it come into existence, what is the general of experience of the people hanging out there, is there any way to leave once you’re there, etc. etc. etc.?

Another thought experiment–how do you imagine you would feel if Jesus himself came and spoke to you, and you really knew and believed it was him, and he told you that you had misunderstood, and that there actually isn’t any lake of fire, and there actually isn’t any danger whatsoever. If you are able to imagine coming to believe that–how do you imagine you would feel, in such a scenario?

Also–just to let you know, I would totally love it if you could refrain from quoting Scripture passages in your answers. I think it’s awesome for you that you know and love the scriptures, but for me it gets really hard to kind of hear/understand/delineate you and your voice and your thoughts and ideas and experiences and beliefs in among all those scripture passages. If you can’t or won’t do that, I’m totally kewl with that–just thought I’d ask in case it was a possibility.

I guess I’m a little confused, because you said “dangerous”, and now a couple of things are happening for me. First of all, in all you describe and talk about, I myself experience no sense whatsoever of danger. Secondly, in your comments and replies, you yourself seem to me to be exhibiting no sense of danger.

So I’m wondering what the above means. Do we perhaps mean very different things by danger? Or do you sense danger and I’m just not getting/hearing it? To me danger means a sense of imminent physical or psychological harm. What does it mean to you?

thanks for continuing to engage. I hear all that you are saying. What do you mean when you say that if you wander from the truth, you have no hope in the world?

Thank you for your response, and for your kind words. It is important to guard against the erosion of Scripture, and the erosion of the classically held view that Scripture in inspired because Christ, the Apostles, and the early Church all believed Scripture to be God Breathed. I believe that 2 Timothy 1:12-14 really gets at the crux of the issue: “But I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am convinced that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me. Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you.” You see the Scriptures, as well as the beliefs of the early Church, are all part of the “deposit” that Christ entrusted to the Apostles, and the Apostles to the early Church. Now it is important that we hold to these same views. why? Because if we do not, then we have wandered from the truth, and if we have wandered from the truth then we have no hope in the world. If we embrace views that the Scriptures do not teach, and that the Church has never held, then we can be sure that those views cannot be labeled as “Christian.” The post-modern church has largely embraced views that have never been part of Biblical teaching or of classical Christianity; this is a huge red flag. If we stray from these views, then we are no longer walking according to the deposit which Christ gave to His bride, the Church. It seems to be a fairly straight forward issue; if you are teaching views that cannot be backed up by the Scriptures, or the teachings of the church, then chances are that you have swerved from orthodox Christianity. Does that make sense Benjamin? Did I answer your question?

Hurrah–I love your answer. It feels sympathetic and connective. Thank you! I’m also massively impressed that you typed out the first iteration on your cell phone. Wow! =)

It sounds like you are a bit of a scholar of church history. Are you a professor? Your knowledge base seems like that of a professor, but your engagement level seems higher than that of a professor (wow, what does that say about my experience of professors? =).

You elaborated a bit on what you meant by “danger”, methinks, when you talked about destruction/erosion/dismantling of (in the larger sense) orthodox beliefs and (more specifically) the basic belief of biblical inspiration. This leads me to another question–why do you see this as dangerous? I mean–here–a picture of what you might perhaps see as the worst possible outcome–the entire church, all over the world, individually and collectively, come to look at Scripture more like Justin looks at it in the video above, and thus not so much like the historical/(little “o”)orthodox church looks at it. What do you mean when you say this is “dangerous”. What’s the danger? Why do you see this as a negative, bad, or scary thing?

Benjamin,

Thank you for your comment. Let me first say that I am using polemics intentionally because, in my view, the greatest danger to the Church right now (in my humble opinion) is the downgrade of Scripture. Liberal protestantism, over the past century, has systematically dismantled Scripture and subjected it to arbitrarily unrealistic standards of criticism. Spurgeon called it the downgrade and it was already in full swing in his day. Now, under the influence of postmodernism, the downgrade has become even more destructive–eroding the basic beliefs of biblical inspiration. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work,” and Matthew 5:18:
“For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” Critics will charge that inerrancy is a teaching of Protestant scholasticism–which is false. The Church has always held that Scripture was God Breathed and was not carried along by the will of men but rather bt the will of God. Now would I say that my ESV is inerrant like the original autographs? No, but I would say that it is reliable, and that God Himself has providentially preserved His Word. The variance between the copies we have is very slight; most variance is as simple as an addition of an article or preposition; evidence itself of God’s providence and preservation of His Word. Also, I do not think it to be in accordance with the character of the LORD, as taught by Scripture and the saints of old, to have let His word see decay! As far as what is orthodox; does it agree with Scripture and is it a historically accepted doctrine? The Scriptures are the ultimate litmus test for all doctrine and belief, but the early creeds and councils are also authoritative and communicate the early Church’s beliefs. I would direct you to I and II Clement as an excellent example of how early Church theology was undoubtedly in line with our Biblical Canon (the teachings of the Gospel as well as Pauline theology were obviously disseminated and held by the early Church Fathers). Now unfortunately for want of time and space I cannot give you a very thorough handling of these issues (I am also on my cell phone and do not have access to many primary sources at the moment). Now onto what I stated about new Christians. New believers are typically very ignorant in regards to what the whole counsel of Scripture teaches because most have not read the whole Bible, nor are they acquainted with the writings of the saints, the creeds, the councils, the history of the church or the history of Israel. Paul himself addresses those who are only able to handle “spiritual milk” because they lack the maturity to eat “meat.” Quite simply, I urge new believers to avoid this site because they have no idea what open theism or higher criticism are–things which pale in comparison to the Scriptures’ comments on false teaching or the elementary principles of this world. I know I have not even begun to address your question and I hope you will not hold it against me; I simply do not have the mental capacity nor the resources to fully unpack every doctrine or teaching mentioned. My apologies for not keeping this as succinct as I probably should have.

Thank you for your comment. Let me first say that I am using polemics intentionally because, in my view, the greatest danger to the Church right now (in my humble opinion) is the downgrade of Scripture. Liberal protestantism, over the past century, has systematically dismantled Scripture and subjected it to arbitrarily unrealistic standards of criticism. Spurgeon called it the downgrade and it was already in full swing. Now, under the influence of postmodernism, the downgrade has become even more destructive–eroding the basic beliefs of biblical inspiration. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work,” and Matthew 5:18:
“For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” Critics will charge that inerrancy is a teaching of Protestant scholasticism–which is false. The Church has always held that Scripture was God Breathed and was not carried along by the will of men but rather bt the will of God. Now would I say that my Esv is inerrant like the original document? No, but I would say that it is reliable, and that God Himself has providentially preserved His word. The variance between the various copies we have if very slight; most variance is as simple as an addition of an article or preposition; evidence itself of God’s providence and preservation of His Word. As far as what is orthodox; does it agree with Scripture and is it a historically accepted doctrine? The Scriptures are the ultimate litmus test for all doctrine and belief, but the early creeds and councils are also authoritative and communicate the early Church’s beliefs. I would direct you to I and II Clement as an excellent example of how early Church theology was undoubtedly in line with our Biblical Canon (the teachings of the Gospel as well as Pauline theology was obviously held by the early Church Fathers). Now unfortunately for want of time and space I cannot give you a very thorough handling of these issues (I am also on my cell phone and do not have access to many primary sources at the moment). Now onto what I stated about new Christians. New believers are typically very ignorant in regards to what the whole counsel of Scripture teaches because most have not read the whole Bible, nor are they acquainted with the writings of the saints, the creeds, councils, Church history or the history of Israel. Paul himself addresses those who are only able to handle “spiritual milk” because they lack the maturity to eat “meat.” Quite simply, I urge new believers to avoid this site because they have no idea what open theism or higher criticism–things which pale in comparison to the Scriptures comments on false teaching or the elementary principles of this world. I know I have not even begun to address your question and I hope you will not hold it against me; I simply do not have the mental capacity nor the resources to fully unpack every doctrine or teaching mentioned. My apologies for not keeping this as succinct as I probably should have.