I’ve learned to be careful about what somebody says somebody else said or taught (been misrepresented enough myself). So I don’t know what George MacDonald believed or taught. I do know he pastored briefly and did publish some sermons, I’m just not familiar with them. And it would take more than a phrase here or a sentence there for me to conclude I knew precisely what he was asserting – context is important (again, personal experience).

As for the idea that “God loves us too much to be willing to send anybody there [Hell],” I find it transparently contradicted by the plain teaching of Scripture. But rather than cite various passages (I don’t see any ‘second chance’ at the Great White Throne, Rev. 20:11-15), I think the phrasing of the matter is significant.

“God loves us too much to send us to hell” is ‘true’ in the sense that “God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son.” At the ultimate cost to Himself and to the amplification of His glory, He’s provided a way of salvation. How? “whoever believes in him [the Son] shall not perish but have eternal life.” God’s done ‘His part’ so to speak. But there is also ‘our part’ which is to believe. “Whoever believes in him is not condemned”. This is the ‘one chance’ the Scripture clearly teaches (as opposed to an … I’ll say ‘imagined’ second chance). “[B]ut whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.”*

As for the impulse that rises saying ‘But if only….’, I’m bound by the words of Jesus in Luke 16 (vv 27-31 quoted below). When the rich man, in hell, learns there’s no relief for him he says “Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.” Abraham replies, “They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.” The rich man proposes from hell (!) that that’s not good enough! “No, father Abraham, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.” In language that seems directly relevant to how many ‘chances’ one gets, Abraham concludes, “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.”

So I don’t know what George MacDonald believed and taught, but the idea that “everybody will be given a 2nd chance to accept Christ once they get to the Great White Throne judgment” is definitely false teaching.

CJS

*Scripture quoted from John 3:16 and 18

Is this also a false doctrine, or is this a gray area?

There are a number of passages where those who are not following God are called ‘the children of the devil’ (John 8:44, Acts 13:10, 1 John 3:10). It’s certainly legitimate to leave it at that, understanding the enmity to be the general conflict between the ‘children of God’ and the ‘children of the devil’ (1 John 3:10) through the ages.

I believe there will be a literal, individual antichrist at the time of the end. He is certainly ‘of the devil’ and I wouldn’t have any trouble seeing him included here. The problem is, once you go there, people have a hard time stopping and begin to speculate and read into things and end up a detailed Rosemary’s Baby scenario thinly supported by texts x, y and z strung together. In my experience such speculations tend to distract people from the more straightforward matters of following Christ day by day.

So, antichrist? Maybe, but I wouldn’t hang too much on it. I’m not aware of anything in the Hebrew which would bring more specificity. That’s not to say there aren’t people who would argue from the Hebrew that there’s more specificity there, just that I’m not aware of anything convincing.

Thanks for stopping by.

Shalom,
Chris

I’m curious how you understand the reference to the serpent’s “seed” in Genesis 3:15. It’s one of those verses that’s always poked me as being particularly weird. Does the serpent have literal offspring whom Jesus (literal seed of the woman) crushes when his heel is struck? (I don’t have any reason to believe this, I merely mention it to help describe the breadth of the weirdness). Does the original language make it any clearer than the English? Perhaps it should be taken as a reference to the Antichrist? I’m sure many would understand this to be a figurative description encompassing the Enemy’s many plots and plans… but it seems odd to place that right next to a prophetic statement about a literal person.

This is certainly not a make-or-break-you-gotta-have-an-answer-for-me-or-all-is-lost kind of question! More like I don’t know what to make of that and I’m curious what you think.

Thank you!

-Dan

You mentioned the change in ‘written and read vs extemporaneous’ over the years. It’s been interesting. As I’ve moved to incorporate visuals (text and pictures) I’ve found myself leaning more to the ‘written’ side of the spectrum. This is largely influenced by the aim of most effectively using the visuals, which requires more strict timing and placement. I know it’s a double-edged sword as there’s a cost to the ‘energy’ of being extemporaneous. I appreciate the freedom to grow and adapt, but also need feedback since the point to communicate effectively (rather than have nice visuals or be extemporaneous).

Thanks,
Chris

From where we sit the Apple Logo is back lit and quite prominent. I always think of the Fall when I see it. Looked up the history of the Apple logo today and discovered I was only partially right. One of the quotes:

… Related to this is the title of long-ago former Apple VP Jean-Louis Gasse, The Third Apple.
The first was the apple in the Garden of Eden, and the acquisition of Knowledge by Man, but at a cost.
The second was Newton’s apple and the knowledge revolution it has come to symbolize having started.
The third is Apple(Computer), and what they did and continue to do with knowledge.

In any case, my thoughts and your exposition this morning fit quite well together.

Tracked along with the sermon and found the theme of “waiting” encouraging.

Joanne and I discuss how much of your sermons are “written and read” vs extemporaneous and how that ratio has changed over the years.

But, keep up the good work; your sermons are always engaging, instructive, challenging and enjoyable.

Don

As to the biblical basis, it all comes from the Wisdom literature, essentially from Proverbs. I acknowledge it’s ‘poetic imagery’ but it seems to me the interactive nature of the imagery strongly suggests there’s ‘something there’ we’re interacting with. Others may see it differently. I’m also strongly impressed with the conclusion of Proverbs, the ideal Wife (31:10-31), she ‘seals the deal’ for me.

Perhaps ‘a vehicle for the husband to enter into Wisdom’ would be better stated as ‘a vehicle for the husband to interact with Wisdom’. This is where the perspective has the most practical impact for me. A skilled craftsman is interacting with Wisdom but his subject (say wood) is inert. Our wives, thank God, are not! The perspective helps me to cherish and honor and admire my wife. And, self-centered person that I am, the recognition that her benefit is my benefit – that Wisdom wants to pour out blessings on me – charges me up to treat her even better.

It may not be everybody’s cup of tea, but it sure works for me.

Shalom,
Chris