Brian McLaren Calls Hell and the Cross "False Advertising for God"

Who is Brian McClaren?

 

He is the chief proponent of the "emerging church" heresy.

 

Oh, enough said. The Emerging Church has swung way too far out into the left field.

 

Brian McLaren is what NOT to do as one tries to do church in a postmodern culture.

 

Why do you make that claim?

 

McLaren is on record as saying that he isn't too sure that homosexuality is a sin (because of the rules of BB, please, let us not debate the sin of homosexuality here).

 

I am going to have to go look up what he said between the places I highlighted. I have seen Gail Riplinger do things like that it it totally changes what the guy said... I will read it and then comment.

 

You brought it up. Why do you feel the need to insinuate that I would argue that it was not a sin? I suppose that if I had said that on this board that would be a reasonable point. Show me where I've ever said anything to that effect.

 

Baptistbeliever, I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough. Please, forgive, but I'm speaking of Brian McLaren.

Mr. McLaren is on record on the issue as wavering not you.

 

I agree with McLaren. The doctrine of the cross is continually mentioned throughout the new testament as our motivation for belief. The doctrine of hell is never mentioned in the new testament as our motivation for belief.

 

I disagree. Condemnation is repeatedly invoked as the result of rebellion against God and rejection of the gospel.

For the Christian, of course, hell isn't a motivation, for he or she is not headed there.

 

I agree that condemnation is a result of rebellion against God and rejection of the gospel and nothing in McLaren's quote above says that he disagrees.

But hell avoidance has traditionally been preached as the motivation for faith in Christ and that is what I agree with McLaren is incorrect about the traditional doctrine of hell because that view is never mentioned in the NT.

 

Wondered if you could be more specific TC? I've been researching other websites and came across similar comments suggesting that McLaren, Warren, even Hybels are promoting some questionable ideas/practices. Can you or anyone else elaborate as to what your concerns are and what I/we should be looking for and avoiding? Guess I'm still fuzzy or clueless about all this.

 

You cannot avoid the issue of hell without distorting the gospel. Hell is the censequence of sin. Hell as taught in scripture gives us a picture of the depravity of man or our sinnful state, and the reason Christ went to the cross. And you cannot get to salvation without looking to the cross which represents our sin, hell, our current state, and grace. Grace has no real value without hell.

 

I agree that hell is part of the gospel. But what I and McLaren are saying is that hell avoidance Christians have distorted hell to be the focus of the gospel and taken away from the cross as the true focus of the gospel.

 

I think you and GD are both right. You cannot have the cross without God's wrath, and appease God's wrath without the cross.

 

Folks here are reading this quote and incorrectly jumping to the conclusion that McLaren doens't believe in hell. I think there is many valid criticisms one can make of Brian McLaren's beliefs but that isn't one of them and it is not demonstrated by the quote in the OP which I think many Christians agree with if they took the time to actually think about what he is trying to say instead of simply reacting.

A more valid criticism of McLaren regarding hell is that he has questioned the literalness of hell as a place. He does not come out and say that hell is a figurative place but claims uncertainty and openness to that possibility.

While I believe that hell is a literal physical place, I am also willing to consider biblical arguments that it is not. I have yet to see good ones.

 

That is not what McLaren holds to. He in fact denies a hell where people suffer. He in fact denies the "traditional" hell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SOUfsX2fbk