The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Raising Hell by Julie Ferwerda

Studies Books
#21

I enjoy how she kicks that “appeal to authority” tendency out of the way right up front by poking fun at them with her “Endorsements”. Here, I have copied them from amazon:

Personally I feel “led astray” by “authorities” whom I trusted and nowadays the Bible and the Holy Spirit within is really the only “authority” I trust. And personally I love word studies and Biblical studies and I yawned and skipped through Parry when he got to quoting and expounding on the opinions of “academic authorities”. Rob Bell OTH was really sloppy with Scripture and hermeneutics on at least two occasions- making a passage say something totally alien to what one would get from a hermeneutical analysis such as I learned in a conservative seminary. So Julie’s book resonates with me, she has the same style of bible study that I use myself (though I haven’t had time to read all of it).

#22

Love those endorsements! Thanks for posting that, Gem. I haven’t read it yet, but I think it’ll be next on my list.

Sonia

#23

I :laughing: when I saw those…so true.

#24

I just finished Raising Hell, having concluded 5 remaining chapters that I had not read before I posted on this thread the first time.

Raising Hell is a Fantastic book. My sister and her Husband have been very receptive to my introduction on Universalism and I am recommending this book. They should begin reading it this week,

Julie’s writing style in my opinion flows flawlessly. She explains with ease the most important scriptures on the subject and presents not only an undeniable case but communicates it in a way that is deeply felt. In some ways I think her book makes other books on this subject appear to be “wrangling about words”. Her take on the key Universalist scriptures not only is overwhelmingly convincing but for me it brought me to a intimate Beautiful encounter with the Reality of the plan of God to save his beloved creation.

Chapters 13-20 for me were just amazing.

#25

Why would A. Fisherman only recommend it to eleven of His friends? … I know this is a really stupid question, but it has me puzzled! :smiley:

#26

We are all Brothers wrote:

I’m guessing that A. Fisherman is one of the disciples, so he’s recommending it to the other eleven?

Also, as far as the following comment:

I think Julie actually goes out of her way to show that the book is not for “Academic types” because as pointed out by another poster, academic types have also been responsible for leading many astray. As Julie suggests “One man’s truth is another man’s heresy.” The reality is that anyone can find fault with just about any book, even a book that is considered “academic.” And, if one is looking to find fault with some of Julie’s conclusions, interpretations, and exegesis they will undoubtedly be able to find points of disagreement or perceived “lack of scholarly methodology.” Julie’s point though is that you don’t have to be an Academic to find issues with modern translation and interpretation and to be able to come to a more rational view…one that really lines up with the whole of Scripture and one that lines up with a truly loving view of God.

As far as her references to Wikipedia, I believe that Wikipedia has received a bad rap. Something I read recently said that a study conducted last year showed that Wikipedia was in fact more reliable than most encyclopedias and reference works because you have a much broader audience vetting out errors. Of course her use of Wikipedia will give “academics” one more reason to criticize or dismiss her book, but again, her primary audience is not the Academics. When you really think about it, are the Academic journals and writings any more reliable than Wikipedia? Every academic account and reference work still contains a lot of that editors’ or publication’s bias. Indeed there are many historical academic Christian works that promote eternal hellfire or fail to give a balance view.

#27

Very good points.

Do you have a link to that article that speaks of the reliablity of Wikipedia? I would be interested in reading that.

Julie’s book for me ranks right at the top of the list and I have now read:

Evangelical Universalist
Inescapable love of God
Christian Universalism
Hope Beyond Hell
Love Wins
…a few others

I think her book is at the top of the list in many ways: Fluid writing style, humble yet confident tone she writes with, breath of scriptures she covers, The Personal human tone she wr ites with Etc, Her insights and knowledge of the Jewish Culture etc.

The main reason I think Academic types would have a bit of a hard time with this book is because they might not like the personal tone she brings, her personal experience etc. But I think this is part of the strength of her book, and its why I have recommended it to a few people I know…none of these people read at a seminary level however.

#28

In response to: I sit in Awe

Here’s one article that talks about the reliability and accuracy of Wikipedia. Just google “wikipedia accuracy” though and you’ll get dozens.

theawl.com/2011/05/wikipedia … the-expert

#29

:blush:
Thanks. This makes plenty of sense.

:astonished: I’m kinda gobsmacked that she decided to use Wikipedia. I’m not discounting the general accuracy of Wikipedia – I use it all the time myself :smiley: But to cite Wikipedia in any work is profoundly unwise :open_mouth: Academics have led men astray – but this can’t be a criticism of academia, it’s a criticism of a few deplorable academics. So although scholarship can be poor, it doesn’t mean one is at liberty to side-step due scholarly process altogether. It means one must commit to good scholarship themselves. If you commit to writing a non-fictional book, you just have to commit to this also.

Although journals can be biased, there are generally mechanisms to counter this too. A good academic (author and editor alike) will have generally read everything in his field (depending on the field). And if he writes, or allows something in a journal his whole academic career (and practically speaking, his livelihood) is almost always on the line (and so is the journal’s!). Wikipedia isn’t peer-reviewed by someone that has invested years in knowing their field or by someone who, with every word they write, invests in their reputation or the reputation of Wikipedia. I remember reading the Apocatastasis article a couple of months ago, and the cited papers didn’t even contain many of the assertions the article presented. Most editors and contributors there are also completely anonymous too. And if one doesn’t know an academic’s epistemology one cannot challenge their biases or mistakes – the lynchpin of all rigorous scientific progression for countless centuries.

It might seem okay for lay-people, but the great thinkers who might be influenced or able to defend the position will abandon the idea out of sheer embarrassment. I think it would have been better for her (and Universalism) to suck it up and commit to more reputable and rigorous sources.

#30

@WE ARE ALL BROTHERS, points well taken on Wikipedia, but once again, she did not write this book for Academics, she wrote it for the regular ole Evangelical who is open to the true Gospel. I don’t think most of them are going to care whether she used Wikipedia or not. She may have done additional research as well but cited Wikipedia because she knew that it would be very accessible to her readers whereas a scholarly journal would not have. I’m sure if she were writing this for Academics, she would not have cited Wikipedia.

I don’t disagree with some of your contentions about Wikipedia and scholarly research, but the fact is that times are changing and while Wikipedia may not always be accurate in some cases and some editors remain anonymous, anyone reading a Wikipedia entry has the ability to dispute the entry if they feel it needs revision and entries are often updated in close to real-time or soon after. In my mind, that’s something that a scholarly journal will never have. Also, in my estimation, “peer reviewed” does not count for much of the “peers” pretty much think like you do and have your same biases. There are many examples of peer reviewed scholarship that turned out to be wrong. Every, institution, journal, and academic has biases…and you can’t get around that fact.

#31

I’m very interested to know what other people think of chapter 15, 16 and 17. The Feasts, The Two Covenants and the Harvest’s respectively.

I’m not sure I have the time to summarize everything that’s in there but I find those Chapters to be Highly Highly thought Provoking.

I’m remaining Neutral as to whether I think the conclusions she comes to are valid, but I think they warrant investigation and discussion. I am not going to list all the scripures she uses in support for these conclusions, I am just going to list the conclusions and would like to know if others who have read these chapters have come to those same conclusions or see any truth in them. The scriptures she provides appear in some cases to have alot of support to her conclusions.

Here are some of the conclusions she comes to:

Chapter 15 The Feasts

The Hebrew perspective on the seven days of creation in Genesis 1 foreshadow seven millennia. Six millennia correspond to the “ages of man” (toil upon the earth), while the seventh* corresponds to the “age of God” or “age of perfection” during the Millennial Kingdom, which Paul called “The Sabbath Rest” in Hebrews 4.

There are seven Hebrew Feasts, each carrying an agricultural theme, celebrated throughout Israel’s history. The seven Feasts reveal the plan of the ages, including the harvests of mankind.

The 8th day - feast of Tabernacles foreshadows the Final judgement and subsequent ingathering of all people, and the time when God finally makes his home with all men.

Chapter 16 The Two Covenants

There are two Major Covenants: Abrahamic and Mosaic.

The Abrahamic Covenant is the Unilateral Unconditional Covenant God makes with Abraham that Results in Gods promise to Save and Restore All, despite our failure to uphold the Law.

The Mosaic Covenant is a conditional Covenant that promises rewards for obedience and Faithfulness.

Those Faithful Overcomers that fulfill the Mosaic Covenant (Or law of Love that fulfills the Mosaic covenant) will be the ones that get the reward of ruling during the Millenium Kingdom. Those that are saved while on earth but don’t overcome will take part in the second ressurection but not rule during the millenium. She uses the Joshua and Caleb example to show that while God saved Israel from Slavery in Egypt (salvation from sin) only a few overcomers will see the promised land at the beginning. She does not mention this but I find it interesting that Joshua who is a type of Christ and Caleb who’s name means Faithful are the ones that go in to the promise land.

Chapter 17 The Harvests.

She points out the three Great Harvests that were celebrated by Israel at different times of the year. She Believes these Correspond to the 3 different gatherings of the People of the earth into the Kingdom…at different times. She draws a correlation between the Barley/firstfruits (Overcomers as stated above, those that fulfilled the Mosaic Covenant) then the Wheat ( Which Requires more rigourous threshing than the Barely) and then the Grapes which represent the Hardest of Hearts such as the Pharisees. And she points out the significance of the grapes needing to be “Pressed”, which is an even greater work than the Wheat or Barley, in order to remove that which signifies sin, in order to produce that which is good and of worth.

Again I left out all her scriptural support, and there are quite alot of them. I just wanted to know if anyone else read these Chapters and could give their insight as to if they think she is on to a significant finding here, or if she is a little off in these conclusions. I found them very interesting and have never seen anyone make these points before, but I am still only a few months into my study or UR.

Thanks!

#32

I agree the 3 harvests represent the resurrections. Just about everything in the NT is already laid out in the OT. The natural, physical/literal harvests, point to the spiritual, resurrections

1 Cor 10 These things happened to them as examples and were written for our instruction, on whom the ends of the ages have come.

1 Cor 15: 42So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So also it is written, “The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46**However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. **47The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. 48As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. 49Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.

The above passage comes right after this:

1 Cor 15: 22For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. 23But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits(possibly translate the anointed firstfruits/barley/passover), after that those who are Christ’s at His coming(wheat harvest/pentecost/church), 24then comes the end(grape harvest/tabernacles), when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. 26The last enemy that will be abolished is death. 27For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. 28When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.

Also in REV, it talks about those who dwell in heaven – overcomers/ barley company
those who dwell on the earth – wheat company/most christians
those who dwell in the sea – grape company/ unsaved

does anyone really live in the sea? do the disciples really fish men out of the sea?

This may be the barley harvest, the out-resurrection or exanastasis occurs only here:

Phi 3:11 (Amplified) That if possible I may attain to the [spiritual and moral] resurrection [that lifts me] out from among the dead [even while in the body].

(NRSV)if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

Heb 3 and 4 speaks of entering into His rest, speaking of the promised land, which is what the Israelites were to do at tabernacles, but they failed to do. But we should strive to enter that rest.

#33

Raising Hell is a fantastic book! It is well written and stays true to the Scriptures. I recommend it to anyone seeking truth and will be writing a formal review on my site next week :slight_smile:

Jackson Baer

www.whatthehellbook.com

#34

Welcome to the forum Jackson, fancy seeing you hear :wink: I hope you’re greatly encouraged by what you find here.

#35

Hey Alex! Thanks to you posting on my site I am here now :slight_smile:

I look forward to joining in on some great discussions.

#36

Welcome Jackson!

I read the first chapter of Raising Hell and really liked it. So much that I think I’m going to post a chapter by chapter commentary on my facebook page and see if I can drum up some interest. :smiley:

Sonia

#37

Great idea! Feel free to add me on Facebook (anyone here who wants to be friends) www.facebook.com/jacksonbaer … I’d love to read your reviews.

#38

That sounds neat Sonia! I’ll look forward to hearing your ideas. Of course, I’m already convinced, but it’ll be fun to hear your thoughts anyway. :smiley:

#39

Get ready for the flame-fest!

#40

:laughing: “Everyone will be salted with fire.” I expect it will be interesting. Last week I “liked” her book and made a few comments on UR, and also mentioned Tom Talbott’s book. I had 3 friends express interest, and a couple more concerned about scripture twisting and itching ears. I know at least a couple more friends pricked up their ears and took note, but didn’t comment. I’m going to work hard at keeping the peace.

Sonia