I think you made some great points Iggy, thank you.

Joe

1. It is not an “atonement” but a “propitiation” it is the difference between putting a blanket over vomit on the carpet or having the carpet made clean as if it was never messed up. Propitiation is the idea of a ransom given to pay for our sins so that we do not have to collect the “wages” of sin being death.
2. The gospel of Mark is about Christus Victory. To state that that the only view is substitutionary atonement means we need throw out that Gospel as it does not teach that idea, but it teaches the idea of the “suffering King”.
3. Atonement is an Old Testament and old covenant view. “Taking away the sins of the world” is the NT teaching and view. Jesus not only covers us, but also cleanses us… or as Hebrews states:

“Hebrews 9:13-15 “The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.”

It seems funny that to teach just “penal atonement” is to them more “biblical” as you need deny major passages of scripture to make that a “truth”.

iggy

The statement about D.A. Carson would be more of a concern to wikipedia because its POV is not neutral. If they’re quoting directly from Carson’s book and it directly relates to McLaren (and is not too lengthy, etc.), a short statement may be allowed, though it has to be balanced with the overall tone of the article.

I left the D.A. Carson reference in the bottom section because it was not a self-published book (even though it seemed to misappropriate McLaren as if he is the definition of the ECM).

I believe he is – that’s the same junk I removed from the wiki page…

Chris I have also taken up my place on the Wiki pages…

I recently scrubbed the following quote from the McLaren criticism section.

“D.A. Carson who by many accounts is a reasonable individaul and well balanced biblical scholar says…”

Which I believe is an Appeal to Authority.

And Casey…Please go to the tour before rambling on what you believe to be Bells misunderstandings of scripture.

“If it true, it’s not new and if it’s new, it’s not true.”

Funny how even faced with quotes like this from Rob Bell, the ODM’s insist their version of reality is true…

In fact this pretty much shuts down 98% of the criticism of Bell… Funny how all their so called “research” seems to miss things like this… and with Brian McLaren also…

I think it is because they either do not understand the meaning or the word “just”… as in “it is not just this, but more…”

They seem to think it means “It is not this, though traditionally it has been taught that way by men called the ‘Great Reformers’, and we need to hold to the traditions of men with all tenacity that the RCC did when confronted with a little monk who insisted ‘penance’ meant ‘faith’… but we don’t really care about being biblical if it does not match up with 19th century Darbyism or the traditions and teachings of a few men in the 16th century…these (fill in some sort of degrading name here) want to deny all this and change it to something else.”

Or something to that effect.

They just miss what “just” means… “Yes this, but more than that.”

iggy

Repaint, reinterpret, reimage, replace Biblical truth with Bell truth.

No – it’s more of a challenge to strip away what is just “tradition” from what is actually written in the Bible – to recognize that systematic theologies and creeds can be useful as teaching tools but devastating to the faith when seen as icons of the trutn…

If you’ve actually read Velvet Elvis, then you’ll recognize Bell’s use of an old quote: “If it true, it’s not new and if it’s new, it’s not true.” Basically, it is a call to go back to the Bible and rediscover what was there before centuries (and, in some cases, millennia) of traditions and systems were added to it…