“My concern is provoked by the observation that so many who understand themselves to be followers of Jesus, without hesitation, and apparently without thinking, embrace the ways and means of the culture as they go about their daily living ‘in Jesus’ name.’ But the ways that dominate our culture have been developed either in ignorance or in defiance of the ways that Jesus uses to lead us as we walk the streets and alleys, hike the trails, and drive the roads of this God-created, God-saved, God-blessed, God-ruled world in which we find ourselves. They seem to suppose that ‘getting on in the world’ means getting on in the world on the world’s terms, and that the ways of Jesus are useful only in a compartmentalized area of life labeled ‘religious.’” (Eugene Peterson, The Jesus Way, 1)
When Eugene Peterson writes, I read. There is scarcely a word he has written in book form that I have not read. He is a respected preacher and pastor whose understanding of Scripture is profound and whose theological perspective holds Jesus in the highest possible position. He has a high view of the Word of God and interprets it within a tangibly orthodox hermeneutic. So when I heard echoes of Peterson in Rob Bell’s book Jesus Wants to Save Christians, I started paying closer attention to both writers.
I will state at the outset that I have not read any of Rob Bell’s other books. Nor have I ever watched a Nooma video. I have listened to exactly 23 minutes of one of his sermons My point in noting these things is to say that I am coming at this series of posts unbiased. I am neither for nor against Rob Bell. I am interested only in what he has written, along with Don Golden, in this book. The book is only recently published, but I don’t think it is too soon to offer a critique of the work.
That said, my wife bought me Jesus Wants to Save Christians for Christmas. I have desired to read this book since I saw this blurb in a flier for Family Christian Stores, “There is a church in our area that recently added an addition to their building which cost more than $20 million. Our local newspaper ran a front-page story not too long ago revealing that one in five people in our city lives in poverty. This is a book about those two numbers.” (This also appears on the back of the book.) I was intrigued and decided that I should read this book and make it my first introduction to the work of Rob Bell. Now I am reading it, and I cannot tell you how thoroughly surprised I am by what I have read.
I was fully prepared to hate this book. I had browsed it at the book store. The silly green pages bothered me. The unorthodox writing style annoyed me: Sentence fragments; sentences that are chopped up and drawn down the page in a column-like structure in an effort to fill the two covers with more and more pages than are necessary. The book is certainly not a DA Carson or David F Wells type of theology. However, if it is true that we should not judge a book by its cover, neither should we judge a book by its particular stylistic format.
I should say a couple of other things about this book before I go too much further. First, there are a scant 218 pages in this book. I think that is probably more than there actually are given the format of the book. Still, I think Bell has said a lot in those 218 pages. This book serves as a fine introduction to the New Exodus perspective.
Second, there are 34 pages of endnotes written in a very traditional, single spaced (double between) format. That’s a total of 326 endnotes. 256 of those 326 notes are direct references to Scripture. If my son did his math correctly, that means 79% of the notes are Scripture references, more detailed explanations of Scripture, Scripture quotes, or more commentary on Scripture. Sometimes, a note contains more than one reference to a passage of Scripture.
What this indicates to me is simple. It means that Rob Bell (and co-author Don Golden) has not written a book that is based on his own idea or his own imagination. This is a book that relies far more on Scripture than it does on anything else. Here is a man who has written a book and allowed that book, and I believe his theology, to be shaped by the Word of God. And when one reads through the book, one discovers that much of what is written is merely (I say that not at all meaning minimally) a retelling of the story of Scripture-from Genesis to Revelation.
In fact, this is what is stated at the outset of the book, “In the Scriptures, ultimate truths about the universe are revealed through the stories of particular people living in particular places…We join you in this tension, believing that the story is ultimately about healing, hope, and reconciliation” (8) He goes on, “This is a book of theology…This book is our attempt to articulate a specific theology, a particular way to read the Bible, referred to by some as a New Exodus perspective” (8) Make no mistake about the intent of this book and the authors: It is designed to make you think about God and about what God’s Word says to its readers about what God is doing in the world. They do this, again, by constantly referring the reader to Scripture.
This further indicates to me that Bell and Golden have a very high view of Scripture. They could tell these things their own way, but they deliberately chose not to. Instead, they quote from Moses, the Psalms, the Prophets, and the New Testament (I thoroughly enjoyed their interpretation of the story of the Ethiopian Eunuch). They don’t challenge the Scripture. Scripture speaks. (I regret that I couldn’t find the page number, but as it is said, “God has spoken; everything else is commentary.”) These are not men who are picking and choosing what ‘fits’ their idea. Their idea is driven along by their high view of Scripture. For someone who has been accused of doing exactly the opposite, this is a great risk for Bell. He might actually be accused of being too orthodox for some readers.
This is my first introduction to Rob Bell’s theological point of view and I have to confess that, intrigued as I was by that blurb in a flier, I was skeptical. Sadly, Rob Bell is held up as a poster child for all that is wrong with the church, with Christianity, with this generation of believers. Yet, as I read the introduction I was struck by this statement: “For a growing number of people in our world, it appears that many Christians support some of the very things Jesus came to set people free from” (18). I was struck by it because I had heard it before: Eugene Peterson wrote a statement very similar to this in his book The Jesus Way. It seems that on the horizon there is more than one person saying that there is something seriously wrong with the way ‘we’ are doing ‘Christianity.’
What does he (Bell) analyze that problem as? Simple: Too many in the church have associated a certain brand of political persuasion and nationalism with the ‘right sort of Christianity.’ “A Christian should get very nervous when the flag and the Bible start holding hands. This is not a romance we want to encourage” (18). This is a real problem, as I see it too, because it makes the Scripture ‘mine’ instead of God’s. It makes the Bible no longer God’s Word to us and instead it becomes more a weapon we use to determine who is and is not in the club. This is decidedly the wrong approach for us to have towards Scripture. It slants everything in our favor and becomes a tool for oppression instead of a declaration of emancipation for those held in captivity by the ‘very things Jesus came to set us free from.’ Scripture becomes a handbook for winning elections instead of a declaration of war on the things that keep people prisoners, enslaved to a system that hates them.
Bell and Golden are right: We are east of Eden, but remember, the book is written to Christians. It seems to me that Bell and Golden are saying there is something seriously wrong with the church, with Christians. What they are thus proposing is a solution to our problem. It should be interesting to see what they propose is the solution to our problem.
Next: Part 2, The Cry of the Oppressed
329 Comments(+Add)
“A Christian should get very nervous when the flag and the Bible start holding hands. This is not a romance we want to encourage”
Alright, you have piqued my interest. As you know, I am vigorously anti-nationalistic and I also see much unecessary hedonism in the church. I have cultivated a healthy forcefield to anything named “Bell”, my resistance to that book is weakening.
I need help.
Dear Friends,
I will not be partaking in this thread because I have yet to read the book. Not having money sucks.
I suppose those who have not read the book do not qualify for this thread. Rats.
I will say this: While using the Bible that much is attractive to me, Citation is great, but interpretation is all important. A proper hermeneutic and exegesis is so important. When one looks at the Bible as Bell has said he does, I question that perspective and therefore the theology. Thats my $.02
Joe – you mean to tell me that not one person in your ethnocentric, yuppie infested, hedonistic congregation would lend you that book?
John – what is Bell’s hermeutical system in contrast to yours? And how does your exegetical process differ from his?
I suppose those who have not read the book do not qualify for this thread. Rats.
John,
Do you have paypal? I’ll buy the book and you can send me the money. I’ll read it over night and you can ask me any questions you want.
I know, right. I guess they’re all just too selfish.
HT Belief Net
Then from Velvet Elvis:
Then in a Christianity Today interview, where Bell and His wife place Brian McLaren’s “A New Kind of Christian” as their ‘lifeboat’ instead of the Bible:
HT Brian McLaren
Pardon me if I take Rob Bell’s theology and use of Bible texts with a HUGE grain of salt.
The reason I ask is because I do not know what Bell’s hereneutical process is, and sometimes the equations go like this:
Agree with me = sound hermeneutics
Disagree with me – faulty hermeneutics
Being an avowed and unrepentant Arminian, my hermeneutics must be an afront to God’s majesty.
Joe,
At least one good think about Rick Warren is he is a reverse tither. He takes 90% of the books proceeds and gives them to people in need, and works for free at the church.
I would hope Bell does the same, and in that process, could see his way clear to hooking you up with a copy of the book. Heck, Tony Jones gave me a copy of all three of his books, and I am not even a part of his church!
Pastorboy,
Considering the much of your theology springs directly from the pen of Calvin and the rest of it comes from knee jerk reactions to 20th century events your claims of sola scriptura is a bit laughable.
And Bell is exactly right, its impossible to adhere to sola scriptura. You’re always bringing your own experiences, beliefs and conceptions to the table. You are a living example of this.
#9
Rick, He starts from the place that the Bible is a product of Human work, not divine fiat. That in itself tells me that his approach is all wrong.
And 2 Peter 1:20-21:
So God breathed out the scripture, the scripture is associated with His very character, men wrote as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit….it is a process of Divine fiat. Rob Bell does not believe this. Therefore, his theology, even as he uses scripture, is going to be suspect.
And please, Joe, do not tell me what Rob Bell meant when he said this or that. I want to see Rob Bell disavow that statement as publicly as he made it.
I believe the Scripture are THE authoritative source for truth, but does that mean everything is clear and without ambiguity from our perspective? I believe Bell in that quote is identifying the fact tha 5 men holler “SOLA SCRIPTURA” and then come to five different conclusions.
I do not think he was suggeting that the Scripture were not inspired. And the differences can be substantial since some suggest salvation through baptism while another says that is works and both say the Scriptures teach THEIR view.
And the phrase “eastern religion” is true in a geographical sense, I do not see him placing it equal with the other eastern religions. If Bell teaches salvation only through Jesus the Christ, his hermeneutics is sound. (I do find his admiration for McLaren as troubling since he has said some things that go beyond what Bell has said – Paggit as well)
PB,
You truly believe the Bible give the answers to ALL questions? Has it told you which socks to wear today or if you should buy groceries at Wal-mart or Albertsons?
Then you must not believe the Holy Spirit leads you in all truth and do not need Him.. or that God speaks to you in the ordinary? Or that Jesus give authority to the Bible.
I think you mis-read Bell and are not that honest in your own view of your faith.
I am not dissing the Bible as it has all we need for salvation… but I do not believe Scripture Alone answers ALL questions and either do you if you would think about it as you then have no need for God as your guide… for you believe “Scripture Alone”.
I would call that Bible-idolatry… or you just do not believe in much of the Christian faith.
iggy
#11
Bo,
My theology comes from a variety of sources, primarily the Bible. I have not ever read anything from the pen of John Calvin. The theology books I have read include Boice, Grudham, Carson, Wiersbe, and others.
John,
#10 does that mean, no?
I have. He actually has some good things to say. So has my church’s main teaching pastor.
Which makes you an even better example of it. You’ve absorbed all this extrabiblical beliefs and believe it comes from scripture. Bell should use you as an illustration of what he’s talking about the next time he writes on the subject.
Here is a great source:
FRUEH’S UNABRIDGED KEYS TO THE SCRIPTURES
Foreward by Mary Baker Eddy.
#14
Iggy,
My decisions, however mundane, are informed by my Christian faith, and therefore, the Bible. For example, in the shopping query you posted, God leaves that choice up to me, but informs it with things like the way they treat their people, where they buy their products, and how the producers are treated.
The Holy Spirit does lead me in all truth, as Jesus teaches in the Bible. But, the Holy Spirit would not give me something extra-biblical, or to go against what the Bible teaches. So, to know if it is the Holy Spirit guiding in all truth, we must know truth, and therefore we must know the Bible. Not having a standard leads to error.
This is not Bible Idolatry. It is Christianity. We worship the God of the Bible, and we worship Him in spirit (because we have the blessed Holy Spirit) and in truth (because we have the Word of God, the Bible) so that we worship Jesus in truth, not the false Christ that so many are promoting these days.
And I am really trying to get out of commenting on this post, by explaining why I will not read Bell. I am afraid Neil will come and call me silly again and tell everybody not to waste their time with me. My psyche is far too delicate to take that sort of rejection.
If you’d quit trying to comment on Bell without actually reading him you wouldn’t rightfully be called silly.
#21
I have read those comments made by Bell, so I can comment on them, Bo. I am saying I will not buy the book (sorry, Joe) and I will not waste my time reading it, because his (Bell’s) theological starting point is that the Bible is a product of Human effort, not of Divine fiat.
So you believe the Bible wasn’t written by humans? That it dropped out of the sky fully written?
You’re a quack.
#23
Bo, I believe what the Bible says.
That God breathed out (inspired) his words to human authors. I believe that God carried along the human authors. Thats what the Bible says. That the process was God-driven, God-initiated, and God breathed.
If you don’t believe this, you are far worse than a ‘quack’. Of course, since Rob Bell does not believe this, I do not take anything he writes as proper theology and his handling of the Bible is suspect.
Holy Straw-man Batman!
Exactly.
Now that you’ve self-identified your sickness, heal thyself.
PB,
My point as you just agreed is that you then agree with Bell but are still willing to trash him. I understand hesitation as that is why I do not read Piper though many highly recommend him…
Yet, you stated something again untrue not only in how you represented Bell but the bible, Christianity and your own faith…
That was my point… was that in your statement if taken as you stated it in your first comment, you denied God guiding in stating the bible ALONE give you ALL the answers… you are now once again back-peddling out instead of facing your own words and in fact your own theology which I am sad to say misses much.
I am not meaning to attack you… in fact I do not see this as an attack on your person, only your words in that they are untrue. I hope you will consider that sometimes you overstate things greatly and then misrepresent the facts… and then back peddle to cover your mistakes instead of fessing up to them. To me to see that if you did that once in a while… it would seem you are growing in your faith instead of walking in the mire of squishy theology you have now.
I don’t care if you don’t read Bell… I don’t but what I have as far as coming from his critics it is often that they dump out all truth in a grand overstatement that becomes a lie against him.
I just pray you can see this and stop joining in the choir of ignorance that is out there attacking people… especially if you have not taking the consideration of reading his books yourself. That seems just lazy to me.
I have friends that do not agree with me on some of the people I read and quote at times… yet, when I challenge them to read and interact with the author, they do so and come back with less disagreement and seem to most often state they benefited from reading that author… they may still disagree… but I do also with some statements stated by some of my favorite authors.
I even disagree with a few of my personal mentors… but still respect them and we challenge each other in our disagreements… and somehow still like and in fact love each other for the challenges.
iggy
PB,
Can you give an actual quote that Bell states he does not believe the bible to be God inspired?
I doubt it greatly that you can…
again this is what I am talking about… if you have not read him… then why trash him with outright lies?
iggy
It’d be comical if it wasn’t so sinful. PB is here agreeing with everything Bell said in that interview.
Repent of your slander and lies PB, leave your sacrifice at the altar and reconcile with your brother.
Waste time? You know, at least those you claim to read (Boice, Grudham, Carson, Wiersbe, and others) take the time to read the books of those with whom they disagree. Ironically, not even these four men are wholly accepted by the wider evangelical church. I read them too. I reject much of what they say because they have a pathetic, inadequate view of Sovereignty (ie. Calvin’s view). But I don’t stop reading them.
This idea you have that you can comment on the work of others without reading their work is appalling to me. It is the height of arrogance to think you know what these people believe without reading the words they wrote.
Define ‘divine fiat’. What’s divine? Caesar had some ‘divine fiat’s’. In America we call the Executive Orders. I recall one place at least in Corinthians where Paul specifically said ‘I…not the Lord.’ Was that ‘divine fiat’?
Even when Paul said ‘all Scripture…’ he was thinking of the OT certainly not his own work.
Bell’s theological starting point is not his idea about where the Bible came from. His theological starting point is this: “In the Scriptures, ultimate truths about the universe are revealed through the stories of particular people living in particular places…We join you in this tension, believing that the story is ultimately about healing, hope, and reconciliation”
This is his own theological starting point. What’s there to argue?
jerry
Jerry,
I’m glad you’re doing this review. I had kind of wanted to a while ago, but, alas, my laziness won out. Anyway, this book may be my favorite of Bell’s. I have a hard time seeing how people will be able to criticize it, but I’m sure some will find some minor thing to pick at.
The thing I like about the book is that Bell and Golden take what can be a daunting prospect for a lot of people – the whole story of the Bible – and distill into a relatively short book. I think Bell will be remembered as one of the great communicators of our day, much like Billy Graham was in his.
#27
Iggy, see Bells own words, comment #8
I said I would not comment on this work, because I will not read it, because of Bell’s starting point, see comment #8
Divine means ‘perceive intuitively or foresee the future’ and Fiat means ‘Let it be done. From a Biblical perspective, the Divine is God, He knows the future (Sorry, Greg Boyd and Chad), and sets the future in motion, and allows His plan to be accomplished. In terms of the Bible, He had men put down stories, historical events, theologies, poetry, etc. to communicate to mankind what God wanted them to know about Himself and about his plan of salvation and how one ought to live within that plan. Very clearly in the Word, God sets the Bible apart from all other literature in stating it is God Breathed, it is not brought about by the will of man (Sorry Rob Bell) and God carried man along in the entire process.
This is exactly what I mean when I say that I believe that there are those trying to destroy the Word of God; at the very least, some of you (and certainly Rob Bell) diminish it by calling into question God’s role in its production and its value and relevance to the modern-day culture. When Tony Jones says that homosexuality is cool, that they should be allowed to marry regardless of what the Bible says, that is at least a partial destruction of the Biblical authority. When Chad says that everyone will be saved at the end, that there is no literal Hell, that is a destruction of the Biblical authority. when Pagitt says everyone will be reconciled and restored on the day of judgment, that is a partial destruction of Biblical authority. When Bell’s wife admits that their lifeboat is NOT the Bible, rather Brian McLaren’s (see comment #8) A New Kind of Christian, I call into question Bell’s commitment to the Bible and proper exegesis.
Again, Jerry, I will not comment on the book, because I will not read it. But it is disengenuous of you to state that I am being arrogant in quoting what Rob Bell himself (see comment
has said about the Bible. If he does not believe it is divinely inspired, and that it is largely a human product, then I have no time for that view of God and His written Word.
PB,
I’m being perfectly genuine.
However, I do recall reading in that Bible that ‘all those who call on the name of the Lord will be saved.’
I don’t recall reading ‘all those who believe the Bible fell out of the sky, handwritten by God will be saved.’
Don’t get me wrong. I fully believe in the inspiration of Scripture by God. But it seems to me that Bell is writing a book to Christians (”A Manifesto for the Church in Exile”) that is a ‘word about God’; a theology. He begins with the assumption that the Bible is the place to begin addressing certain questions to Christians. That, to me, is a high view of Scripture.
If he thinks so lowly of the Scripture, why does he begin and end with it? Why does he quote it through and through all throughout? Why does he exegete it? Why does he wrestle with it? Why does he make his arguments based on it? For someone you claim doesn’t think highly of Scripture, he certainly does place a lot of emphasis on it; he certainly does think we should spend more time reading it. And he certainly does waste an awful lot of paper writing books explaining it.
jerry
Wow. Just wow. That is in no way the definition of divine. That is so lacking I can’t believe anyone who is part of historic Christianity would write that.
You must work hard to twist the words of others in order to slander them.
If you believe that the humans who penned the scriptures had no role in their writing other than the physical function of writer, then you disagree with Bell. Otherwise, you do not (without going the opposite extreme of believing God had no role). Bell even precedes his statement with “I do believe the scriptures are the inspired word of God”.
Of course once you actually bother to understand what Bell is saying you won’t have any strawmen to knock down, and thump your chest over.
Bo,
Surely you are not suggesting that someone might quote Bell out of context in order to satisfy their own agenda! I’m aghast that such a thing could happen!
jerry
Divine does meant that in latin, Bo…look it up.
As I explained, in terms of describing God, He is divine, more appropriately, He is Holy, and transcendant, and high and lifted up beyond every created thing. His role in the scripture demonstrates this, working out human history by being above it, yet descending into it by breathing out to men Hs words and carrying them along in the process of writing it.
What is so hard to understand here?
How does one square this
with This?
Where is he landing exactly?
But the Bible is sufficient, or isn’t this what Paul meant?
competent
equipped
every good work
huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
Ruach.
Divine as an adjective relates to “divinity” i.e. deity, being God or “god-like”.
“to divine” something as a verb is related to PB’s definition.
However…in popular parlance when someone calls something divine in an “adjectival” sense people mean “god-like” and none of this “future-rama” hoo-ha.
“divine fiat” as a phrase is an attempt to communicate that something is commanded and performed and made real by that which is a deity or has the powers/stature of deity.
So what Bell is saying about “divine fiat” and Scripture is that God there is a distinction between the idea of “dictation” and “inspiration”.
Divine Fiat, as in God just created Scripture out of thin air and the book dropped into someone’s lap, etc. etc. etc.
Dictation is not “inspiration”. Dictation is more akin to a Mormon or Islamic view of Scripture.
Scripture, according to its own witness about itself, IS sufficient for the equipping for good works…not anything else.
It’s “God breathed” (i.e. inspired) for teaching toward good works, for reproof to demonstrate where our works are not good, correction to show us how to amend our works, and to train us in righteousness so that our good works are in harmony with the purposes of God.
There’s a clearly defined (and limited scope) here by virtue of the “plain meaning of the text”.
PB,
if Scripture isn’t to be wrestled with, etc. then why the proliferation of interpretations, commentaries, etc… even within the communities that you would approve of?
In his sermons and in his books, Rob Bell holds the scriptures in very high view. He is willing to face head-on and tackle and wrestle with texts in ways that force his hearers and readers to delve deeper into the Word.
At least that is the effect he has on me.
Do I agree with everything he says?
Nope.
Do I wish he would be more clear in some of his vague statements?
Yep.
But I thank the Lord for this man of God who takes his calling very seriously and who is chasing the living God while encouraging others to do the same.
Careful, NC
You are wasting time commenting on my comments.
Neil will be here soon, because doing so is silly.
PB,
I don’t understand what you mean by #45
#45
It was said on another thread that my comments were “silly” and a “waste of time”
well, just think, PB…
you have more in common with this whole site then…since we all know that there are lurkers here who are soooo above this ‘waste of cyber space’…nevermind they can’t help themselves with drive-by comments.
LOL!
Wah wah wah!
Blah blah blah!
How contrived can you get? Already whined about and answered.
I am definitely not buying you the book now.
I think we approach the word “divine” from the wrong end when we say there are list of attributes that make something divine. Because when we do that, we try to fit God into our own definition of what He should be. We should do it the other way around. We should start by looking at Jesus, since He is the full revelation of God. So in order to see what “divine” looks like, we look at Jesus.
So when we say Scripture was divinely inspired, it’s not a stretch of the imagination to say it was like Jesus – a perfect marriage of God working through humans. It’s a human product and a God product – just like Jesus.
PB,
Then Paul contradicts himself all over scripture if you “out of context proof text” is to be understood as you read it.
Where does Paul exactly stated, “…that “Scripture alone” will answer all questions.” as you stated above it does…. not in that verse… try another.
You are still dodging the question and giving proof on your claims here and now are twisting scripture to fit your own words… instead of letting the Holy Spirit teach and lead you…
So Paul lied about the Holy Spirit leading and teaching us… as well as Jesus’ own statements about the HS?
And Paul lied about God giving “apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers,”…
Again, no one denies the bible is the inspired word of God… not even Bell but you twisted his words to mean so above and not twist scripture to fit you wrongly stated statement.. . why can you never just say… “oops I have misspoken again… sorry.”?
God gives grace to the humble and resists the proud… so why don’t you live by the inspired word and teachings you claim to hold so high?
iggy
RE: #8 -
PB – have you ever actually READ Velvet Elvis (and the section that you’ve prooftexted)?
This section of VE talks about the need to trust that the Church fathers that codified the Canon chose the correct books to include, and that trying to interpret scripture literally is not always possible – or practical – or desirable.
Tell me – Do you insist that all of your church’s members greet one another with a holy kiss? Do you forbid eating of shrimp? Do you forbid blended fabrics from being worn? Do your women always wear head-coverings? When someone comes to you struggling with lust, do you suggest that they remove their eye? If they are struggling with kleptomania, do you suggest having their hand amputated?
If you answered “no” to any of these questions, then on some level, you agree with what Bell wrote – and that was his point. I’ve heard people (from both ends of the spectrum) use the Bible to claim things exist in it which I believe do not exist there. I suspect you have, as well.
If so, then you agree with what Bell wrote here, but you’re willing to cast it in the most evil light possible because you do not like him.
PB, if John MacArthur or John Piper said this, you’d be in solid agreement.
Bible interpretation IS colored by historical context. (See women & head-coverings, holy kisses, camels & eyes of needles, the practice of crucifixion, etc., etc., etc.).
Bible interpretation IS colored by reader bias (examine how Calvinists & Arminians can read and interpret the same portion of scripture with different meanings because they want/need it to fit into their “system” of thinking, or how some can read instructions to slave-holders as justification for slavery, or how some can read Revelation and see it as totally futuristic, while others read it and see that many of the prophecies came true during the lives of the people to whom it was written, etc., etc.)
Bible interpretation IS colored by current realities (examine how we try to use it to guide our beliefs about international missions, the use of the internet, pornography, movies, nuclear weapons, etc., etc.) – things that weren’t in existence (or weren’t burning questions) at the time the Bible was written.
What Bell wrote is true again.
As he’s explained before, “Eastern Religion” does not imply Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. Rather, at the time of this interview, Rob had just returned from a visit to Israel and Turkey with Ray Vander Laan and the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research. They point out that Judaism, as practice by Jesus and his predecessors, was an “Eastern Religion” (which primarily speaks to world-view, concrete language instead of abstract languate, etc.) – which is a way of examining Jesus and his teachings as would have been heard and culturally understood by a first-century Jew.
Unfortunately, there are some, like (apparently) yourself who would rather use Bell’s term of “Eastern Religion” as something potentially ominous for casting aspersions, rather than do the (slight) bit of research necessary to understanding Bell’s quote in context.
Again, in context w/ Bell’s (multiple) interviews and VE, he’s contrasting the way some treat the Bible (like Chris P, who treats it as something that fell out of the sky with absolutely no cultural context or contextual understanding required) as a literal instruction manual vs. treating it as something that was divinely inspired and written to real people at a time in the past – something that is totally relevant to us today, though we may have to translate it to our cultural context, rather than just transliterating it to our language.
I wholly agree that hermeneutics are important – we use them every day when we exegete what other people say to us, about us or around us. Using your exegesis of Bell, I would have to say that if I can’t trust your hermeneutics when exegeting someone alive today and in our same culture, how on earth can I trust you to exegete Scripture, which is far deeper than words in a magazine interview?
PB,
And sadly most often they are… but we seem to have hope for you and not give up on you…
iggy
Pastorboy,
For starters the New Testament was not compiled when this was written so the original intent of the author could not include the NT. All of us here know that the NT was compiled by a group of men about 400 years after Jesus left and we believe that they were led by the Holy Spirit when they did this as does Rob Bell (read Velvet Elvis). We hold the NT as authoritive because of these men and believing them being led by the Holy Sprit (as Rob Bell very clearly says in Velvet Elvis). If you would do the effort of actually reading Rob Bell you will find much less to disagree with.
Where’s the fun in that?
Jerry, I am glad you are doing this. I finished the book a couple weeks ago and agree it is my favorite of his three so far. I am on vacation right now but will try to jump in as I am able.
So very true.
Bell, it seems to me, has been reading Barth. When he says that God has spoken and the rest is commentary I thought I was reading from Church Dogmatics.
I would say that his view of scripture is higher than those who think they hold to sola scriptura. Any serious person who reads Bell with even a semblance of Christian charity would be found ridiculous to suggest that Bell thinks the scriptures are a mere human construct and not inspired.
Thanks again, Jerry, for working through this important read.
peace.
Bell’s acceptance of McLaren and Paggit are very troubling. Place ten people in one room, nine have pneumonia, those nine will not catch good health, no, soon you will have ten with pneumonia.
There is also a danger of becoming addicted to being new and innovative and finding new perspectives on everything. Sometime the old perspectives are correct and just need new bookcovers.
Rick –
When you say “Bell’s acceptance of McLaren and Paggit are very troubling” what does that mean? Acceptance of what, exactly?
And why does that acceptance (whatever that is) mean an illness is forthcoming?
I haven’t read Paggit. Not everything that McLaren says is “slippery”. Rick, I think you will agree on a lot he has to say about the influence of colonialism on modern Christianity. I think Rob Bell found his stuff helpful because he puts the Christian faith into words that post-modernists understands and that same quality might be what upsets a lot of modern thinkers.
Rick,
That’s just it: I think he is writing the “old” view. He’s making it accessible to a new generation of readers and followers.
Jerry
Interestingly the CMA seems to disagree with PB as they do not state “that “Scripture alone” will answer all questions.” as PB states…
In fact… Tozer stated much as I am stating… and has more agreement with Bell that PB with Tozer…
Sorry the block quote editor went wonky…
I have heard and read beliefs by McLaren and Paggit that I find significantly unbiblical. I do not wish to open that can of worms, I am responsible for my own assessment and you of yours. It is my understanding that both men have preached at Mars Hill.
I find that troubling, you may not. That should not come as a surprise to either of us.
correct, I do not find that troubling (nor am I surprised)
I am not really sure what it means for any of us to say that a person is “significantly unbiblical.” At least not with respect to people who are professing Christians who claim to center their lives around Jesus Christ as their Lord and believe Scriptures to be the norming norm for such centering. I can understand saying that we disagree with their conclusions or saying that they have a way of articulating faith that I don’t quite understand but to say that they are “significantly unbiblical” is mystifying to me. To me that sounds like a way of saying that I disagree with someone and I, of course, view the world biblically and rightly.
You lead an doctrinal life that is enviably naive. Are Mormons “significantly unbiblical”? Phelps? LaHaye? McArthur? Then we are discussing levels, not the assessment itself.
So to make it more acceptable to you, I PERSONALLY FIND some of their views as “significantly unbiblically”. I am an American, I have that right!
Sola scriptura… right? You’re incredibly two faced.
You crucify Bell for the very things you do, even if you deny you believe them. Sadly, its not the same cross we’re called to carry.
I prefer the word humble over naive
All I am saying is that I have read and listened to McLaren – quite a bit. I know less of Pagitt but am reading a book edited by him right now. I am also very familiar with LaHaye and MacArthur (I even have Mac’s study Bible! ha!). I would say that none of them are “significantly unbiblical.” Do I think they are right on everything? Of course not. They are fallible human beings like me. We reach different conclusions on several things, and each of us would use the Bible as our source for coming to those conclusions.
My point is only to say that most times people (and I am not saying you are doing this) say someone is unbiblical they really mean they don’t agree with the conclusions they have come to which may or may not be very biblical.
thus, humility is called for.
I have helped a Catholic Priest conduct a wedding. Preached a funeral sermon in a Catholic church. Played my guitar in a Baptist church. Was christened as an infant in the Methodist church. Was immersed in a RM not-a capella Church of Christ. Preached a thanksgiving sermon in a Methodist Church. Led worship in a Friend’s Church. And I currently preach in a Church of Christ. And I received communion in my friend’s Anglican church. I also work at a food pantry that is run by Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, etc., etc…
So?
Jerry, one of my new year’s resolutions is to attend Mass each week in my hometown. I look forward to it.
I read about that at your blog. I have been thinking that attending morning mass might be a good way to start my day. You know, focused worship, Scripture, prayer. I do those things anyhow, but in such an orderly way might be better.
Thank you for pointing this out, Jerry.
I have been hounded on this site as of late for having some “vague, toothless, powerless” meta-narrative concerning Scripture. And yet, the above sentence captures beautifully what that “vague” meta-narrative is for me. I do not find it vague or toothless in the least bit. On the contrary, I find it to be a powerful, divine, inspired story of God’s relentless, awe-filled movement towards us. We are not the subject of the Bible – God is.
Oh, I couldn’t agree more. I think many of those who are in the so-called reformed camp would do well to pay attention to this very thing. But here’s the rub: It’s a story about what God has done, is doing and will do to restore the relationship between himself and us: He will be our God, we will be His people.
I think this aspect of Scripture is too easily overlooked, and too often under taught. Why? Because we have allowed a certain segment of the church to control the conversation with all of its talk about the salvation of the individual. Individual salvation is a uniquely American idea. I’m not saying individuals are not saved. They are. I’m just saying too much of the emphasis is placed on ‘one’ instead of on ‘people.’
Does that make sense?
“You know, focused worship, Scripture, prayer.”
That is a doctrinally sterilized view. Mass is also the eating of the actual body and blood of Jesus as a means of grace and in hopes of gaing salvation or at least a shorter term in pergatory. It is ceremonial works salvation.
I reiterate, naive.
BTW – if you are not Roman Catholic, you are forbidden to recieve the Eucharist. Another denominational restriction based entirely upon a cultish and inflated view of your own ecclesiastical approval before God. While you are in that church, please remember the millions of believers and Jews that have been murdered by that “God ordained” church founded upon the Apostle Peter.
And while you are in the midst of Mary worship, human forgiveness of sins, works based salvation (Vatican II), please remember that the current Pope has recently announced that the only true church on earth is the Roman Catholic Church. Your prayers will help some get out of pergatory who suffer because the blood of Christ was insufficient.
I hope I was helpful.
Rick, if not for your example of charity by using restraint with the term “significantly unbiblical”, I would go a little further and say willfully / confidently blind rather than naive.
Having been a Catholic myself, these high-handed, glorious declarations are absurb. But I am not surprised.
No other church has done a better job at keeping its own members in the dark and away from the light of the gospel than the RCC. And no, I’m not referring to the Dark Ages, but even up until present day.
Rick,
You weren’t. Because you assume that a) I don’t know those things and b) that I’m going there for reasons other than what I said: Focused prayer, worship, Scripture. I didn’t say I was going there to be a Catholic. I said I thought it might be a good way to start a day, you know, order; thinking about God with other people who are thinking about God. Letting someone else speak God’s word since that responsibility so often falls on my shoulders. I speak it; it might be nice to hear it.
I reiterate, shallow.
I hope that clarifies my position. I don’t give a flying leap about the pope or the vatican. I was talking about worship.
jerry
I reiterate, naive. It also ordains worship as more available in a building. I doubt whether you will hear God’s Word, I was raised a Lutheran for 22 years and never heard the Word. When I heard Billy Graham saying Jesus was going to return one day I heard that for the first time.
Several days later I was saved, even though I had attended 3 years of Lutheran catechism, sang in the choir directed by my mother, and was a member of the church which means they acknowledge you are saved. (I disagree with church membership in any church)
I am not condemning you, Jerry, but maybe opening up your own church for people to attend morning worship. Most believers do not have a private time of actual worship which is a good foundation for corperate worship. By your words you seem to assume the RCC is full of born again believers, I do not. Sadly.
So, the reality is setting in…all that Lectio Divina, Barthian theology and syncretism has finally set in….
So you are going to participate in a religious service in which Christ is sacrificed again, in which the priests believe that this sacrifice is, and I quote, propitiatory- in other words, makes payment for our sins…hmmmm…
HT Wikipedia
So, lets crucify Christ all over again and eat His real body and blood, for his initial sacrifice was not sufficient.
Yep.
Good.
Umm Hmm.
Oh my God. That is just out of control stupid. Did either of you read what I wrote? I’ll repeat it for the hard of reading:
Yes, that’s what I was getting at. I’m beginning to think that you are just dense. I’m sorry to be so frank, but seriously. How do you get any of this out of what I wrote in the block quote above?
Sheesh.
BTW, have you read anything by Barth or are you judging his work based on what others have told you? And what the hell is Lectio Divina?
Rick,
I have no idea about the born again status of anyone in any church. The only one I’m concerned about, as far as it goes, is me. I’m not told to work out the salvation of others with fear and trembling; but I am told to work out my own. So what do you care how I go about doing that?
jerry
I got as far as Pastorboy’s comments #8 and my head exploded… the same guy who says he reads commentaries trashes Bell for saying “When people say that all we need is the Bible, it is simply not true.” Unbelievable!
Sorry, Jerry….you wasted that all on me because I was directing it at Chad going to the mass
Unless, you also are going to the mass…if you are…I would suggest an Anglican evensong or Lutheran vespers…The Mass has too much evil wrapped up in it…
Neil,
Good thing your hands didn’t explode so you could type.
All we need is the Bible. I use Bible Dictionaries, Commentaries, Concordances, etc. to help my study…I don’t need them… I just like them. Ultimately, I am responsible for what I read…and for what I do with it. And the Holy Spirit enlightens and brings conviction…so ultimately, me, as a born again believer, with the indwelling Holy Spirit, all I need is the Bible. The rest- just pure enjoyment.
Every time Bell comes up it’s the same comments from the same passages in Velvet Elvis.
You have yet to actual interact with any of Bell’s interpretations… you just cherry-pick quotes, the same old tired stuff you posted before.
Jerry – would you consider it appropriate to attend a Mormon service to worship God?
Pastorboy,
RE #83… Exactly. So please move along to another topic then
Neil
Well, Rick, people in New York City with a similar train of thought believe you can attend a synagogue, mosque, and a church-all at the same time and in the same building…
This is supported by Rob Bell, Doug Pagitt, Tony Jones, Emergent Village, Brian McLaren, etc (who also supports homosexual churches)..
So why not? Why not attend and worship in a Mormon Church, or a JW Church….why not attend Mass…All these people worship the same God, dont they? They just do it in a different way, right? We are all going to wind up together in heaven anyhow, right?
sheesh.
#84
The topic was one of the way that Bell interprets the Bible. This has everything to do with his resulting theological points of view.
has anyone yet asked for a bit of sourcing on Bell saying the Bible is [only] a product of human effort? I inserted [only] because I assume that is what you mean… obvioulsy on some level the Bible is a human product, in that humans wrote it.
And I don;t think divine fiat is exactly correct either – since God carried along those who wrote it – as opposed to “Le their be Scripture” and there was…
I am still catching up – but have you actually sourced Bell saying the Bible is only human? Have you actually interacted with any of his interpretations – or have you just dismissed it based on some sikvanized quotes like post #8
John 5: 39. You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me,
40. yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
Oh who to believe… Jesus or PB?… ummm…
yeah… the bible is all we need… so we don’t need Jesus after all according to PB… yep…
iggy
I realize sincere believers cannot see the spiritual implications of such ecumentalism. This is one of the things that coming generations of believers will remember us by, our creation of a giant melting pot of inclusion which if correct will be to God’s glory.
But if wrong will help deceive billions of lost sinners that they are on their way to heaven. The “all roads” principle.
While this is a bit over dramatic. It does point out the error of trashing Bell for saying the Bible is a human product (which it is) and claiming it was created divine fiat (which it was not)
From what I know of you and what I know of Bell… you share this in common.
Your belief in the inspiration of Scripture is obvious and assumed. The same can be said for Bell.
From the Mars Hill theology statement:
This should close the case on Bell and how he takes the Bible.
The Creator communicating through human instruments and preserving such communication through hundreds of languages and speaking both collectively and personally through that communication is a massive mystery, just as deep as how the Holy Spirit invades a brain cell and carries a truth in that fluid to the biological processing system and bring that truth to the understanding of a human being.
Mystery…profound mystery that cannot be captured by any systematic theology. That does not detract from the truth…it glorifies it.
OK – I just caught up to how you define “Divine Fiat” and using “your” definition I agree.
BUT, this state here and your accusation that Bell thinks the Bible is a human product [again, I assume you mean "only human" since it is obvious human on some level] – this statement is rendered void and WRONG by Bells’ own words above (cf. #94).
out of context….sheesh…
Eternal life is in Christ….I know that…I believe that, I have experienced that…But the Word is all important. In it is what we need to know about God’s redemptive plan
On some level the Word is a divine fiat, it’s called the gospel.
nc,
This is yet another example of Pastorboy’s sloppy quoting. What I wrote was:
At times we just get too bogged down in trying to correct PB’s errors – and it can become a waste of time.
His comments here about Bell’s view of Scripture are yet another example. Bell clearly believes they are inspired from God, that God is the source. Yet PB insists on taking other comments, twisting them, and then using those comments to disregard anything Bell says.
The fact remain that Pastorboy has yet to interact with any actual interpretations that Bell offers.
OK – I just caught up to how you define “Divine Fiat” and using “your” definition I agree.
But, taking the term in its usual sense, and this would be the sense I assume Bell meant, then the Bible was not produced by Divine Fiat.
I would suggest much more effort should be given to obey the Word than define it in theological terms.
God spoke – we obey.
OK, I’ll bite – what the heck are referring to?
OK – so we can dismiss Pastorboy’s opening complaints of Bell and the Bible because he is wrong. Bell, in his own clear words, has proven his high and orthodox view of the Bible and it is obvious Pastorboy’s complaints are based on selective reading and the silvanizing of the quotes.
That said (comment #103) – getting back to the OP:
I find Bell’s thesis interesting and I look forward to more. It appears that he may well be addressing some of the issues that the ADM’s do (when not attacking Bell) – that is, seeker-sensitive evangelicalism of the last 20 years. That and the religious-right.
I wonder why the ADM’s never take on the religious-right?
#102
Faith House- Manhattan-
PB,
You are so consistent… now you are changing it from “that “Scripture alone” will answer all questions. ” To:
How does Bell support this? And in what manner if he does?
Neil…. don’t bite… it is bad air blown out his backside that PB will never back up with actual facts… but he will dig out some quote from some website that misquotes and then builds a beautiful straw man he can burn down… Truth is facts mean nothing and truth means less…
Now, PB will state what he believes be confronted with the fact he believes the same as he is attacking then try to state that whoever is still wrong.
The only one that has so far stated one can live as a homosexual and be a believing Christian is Tony Jones… and many many many of us disagree….
Brian McLaren has only stated that we need not selectively single out gays and look at human sexuality as a whole and seek purity… Doug is rather silent… and Rob Bell being in that list is simply stupid. In fact isn’t interesting that Tony stepped down from leadership at emergent village before he made his statement? That might be a clue that not agree but still are willing to discuss the issue more.
PB smears all with some huge broad brush of lie…
iggy
Please disregard comment #107. Iggy is right, until Pastorboy shows actual quotes from Bell properly interpreted – there is no sense following rabbit trails.
I have not seen Bell support Faith House in Manhattan.
Rick,
I wouldn’t, but that doesn’t mean you have to agree with me. Besides, I see Mormons and Catholics as apples and oranges and not a fair comparison at all. Mormon theology is clearly heretical. Catholic theology is misguided and decidedly wrong since it misses grace, but Catholic theology doesn’t deny Christ, the Resurrection, or the Crucifixion or that Jesus is the only way to the Father. I think that is significant.
But again, I never said I was thinking of converting to RCC or eating their transsubstantiated bread and wine (which they wouldn’t give me anyhow). I said I was thinking that it would be a good way to start my day–by being with people who are also starting their day thinking about God–even if in that thinking they have missed the mark, even as I have missed the mark. Us good saved protestants miss out on the daily, communal worship. I happen to think it would be a good idea if we didn’t miss out on it.
jerry
Good enough, Father Jerry.
I’ve participated in a Maundy Thursday Mass…it was profound and meaningful.
I don’t see how I’ve betrayed anything or done something wrong…just because others have some mistaken theology
Jerry – #73 – nailed it.
And despite the nay-sayers (Rick, PB, Paul C) I will light a candle for you at Mass
peace.
Well, I’ll say this. I’m anxious to finish writing my review of Jesus Wants To Save Christians. I just finished the Epilogue and I have to say, without reservation, that was some of the best 8 pages of paper I have ever had the privilege of reading. If Bell believes what he wrote and practices it, then I am his newest, biggest fan.
I have to say this also: I don’t know how anyone who can read can disagree with a single word that Bell and Golden say in this book. I say this with full confidence: They are right. This comes from someone who was fully prepared to hate the book. They are right: Things must change.
I went out to dinner with my family tonight. $33 plus tip ($6) for three meals. Then I read this: 840 million people will go to bed hungry tonight because they cannot afford a single meal. I spent enough for three people to feed a small village in Africa. I am ashamed and embarrassed. I must repent.
This book has changed a lot for me. There is so much wrong with me. God have mercy.
Now, one to Willimon. I’m anxious to learn Who Will Be Saved.
Jerry, I wish every Christian were as open minded, honest and humble as you.
I look forward to hearing the rest of your review of this book as well as your take on Who Will Be Saved. If nothing else, it will be nice to not be the only guy around here who has read it.
peace.
Yea and amen. It is here I will add my perspective to the overarching view that I believe removes any self righteous robes from all of us. As much as I disagree with any ecumenticalism and cooperation with the RCC, I see the American “orthodox” believers as being hedonistic and self centered. The same anti-Catholic blogs advertise “Christian cruises” that cost thousands of dollars, to say nothing of the Shepherd Conference etc. where hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent in travel, sumptous dining, books and CDs, all to hear such keynote messages as “Why I am a Calvinist” (real title) instead of a message that calls all the shepherds to a deeper sacrificial devotion to Christ, an unthinkable humility, and a “give your life” love for your sheep and humanity as a whole.
So there you have it, my brother, I am also undone as I sit in my air conditioned palace in Florida while my brothers and sisters in Darfur and elsewhere suffer profoundly. Please do not ever believe in the midst of a dialogue where I differ that I see myself as anything above a worthless sinner depending wholly upon God’s grace for everything and anything.
I would never go into a RCC church to worship, but in full disclosure I have and continue to walk by many men who have “fallen among robbers” and need a Samaritan, only to watch me, a schooled Pharisee, walk on by.
All my righteousness, all my correct doctrine, all my discernment, all my literary prowess, all my intellect, and all my evrything is absolute dung. I cling wholly and completely to this:
I know Jesus. That is the sum total of my life.
#108
Apology accepted, Iggy
HT Faith House
And what does that have to do with either Rob Bell, or the book that he’s written which you haven’t read?
#119 Wins the question of the day award. PB, what is your answer.
Rob Bell is a supporter of Samir Salmonovic and his faith house idea.
Sources or it didn’t happen.
Source?
In what manner?
Then again…WHAT does this have to do with the OP?
And you can prove this how?
Even if he was, it still wouldn’t change anything in my mind. I suppose anything that promotes the idea that people of different religious backgrounds can live together without killing each other is alright in my book.
How much you want to bet that Pastorboy is furiously googling right now to back up the lie he laid out there?
I believe the technical term is “Google Boxing“…
Or just outright lying
John MacArthur supports bigomy.
Souces unavailable at this time.
Evidence does not matter to many of you, as Phil has stated. And Phil, that is not what it is. It is Universalism and syncretism, pure and simple.
Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt all support directly or indirectly the Faith House project. Heres betting that the evidence presented will be poo-pooe’d by you just because it is quotes from magazines, books, and radio interviews. You will call it quote mining. You will call it GBA. But Bell supports the idea of faith house none the less.
Who uses google anymore? its ask jeeves. You are a backbiter and a liar.
It’s a diversion… unable to address the Bell quotes in Jerry’s post, unable to deny the thesis of Bell’s book, unable to defend his ridiculous “Bell thinks the Bible is not from God” accusations, unable to address any actual interpretations of the Bible from Bell… Pastorboy creates a diversion.
No, a backbiter and a liar would be someone who posts things that aren’t true. Much like you are about Bell.
We’re waiting “Pastor”boy. Tick tock, tick tock.
It’s a diversion
Honestly, a pretty one. But still lacking substance.
John Chisham, do you have any evidence to back up your claim, or are you just being dishonest and trying to divert?
John – I have not heard a definitive quote from Rob Bell that would clearly lead to conclude he espouses universalism.
Well, you know this is not true of me. I have asked, repeatedly, over and over, then repeated it again… I have asked you to back up your accusations.
And you have not.
You said Bell affirmed universalism – He does not.
You said Bell affirm the Bible was not from God – He does not.
You repeatedly make these wild accusations based on silvanized comments. Accusations that are easily dispelled with simple statements from Bell.
And in EVERY case (I have seen) so far you have resorted to twisting what Bell said to fit you own argument.
Even the quotes you used often prove just the opposite – as it did when you tried quoting VE to prove Bell affirmed universalism.
So don’t give us this crap that evidence does not matter to us…
We went ’round and ’round on this in another thread. Pastorboy gave a Velvet Elvis quote, but he misrepresented or misinterpreted it. In fact, in the very quote Bell says that some will choose against God – so the very quote defeated his point.
Also, when I quoted Bell on people needing to trust Jesus for salvation (without the source being named as Bell) Pastorboy agreed with me.
John #130
Thumps his chest and screams, “I’m right! I’m right! Period.”
Liar, liar, liar…
John – I listened to a Bell teach a tortured “all references to hell are on earth” sermon, however, he admitted that the lake of fire was a real place of judgment for unregenerate sinners.
That is not universalism.
No, evidence does matter, that’s the issue. Right now, you’re the one making claims without having evidence to back them up. And, guilt by association, hearsay, and arguments from silence are not evidence
If you were trying to convict Bell of something in court, the judge would throw the case out…
I find Bell’s thesis interesting and I look forward to more. It appears that he may well be addressing some of the issues that the ADM’s do (when not attacking Bell) – that is, seeker-sensitive evangelicalism of the last 20 years. That and the religious-right.
John – How could Bell teach universalism and Chris Lyons take such exception to Chad’s position? I would venture that Chris has listened to a significant number of Bell’s messages and would have the same reaction if he was teaching universalism.
In all fairness to Pastorboy… I do not think he is a liar. By that I mean, as far as I have seen, I have not “caught” him lying.
And by this I mean he knows something to be other than what he says it is.
I think he is so sure of himself that he assumes the worst and this effects his judgment, such as the quote that he uses to try and prove universalism, or the quotes on this thread about the Bible.
I suppose he could lie to cover his sloppiness and lack of discernment – but so far I think it’s just the latter.
“pastor” boy is always quoting verses that he claims says that believers are proven by their works. I’m beginning to doubt his salvation based on his own theology.
Rob Bell supports Universalism, and the idea that Samir Salmonovic supports in Faith House:
Online Source
Then there is this:
Online Source
Then there is this old classic from Velvet Elvis
Samir Selmanovic believes all religions can lead to truth, the truth of God. Rob Bell believes the same. Rob Bell believes that God is not angry, that He has reconciled all things and all people regardless of their belief. Samir Salmonovic is combining Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and ‘christianity’ in his faith house churchsynagoguetemplemosque.
Rob Bell supports Samir Salmonovic, and anyone else who believes all people are reconciled to God. Classic Universalism.
Ruach.
#143,
Personally, I don’t know but I’ll say this; even if you are right, then he is still guilty of slander. The Bible has quite a bit to say about slanderers not making it into the Kingdom, unless they repent. I’m just saying…
Let’s not play the salvation card or all your hands will fold to me.
Liar liar pants on fire, sitting on a telephone wire.
Not a single one of those quotes are from Rob Bell supporting Faith House.
John Chisham is a big fat liar who may not be a Christian, and is certainly unfit to be a pastor due to his moral failings.
#145
WOW!!! I would pay to go to a class with this guy. I mean it. One of those classes where we can critique what our classmates say. Come on, Bo Diaz, you know that would be fun. You know it.
Can you hear the hiss?
Sorry, Joe. It is slander if I make up the quotes. Your ‘pastor’ has provided more than enough quotes on radio, in print, and in his messages to prove he is a universalist.
He is as much a universalist as Samir Salmonovic, Doug Pagitt, and Chad Holtz.
BTW I have told Jerry I am reading the book. I hope I am not disappointed.
Bo,
That is often what I try to point out… many preach “Grace” but then add works to their grace. Also this is a main point that I have against Lordship Salvation… they misuse the “fruit” of the Spirit as evidence for their salvation… in that THEY produce this fruit. I tried to explain to Jim Bublitz the difference and was mocked… It is God’s fruit we BEAR… we do not produce anything…
So to look at this as evidence of our own salvation will run hot sometimes and cold others… it will produce an insecurity and fear/performance based faith that is always looking over their shoulder in fear God is going to take them to the shed and give them a whipping or that they may not have been saved in the first place… or hide their sin deep and never deal with it.
Often this can get so wrapped up in self righteousness… it takes God to break the prideful spirit and bring them to see how they really are.
In the end they serve not the biblical God that loves His children, but a angry God that hates sin and the sinner. If God hates such as those you can’t be one in their camp… though we all are… and need confess that…
iggy
To be a liar, I would have had to say that I had such a quote. I did not and I do not. If I were not a Christian I would have lashed out at your jr. high insults long ago, Bo.
These quotes prove Bell’s universalism IMHO. Samir Salmonovic is a universalist. Rob Bell, by being a universalist, supports the ideas that Samir Salmonovic is trying to make reality in Faith House.
#152
AMEN!!
Finally Iggy…you got it…it is not our good works…they are Gods, produced in us!! AMEN!!!
Take a picture.
Ruach.
You said Rob Bell supports Samir Salmonovic and his faith house idea. And yet, not a single quote.
You are a liar. Repent.
I could give a rip if you’re disappointed. You didn’t make up the quotes, but you did slander and lie. You need to put quotes around your pastor title.
Your research is sloppy and you make wild leaps and accusations. You made a claim that you can’t back up with anything close to a direct quote.
hsssss
It’s not even worth getting upset over this anymore because it’s pretty clear there are some who just refuse to see, but I have to admit I find it quite telling when people get so upset at the notion that “God is love”! And they’re accusing us of not taking Scripture seriously?
Comment 145:
So, what you offer are two third-party quotes of a conclusion someone came to with data we have no access to – FAIL!
This in opposition to the actual quotes we have from Bell which deny this.
Then you offer the quote from Velvet Elvis – except this time you left off the portion in which he voids your argument – More FAIL!
And on top of these – you still REFUSE to deal with Bells’ very own theology statement.
The only reason would be you cannot – since it denies you accusations.
Itching ears…
If that were the case, you think you could provide one. So far the only thing from Bell you have provided is the VE quote that argues the opposite
It is Mars Hills statement, not his, and I have seen multiple churches who do not line up with their statement of theology. How does it line up with the volumes of things he has said in interviews, sermons, books, and radio interviews?? The scales tip towards universalism, just in sheer volume.
I did not slander; the quotes are from him, he slandered himself.
Proof Pastorboy is wrong.
Deal with it John
Bwahahahahahahahaha.
Calling your opinions silly and a waste of time is far more gentle than they deserve.
It’s amazing that from these “volumes” of things, you’re unable to produce one actual quote. Maybe you should join these forums.
#163
hahahahahah…
Deal
with
it
Bo Diaz,
You are a fake, a dead catcher, unwilling to disclose your real person.
You are the liar, Mr. Dead catcher. Your arguments are invalid.
Liar. backbiter, accuser of the brethren. Bo Diaz.
And the one he did provide proved just the opposite -
So, how do you reconcile this
With this?
Okay…My says he is, yours says he isn’t.
Next? Scales are at a balance now.
Liar.
Slanderer.
You are unfit to be a pastor. And if your theology is correct then you bear no fruit and your salvation is in doubt.
Repent.
good night.
#167
hahahaha. Wow, now that’s rich. Ok, I’m done with this part of this thread. Night all.
The fact that you can’t recognize the difference between universal atonement, and universalism is a condemnation on every theological class you’ve ever taken.
#169
What? Those quotes don’t contradict each other at all.
NO they are not. You have left off the part of the quote wherein he says some will choose otherwise. I suppose I’ll have to rifle through the past posts to find it…
ALSO they are not because your quote is in the context of a book – what was the context, what was his thesis, what is his point? My quote is from a direct statement on his beliefs.
So, would you like to provide the whole quote, or do I need to go find it myself?
Bo,
Not on this site – please.
Neil
Seriously, every quote PB puts up strengthens the point opposite he’s trying to make. Either he can’t comprehend what’s written or he’s purposely being deceitful. In either case, it seems he’s being willfully ignorant.
#173
So true, so true. And this is a man that is leading a church. This is a “pastor.” He’s responsible for teaching his church about these things and he can’t wrap his mind around a pretty simple, strait forward presentation of Universal Atonement.
FAIL!!!
I need a palm slap to the fore head.
You too John – play nice.
These two lines from the above quotes pretty much sum it up – Bell is saying there is an if involved in both statements. Case closed.
Seriously, did Bo Diaz the catcher really die? I thought he played for Orioles. Bo’s ISP comes up LA doesn’t it?
Well this is all fine and addresses very little the content of the book I am reviewing.
What does faith house have to do with anything in the book I am writing about?
What does ruach mean? Is it a Hebrew word?
Well, it does prove that Christians still need saved…
Jerry,
It goes to show how hard it will be to discuss a book, when there are those who wan to detract, but cannot unless they divert.
Neil
Phil,
some Xians…
Yes and I find that terribly disturbing.
But I am a big fan of reading whatever I can get my hands on. One never knows where the Lord might be speaking.
PB, at least read the book. I am glad you are doing that much.
As a pastor who gets to see the short and tall of it, the good and the bad, the “righteous” and the sinner, those who have great ideas about Jesus and those who have not-so-great ideas, those who love well and those who still hate well, they who doubt and they who have much faith, those who read scripture much and those who do not read at all, they who pray and those who ask for prayer, those who give and those who take, they who struggle and those who pretend they don’t – I get the humbling honor of offering to each of them the bread and the blood of the Christ who loves them all – and is saving them all – even now, in spite of themselves.
To the litany above I suppose I could add “those who blog and those who do not.”
The question I keep coming back to is this: If God can save me, one who professes to know Jesus and yet sucks at following Him daily, God can save anyone and everyone. God can even save us Christians.
Here is where Pastorboy approved what Bell wrote – I commented (BWII, Comment 69) this:
The bold/italics being directly from Bell’s narrative theology. I even gave Pastorboy optional ways of saying it.
Pastorboy responded comment #75:
So Pastorboy chose the very words Bell used… when he thought they came from me. In fact, I used the word “receive” (which is a biblical quote) and Pastorboy opted for Bell’s words.
PB, your post #145 was atrocious.
Bell, nor any theologian with a lick of sense, does not deny substitutionary atonement. The theme that Christ was our substitute runs throughout scripture and is recognized by Bell and everyone else. It is the A MODEL of that which is in question: Penal. And for good reason. To question that or even outright deny it does not make anyone a universalist. That is absurd. Where are you getting such “research”?
And your definition of Universalism is not even close to hitting the mark. Certainly not christian universalism. It does NOT mean that all paths lead to God nor does universalism dispell of God’s justice in favor of God’s love. Rather, God’s justice is seen as an outworking of God’s love. And for you to subsume “wrath and anger” together tells me that you have the God of Israel confused with the pagan gods of the Greeks if you think God is some ticked-off diety in the sky waiting to smite people.
I was mistaken, Pastorboy did include the portion where people choose… as Phil pointed out. So the scales are not in balance
Back to the book: It appears that Bell may well be addressing some of the issues that the ADM’s do (when not attacking Bell) – that is, seeker-sensitive evangelicalism of the last 20 years. That and the religious-right.
Yes, sadly, Bo Diaz is dead. He will love on in the hearts of the Venezuelan people, not to mention in their children’s names. He’s a national hero, even now.
Oh my word, my head will assplode!
Re: #145
PB’s “online source” can’t seem to wrap his mind around the fact that there are at least five other Christian views of atonement which are not “Universalism”. We’re now into a completely different diversion (the “God’s aren’t angry” tour), where Bell’s thesis (that God does not need us to “appease” Him, because Jesus’ sacrifice was sufficient for all) suddenly becomes “God isn’t angry at sin”… Hogwash.
Basically, we’ve got a Calvinist complaining that Bell doesn’t hold to systematic Calvinist theology (i.e. Penal Substitutionary Atonement). The view Bell talks about in TGAA tour is the Christus Victor view (not a Universalist view).
So, to follow PB’s “logic” – Calvinist blogger says Bell is a universalist because he doesn’t accept PSA as the “correct” view of atonement. (strike one) Since “Bell is a universalist”, he believes that all religions lead to heaven (strike two – two lies for the price of one). Therefore, Bell agrees with Samir Selmanovic and supports his universalist ideas. (strike three).
I’m sorry, but if this isn’t idiocy on display (with PB’s lack of logic), I’m not sure. Kind of reminds me of his complete inability (after hundreds of tries) to understand the difference between sarcasm and satire…
If this is true, then why is it you cannot provide direct, un-prooftexted, un-filtered, un-reinterpreted quotes from him to support this bit of fictional belief of yours? The VE quotes provided are a) rather incomplete, and b) in context, say nothing to support your thesis…
The only difference between you and Silva right now is that sometimes I get the impression that Ken doesn’t really believe what he’s saying – he just seems to say it for shock affect (or to scare money out of the feeble-minded). With you, though, I have no doubt you believe what you’re saying, but what you say contains so little logic, I’ve gotta wonder if the folks that agree with your thesis don’t wish you were batting for the other team…
PB,
I already had it years ago… it is you and your friends that miss it… as I stated… I was told I was not even saved when I stated this to Jim Bublitz… so the ones that do not “get this” are your friends… not mine.
Again, you have even argued with me over this in the past…. at least as I recall…
Now if you know all that… stop lying about me and others.
iggy
# 169…
PB you have stated much the same things that Bell has in those quotes… in fact they are spot on… which is more than what you sometimes state then back-peddle and act as if you never stated something unbiblical…
So… how do YOU reconcile that the bible teaches
The sad thing is one time you say you get that it is not works that save us… then you state that God did not reconcile all and that this means that all may be saved… Note that Bell does not say all WILL be saved? Do you not believe that God justified you, (cleared your debt) so that He could reconcile and give you forgiveness at the Cross… I mean that is what Bell IS saying… and if you disagree with that what else is left? Works?
That is why I say you preach a gospel of works as you attack someone who preaches salvation by Jesus alone and that God brought reconciliation by the death of Jesus to all mankind…. that is the bibles teaching and you are saying it is wrong when Bell states it. If Bell states that we initiate our salvation which then God gives reconciliation and then justifies us… that IS works as then our salvation depends on us and our belief… not in the finished works of Christ Jesus and that we respond to the Call of God to us to come to Christ to have Life.
This is why I often say you have no real clue as to real biblical reconciliation…
Oh and good night.
iggy
Neil,
188
That is what PB does all the time… in fact I hate it when he comments on my blog as usually it is…
You are wrong you forgot (fill in the blank) and this is that and that is this…
I just started to respond by saying…
I addressed that in the post and thank your for agreeing with me as you have just restated what I said.
He cannot even see that he agrees with some one if he has tagged them as wrong…
The core of self righteousness is the need to justify oneself in all they do… to be more right than whoever they are talking to. And really it gets annoying when someone like PB does not get it…
I have more interesting theological discussions with my 4 year old son (who turns 5 next month!) than with PB… My son seems to get things and I am often amazed at how much he understands… he accepted Jesus at age 3.
iggy
I believe we have in our sincere attempt to reach the lost through seeker-sensitive evangelicalism produced consumerist Christians who like to be spoon-fed and entertained. The emergent conversation has for some time pointed this out and at first I was affronted by it but I can see the truth in that now. I believe that most seeker-sensitive churches are realising this and studies like REVEAL has highlighted this.
from #145 has been addressed so many times it is ridiculous that people still assert that this was the message from the tour.
First of all, the title is “The Gods Aren’t Angry.” The word “Gods” is clearly plural and the message that night NEVER even came close to saying that God is not angry at sin.
Why do people keep saying Rob Bell said God is not angry at sin?
Good Morning.
#195
2 Corinthians
1 John
Romans
Written to CHRISTIANS (we, children of God, )
Ruach
Oh yeah, and Bo Diaz is dead. Died putting a satellite dish on his roof.
PB,
Though it may have been written to “Christians” the point is the when it happened which again you are missing…
It was while we were still enemies we were reconciled… notice it is all past tense… If Paul was stating as you are saying he is… it would read…
“For if after the Cross you believe, you still being God’s enemies, He will reconcile you to Him..”
Meaning you have it backwards and it affects your theology in a major bad way. Again, you take Paul and twist what he is saying to fit your own theology and not read what he is saying.
iggy
It will be interesting to see where Bell goes with this. I assume he will not trash the likes of Hybels (who stands as a metonymy for the whole seeker-driven model)… since it is obvious that his heart was in the right place and much good was done despite the weaknesses.
PB,
You will notice the past tense in the other verses as well…
Which is almost word for word what Bell stated…
Also 1 John 2:2 context is past tense… for it was at the Cross which had already happened that reconciliation had happened… and now Jesus IS the atoning sacrifice not just for “ours” (the believer) but for the whole world… If Bell stated this you would accuse him of being a Universalist…. but this is John the Apostle stating it…
Again, you need to take a reading comprehension course PB… I never mean that as a put down but something I highly recommend that you take to help you read and understand better what you are reading. You need to learn to look beyond what you think or were taught… and read without the filter of your doctrinal glasses. Believe me that is not easy at first and it is easy to fall back into it.
iggy
Apparently if you are Ingrid, it’s because he looks funny.
But seriously Chris L., laid it out well. It boils down to an assumption that a certain system is tantamount to what is biblical, and anything that is outside the system is therefor suspect.
And once it is suspect all sorts of extraneous meanings are read back into it (either intentionally or through sloppiness) so a real strawman caricature can be created.
This of course requires the disengagement from any real discernment, as you illustrated by pointing out that the title of the tour was “The Gods are…
And once true discernment has been disengaged. and the strawman is complete… ADM’s are free to fan the flames of their strawman by quoting and linking each other as they warm their self-congratulatory selves at the cost of a brother in Christ.
Christ died for the ungodly, His enemies, while we were still enemies, as a demonstration of Gods love- but that event does not save everybody. It provides payment for everybody, but not everybody is saved.
Since we (now Christians) been justified (past tense) we (future, now Christians) will be saved from the wrath of God (poured out on those not saved) We have been saved (justified, reconciled) are being saved (sanctified) and will be saved (glorified) The we being Christians
.
We (Christians) were enemies (before Christ) We (Christians) were reconciled by the death of His Son, We (Christians) will be saved (progressive, present reality of sanctification) by His life
We (Christians) rejoice in God through (enabled by) our Lord Jesus Christ (He is Lord of the Christian’s life)Through whom we (Christians) have received reconciliation.
There, context. Jesus died for the purpose of providing reconciliation- Christians are those who receive that gift by faith. It is not universal in its scope in terms of salvic effect, for one must take it for themselves, receive it, by faith, for it to be effective.
Rob Bell and other emergent types do NOT teach this. They teach universal reconciliation, also called Christian Universalism.
I will no longer get into these debates on the difference between universalism and unlimited atonement with you, PB, but, in essence, I think an argument could be made that all Scripture was written to believers. You might be able to make a case that the Gospels and Acts weren’t, but I think if you study how the NT was written, it seems the Gospels were written within the church to preserve the oral history that had been passed down from the eyewitnesses.
In any case, to argue that it means something different to a believer and an unbeliever seems like a very postmodern argument to me – the meaning is determined by the reader. If Scripture posits a truth in a certain context, it seems to me that it will be true regardless of who is reading it.
But Phil, reconciliation may be true, (in that Jesus has accomplished it) but it is only effective for those who receive it by faith.
This is my difference with the Universalist stance.
Which is the position of all who contribute here, as well as Rob Bell (cf. comments 163, 180, 188, and 193).
If history repeats itself – again – it’s about time for Pastorboy to switch from this to the Lectio Divina…
#207
That is not what Rob Bell says in Velvet Elvis…
He says it is true for all…whether they decide to live in that reality or not.
But he says hell is full of forgiven people, people who did not avail themselves of the forgiveness that was offered to them. It’s a matter of semantics.
Says the guy who hasn’t actually read the book.
So what does everyone think about the Rose Bowl this year?
If we’re going to be having a conversation not related to original article, it might as well be something new.
Hell is not full of forgiven people. If they were forgiven, they would not be in Hell!
Of course, Bell believes Hell is here on earth, and it is occupied by the wealthy who do not care about the poor.
Also how ’bout them Steelers? And man the Cowboys suck…
#211 The dead catcher speaks!
Who cares.
#212 USC of course. I am still waiting for Freuh to send me a recording of him singing the USC rouser.
Penn State is going to pull off a very close victory.
And the Eagles are going to the playoffs! What a game!
I’m pulling for Penn State, but expecting USC to win. It’s pretty much the same every year for the Big 10… spend a week in sunny southern CA and then expect to have their heads in the game – after being off six-weeks.
At least that School-Up-North will be home watching it like all the others.
#215
How bout them Vikings? and those Chargers!
How bout them Yankees….oh yeah, they didn’t make the playoffs so they are acting like a bunch of amatuer golfers, trying to spend their way to a good game and a championship. Heres hoping they still choke.
I think USC is in for a surprise. Penn State can redeem the Big Ten from the sins of the Buckeyes.
While we’re digressing from the OP, which has been pointed out in very creative manner, I’d like to ask you, PB, to answer the question I posed earlier in the generic “people” sense.
Why do you insist on restating that Rob Bell, in his TGAA tour, stated that God is not angry at sin when it has been clearly proven otherwise countless times?
At least you don’t sound completely ridiculous when you talk sports. That’s a far better topic for you than theology.
#221 I don’t understand the question.
I posted OP’s from two blogs, one from a conservative, one from an emergent who liked Bell, and they came up with the same conclusion.
#222
The dead catcher speaks again.
Who Cares.
#220
Phil Miller, when USC wins will you at least sing the USC rouser? Freuh still hasn’t paid up.
Apparently you do.
Although you care deeply about what Bell says, just not enough to actually read what he says.
And a myriad of others who you did not post have clearly stated that the premise of the messages was that the gods no longer have to be appeased through pagan sacrifices because of Jesus.
Rob Bell NEVER stated that night that God is not angry at sin. He just didn’t.
I was there.
And the dvd is available for you to see for yourself.
Just don’t buy it at one of those “moral” bookstores.
The word “angry” when applied to YHWY is an anthropomorphic term used in an understandable way to let us know that sin is not of YHWY and “His” justice. Let us not get all caught with terms that fall infinitely short of accurately depicting the character of YHWY by insisting “He” feels emotions in the way as do we.
YHWY does not experience vacillating emotions. He is not a man and not like us and all the terms used that are associated with mankind are object lessons and not actual realities in the homo sapien sense.
I hereby apply the ten blind blog men and the elephant principle.
#227
I just dropped $17 at Amazon for Bells book, as I promised Jerry I would.
I will not spend one more $$ in 2008 on Bell. Sorry.
There is the disconnect I see already. This is one of the premises (I understand) in this book. I support a mission in India. $17 US will feed the whole ministry and orphanage for a week. How dare Bell and his publisher charge that kind of money.
It doesn’t matter what he actual said… or what he actual meant… it’s what ADM’s make of it.
(cf. If Mr. Dumpty had a Blog)
Rick, I now proclaim you a Jonesian Emergent for using that illustration.
Here’s hoping this leads to relevant comments. I’d hope for an accurate reading as well… but… baby steps to discernment, baby steps to discernment. First actual read the guy, THEN interpret him correctly…
Well, 2009 is only two days away.
Plus, methinks you could borrow it from the library.
Look – besides other issues of after death evangelism or divine application of faithless grace, Bell and Paterson make some excellent points. We don’t need to be told how good and right we are, we need to be challenged to see the world as does Christ.
The fields, people, the fields. Here is my top ten list of hinderances to the church living out Jesus Christ:
TOP TEN
10. Junk food
9. Modern influence
8. Aversion to books
7. Hedonism
6. Doctrinal dissipation
5. Nationalism
4. Greed
3. Judgment
2. Blindness
And the number 1 reason the church does not reflect Jesus Christ?
Self-righteousness.
Compared to what John MacArthur charges for the bible and his commentary…$17 is cheap… it is also about the same as JM’s newer books…
As you know this is a new book and they will always be more expensive and drop later in price… In fact I bet in about 3 months I can buy it for around 5-10 bucks on Amazon…
So talk about disconnect!
iggy
I miss Amy…
Guilty as charged, Rick.
Well said.
Every item on your list is anti-Christ.
And #1 is by far the most subtle one with which I struggle.
Junk food is anti-Christ now? Wow… I’m screwed…
PB,
Again, you confuse unlimited atonement with universalism… and since you can’t grasp the difference I am not spending any more time on you with that topic… but man you are thicker than a brick…
Please go and get some education on the topic as you have no idea what you are talking about…
iggy
Phil – junk food is the least of your problems.
Got me, Phil.
Nice.
We watched “Super Size Me” recently. And now my wife calls McDonalds the devil. We get a laugh out of it.
All I want for New Years is Rick Freuh and Phil Miller singing together the USC rouser when USC wallops Penn State.
TOP TEN MOST ANNOYING COMMENTING STYLES
10. The always agreeable
9. The three word confusing comment
8. Every word mispelled
7. The “who is he talking about” comment
6. The “I have credentials” comment
5. The “so and so says” comment
4. The false humility comment
3. Referencing the five solas comment
2. The rebuke laden, personal invective filled comment
And the number 1 most annoying comment:
The drive by, swoop in, and self righteous bomb strafing verbal assault that usually provides no purpose other than further expose the “I am always right” attitude that is so dear to God’s heart.
How much was that new ESV Bible you keep boasting about?
You are such a hypocrite, PB.
Rick, you forgot
11.) The “tell Rick how right and humble he is” comment.
“11.) The “tell Rick how right and humble he is” comment.”
That belongs on the top ten most spiritual comments list.
TOP TEN THINGS I LIKE ABOUT CHRIS LYONS
10. ?
9. ?
8. ?
7. ?
6. ?
5. ?
4. ?
3. ?
2. His school lays down for Notre Dame
And the number 1 thing I like about Chris Lyons:
The spiritual leadership his wife Zan exhibits over the family.
TOP TEN THINGS I LIKE ABOUT CHRIS LYONS
10. How he can sweep in after a prolonged silence and bring clarity and sanity to confusion and lunacy.
“10. How he can sweep in after a prolonged silence and bring clarity and sanity to confusion and lunacy.”
That is more of annoying trait!
As I am in a Christian bookstore I thought I would just take a sample of a few books…
Jesus by Chuck Swindoll – 24.99
Twelve Extraordinary Women by Johnny Mac – 14.99
A Tale of Two Sons by Johnny Mac – 22.99
Don’t Waste your Life by John Piper – 13.99
The Hidden Smile of God by Piper – 14.99
The MacArthur NT Commentary – 26.99
The MacArthur Study Bible – 64.99
Harping about the price of the book, PB, is perhaps the stupidest thing I have ever read from you (and that is not an easy task!)
The MacArthur Bible was actually found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.
#245
I didn’t spend a dime. It was a gift. And it would be rude to ask, but, it is, being a gift from an unknown person at a known church to a Pastor, a gift that is to be used in ministry and will be used in evangelism which will hopefully bring people to a knowledge of the truth and to the Savior.
And it is the ESV, after all. I know, you hate it because it is purported to be a ‘Calvainist’ translation.
Dang PB… I was thinking about buying one… but if it is a Calvinist translation…. I will have to stay away from it…
Saying you know all about the Mass and still being able to worship in the midst of this idolatry is pretty bad…
I won’t say stupid. That is pretty condescending and judgmental.
Chad,
#245, I think PB was mocking my comment about my dinner with my family last night.
jerry
PB,
Did you call your local library to see if they can get you the dvd “The Gods Aren’t Angry”?
#253
purported…supposedly.
It is a good read, Iggy
and RC Sproal is giving them away, so it is worth a shot
through Ligoner ministries…
Just for fun, let’s try this:
Before we use the hypocrite word again, I am declaring a photo finish, dead heat tie on all of us. It’s just that some like to parade it a little more.
#255
No, Jerry, I wasn’t
I was commenting on the price of books when within the book they criticize American Christianity for how they spend their money…like on books.
I have thought very recently (the day before Christmas eve) when I dropped $60 in a restaurant for my family plus two how that money could be better spent. So I am right there with you.
Then, there’s this gem:
# 258
Where did that quote come from?
Jerry,
Stop trying to divert us from…oh…nevermind.
Well you could always stop commentating on what you don’t know, leave the internet entirely and use that extra time working a part time job in order to send more money to India. Of course, then you wouldn’t get your ego stroked by your amen chorus.
And don’t forget this classic:
I loved Eugene Peterson’s stuff
until he wrote the Message.
#264
The dead catcher speaks
Why would I comment here if I wanted an Amen Chorus?
Most of these folks here pick up verbal stones to hurl at me with each comment I make.
What sort of things is he thinking of?
Amen.
Physician, (CRN.Info) heal thyself.
And the mirror shines back my way also. I need to read scripture and allow it to shine the light into the crevices of my heart so I can be changed.
And if you notice, we engage descent, even Evan, when the comments are relevant and coherent. try it sometime.
I don’t think the point of the book is to criticize American Christianity for how it spend its money, per se, other than to show that when one live a self-focused life, it becomes a sort of prison cell. It builds walls between us and people we supposedly serve.
So I don’t think Bell would want anyone to feel guilty about going out to dinner, buying a book, etc, but I do think he would want people to live with an awareness of how they’re living.
Personally, I don’t think guilt is a very helpful emotion. I don’t really think it’s something God wants us to live in. I think repentance should cause us to look forward, not backwards.
OMG, can’t believe I’m going to do this:
PB, have you read the Message?
Peterson also wrote a book called Eat This Book wherein he explains the rationale behind his translation if the Hebrew and Greek.
That’s all I’m going to say on this matter. I said before, I will defend Peterson tooth and nail if I have to.
While we have our faults, deciding who’s in and who’s out is not one of them.
Ya think?
TOP TEN THINGS A CHRISTIAN MUST DO
10. Watch others
9. Make weird faces about things he disagrees with
8. Walk proudly
7. Vote conservative (Republican)
6. Dress up for church
5. Collect news articles of other’s sins
4. Bash, label, eviscerate, and pronounce damnation on all gays
3. Pull up as many tares as possible
2. Have the Westminster Confession tatooed on your forehead
And the number 1 thing a Christian must do:
Always, and I mean ALWAYS, believe you are right and are called to use that rightness to clobber everyone else.
And neither does Rob Bell.
He addressed this at the “Isn’t She Beautiful” conference a few years ago.
There is a difference between guilt and awareness.
There is also a difference between conviction and condemnation. One comes from the Holy Spirit. The other comes from our enemy and accuser.
#272
Read it through in six months during my ordination year.
Read many of his books in my Masters program. Liked them. Hate the Message.
Guilt is the wrong word.
Pre-correction awareness.
Better.
Phil,
I suspect you are right. There is no point feeling guilty for being Americans… for being rich by global standards. But how this effects our efforts and lifestyle is the issue.
It will be interesting to see where Bell goes with his juxtaposition of the church and it’s $20 million complex and the nearby poor.
This is the easiest thing ever to answer. Because your little link buddies encourage you as you “fight for the faith”. Your audience isn’t anyone here, its all the sideline keyboard warrior fundamentalists that you wouldn’t dare to criticize if they started quoting Mein Kampf.
I’m not a big fan either, but it’s not like he’s all of a sudden gone to the dark-side… I mean most of the objections to it are just – well, silly.
There some good parts of Mein Kampf, let’s not through the baby out with the Holocost. :cost:
lol, PB. I love that you continue to try to pigeon hole me. I am coming to love the adjective “slippery.”
FYI – I purchased an ESV Bible just last week. It’s a compact one I can carry around in my bag wherever I go.
I love it.
I’m not like you, PB. I don’t show disdain on something just because I don’t agree with their “system.” I don’t avoid Mass or Catholics because I truly believe God can teach me something anywhere, anytime, through any means. Any opportunity to worship, read scripture, pray, be with saints, have my gaze directed upward – all good.
Give it back right now.
If I were an ADM I’d twist that to mean you deleted all the parts about God’s judgment… but I’m not, so I won’t.
you mean, pray to saints?
The live ones are not in that church….
the dead ones would not want to be venerated as they do…
lol Neil. And if I were an ADM with a compact Bible you could charge me with removing all the parts about God’s love, mercy and desire for healing all creation.
PB,
I don’t get why you hate the “Message” so much. All I had for years as a young Christian was the KJV and The Way… and if not for The Way I would not have understood much of what was written… later I recieved an NIV as a gift.
To me each has a purpose… If I just wanted to read the story or narrative and enjoy it and a different perspective… (AKA The Way was written by a Baptist so has a Baptist theological slant) I would never do a serious study using The Way or The Message… but I will sit and read the Message and just enjoy the story and see things I have not seen before… Personally I think John 1 is harder to understand in the Message than in the NKJV or NIV… yet as I read through Galatians it was truly a good experience.
I think the issue is you let others decide what is good or bad and then you cannot be open to trust yourself and have any real opinion that is your own… most the time here I see you regurgitate others thoughts and views… and on occasion you do use your own thoughts you tend to agree with those you act like you disagree…
That is why I say that legalism will hold one in bondage and not allow them to grow as people… My hope is that you grow as the person Jesus wants you to be and not other men that you seek approval from… and don’t say you don’t reading your comments makes it painfully obvious you care much of others thoughts of you… We all have this tendency… but it comes out in who you quote and how you say things.
iggy
Announcing -
I am in a humorous mood today, so being a little tired of the “at the gate” back and forth I will interject some light and witty comments designed to both provide some perspective and to mock everyone’s intellect from a vantage point that no one here has scaled.
Your humble servant -
Rick – the humble one.
Thus sayeth PB. Who needs Jesus when we already have the Judge among us?
Your ability to discern the spiritual status of millions of individual people with one fell swoop is truly mind-boggling.
Who needs Jesus when there is no one to judge?
By the way, the RCC will officially excommunicate you and consign you to hell if they find you enough of a heretic. Several years ago they allowed Martin Luther back.
Kinda like a game of monopoly with a get out of jail card. I own Boardwalk personally.
I will for the sake of this thread and the internet as a whole, enter a unilateral pact not to respond to Pastorboy unless he is relevant.
Who’s with me?
Neil
I’m sure, Rick, that you think that is profound. As I have said repeatedly, ALL will be judged. Your disagreement with me is not over whether God judges or not or whom God judges – it is with what that judgment is about and what God intends by it. I am happy for you to disagree – at least do so for the right reasons. Thank you.
I know of 5 live saints that still attend the RCC personally.
If a person truly understands justification by faith, the grace of God, the finished sacrifice of Christ, they would not attend the RCC.
The ones I know purposely attend to win those who are lost within the church.
Of course, Chad believes they are all going to heaven regardless of their belief, so it is a great fit.
Oh, well if you want to do that its pretty easy.
1. Don’t read or listen to any actual source material. Be sure to only read the very tiny select bits offered up from select sources.
2. Don’t actually get to know anyone from the selected group you want to condemn. I can’t emphasize this enough. Make sure that any and all conversations don’t deal with actual people and what they actually believe and how they actually act. It all needs to remain hypothetical and subservient to rule 1.
Neil – I am not with you or Paul or Cephas or…well, you get the picture. While I am not always in agreement with John’s method of commenting, I also journey through some of Iggy’s more meandering and head scratching comments and have learned to live with the slight headaches some of them cause.
Neil asks what are these things?
Legalism, salvation by works (like is taught at Saddleback, the RCC, etc.) Politicians as saviors, etc.
There are far too many things to list. Really, it is Jesus PLUS anything….it is the anything and the PLUS Jesus came to set us free from.
Lighten up, Chad. Turn off the forcefield and let’s have some fun. Thursday we can catch up with the usual back and forths.
Don’t make me call on Lyons to come out of the cave!
#296
I quoted original source material in regards to the Mass.
I attended Catholic school and took religious training from them before being saved.
I have had multiple conversations with Catholics, saved and unsaved, about their faith.
Clearly, dead catchers know nothing about me.
I agree… except for the erroneous and needless swipe at Saddleback (a simple reading of their doctrinal statements shows you are wrong).
I was, though, hoping for what Bell saw as “the list” according to his book.
I wasn’t writing to you. You must have felt awfully convicted.
And Chad – you and I can interact on a Biblical level, and on a humorous level, but your attempt at intellectual interaction with me are embarrassing and I refuse to take advantage of a brother who continues to fall into an intellectual ditch.
I promise to heal your wounds and bring you to intellectual rehab. There are many people whose lives I have destroyed simply because they attempted to engage me on my level, I didn’t want to do it but I felt I owed it to them.
Rick, rather than give the money to the inn-keeper for my well being I’d prefer you just send it to my offshore account.
I need the money to buy more books written by anti-christs.
EXTRA CREDIT
Can anyone name the movie from which I quoted in my last sentence on comment #303?
I’m not sure I understand what you mean by this.
As I understand it, one of Bell’s points is/will be the tendency of evangelicals to create a system, then impose that system on the Bible – this making it “mine” – then using this “altered” Bible as a way of deciding who’s in the club and who is not.
My point was to say we, as a whole, do not engage in the exercise of deciding who’s in and who’s out.
Contra most ADM’s.
To those who are interested, I just finished a synopsis of chapter three for Who Will Be Saved?
Divine Abundance.
Oh, you are clarifying the ‘we’. That’s fine.
Chad, I finished 2.5 chapters last night. Fantastic book so far.
jerry-
sweet.
#308
Do I actually have to read the book to comment?
#311–this is another book you should want to read.
I just received a new ESV compact Bible. Sweet cover. I can carry it with me too. I also didn’t spend a dime.
I truly had no idea. Poor guy.
#313
I want one…how do we aquire these free Bibles?
#315,
I could tell you but then I’d have to….Oh wait no I can’t tell you. Let’s just say that you should use whole quotes not selected partial ones. That’d be a good start.
I bought the book and finished the intro and chapter one this evening. Interesting view of Israel as empire. I look forward to how he fleshes this out.
One thing is for sure, you cannot deny Bell takes the Bible very very seriously… nor deny he takes a high view of it.
Though I think I found a typo.
You should claim your money back!
This:
and this:
sounds similar to subjects that Claiborne and Haw touches on in Jesus for President.
Eugene – yeah, they are similar.
One of the major themes is the church’s forgetfulness.
It is amazing to see how much our story parallels Israel’s story (both as a church and a nation). When we forget our story and forget why we were freed we take on a sense of entitlement which is contradictory to the gospel. That, I think more than anything else, is what Jesus wants to save us Christians from.
I am going to use my gift cerificate to buy the book, however I need no convincing being a-national. I also see some beneficial support in studying the Old Testament and Israel, however if we take the New Testament literally, forget abot the heaven and hell issue, and we see what we are called to be BOTH in the words in red and the epistles, we still have a long, long, LONG way to go.
If 1 million American believers started on 1/1/09 to live “in His steps” for real, it would only be a short time before they would make news both in and out of the church. Our problem is we have consistently redefined what God desires from our lives in order to satisfy our flesh, mesh with the culture, and soothe our religious conscience without any pain and sacrifice.
I may noy agree with all Bell says and who he has as friends, but the idea of a new revolution, breaking up the fallow ground of orthodox conformity, is very appealing to someone like me who sees such entrenched sameness in the comfortable evangelical contentment that has become blind to their smug immobilization.
I also am attracted to the Clairborne model, not doctrinally, but lifestyle. It is impossible for us to actually see just how short we fall from New Testament Christianity and in many ways we are not Christian at all except in words.
Typo?
On page 049 there are notations for end notes #61 and #62… but in the end notes themselves there is a 63rd end note… which has no notation in the text.
Those typos sound familiar. I kind of remember the same thing. Probably a last minute change that didn’t get followed through on. Oh well…
I’m sure it is some sort of code to the demonic underworld who are poised to destroy the church on Bell’s command.
#323
good call, Chad.
I am nearly half way through. It’s interesting how this dove-tails with N. T. Wright’s Surprised by Hope. Though the latter is more theological while this is certainly devotional.
Yeah – just thought I’d point it… plus I thought it worth encouraging others to read the end notes as well.
I’ve found that with Bell, too. I think the one thing that he does very well is take what for many people would be dry, theological BS and condense it and present in a way that’s highly accessible to most readers. I’ve read quite a lot of Wright since I first read Bell, and many times I’m like, “this sounds familiar”, and I remember I’ve either read it or heard it from Bell.
Another person I’ve found Bell has borrowed heavily from is Stanley Grenz. His whole trampoline/springs analogy was pretty much taken from Grenz’s Beyond Foundationalism.
I would not call theology dry or BS – but I know what ya mean, Phil.
RATS! – I have finished chapter five, and if I could I would probably finish the book today… but… alas, I must prepare for guests tomorrow.
It’s too early to tell exactly how Bell will apply all this – but one thing is for certain. There is nothing in it (up to this point) that is not in accord with orthodox Christianity… no fodder for the ADM’s… unless they silvanize it, revise it, forget the context and the genre…