|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Rob Bell - 9/2/2008 1:37:30 PM
|
|
|
crankius
Posts: 4504
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Thanks for offering correction. If I were truly believing myself to be without error, I would desperately need your admonishment.
I don't believe at all that I am without error.
I believe that we are to judge all teachings according to the Scriptures, not according to Crankius or Rob Bell.
quote:
What I find interesting that ( and I feel sorry for some in the emergent circles for these thoughts) they seem to think they have come up with a new ideal. Yet they forgot what Solomon wrote there is nothing new under the sun.
Agree!
quote:
I want to tell you a true story about a Pastor who was until he found out he had ALS. Was a teaching Pastor for a large church here in Grand Rapids, MI.. There were people who would come up to him and say to him. Well you must have commited a great sin for this to happen to you.
What in the world are we who say we are christians, and have I would say evil words come out of our mouths like that. Which doesn't have any kind thoughts behind them. To say you are innnocent of such crimes. I would like to shake yopur hand for you have control over your whole body.
That is a terrible situation. I'm not sure what that has to do with me, though.
_____________________________
Do not be overly righteous, Nor be overly wise: Why should you destroy yourself?
Ecclesiastes 7:16
SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 9/2/2008 1:42:16 PM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 1066
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: crankius
Also, in much of the margins I have written “me me me”. His theology strikes me as very me-centered instead of God-centered.
Around page 114 he discusses “the relentless pursuit of who God made me to be.”
p. 150 "Somewhere in you is the you whom you were made to be."
His theology on this concept fits in very well with modern Christianity. He is very hung up on the kind of Oprah Christianity that we are to be who we are meant to be, and this is the be all end all—kind of like the Army motto of “be all you can be”.
Christianity is entirely Christ-centered. It’s all about God, and honoring Him and bringing Him glory. We bring Him glory when we listen to the Holy Spirit, when we are led by the Spirit and not by the flesh, when we read God’s statutes and write them on our heart, mind, and soul, when we pursue God with all our strength, etc. The greatest commandment is to love the Lord with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. It’s not all about us becoming the ideal we were meant to be.
In fact, repeatedly God chooses the very weakest in life because through their weakness He can show His strength. It’s all about Him.
At the conclusion of “two realms” he states: "The goal isn’t escaping this world but making this world the kind of place God can come to. And God is remaking us into the kind of people who can do this kind of work.” pg. 150
This is so wrong, it’s hard to know where to begin describing how wrong it is. Christ reigns in a kingdom not of this world. The ruler of this world is Satan. It is not our job to make this world a place where God can come—it is our job to bring all glory to God, and through Christ, we are reconciled to God. We are not reconciling God to the world.
Unrelated question: Does anyone know Rob Bell’s stance on hell? I’m still finishing the book so I don’t know if he clarifies by the end.
I am not here to slam you but this is not reading scripture in what Jesus was teaching one day.He said this" I tell you the truth. I am the gate for the sheep. All you ever came before me(Which alot of false messiah even the one on the throne in Rome)were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. I am the gate; whoever enters throught me will be saved. He will come in and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destory; I have come that you may have life and to the full".
Which would have me think I have a stake in my life. Or what I can make life out to be like. Priest who goes to the other side of the road or a Samartian who is desiped and rejected. Helps someone in need. What decisions we can make every minute of the day. Does count towards how we worship the All Mighty acording to Isaiah 58.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 9/2/2008 1:47:57 PM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 1066
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
I want to tell you a true story about a Pastor who was until he found out he had ALS. Was a teaching Pastor for a large church here in Grand Rapids, MI.. There were people who would come up to him and say to him. Well you must have commited a great sin for this to happen to you.
What in the world are we who say we are christians, and have I would say evil words come out of our mouths like that. Which doesn't have any kind thoughts behind them. To say you are innnocent of such crimes. I would like to shake yopur hand for you have control over your whole body.
That is a terrible situation. I'm not sure what that has to do with me, though.
That was to be put just to you. I am sorry if you took it that way  . I have found myself saying not those words but close to those. For other reasons than what Iwrote about here. Which hurt other individuals. Which thank God who is merciful to me that when I came to them and apologisy to them, they forgave me.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 9/2/2008 2:03:57 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 512
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mcleod
Crankious, We know you think that Bell is a fool as far as scriptures are being used by him. That he teaches a me me form of that also. Could I write this without a lot of persucution from you and admins.
Would you be surprise that Jesus, when you get to infront of him and he might say to you. Say you miss interput some of my teachings. While yopu walk down her on earth.
I want to tell you a true story about a Pastor who was until he found out he had ALS. Was a teaching Pastor for a large church here in Grand Rapids, MI.. There were people who would come up to him and say to him. Well you must have commited a great sin for this to happen to you.
What in the world are we who say we are christians, and have I would say evil words come out of our mouths like that. Which doesn't have any kind thoughts behind them. To say you are innnocent of such crimes. I would like to shake yopur hand for you have control over your whole body.
Let's get real in this matter and say we don't have it down pat yet. For the stories of the children of Israel. They could not get it straight most of the time. So when we think there is no place of improvement in our lives. We can not hear the voice of God, and we have indeed to decieved ourselves.
What I find interesting that ( and I feel sorry for some in the emergent circles for these thoughts) they seem to think they have come up with a new ideal. Yet they forgot what Solomon wrote there is nothing new under the sun.
mcleod,
I know you directed this to Crankius, but I'd like to respond to the two embolded sections:
1st: As Crankius commented we are to test everything according to Scripture. Is it possible that we misunderstand some things? Yes.
Is it possible that we don't understand things fully? OH YEAH!!!
That said, some teachings in the Bible are so clear as to be beyond misunderstanding. On those issues, such as salvation, we cannot use that excuse to accept new teachings.
2nd: Agreed!
quote:
Which would have me think I have a stake in my life. Or what I can make life out to be like. Priest who goes to the other side of the road or a Samartian who is desiped and rejected. Helps someone in need. What decisions we can make every minute of the day. Does count towards how we worship the All Mighty acording to Isaiah 58.
I'm not necessarily taking issue with you on the above quote. I am asking for clarification. Are you saying that by doing good deeds for people you can make your life better? Are you saying that by doing good things for people you can be considered a follower of Jesus because those are the types of things He did? Or are you limiting this to say that authentic followers of Jesus can't help but to do good deeds for people, and if they don't it will effect the legitimacy of their worship?
_____________________________
MUSHHEAD
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. Matt. 7:6
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 9/2/2008 2:52:53 PM
|
|
|
crankius
Posts: 4504
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Mcleod,
quote:
I am not here to slam you but this is not reading scripture in what Jesus was teaching one day.He said this" I tell you the truth. I am the gate for the sheep. All you ever came before me(Which alot of false messiah even the one on the throne in Rome)were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. I am the gate; whoever enters throught me will be saved. He will come in and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destory; I have come that you may have life and to the full".
Which would have me think I have a stake in my life. Or what I can make life out to be like. Priest who goes to the other side of the road or a Samartian who is desiped and rejected. Helps someone in need. What decisions we can make every minute of the day. Does count towards how we worship the All Mighty acording to Isaiah 58.
I'm not sure I understand your post. Maybe after you clarify I will be able to respond.
Is this the passage you are addressing?
quote:
John 10:7-10 Then Jesus said to them again, "Most assuredly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who ever came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly."
And which part of my post did you think was contrary to John 10:7-10?
_____________________________
Do not be overly righteous, Nor be overly wise: Why should you destroy yourself?
Ecclesiastes 7:16
SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 9/2/2008 3:57:07 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2911
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mushhead
Sanctification is the change of heart and behavior. It is a process that begins with salvation and cannot happen apart from salvation.
Exactly my point. The distinction is a nice theological construct and valuable in an intellectual sense, but in terms of practical feet-on-the-ground living, making the intellectual distinction doesn't really impact my day-to-day behavior.
If his goal was a theological treatise, then the distinction is helpful. Bell's goal with this book is definitely NOT theologically precise teaching. He's more focused on my behavior as a Christian and what God's redemption really means for us in practical terms.
Given that kind of goal, blurring the lines between salvation and sanctification isn't such a fatal sin to me. The two fundamentally work hand-in-hand anyway.
_____________________________
“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.” -H.L. Mencken
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 9/2/2008 4:21:52 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2911
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: crankius
And another quote (but you'd have to read this in context to see what he is up to):
p 82: “The presentation often begins with sin and the condition of human beings, separated from God and without hope in the world. God then came up with a way to fix the problem by sending Jesus, who came to the world to give us a way out of the mess we find ourselves in. So if we were to draw a continuum of the story of the Bible, Jesus essentially shows up late in the game.” bold added by me.
He has built a straw man so that he may destroy it. Jesus is not late in the game, and a clear presentation of Scriptural truth DOES NOT state or indicate that Jesus is late in the game. 
I think to adequately critique this section, you need to quote the section that follows and contains the point he's trying to make. Yes, Jesus - the physical incarnation of God on this earth - does arrive late to the game. From Bell, p. 82 "But the first Christians didn't see it this way (i.e. that Christ was somehow haphazardly inserted into time in order to just "fix" the sin problem) ... they believed that Jesus was somehow more, that Jesusd had actually been present since before creation and had been a part of the story all along."
He's using the idea of Christ as the Word/Logos in John to support his contention that if there is something that's true in the universe, whatever it's source, we as Christians can accept it and let it inform our faith. What's true is true. What's true is of God. What's true in God's creation has it's roots in the Word through whom all that exists was made.
I don't see a problem here at all.
Edit: That's no straw man. I recently received a PM from someone who was very uncomfortable with the two quotes on my signature line. Both quotes are from two people who were no friends to the faith. Particularly, it was H.L. Mencken that had them bent out of shape. He/She wondered how I could use such an anti-faith person as an example of wisdom. To me, that's easy. While Mencken and I disagree on the solution, we both agree profoundly on the natural state of mankind. Mencken had a very accurate view of what the unredeemed state of humankind is like. He was a bit misanthropic, and he offered no great solutions to the problem, but many of his quotes reveal some profoundly true aspects of what it is to be human.
There are wisdom in those words of Mencken's. The person who wrote them may not have been blessed with Christian wisdom, but the words are true. The old saying, "even a blind squirrel can find a nut once in a while" rings true. While the squirrel may be blind, the nut that he found is still a nut.
< Message edited by GroupW -- 9/2/2008 4:28:01 PM >
_____________________________
“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.” -H.L. Mencken
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 9/2/2008 4:36:02 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2911
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: crankius
Another quote from Bell:
p. 83 "I don't follow Jesus because I think Christianity is the best religion. I follow Jesus because he leads me into ultimate reality. He teaches me to live in tune with how reality is. When Jesus said, "No one comes to the Father except through me", he was saying that his way, his words, his life is our connection to how things truly are at the deepest levels of existence. For Jesus then, the point of religion is to help us connect with ultimate reality, God."
For Jesus the point of religion...???
Jesus literally is the only way for us to know God, be redeemed, have atonement, be justified, etc.
By Bell trying to cleverly rephrase Scripture in post-modern language, he is eroding and changing the meaning. Since he is intelligent and reads his Bible, I can only conclude that he is doing this intentionally. It's quite shameful.
One one side of the chasm is man. On the other side, God. Is there anything else beyond faith that can bridge the gap? What is the purpose of faith if NOT to bridge the gap. I'm not sure how meaning is being distorted here.
Christ's life, his words, his example really DO draw me into a connection with what is real. Apart from Him, I will not be able to know what is truly real. He draws me closer to the Father, which is the ultimate reality.
We HAVE to rephrase old truths in post-modern language. It's the lingua franca of today. We have to learn how to use it. We're learning how to do this, and no doubt will get some things wrong, but the attempt is a good thing.
_____________________________
“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.” -H.L. Mencken
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 9/2/2008 4:45:26 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2911
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: crankius
p. 165—“The church doesn’t exist for itself; it exists to serve the world. It is not ultimately about the church; it’s about all the people God wants to bless through the church.”
He believes this is when “the church is at its best”. p. 168
According to Eph 4:11-16, the church has a distinct function as the Body of Christ. Leadership is given for “the equipping of the saints…for the edifying of the Body, till we all come to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God…for the edifying of itself in love.” Primarily, the church functions as a whole for the benefit of the church, not the world.
I would disagree most strongly with this. We, Christians - aka the church - are to be salt and light to the world. Check out Matthew 25 - God takes our responsibility to others very, very seriously. We are not to be inwardly focused, but outwardly missional. The church really IS at her best when she serves others - Christians and non-Christians alike.
_____________________________
“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.” -H.L. Mencken
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 9/2/2008 4:45:40 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 512
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
quote:
Exactly my point. The distinction is a nice theological construct and valuable in an intellectual sense, but in terms of practical feet-on-the-ground living, making the intellectual distinction doesn't really impact my day-to-day behavior.
Your right that knowing the theology might not impact your daily life per se, but you are wrong if you think that the theological instruct is only valuable in an intellectual sense. Theological truth is much more than a nice theological construct; instead it is the teaching by God about what God does and why.
quote:
If his goal was a theological treatise, then the distinction is helpful. Bell's goal with this book is definitely NOT theologically precise teaching. He's more focused on my behavior as a Christian and what God's redemption really means for us in practical terms.
If he is teaching about God then he is teaching theology. One mistake commonly made by proponants of the EC is the belief that emergent teachers are more concerned with real life issues than theology. They fail to understand that whatever they teach is theology. The question that must be investigated is: what is the theology behind their teachings.
quote:
Given that kind of goal, blurring the lines between salvation and sanctification isn't such a fatal sin to me. The two fundamentally work hand-in-hand anyway.
they don't work hand in hand. One (sanctification) is the result of the other (salvation). Blurring these lines could lead people to equate sanctification with salvation (which by the way is the emergent position). Also misleading people about how salvation is provided for us (and just as importantly, how we experience salvation) can very well be an eternally fatal mistake.
My question still stands (but now expanded): Obviously, Bell is very articulate, so why can he not describe the theology cleary - even if he uses contemporary language; or is he intentionally choosing to blur the lines?
Considering his affiliation with McLaren's theology, and apparently McLaren's choice of teaching style (lack of clarity because that is supposedly what Jesus did), I cannot help but to be very, very, skeptical of Bell's intentions.
_____________________________
MUSHHEAD
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. Matt. 7:6
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 9/2/2008 5:40:56 PM
|
|
|
crankius
Posts: 4504
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GroupW
quote:
ORIGINAL: crankius
And another quote (but you'd have to read this in context to see what he is up to):
p 82: “The presentation often begins with sin and the condition of human beings, separated from God and without hope in the world. God then came up with a way to fix the problem by sending Jesus, who came to the world to give us a way out of the mess we find ourselves in. So if we were to draw a continuum of the story of the Bible, Jesus essentially shows up late in the game.” bold added by me.
He has built a straw man so that he may destroy it. Jesus is not late in the game, and a clear presentation of Scriptural truth DOES NOT state or indicate that Jesus is late in the game.
I think to adequately critique this section, you need to quote the section that follows and contains the point he's trying to make. Yes, Jesus - the physical incarnation of God on this earth - does arrive late to the game. From Bell, p. 82 "But the first Christians didn't see it this way (i.e. that Christ was somehow haphazardly inserted into time in order to just "fix" the sin problem) ... they believed that Jesus was somehow more, that Jesusd had actually been present since before creation and had been a part of the story all along."
I agree it needs to be read in context. That's why I noted that clearly.
I have never heard a presentation of the Gospel that stated or indicated that Jesus came late in the game. Jesus was there in the beginning and the entire OT is filled with Christ, and any Bible teaching church teaches this. But, by making it seem like it is common, he has given himself a false foundation for presenting why we should embrace truth in new ways outside of Scripture.
quote:
He's using the idea of Christ as the Word/Logos in John to support his contention that if there is something that's true in the universe, whatever it's source, we as Christians can accept it and let it inform our faith. What's true is true. What's true is of God. What's true in God's creation has it's roots in the Word through whom all that exists was made.
1. Satan enjoys using 99% truth with 1% falsehood. When speaking with Eve, what he said was somewhat true, but not completely true. By "deconstructing" God's command to Eve, she saw the 99% truth and it was very attractive, so she ignored the extra 1% truth in God's command and gave in to a lie.
2. Scripture trumps human reasoning, human history books, and human tradition. I notice repeatedly that emergents consider all four as equals, and do not consider Scripture to be authoritative. It's like this: God is everywhere, therefore all things have truth, and therefore all things are mine." It's an attractive line of thinking, but not Scriptural.
3. It would be better to state, “To be a Christian is to recognize God’s Truth wherever you find it.” In other words, what often seems like truth to us isn’t actually God’s truth. Everything must be weighed against the truth in God’s Word to discern if it is God’s truth, or our tainted perspective of truth. Scripture speaks to this as the distinction between the world’s wisdom and God’s wisdom. What is true to God will be foolishness to the world, and this is a fact we have to accept. Bell doesn't make this distinction and doesn't endorse such use of Scriptural discernment.
_____________________________
Do not be overly righteous, Nor be overly wise: Why should you destroy yourself?
Ecclesiastes 7:16
SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 9/2/2008 5:55:27 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2911
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mushhead
quote:
Given that kind of goal, blurring the lines between salvation and sanctification isn't such a fatal sin to me. The two fundamentally work hand-in-hand anyway.
they don't work hand in hand. One (sanctification) is the result of the other (salvation). Blurring these lines could lead people to equate sanctification with salvation (which by the way is the emergent position). Also misleading people about how salvation is provided for us (and just as importantly, how we experience salvation) can very well be an eternally fatal mistake.
But they do. One doesn't exist without the other. They are intimately related - not inseparable, but so closely linked that dividing them apart too much risks introducing a totally different kind of error. For some purposes, I teach as if the two are the same thing, namely when I speak about what it is to live as a Christian. For other purposes, I teach as if the two are very distinct actions of God. This is what Bell's doing here, and he's not without some precedent. Arguably, the bible itself occasionally blurs the lines. For example, when Paul speaks of salvation as a process by using the present perfect tense:
1 Cor 1:
18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."[a]
2 Corinthians 2:14-16
14But thanks be to God, who always leads us in triumphal procession in Christ and through us spreads everywhere the fragrance of the knowledge of him. 15For we are to God the aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing. 16To the one we are the smell of death; to the other, the fragrance of life. And who is equal to such a task?
Blurring the lines does carry some risk, but so does excessive distinction. Draw the lines too firmly, and you end up with an equally distorted theology - that of "fire insurance salvation" where my post-salvation behavior is irrelevant as long as I've prayed the prayer.
In both directions there lies danger.
FYI - just to clarify - I don't think theology is valuable only in an intellectual sense, although there are aspects to certain theologal endeavors that approach this. If the emergent label fits me, though, it's to this extent - I remain deeply suspicious of all attempts at theology. I don't believe that human words and formulations will ever completely describe holy and heavenly things. I do not think any one has it completely right - McLaren, me, Earthless or Cranky. I generally don't think of theology as static. I believe our understanding of God - if the Holy Spirit is active in any sense at all - should grow with time. Not "change" necessarily, but "grow". There's a difference.
I value theology, and prize good theology above measure. But generally I agree with McLaren that theology alone isn't very good at evangelism or changing lives. On the grand spectrum of theology, you would find me somewhere to the left of Dallas seminary and somewhat to the right of McLaren. I'm most interested in that certain rare place where theology and behavior intersect. Right doing meets right thinking. East meets west.
_____________________________
“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.” -H.L. Mencken
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 9/2/2008 6:04:12 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2911
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: crankius
I agree it needs to be read in context. That's why I noted that clearly.
I have never heard a presentation of the Gospel that stated or indicated that Jesus came late in the game. Jesus was there in the beginning and the entire OT is filled with Christ, and any Bible teaching church teaches this. But, by making it seem like it is common, he has given himself a false foundation for presenting why we should embrace truth in new ways outside of Scripture.
quote:
2. Scripture trumps human reasoning, human history books, and human tradition. I notice repeatedly that emergents consider all four as equals, and do not consider Scripture to be authoritative. It's like this: God is everywhere, therefore all things have truth, and therefore all things are mine." It's an attractive line of thinking, but not Scriptural.
3. It would be better to state, “To be a Christian is to recognize God’s Truth wherever you find it.” In other words, what often seems like truth to us isn’t actually God’s truth. Everything must be weighed against the truth in God’s Word to discern if it is God’s truth, or our tainted perspective of truth. Scripture speaks to this as the distinction between the world’s wisdom and God’s wisdom. What is true to God will be foolishness to the world, and this is a fact we have to accept. Bell doesn't make this distinction and doesn't endorse such use of Scriptural discernment.
Not scriptural? But it is!
Phillipians 4
8Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. 9Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you.
It's the "whatever's" that are important. If it's true, think on it. If it's admirable, use it. Paul doesn't qualify this by saying that the peace of God will be with you, but only if those items came from Focus on the Family. I believe that God can redeem all things. If it's true, then I can use it/think on it - it's being redeemed.
Edit: I think your #2 is an exaggeration of Bell's and the EC's position. You are actively invited to test everything. Question everything. The bible is a good place to start. Your own gut isn't altogether unreliable. Science can help. Lay it all out there. (Note - I'm not putting science or anything else above the bible when I do this. I AM putting those things above my ability to know that I'm right. I'm not doubting the bible - I'm doubting my interpretive ability.)
One of my wife's professors actually advocates "gut feel" occasionally. When you read something in the bible, and things just don't seem to line up with the grand picture and you have an uneasiness in your stomach, maybe there's actually something else going on in that passage. Dig deeper. Pay attention to the nagging voice somewhere inside your skull that's telling you something's not right.
< Message edited by GroupW -- 9/2/2008 6:15:59 PM >
_____________________________
“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.” -H.L. Mencken
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 9/2/2008 6:13:49 PM
|
|
|
crankius
Posts: 4504
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Not scriptural? But it is!
Phillipians 4
8Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. 9Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you.
It's the "whatever's" that are important. If it's true, think on it. If it's admirable, use it. Paul doesn't qualify this by saying that the peace of God will be with you, but only if those items came from Focus on the Family. I believe that God can redeem all things. If it's true, then I can use it/think on it - it's being redeemed.
I'm not talking about Focus on the Family.
I'm talking about God's Words. How can I know if something is true? If something is 10% true, should I embrace it? What if a painting is painted well, but the painting is of something obscene?
Whose standards am I using to discern true, noble, excellent, etc.?
Where is the Scriptural discernment? Are all things mine?
_____________________________
Do not be overly righteous, Nor be overly wise: Why should you destroy yourself?
Ecclesiastes 7:16
SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 9/2/2008 6:29:07 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2911
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: crankius
quote:
Not scriptural? But it is!
Phillipians 4
8Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. 9Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you.
It's the "whatever's" that are important. If it's true, think on it. If it's admirable, use it. Paul doesn't qualify this by saying that the peace of God will be with you, but only if those items came from Focus on the Family. I believe that God can redeem all things. If it's true, then I can use it/think on it - it's being redeemed.
I'm not talking about Focus on the Family.
Sorry, I was being a bit sarcastic. I don't do sarcasm very well and should have known better than to use it. My apologies.
Yes, all things that are true are yours to use/think on/practice. If something is 10% true, then why not embrace the 10%? What's the alternative? Disavow the 10% that's true and ignore all 100% of it? Of course not. Grab onto the 10% and pitch the remaining 90% without so much as looking back. Maybe Ghandhi was not a Christian, but his theory of non-violent resistance was brilliant. Take the 10% he offers and go with it. Martin Luther King did that and was wildly successful. (Yes, a decent reading of the Gospels would have got him to the same place, but there's nothing like an example from the recent past to energize and idea.)
Whose standard? Depends. If it's something the bible opines on, then clearly that's a great place to start. There are things, however, the bible doesn't directly opine on - behavioral economics for example. There's a lot there that economists are discovering about how people make economic decisions. It's fascinating. The bible doesn't deal with this, but the knowledge complements and does not contradict biblical teaching. That truth is mine. It doesn't mean that I accept all the other baloney they come up with, but I can take what's useful from it.
On a more practical note, some counselors have provided my wife and me some specific tools to use for communicating more effectively. They work. That truth is mine. I don't see those techniques anywhere in the bible, but they work so they are mine.
Also, there are times it's ok to let science for example inform our interpretations of the bible. There are a few notable examples of what happens when we fail to do this - you've seen the "sun orbits around the earth" / geocentrism threads. It's just plain embarrasing.
_____________________________
“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.” -H.L. Mencken
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 9/2/2008 6:32:00 PM
|
|
|
crankius
Posts: 4504
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
One of my wife's professors actually advocates "gut feel" occasionally. When you read something in the bible, and things just don't seem to line up with the grand picture and you have an uneasiness in your stomach, maybe there's actually something else going on in that passage. Dig deeper. Pay attention to the nagging voice somewhere inside your skull that's telling you something's not right.
That phrasing'--"gut feel"--strikes me as odd. It's very Mormon, though I am sure he doesn't mean it that way.
A more Scriptural way to state it would be to test your understanding with the whole of scripture, and pray that the Holy Spirit leads you into truth.
Anyway, I am working on a response to the language issue--but I don't quite have it ready yet.
_____________________________
Do not be overly righteous, Nor be overly wise: Why should you destroy yourself?
Ecclesiastes 7:16
SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 9/2/2008 6:45:39 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2911
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: crankius
quote:
One of my wife's professors actually advocates "gut feel" occasionally. When you read something in the bible, and things just don't seem to line up with the grand picture and you have an uneasiness in your stomach, maybe there's actually something else going on in that passage. Dig deeper. Pay attention to the nagging voice somewhere inside your skull that's telling you something's not right.
That phrasing'--"gut feel"--strikes me as odd. It's very Mormon, though I am sure he doesn't mean it that way.
A more Scriptural way to state it would be to test your understanding with the whole of scripture, and pray that the Holy Spirit leads you into truth.
Anyway, I am working on a response to the language issue--but I don't quite have it ready yet.
It would sound scriptural, but would be utterly useless as advice for those times that I'm talking about. The way you say it would be more in keeping with "church speak", but I tend to avoid church-ese at all costs. If I said it that way to my post modern friends, they would have absolutely no earthly clue what I was saying. I might as well say it in German.
The "gut feel" phrasing is intentional - what do you feel / perceive when you read an awkward passage and it doesn't seem to fit? You feel an uneasiness, a cognitive dissonance. That's your brain telling you that something is not quite right. The prof is saying "pay attention to that. Look into it. Test it out."
That's the same as the church-speak admonition to pray and seek the Spirit's guidance, but it's phrased in terms of something that's identifiable (cognitive dissonance) and actionable along a multitude of fronts - prayer, study, research, introspection, analysis of my own biases, etc.
The underlying process is the same but the words are different.
_____________________________
“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.” -H.L. Mencken
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 9/2/2008 7:15:52 PM
|
|
|
crankius
Posts: 4504
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
But the wisdom of the world is foolishness to God. What seems wise to us, or sits right with our gut, very well likely could conflict with God's truth.
It is not useless advice. It is using Scriptural truth to tell people to pray throughout their studies, and then to reflect and study on what the whole of Scripture states on the given topic. It's not "church-speak", but rather straight from Scripture. The Holy Spirit guides us into truth, and like the Bereans we are to study throughout the scriptures to discern truth.
I just can't imagine placing so much authority in my feelings.
I think it's more than just the words that are different in these approaches. Words have meaning--the meaning changes as we change the words.
Why so much fear in using the Scriptural language, especially with seminary students?
_____________________________
Do not be overly righteous, Nor be overly wise: Why should you destroy yourself?
Ecclesiastes 7:16
SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 9/2/2008 7:33:50 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2911
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: crankius
But the wisdom of the world is foolishness to God. What seems wise to us, or sits right with our gut, very well likely could conflict with God's truth.
It is not useless advice. It is using Scriptural truth to tell people to pray throughout their studies, and then to reflect and study on what the whole of Scripture states on the given topic. It's not "church-speak", but rather straight from Scripture. The Holy Spirit guides us into truth, and like the Bereans we are to study throughout the scriptures to discern truth.
I just can't imagine placing so much authority in my feelings.
I think it's more than just the words that are different in these approaches. Words have meaning--the meaning changes as we change the words.
Why so much fear in using the Scriptural language, especially with seminary students?
It's not fear that's causing the change in language - it's searching for communication methods that work with the students coming in today. It's exactly the same spiritual process of prayer/study/examination, but I've described it in a way that today's student finds accessible and descriptive.
Yes, words have meaning and meaning changes as we change the words. Words and the meanings we associate with them change over time anyway, though. Sometimes, we actually have to start using different words in order to get back to the same meaning that the old words had. It's natural linguistic evolution. If we stick with the old words & phrases, users of the more current phraseology will attach meaning to those words that we did not intend. We must change.
Changing the language we use is something that is necessary. The language we used 30 years ago just doesn't work the same way today. The same words have inintended baggage that they carry now.
I have a choice - I can keep using the same language and try to change the way people think so the words become meaningful, or I can use words and phrases that are meaningful today and don't require people to change their thought patterns.
As the (theoretically) more mature Christian, I think the burden is on me to adapt to be understood by others not the other way around. The more mature you are, the greater the responsibility to be able to adjust our language in response to others. Unfortunately, the reverse is the more common. The older we get, the more entrenched we become in our communication style.
As far as placing authority in feelings, you misunderstand my point. Feelings are not the authority. They are merely warning lights on your dashboard. Just indicators of a possible problem, not definitive answers. I suspect that you subconsciously do the exact same thing the professor is advocating. You read a passage and think, "Hmmm - doesn't seem right." Then you go and search, study, explore, pray, meditate, examine, etc. until you figure it out.
Just like the warning lights on your car, bad things happen theologically when we ignore those instances of cognitive dissonance, or stomach acid, or fishy smell or whatever you want to call it.
Same thing. Different words.
_____________________________
“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.” -H.L. Mencken
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 9/2/2008 7:36:27 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2911
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: crankius
But the wisdom of the world is foolishness to God. What seems wise to us, or sits right with our gut, very well likely could conflict with God's truth.
Absolutely true. One's "gut" is not a replacement for sound spiritual practice, knowledge, study, etc.
_____________________________
“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.” -H.L. Mencken
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 9/2/2008 7:47:33 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2911
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: crankius
What seems wise to us, or sits right with our gut, very well likely could conflict with God's truth.
It is not useless advice. It is using Scriptural truth to tell people to pray throughout their studies, and then to reflect and study on what the whole of Scripture states on the given topic. It's not "church-speak", but rather straight from Scripture. The Holy Spirit guides us into truth, and like the Bereans we are to study throughout the scriptures to discern truth.
But to someone who doesn't know what you mean when you use those words, you might as well be speaking Greek. People today are not familiar with the bible like they used to be. Many have limited church backgrounds. They just don't know. You have to break it down for them. They need words that are recognizeable and actionable. I can explain "cognitive dissonance" or "gut feeling". We know what those things are.
I can tell them to "test their understanding against the whole of scripture." That works, but it's not sufficient. I need to tell them to test it until you've resolved the conflict and brought the passages into line with the whole of scripture and everything else that we know for certain. I need to be more concrete. I need to tell them what it means to "test their understanding."
I can tell them to pray and seek the Spirit's guidance, but they don't know what that means. I need to tell them about interpretive bias, the need to examine your own heart and see if the "cognitive dissonance" is just my own sinful heart rebelling against what I otherwise would recognize as true. I need to tell them HOW to examine their heart and HOW to seek the Spirit's guidance.
I wish with all my heart that someone had broken it down for me like that 35 years ago. It would have saved me much grief and futile effort. People kept using the church-speak words but I didn't know what they meant or how to do it.
The advice was good. It's not that the advice is useless. The words people chose to wrap around the idea though made the advice incomprehensible for me. In the end, is there that much difference between that which is incomprehensible and that which is useless?
_____________________________
“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.” -H.L. Mencken
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 9/2/2008 8:04:03 PM
|
|
|
crankius
Posts: 4504
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
We HAVE to rephrase old truths in post-modern language. It's the lingua franca of today. We have to learn how to use it. We're learning how to do this, and no doubt will get some things wrong, but the attempt is a good thing.
I think this is one of the key debates about emergent theology, so I am very glad we are discussing it.
This is what it makes me think and ponder (I'll post without all the Scriptures that go with these questions):
What is wrong with God's Words? Does He need our help? Did He ask for it?
Shall I make up new names for God, or shall I use the ones God gave? Shall I make up new terminology for Christ, or shall I use the terminology God gave? Shall I rephrase Christ's words, or shall I just use His words as they are?
Did God choose His words with purpose and intent?
Did God know what He was doing when He put into words what He was thinking and what He wanted us to know?
Whose words hold power: mine, or God's?
Have God's Words lost their power and effectiveness?
Which words are truth: mine, or God's?
Whose words am I supposed to write upon my heart?
Did Jesus rephrase the OT so that Satan could get it? Did Jesus rephrase the OT so that the Pharisees could get it?
Is the Holy Spirit truly effective at helping us know truth in God's Words?
How do we get ears that hear and eyes that see?
LOGOS is very powerful. The written Word, the spoken Word, the living | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
