|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/22/2008 9:49:16 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
If people are coming to a saving knowledge of the Lord,how can the way in which the Gospel presented be wrong??
I believe you started your sentence off with the word "IF".
So you have documentation that not one single Christian has been gloriously saved while under the teaching/preaching of an EC proponent? Amazing!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/22/2008 10:16:02 AM
|
|
|
P31W
Posts: 3005
Joined: 6/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
So you have documentation that not one single Christian has been gloriously saved while under the teaching/preaching of an EC proponent? Amazing!
Can you even prove that Rob Bell is saved? I don't believe you can prove that you are saved or that I am.
What I can do is examine the "methods" and "teachings" of someone and see if they line up with scripture. So far I have never seen Jesus give "false" information about a group. He was always honest and upfront about what he said about another group. The same cannot be said of Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/22/2008 10:35:16 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
I don't believe you can prove that you are saved or that I am. I have no idea who you are, P31W, but I know exactly who I am in Christ - Hebr 10:22-23.
quote:
What I can do is examine the "methods" and "teachings" of someone and see if they line up with scripture. So far I have never seen Jesus give "false" information about a group. He was always honest and upfront about what he said about another group. The same cannot be said of Bell. It appears that Paul is a little more accepting of other methodology than you are - Phil 1:17-18.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/22/2008 11:57:54 AM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2913
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: P31W
We are not islands rarther a body with differant parts. And insuring you teach correct doctrine is a form of love.
I think your point is reasonable, but love can't be limited to the podium. If one can't walk among one's congregation and one's community and show love, I really don't think one's doctrine can amount to much in the long run. In fact, I think that type of walk in the long run damages sound doctrine, or at least our community's ability to receive it.
_____________________________
“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 - 8/22/2008 12:03:04 PM
|
|
|
P31W
Posts: 3005
Joined: 6/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
In fact, I think that type of walk in the long run damages sound doctrine, or at least our community's ability to receive it.
I agree that is why I said both the mercy person and the doctrine person "can" fall into sin.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/22/2008 12:06:29 PM
|
|
|
P31W
Posts: 3005
Joined: 6/13/2005
Status: offline
|
14 Because of my chains, most of the brothers in the Lord have been encouraged to speak the word of God more courageously and fearlessly. 15 It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16 The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. 18 But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice,
quote:
It appears that Paul is a little more accepting of other methodology than you are - Phil 1:17-18.
The above passage says nothing about method only their motive. Something that most of us cannot judge in another person. What he does appear to approve is their "message" is sound. They were teaching sound doctrine so their motives mean little to Paul.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/22/2008 12:12:47 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2913
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: P31W
quote:
So you have documentation that not one single Christian has been gloriously saved while under the teaching/preaching of an EC proponent? Amazing!
Can you even prove that Rob Bell is saved? I don't believe you can prove that you are saved or that I am.
What I can do is examine the "methods" and "teachings" of someone and see if they line up with scripture. So far I have never seen Jesus give "false" information about a group. He was always honest and upfront about what he said about another group. The same cannot be said of Bell.
I totally agree with your first statement - noone can prove anyone else is saved. Still, from from VE, p.107 I think you can at least see that he understands the foundational aspects of salvation:
"In one sense, salvation is a legal transaction. Humans are guilty of our sin, and God is the judge who has to deal with our sin because he is holy and any act of sin goes against his core nature. He has to deal with it. Enter Jesus, who dies on the cross in our place. Jesus gets what we deserve; we get what Jesus deserved."
He takes salvation another step, I think primarily to reinforce the idea that most of us here have with respect to salvation - it's not "fire insurance". True salvation means not only repentance for the past but also a changed life in the here and the hereafter. If your life isn't changed in some way, then you really have to doubt whether or not someone really understands what it is to be saved.
"For Jesus, however, salvation is far more. It includes this understanding, but it far more comprehensive - it is a way of life.. To be saved or redeemed or set free is to enter into a totally new way of living in harmony with God."
_____________________________
“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 - 8/22/2008 12:13:41 PM
|
|
|
P31W
Posts: 3005
Joined: 6/13/2005
Status: offline
|
Here is an example of a "method" Bell employs to help his readers understand what he is trying to teach.
He courages us to turn to people such as Marcus Borg and Ken Wilber for better understanding of the things of God.
Is that a method ever used in scripture?
Would Paul send someone to a person who denied the bodily resurrection and diety of Christ for religious counsel?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/22/2008 12:13:50 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2913
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: P31W
quote:
In fact, I think that type of walk in the long run damages sound doctrine, or at least our community's ability to receive it.
I agree that is why I said both the mercy person and the doctrine person "can" fall into sin.
OK, I understand. Thanks.
_____________________________
“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 - 8/22/2008 12:15:44 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2913
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: P31W
Here is an example of a "method" Bell employs to help his readers understand what he is trying to teach.
He courages us to turn to people such as Marcus Borg and Ken Wilbern for better understanding of the things of God.
Is that a method ever used in scripture?
In a sense, maybe. Paul for example appears to make use of secular quotes in some of his letters. Certainly that's not providing his blessing on the entire source, but where a particular quote might be useful, he doesn't appear to shy away from it.
_____________________________
“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 - 8/22/2008 12:19:15 PM
|
|
|
P31W
Posts: 3005
Joined: 6/13/2005
Status: offline
|
Using a "quote" from the secular world such as "all is permissiable" and then adding to that the Christian view that "not all is profitable" is not the same thing as sending someone to a person who denies the Diety of Christ and Bodily Resurrection for religious guidance or instruction.
< Message edited by P31W -- 8/22/2008 12:30:22 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/22/2008 12:23:52 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2913
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
I don't believe you can prove that you are saved or that I am. I have no idea who you are, P31W, but I know exactly who I am in Christ - Hebr 10:22-23.
quote:
What I can do is examine the "methods" and "teachings" of someone and see if they line up with scripture. So far I have never seen Jesus give "false" information about a group. He was always honest and upfront about what he said about another group. The same cannot be said of Bell. It appears that Paul is a little more accepting of other methodology than you are - Phil 1:17-18.
I think her point is that we can't know another's condition. I think we can be confident of our own.
_____________________________
“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 - 8/22/2008 12:28:50 PM
|
|
|
P31W
Posts: 3005
Joined: 6/13/2005
Status: offline
|
Group you are correct.
Honestly I am a long time Christian and have had some great religious instruction and have done alot on my own.
A year or so ago we had these kinds of discussions and some who were not very well grounded did turn to Marcus Borg and even "boasted" about their desire to read his works.
One person in particular I have on my mind. After beginning to study Borg they left the forum. Do you honestly believe that God would have that person who was pretty immature in their understanding turn to Borg?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/22/2008 12:42:06 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2913
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
I'm withholding judgement on that for a couple of reasons.
First being I've not read Borg ;) (Great, now I have ANOTHER book to go buy.)
Second, if he's referring to Borg to illustrate a specific point, then I have no problem with it.
If he's referring to Borg as a general stamp of approval, then I don't know - I haven't read Borg. By the sound of it, I might have a problem with the "stamp of approval" idea.
I see Borg used to buttress a couple of points -
p.61 - the idea that the bible is more than historical. It's powerful because it's both historical and eternal.
p. 19 - the idea that there is more to this life than what we see, hear, feel, taste, touch. There is "something more". We live in more than just a physical world, have more than just a physical presence.
I'm probably missing one or two others, but in both cases above, there is an idea that's expressed by Bell that he feels Borg encapsulates. In the case of the two examples above, I'm not familiar with how Borg actually describes it, but if Borg describes these two individual points as Bell does here, then I have no problem in using Borg for that.
The fact that one writer gets a lot of it wrong wouldn't stop me from using portions of that writer's work where I felt he got it right.
_____________________________
“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 - 8/22/2008 12:47:09 PM
|
|
|
P31W
Posts: 3005
Joined: 6/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
The fact that one writer gets a lot of it wrong wouldn't stop me from using portions of that writer's work where I felt he got it right.
Do we have any examples from Scripture where a man/woman of God encourages another to go to someone who is not a man/woman of God for any type of religious insight?
Did Paul or Jesus or James tell their listeners to visit the pagan priest for their "insight" into anything concerning God?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/22/2008 12:48:42 PM
|
|
|
P31W
Posts: 3005
Joined: 6/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
First being I've not read Borg ;) (Great, now I have ANOTHER book to go buy.)
DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT!!!! Give that man your money. He is a person who teaches that Jesus did not raise from the dead and is not the Son of God. One theory he put forth is that Jesus' body was eaten by dogs.
Borg does not believe the bible is to be taken as literal. The miracles, creation, virgin birth, diety of Christ, bodily resurrection are not true actual events.
< Message edited by P31W -- 8/22/2008 12:58:51 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/22/2008 12:59:54 PM
|
|
|
P31W
Posts: 3005
Joined: 6/13/2005
Status: offline
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar
Borg is best known for the Jesus Seminars
According to the Jesus Seminar:
Jesus of Nazareth was born during the reign of Herod the Great.
His mother's name was Mary, and he had a human father whose name may not have been Joseph.
Jesus was born in Nazareth, not in Bethlehem.
Jesus was an itinerant sage who shared meals with social outcasts.
Jesus practiced healing without the use of ancient medicine or magic, relieving afflictions we now consider psychosomatic.
He did not walk on water, feed the multitude with loaves and fishes, change water into wine or raise Lazarus from the dead.
Jesus was arrested in Jerusalem and crucified by the Romans.
He was executed as a public nuisance, not for claiming to be the Son of God.
The empty tomb is a fiction -- Jesus was not raised bodily from the dead.
Belief in the resurrection is based on the visionary experiences of Paul, Peter and Mary Magdalene.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/22/2008 1:01:11 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2913
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: P31W
quote:
First being I've not read Borg ;) (Great, now I have ANOTHER book to go buy.)
DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT!!!! Give that man your money. He is a person who teaches that Jesus did not raise from the dead and is not the Son of God. One theory he put forth is that Jesus' body was eaten by dogs.
Borg does not believe the bible is to be taken as literal. The miracles, creation, virgin birth, diety of Christ, bodily resurrection are not true actual events.
Mmm, maybe I'll go to the library ;)
_____________________________
“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 - 8/22/2008 1:05:09 PM
|
|
|
P31W
Posts: 3005
Joined: 6/13/2005
Status: offline
|
Notice the winkpedia site above your last post. I also think he has a blog on beliefnet? not sure.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/22/2008 1:06:04 PM
|
|
|
Lapidoth
Posts: 3610
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: OKLAHOMA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: P31W
jazzact13
Ignore them. When people don't have anything intelligent to add to a conversation concerning the subject matter they resort to name calling. Don't let them get to you. It's a trick from Satan to keep the "truth" from being exposed.
This thread is about whether or not Rob Bell is
aligned biblically or not. But the last several
posts if not pages are attacking or judging each
other.
Seems to be a familiarity on these types threads.
As for "what one does" or, "doesn't do" cannot be
measured by any of us. The story of the talents would
reveal that God gives each a different measure to work with.
If you have only "one" talent, by all means use that talent.
I really only have one that I know of. I'm presuming upon
myself because all the real effort goes into that.
Some of us may have to do things that possibly someone else
should be doing but isn't. But, the real servant of God just does
what he's told regardless if it's "our job" or not.
For those "minutes" of teaching and preaching, if someone really
walked in that teachers or preachers moccasin a week or two,
they would throw their hands up and say, "I'm ought a' here."
I spend 15 hours a week or more, 2 or 3 so hours a day with those
willing to spend that time each day in Bible reading and discovery.
Guess what percentage of the normal crowd that is? LOL.
I call it discipleship time. One-on-one.
Instruction can be given to mega-groups, but discipleship is a
different scenario.
_____________________________
Why does He keep quoting Torah? Doesn't He know He's about to abolish it?
http://www.tedpearce.com/Videos/TheForgottenpeople.html
BARUCH HABA BASHEM YAHUAH
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/22/2008 1:59:43 PM
|
|
|
Fritzpw_Admin
Posts: 7679
Joined: 2/28/2005
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mcleod
I can state for myself that until just awhile ago I was heavily involved in helping others.( and I am not bragging, please don't take it that way) Here is where I am, by what I see is that P31W, Jazzact13, Lapitoh, Mushhead and any one else who spends more than fifteen minuties on this web site. Is not doing what the Lord has required us to do. Just by what time you spend here, would lead me to those conclusions.
So has a story Jesus once said to the masses. That he was in future going to seperate the sheeps and the goats. Which one and be honest to yourself, category would you be right now?
For me it's kind a hard to help someone and finger pick a keyboard.
There are a number of violations of the TOS in this post.
1. Offering unwelcome spiritual counsel. At no time did any of the individuals listed in this post request your counsel on how much time they were spending in our forum.
2. The time spent in the forum by other members is not the topic of this thread. Therefore, this post is off-topic.
3. This post is considered disruptive to the flow of conversation.
I suggest to anyone who is unable to adhere to the topic and the Terms of Service to refrain from the topic.
Please do not reply to this message within the Community.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.
Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.
Messages which disregard the words in red will be removed without warning and the poster may also be banned.
_____________________________
Fritz
Senior Manager of Social Media
fritz@salemwebnetwork.com
Want to see my latest online project? Check out http://budurl.com/CWonFacebook
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/23/2008 12:47:38 AM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 515
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
quote:
I hear what you're saying, believe me. I would note that while we may not be able to fully appreciate it, the early church's situation was not that dissimilar to our own in that they were surrounded by many of the same kinds of worldviews you describe. Yet somehow they were able to grow both numerically and in spiritual maturity. Now I fully agree with you that there are going to be specific geographical areas, here and abroad, that will offer greater resistance to the Gospel message than other areas might; certainly Utah would qualify in my book! So of course we can't paint EVERY church and EVERY Christian with the same general observations--and I'm not trying to do that. But it is possible to observe and comment on the OVERALL state of the church in America, and that's what I'm trying to do with my comments.
I'd also like to touch on your statement about post-modern society viewing the church as "unloving, intolerant, unsophisticated and unscientific." I think it's only reasonable for the church to ask ourselves the hard question as to WHY we are perceived that way, and be willing to admit that it may be partly our fault.
Jayvance,
Clearly you and I are not going to agree 100% on this issue (though I will say that I agree with you that too many Christians are not faithfully following Jesus), and I don't think there is much to be gained by our continuing to debate the issue. However I do want to bring our discussion back to the topic at hand: Rob Bell's and the emerging church's portrait of the church.
The following is a short list of the atrocities that Brian McLaren says the church is responsible for:
quote:
"...the conquest and genocide of Native Americans, the global slave trade, American slavery and segregation, South African apartheid, environmental degradation, two world wars, the Holocaust, the death toll of Japanese non-combatants when the United States dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, pedophilia scandals, and so on..." (The Secret Message of Jesus; pg. 215)
In the next quote McLaren tells us two things: 1- the church has had it wrong doctrinally from the the second century on, and in explaining why, McLaren also tells us what he thinks of the church.
quote:
"This understanding of Jesus' secret message is certainly not original. I'm sure I never would have had the courage to question my conventional interpretations of Jesus' teachings it weren't for a number of biblical scholars and thologians whoses writings tapped intp my own suppressed disquiet...
But all of these writers are contemporary, you might notice, which would prompt a legitimate question: if this reading of the Gospels is accurate, why didn't scholars see it a hundred or five hundred or eighteen hundred years ago? Critics might reply that the answer is obvious: this reading isn't rooted in the text of the Gospels at all...its not something read from the text, critics might judge, but rather something read into the text...
I don't believe this criticism is legitimate...The question still remains: why hasn't reading arisen sooner? There are reasons to believe that this kind of reading simply could not have arisen previously...
First, early in church history (by the end of second century, for sure) the Christian faith took a fateful turn. It went from being a Jewish sect...to becoming a Gentile religion with persistent anti-Semitic tendencies.
Second, the church's early divorce from Jewish roots was accompanied by a corresponding love affair with Greek philosophy. This mind set would predispose readersof the Gospels to interpret Jesus' message as a set of timeless abstractions and miss the historically paarticular references to contemporary political realities and social movements...Constrast the flood of man hours spent by the church debating esoteric theological/philosophical issues with the comparative trickle of attention paid to understanding and applying Jesus' kingomd ethics..." (Secret Message of Jesus; pg. 212)
For those that think McLaren is doing nothing more than focusing on different aspects of the Jesus' message because of the church's failure to "love their neighbors" or that he is teaching an orthodox view of salvation; please note that in these quotes he is very clear that his gospel message is new, different, not the same as historic Christian doctrine.
Now back to the issue of slander. McLaren goes on to list eight reasons for why the church spent eighteen hundred years following a perverted gospel that is only now being rediscoverd. Including the following:
quote:
"There's at least one more reason that must be considered in answer to the question we're considering here: every religion including Christianity can become an opponant to the secret message of Jesus..."Nothing is more dangerous to the advancement of God's kingdom than religion. But this is what Christianity has become." (Secret Message of Jesus; pg. 215-216)
Saying things like the church is responsible for the holocaust, the slave trade, and World War II, as well as calling the church an enemy of Christ is essential to the emergent sales pitch. They must paint the church and its doctrines as a man made distortion of Jesus' message and mission that led to the hate, abuse, and exclusiveness of the Christian church. Uninformed and unchurched people will likely agree with this assessment because it comports with how the church is portrayed in the popular media. Then emergents can offer a newer, better, more gentle version of Christ's message. Notice in the following quotes that emergents make no effort to balance their descriptions with [word] pictures of the many, many ways in which the popular media's portrayal of the church is not correct.
Just a side note: McLaren says "every religion can" be an enemy of the Kingdom. If every religion can be an enemy, then every religion can also be an allie of the Kingdom -a view for which McLaren argues. Notice also that McLaren is really saying the Holy Spirit failed in His task of preserving and teaching the true message of Jesus. As Jesus put it, the Holy Spirit takes what is His and makes it known to His followers. So I guess Jesus was wrong also. This lost gospel is eerily similar to Mormon founder Joseph Smith's teaching that the true Gospel was corrupted by the church soon after the death of the last Apostle.
Now read Tony Jones' portrayal of historic Christianity in his latest book "The New Christians:"
quote:
"Like the scorching-hot lava that bubbles in the mantle of the earth, the gospel is scalding-hot and dangerous - and also strangely compelling. And although it has been crusted over for eons, it will inevitably find a time and a fissure, an opportunity to blasth through that crust and explode, volcano-like, into the atmosphere." (pg. 36)
Like McLaren, Jones believes that the church corrupted (crusted over) the gospel, but that through the emerging church will be, and is being recoverd. Now read how Jones portrays a well known Christian position on the end times:
quote:
"These propose the dubious theology that the world is going to get worse and worse and worse until it gets so bad that God has to intervene (but not before God whisks away all of the Christians and lets the rest of humankind rot in a satanic hell for seven years). Again the problem is that these theologies ultimately make God subservient to human beings - God is incapable of getting involved until we preach to all the nations, in the one case, or until the world is beyond redemption, in the other." (pg. 99)
This is another distortion. Nothing in the rapture doctrine or the belief that revelation is end time prophecy even approaches suggesting that God is subservient to man, nor does it suggest that God is not capable of being involved in the affairs of the world until we do something. This is an utter distortion and I'm betting Jones knows it. This isn't the only distortion of the church that Jones' book has to offer:
Why, according to Jones, do Christians act so unChrist-like:
quote:
"Instead, the ways they lived out their faith were a natural response to the theologies they held. It was the theology that was broken." (pg. 103)
For Jones part of this broken theology is the "know it all" attitude that doesn't allow questions and searching- questioning and searching that Jones says comes naturally to young people because that's how their brains are wired:
quote:
"For the church to disregard this aspect of the adolescent condition by promoting a "we already know it all" security is not only disingenuous and untrue but also disastrous to the attempts to introduce young people to a life of faith. Like any of us, adolescents are theological beings, and they will develop in their theological savvy not because we offer them rote answers but because we allow them to explore the intricate depths of faith and doubt." (pg. 108)
"And it's unconscionable that the church wouldn't provide a place for questioners - adolescent or adult - to struggle through these amiguities."
I have yet to find any Christian or church that claims to "know it all." That some doctrines are "non-negotiable" is not the same thing as knowing it all. Also I have been to Sunday School classes in many churches across this nation (including some of the most legalistic Independent Fundamentalist Baptist churches around) and I have yet to find one that didn't invite questions. Nor did I find one that failed to make people with doubts feel safe in seeking answers to their questions. The only thing they don't do is accept that every answer to questions about essential doctrines is correct. I"m sure some churches do what Jone's claims, but it is not representative of the church as a whole.
Jones also claims that Christians ignore parts of the Bible:
quote:
"One can see why Christians would be tempted to 'clean up' the Bible...it would seem that the unsavory bits of the Bible are best ignored." (pg. 144)
I wonder if Jones ever attended a Calvary Chapel?
Now read Jone's description of how evangelical churches are in political lockstep:
quote:
"As is well known, the permissible range of issues that can be on the theological or ethical agenda at some conservative evangelical churches has been narrowed to two: abortion and gay marriage. In their salvos agains other issues - such as global warming - evangelical leaders like James Dobson and the late Jerry Falwell have said as much." (pg. 17)
"Some evangelical churches , it seems, can't be stereotyped, and they won't be pushed around by conservative radio hosts." (pg. 18)
First of all, I have listened to Focus on the Family enough to know that abortion and homosexual marriage are not the only issues Dobson sees as critical to the family. So I doubt that whatever he said was intended the way Jones presents it. Also, it is offensive for Jones to paint the church as being pushed around by radio talk show hosts, as none are told what to do by those hosts, nor would they allow themselves to be told what to do. What Jones describes as a few brave churches is actually true of all churches. How much further from the truth can he get.
Speaking about Dobson and others (Focus on the Family is a popular target of emergent slander) Brian McLaren says in "A Generous Orthodoxy" that these hosts are using issues like gay marriage to scare people because it is a good tactic to raise money. However, McLaren, Jones, and Pagitt (who has a particular dislike for Dobson) don't offer one word explaining that Focus on the Family is a ministry that spends only a small amount of its time, energy, and resources on political issues. Nor do they offer one word about the majority of the ministry's work that is focused on helping single mothers, teenage mothers, teaching parenting skills, assisting parents of handicapped children, or the parents of children with severe behavioral problems - just to name a few. What is even more disturbing is that emergents claim the church must be involved in activism against anything that is an enemy of God's kingdom. Yet, they take issue with Christian groups like Focus on the Family for doing that very thing.
I don't need to go into the things that Bell has said in "Velvet Elvis" because it seems most people on this thread have already read it.
Jayvance, we might disagree on the degree of problems in the church and some of the causes of those problems, but my original comments on the issue were about how emergents are misrepresenting the church. The above quotes are just a small sample of how emergents portray the church as being corrupt from head to toe because it follows a distorted and twisted theology. Bell also engages in this practice, but he is much more subtle than his counterparts in the EC. Subtle or not, and regardless of the problems that the church actually does have, emergents are slandering the church and intentionally misrepresenting historical doctrine so they can sell people a new and more palatable gospel message.
< Message edited by mushhead -- 8/23/2008 2:05:22 AM >
_____________________________
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 - 8/23/2008 3:06:09 AM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 515
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GroupW
quote:
ORIGINAL: P31W
quote:
First being I've not read Borg ;) (Great, now I have ANOTHER book to go buy.)
DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT!!!! Give that man your money. He is a person who teaches that Jesus did not raise from the dead and is not the Son of God. One theory he put forth is that Jesus' body was eaten by dogs.
Borg does not believe the bible is to be taken as literal. The miracles, creation, virgin birth, diety of Christ, bodily resurrection are not true actual events.
Mmm, maybe I'll go to the library ;)
GroupW,
Everything P31W described in post # 192 is true of Borg's teachings. I have his book, "The Last Week," co-written with John Dominic Crossan, in which he makes every single one of those claims. The Jesus Seminar is a collection of psuedo-scholars who meet to determine what parts of the Gospel actually happened. Borg believes that much of the Gospel was invented by Jesus' disciples who were trying to make sense of their Rabbi's teachings after he was crucified.
quote:
"We do not in this book intend to attempt a historical reconstruction of Jesus' last week on earth. Our purpose is not to distinguish what actually happened from the way it is recorded in the four gospels, which proclaim it as good news." (The Last Week; prefice pg. 8)
Borg calls the resurrection story a parable invented by Jesus' followers:
quote:
"And so before we turn to Mark's story of Easter, we return to the foundational question with which we began. What kind of narratives are these? For instructional purposes, we pose two options - they are either history or parable...When these stories are seen as history, their purpose is to report publicly observable events that could have been witnessed by anybody there...To call these stories "history" as we are using the word here, means that the events they report could have been photographed or videotaped, if ony these technologies had been available then.
When we see these stories as parable, the 'model' for this understandng is the parables of Jesus. Christians agree that the meaning of Jesus' parables is not dependent upon whether they are historically factual...If we were to use but one story to make the case that Easter stories are parabolic narratives, this is the one. It is difficult to imagine that this story is speaking about events that could have been video taped." (The Last Week; pg. 192-201)
In the same book, Borg denies that Jesus' crucifixion was substitutionary. In fact he says that substitutionary atonement is foreign to ancient Judaism:
quote:
"The broad meaning refers to sacrificing one's life for a cause. It is common to refer to Martin Luther King, Jr., Mohandas Gandhi, Oscar Romero, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer as sacrificing their lives for the causes to which they were devoted. Soldiers killed in action are often described as sacrificing their lives for their country. In this sense, on may speak of Jesus sacrificing his life for his passion, namely, for his advocacy of the kingodm of God. The more specific meaning of Jesus' death speaks of it as a substitutionary sacrifice for sin, a dying for the sins of the world. This understanding is absent from Mark's story of Good Friday; it is not there at all...To many Christians, the word ransom sounds like sacrificial language, for we sometimes speak of Jesus as the ransom for our sins. But it almost certianly does not have this meaning in Mark...Thus to say that Jesus gave 'his life a ransom for many' means he gave his life as a means of liberation from bondage. (Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan; The Last Week; pg. 154)
"Was the death of Jesus the will of God? No. It is never the will of God that a righteous man be crucified." (pg. 161)
"How then does Mark understand Jesus's death? As his story of Good Friday reports, he sees Jesus's death as an execution by the authorities because of his challenge to the domination system...As such, Mark understands Jesus's death as a judgment on the authorities and the temple" (pg. 155)
"Second: sacrifice and substitution. Offerers never thought that the animal was dying in their place, that they deserved to be killed in punishment for their sins, and that God would accept the slain animal as substitutionaary atonement or vicarious satisfaction. Blood sacrifice should never be confused with or collapsed into either suffering or substitution, let alone substitutionary suffering...That theology would be a crime against divinity." ( pg. 38)
I hope that you can see from these quotes that Borg does not believe that Scripture provides an accurate historical account of Jesus' life. IOW's he does not believe the Scripture. He also denies that Jesus died for our sins or that He was resurrected. He does believe that Jesus' followers invented many of the stories after Jesus died. He does believe that Jesus was protesting against the domination systems that held people in bondage. In that sense, the scripture has meaning and usefulness as a teaching tool about how to engage in peaceful protest. However, it has no usefulness beyond that.
I hope we can agree that Borg has no value as a teacher of the Scripture. How can he if he denies every essential doctrine of Christianity? Bell's endorsement of Borg provides clear insight into what he believes about these things, because no minister of the true Gospel is going to send people to Borg to learn about the Scriptures or anything else unless he agrees with Borg. Please think about all the quotes provided on this thread that consistantly demonstrate that Emergents are talking about a social gospel that redefines the meaning of the Cross from substitutionary atonement to nothing more than a protest against injustice inflicted on people by domination systems - in whatever form they might take. This is McLaren's message in every one of his books, this is the message of everyone in leadership of the emergent church, and it is the message that Bell says transformed his understanding of the Gospel. What other conclusion can we honestly come to?
< Message edited by mushhead -- 8/23/2008 3:17:11 AM >
_____________________________
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 - 8/23/2008 1:56:23 PM
|
|
|
jayvance
Posts: 58
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Clearly you and I are not going to agree 100% on this issue (though I will say that I agree with you that too many Christians are not faithfully following Jesus), and I don't think there is much to be gained by our continuing to debate the issue.....we might disagree on the degree of problems in the church and some of the causes of those problems, but my original comments on the issue were about how emergents are misrepresenting the church. The above quotes are just a small sample of how emergents portray the church as being corrupt from head to toe because it follows a distorted and twisted theology. Bell also engages in this practice, but he is much more subtle than his counterparts in the EC. Subtle or not, and regardless of the problems that the church actually does have, emergents are slandering the church and intentionally misrepresenting historical doctrine so they can sell people a new and more palatable gospel message.
Just to clarify, I don't agree with much of what is labeled the EC movement (although as has been noted already, it's not a monolith), and it disturbs me greatly that the EC leaders you've quoted have departed from what I would consider sound and basic Christian theology and doctrine. I agree that these teachings can lead the unwary astray. (From what I read, I would probably fall into the category of a "Relevant.") I certainly don't believe the body of Christ is corrupt from head to toe, but I also don't believe that the denominationalism, legalism, and fortress mentality that exists in much of Christianity today is at all pleasing to Jesus. But unlike many in | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
