If you followed McKnight’s reviews of Bell’s book, the argument that comes up most frequently is the kind of justice that would act decisively against the oppressors on behalf of the oppressed. The idea then is not personal satisfaction (as in enjoying the suffering of the enemy) but the need to address evil in such a way that it not only stops hurting the victims but also experiences the depth of its own intrinsic darkness. Up to this point I don’t really have an objection to this argument. Problem is: once punishment loses any restorative trajectory, the one punishing becomes the very thing he’s punishing, i.e. an oppressor, torturer, or executioner.

Josh Mueller, in response to A Question To Ponder

From Bill Kinnon’s Confused by Calvinists…again.

——————————————————————–

“Isn’t it a little weird that TULIP-waving Calvinists get all bent out of shape about a book that denies the eternal flames of hell? (I should say “apparently denies” – haven’t read it and I doubt I ever will – I’m no fan of Charlie Bell or Rob Sheen or whatever his name is)?

One goes so far as to dramatically state,

…The theology is heterodox. The history is inaccurate. The impact on souls is devastating.

If depravity is total.  If election is unconditional. If the atonement is limited (to whom it applies). If grace is irresistible. And the elect were predestined from the foundations of the earth.

Then.

How in hell can the impact of a book written by a “rock star” Christian minister ‘devastate souls’?

Doesn’t a TULIP-loving Calvinist believe that those whom God forechose and foreknew will be saved regardless? Or am I missing something in their theology?”

——————————————————————–

Dooooooooh!

“It also strikes me that truth is never afraid of questions, and when questions are rendered off limits, it at least creates the impression that it is not truth that is being sought, but rather a maintaining of the status-quo.” Matthew Paul Turner, Orthodoxy vs. Heresy: A Power Game?

Been an interesting week and I appreciate all the dialogue you readers have provided.  Jeremy Bouma, has a couple of interesting posts lately exploring why he’s frustrated with the emerging church.  And in this post he said in response to Rob Bell’s theological framework.

“While it is true that humans cannot earn their salvation, it is not true that humans “have always had” it. Universal Salvation is not a condition into which humans are born. Universal Sin is the condition into which humans are born.”

What do you think?  Agree or disagree and why?

To understand this post you might need to review the previous two posts here and here.

I said: And with that I began to realize why people have so many theological disagreements. Our faith is in our interpretation of Scripture, as opposed to Jesus. As much as I love Scripture it’s Jesus once removed.

I find it interesting that Ken left out of his post what comes just after that statement.

“It is all we have, but it must always be interpreted. And once removed, it presents differences of opinion on what it says. And I’m not suggesting it has no value. It has immense value.”

Ken Silva responded with:

“Sounds very pious, “As much as I love Scripture it’s Jesus once removed”; however, it’s actually a subtle attack on Scripture pitting it against Jesus as if what we read in the Bible is somehow in conflict with what Jesus taught. What you need to know is this odd idea that somehow the Bible is lesser than Jesus is not new; and what it’s designed to do is open the door for such as these to circumvent God’s authority in favor of the autonomy of their own subjective experiences. That one can somehow have Jesus as opposed to obeying His inspired Word in Holy Scripture is impossible. Lord willing, I’ll cover this in more depth; but for now just consider what Jesus says below:

So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:31-32)”

What do you think? Is what I said pitting Jesus against the Bible?

Ken Silva wrote a post in response to my previous post here.  He said:

“Well, since he asked; I think God has revealed of Himself what He wanted us to know about Him in His inerrant, infallible, Word i.e. Holy Scripture. Therefore, any theology that’s shaped by the Bible, in context and rightly interpreted, accurately represents the size of our infinite Creator God that He needs us to have of Him.”

What do you think?

“Some people are deeply suspicious because those in the emerging movement tend to be pluralistic, they believe that God is bigger than any particular theology,” Corcoran said.

I don’t know about you but I sincerely hope God is bigger than my theology.  What do you think?

“One of my heroes is John Calvin, who never finished his great theological treatise because he understood that his role in establishing a working sewer system in the city of Geneva was more important and more in line with his obedience to Christ.” (source)

Love that!

“Most church families in our country will gather together sometime today or tomorrow. As this happens, the high point for most will be the worship service. The high point of the worship service will be the sermon. If you doubt that this is the case, just ask most of the people present.

There are two troublesome aspects to this. First, scripted worship services are completely foreign to the New Testament church. Second, the preaching of sermons to saved people is completely foreign to the New Testament church.

This is extremely significant. This means that what occurs during the spiritual high point of the week for most Christians is something that we don’t see anywhere in the bible.” Eric Carpenter, Something To Think About

What do you think?

The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. Indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible. – Bertrand Russell