The gods may not be angry… but some of their followers are
The latest “research” over at C?N.com consists of copy and pasting a review of Rob Bell’s The gods aren’t angry tour. It is offered uncritically, without counter-point, and with no additional commentary. In other words, without anything resembling research whatsoever. Of course, the fact that the review offered fit perfectly with C?N.com’s skewed view of the world was helpful to not looking any further into the issue. The conclusion offered was:
“And this is the fundamental problem with Bell’s message. The Bible says that the wrath of God is continually being revealed against ungodliness. In other words, God is still angry. And Bell did an enormous disservice because the people did not hear the gospel, and they were not told to flee the wrath to come.”
This obvious blindspot on the part of C?N.com being the case I thought I might take a look around and see what some other perspectives had to say. And here’s what I found taken from the notes of an attendee to the Chi-town show:
In Hebrews, the author talks about the sacrifice Christ made by giving His life, and how His life was the final sacrifice to reconcile God and mankind. He did away with the old system and ushered in the culmination of the ages so everyone could understand the ultimate reality… that they could see God in a whole new way.
God made peace through Christ with all things on heaven and earth. He changed everything for everybody.
And then there’s this one:
He talked about the nature of Christ’s death was to do away with God’s anger. The early church kept rituals as a way of reminding themselves of what Jesus did on the cross.
And then there’s this one:
God is not angry, in fact, through the death and resurrection of Jesus, he has brought peace between us and Him.
And then after that I got bored of reading blog entry after blog entry after blog entry that repeated the same thing over and over again. Instead I started wondering how it was that seemingly everyone who saw Bell speak came away with the message that God isn’t angry because of the work of Christ except for angry reformed watchdoggies. And then, I read the summary on the The Gods Aren’t Angry Tour webpage :
this is new material that Rob hasn’t taught before, exploring how humans invented religion to make themselves feel better.
And I realized, the watchdoggies didn’t see the gospel because they weren’t looking for the gospel. They were looking for the reformed religion they’ve invented to make themselves feel better.
November 23rd, 2007 at 12:07 pm
God is still angry…at those not IN Christ…put 2 and 2 together. God’s not saying “I am appeased at this person who does not believe in me, because Christ’s blood is credited to everyone (??), but even though I’m appeased, I’m going to send this person to hell because they don’t have my Son”. IF Rob Bell doesn’t believe in universalism, then this seems to be what is being said…and it makes no sense whatsoever.
The wrath of God does not abide on you anylonger if you are in Christ. Otherwise…It’s still there. Otherwise why did Christ die? Wasn’t the greatest reason as the Atoning Lamb?
I’m not gonna debate this one lol.
Joe
November 23rd, 2007 at 12:43 pm
This “problem” with Bell is really based on attributing a disposition to God instead of mode of action to God.
Wrath is not God’s anger.
It’s the removal of God’s providential protection so that we experience the full weight of the consequences of our sin.
It is not a pro-active “attack” from God.
It is God’s providence absenced for the purpose of remediation.
The ancient church understood this…that God’s “punishment” is not out of anger…it is remedial discipline out of love.
This need to see it otherwise is a holdover of medieval theology in the reformation formulations taken too far today
November 23rd, 2007 at 12:45 pm
What’s amazing too is the title…
the gods SHOULD be angry…
wow talk about revealing your own heart.
But of course, as long as you don’t use certain words it’s ok
November 23rd, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Good post.
I remember hearing an old preacher say “we have beat our people over the head with the sin stick so much, that they cower and duck while sitting in Church, just waiting to be clobbered again.”
My Fundamentalist , Calvinistic past taught me a God who is angry. Angry all the time. Angry, even when I do right because I can not do anything “really” right. It’s grace but with a stick.
Rob Bell is providing a needed corrective. HE is attempting to move the Church from an old covenant view of God to a new covenant view. Things really ARE new in Christ.
I was 36 years old before I listened to my first contemporary Christian CD. I was taught, and later preached that CCM was of the devil. My first CD was Keith Green. My wife and I sat there listening to the CD and we liked the music. We had some fear that God would “get us” but He didn’t. So we moved on to Petra
It is amazing how we say God loves us but in practice, preaching and doctrine we seem to deny.
Now if we want to ask WHY God should love us? Jesus.
Bruce
November 23rd, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Joe C,
I’d recommend you not debate it either, at least not until you’re familiar with the material.
November 23rd, 2007 at 4:59 pm
wow…I just read more of the stuff over at http://www.dreck.com, otherwise known as CRN.
Talk about celebrating someone reading into and attributing motivations to people.
They’re all soooooooo sick of the EC’s arrogance, condescension, etc.
I’ve actually been in the room with some of these people and I wonder if the tantrum god-squad has actually really read these books or used the ears God gave them.
I’m sick of hearing motives attributed to people that aren’t there.
I’m tired of being told we’re doing the same thing when we point the FACTS of that behavior out.
Good grief…
The shrieking fringe/remnant/whatever…
I wonder how long it will take for the purpose driven hypocrite drive-by to show up?
At the end of the day this stuff IS NOT about theology, doctrine, orthodoxy, etc.
It’s about who is going to “be in control” or “feel in control”.
The EC conversation is a threat because it’s not bowing to the gate-keeper structures of evangelicalism. It’s sidestepped the system and gone directly to people.
And, whether you agree with the PERSONAL theological positions of a couple people or not, the basic questions about how to make Christ known and a dissatisfaction with the gatekeeper structures IS RESONATING, REAL, AND HAS TO BE DEALT WITH.
I mean…who are the biggest critics of this stuff?
The establishment evangelicals, their disciples and their sycophants.
It’s about power.
Not theology.
No matter what they say.
November 23rd, 2007 at 5:16 pm
NC,
Don’t confuse C?N.com with evangelicals. Lets be honest here, the alleged pastor Silva can’t even get along with the organization that ordained him.
Although I do agree with your assessment that its about control for the watchdoggies.
November 23rd, 2007 at 5:21 pm
I hear you Tim, but it is evangelical “gatekeepers” who are cited as the major sources for the basis of critique.
D.A. Carson? Writes an armchair book in his sleep about being conversant with people he refused to talk to…why else would he do that? Lazy? Overreacting? Bad day? Threatened? Could be all or one or some…
I dunno…I just don’t think you can underestimate the tendency of the human heart to “god” over others.
November 23rd, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Pastor Silva…be not drunk on whine.
November 23rd, 2007 at 5:33 pm
NC,
Oh I agree. Just be careful that we’re not godding them back.
Also, while DA Carson may be wrong on the e/e issue, he has done some fantastic work on the scriptures.
November 23rd, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Funny thing to me is that Reformed theology is all about the propitiation of sins… thus we have eternal security in Christ Jesus… this was taught by Calvin and the rest of the reformers on the Luther side. And contrary to belief was taught by Arminius, he just felt Calvin was tooo assured and held closer to the Catholic view for fear of being presumptuous.
Yet, here they (Ken Silva) seem to deny that as happening and is promoting what alternative? Man-loving semi pelagian works that he has been preaching on line since I came to notice him? Yes, the blind lead the blind when it comes to Ken and company concerning Grace.
May God have Grace on them.
iggy
November 23rd, 2007 at 7:00 pm
BTW, did anyone notice that the reasons McLaren (and then, of course by extension) the E/Es in general are heterodox is because of his politics?
Talk about embracing the world.
November 23rd, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Tim,
I hear you…
The difference is I don’t care if they agree (i.e. are subjugated to my view).
I just want to be left alone and not see good people lied about in the name of God.
That’s the issue.
I think the tent is big enough for all these perspectives, if everyone learns to play well with others.
But these folk come out onto the field throwing sand from the get-go.
I know I’m preachin’ to the choir with you…
November 23rd, 2007 at 7:45 pm
On Politics:
Yep.
sounding like a Democrat is a critique “code” that sums up a lot of anxieties, but not real theological reflection.
I really like the comment about his birkenstocks…
I don’t think I’ve ever seen Brian wear them…
oh well.
If we turned around and made snide comments about all the middle aged pastors I see at pastor conferences wearing their khaki pants, tucked in golf shirts pulled tight over their sinfully large bellies and casual shoes/white sneakers I’d get skewered over hot coals.
Oh well…
That’s the fringe for you…
November 23rd, 2007 at 7:48 pm
RE: …Brian has bigger, better, kinder, and gentler fish to fry.
I love how the implicit claim is that being an uncharitable, testy and borderline malevolent jerk is somehow more in step with the witness of the Christ…
Whatever.
November 23rd, 2007 at 9:07 pm
NC,
Three excellent posts in a row. You know the watchdoggies wouldn’t have this blog to deal with if they had managed to be civil in their criticisms. Then again, if they had managed to be civil they wouldn’t have gotten the attention they crave so badly fromo either their supporters or their critics.
It used to be that I believed they were misguided but cranky, then that a few were malevolent and the rest were misguided but cranky, now I’m to the point where pretty much every watchdoggie that’s been linked negatively from this blog is so completely corrupt they have no capacity for separating truth from fiction, they only know what they believe and anything that confirms their belief is automatically taken as truth.
November 23rd, 2007 at 9:47 pm
I agree that God is not angry because of what Christ has done. However, I do have a question. Has Rob Bell ever warned what would happen to those who are not in Christ? Has he ever told them that God IS angry with them? It’s okay to tell believers that God is not angry with them, but I don’t think it’s okay to NEVER tell those who are outside of Christ that God’s not angry.
Has RB ever come out and clearly stated something like that?
Could someone research that for me?
November 23rd, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Inquisitor,
do you not believe that the wrath of God was poured out on Jesus on the cross?
iggy
November 23rd, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Yes, of course! However, God’s wrath still abides over those who are not in Christ. “There is no condemnation to those who are in Christ”
Conversely, there IS condemnation for those who are NOT in Christ.
Are you saying that those who are NOT in Christ will escape God’s wrath?
November 23rd, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Inquisitor,
Your question was framed extraordinarily poorly, and does far more to put your ignorance on display than it does to illuminate what Bell was speaking about (and BTW, does so for the watchdoggies as well, but I didn’t bother making this point with them because its been made about them so often).
The key here is the word “gods”. Did you pause to consider why the term “gods” was used, rather than “God”? Because when you answer that question, then you’ll see your question isn’t formed well.
November 23rd, 2007 at 10:43 pm
I was speaking in response to the quotes used above in this post.
They were specifically citing GOD the one true God.
“God is not angry, in fact, through the death and resurrection
of Jesus, he has brought peace between us and Him.”
I agree with this quote, however back to the original question which you still haven’t answered.
Has RB ever warned people about what they have to look forward to if they are not in Christ.
As was quoted in the post above, “he has brought peace between us and Him.” But are you submitting that EVERYONE has peace with God? Even those who are not in Christ?
So I really have two questions.
1. Does RB warn people who are not in Christ?
2. Do you believe that everyone has peace with God?
November 23rd, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Why should we? There’s plenty of his sermons available online for anyone to download. Do the research yourself.
November 23rd, 2007 at 11:17 pm
1. In reality, yes, though I think “warn” would be less accurate than “compare the differences between life in Christ and life apart from Christ” along with using cultural items to demonstrate what God represents (like Paul and the statue of the unknown God in Athens, while speaking on Mars Hill). I would say that Mars Hill Bible Church’s (where Rob teaches) focus, though, is on bringing people into the kingdom of God because of what it offers, rather than on scaring them with the alternative.
2. Yes, but it is only manifested if they believe and accept the call of the Holy Spirit to accept Christ. God has already paid the price, but there are those who have rejected it.
November 23rd, 2007 at 11:18 pm
If you want to research it, you can download the past 12 weeks’ sermons at http://www.marshill.org/
November 23rd, 2007 at 11:28 pm
OK, I apologize for my rather short and blunt comment before. This topic just grates on my nerves because I feel no amount of evidence will satisfy Bell’s critics.
I was actually talking about the subject of Hell with my dad today, and my parents were saying that generally Christians seem to try to avoid it. I would say that’s true, but I don’t think it’s because of fear of offending people. I think it’s to make ourselves feel better. The people that Jesus warned the most about judgment and wrath were the religious leaders of the day. They were actually blocking people from entering the Kingdom. I think Christians avoid talking about Hell because we’d rather not think that we could inadvertently be sending people there.
Jesus never let’s us make it the other person’s issue. He always demands that we look at ourselves first. If we make the issue of Hell primarily about the judgment for others, I believe we are missing the point to some extent. As Christians, I believe that when we speak of judgment, we must realize that it begins in the house of God.
November 23rd, 2007 at 11:55 pm
It’s not letting me post comments anywhere…weird…
CENSORSHIP!…lol
November 24th, 2007 at 12:01 am
What is the watchdoggie obsession with hell anyway? Its like the 7 times Jesus talks about hell outweighs everything else that Jesus ever said.
Then again, I suppose when you’re walking around all angry and pissed off people aren’t going to be listening to you talk about the kingdom of God in positive terms, so it makes sense the watchdoggies would be a bit more focused on the kingdom of hell.
November 24th, 2007 at 12:21 am
Phil,
After “doing the research myself” I have come to a very unsettling conclusion. RB never mentions that God might be angry with anyone. In fact, he makes he uses the word “All” pretty consistently in his teaching. For example, “all will prosper” because of what Jesus has done. He never speaks of what will happen to those who don’t put their trust in Jesus, thus when he uses the word “all” it can be very confusing to those who are not in Christ.
I’m not saying that he does it on purpose, but it can be very misleading. What he should do, but does not, is say “all who are in Christ” have peace with God.
Just to say that “all” have peace with God, when heard by someone outside of Christ can mislead them.
This is very unfortunate.
November 24th, 2007 at 12:27 am
But that brings us back to our main topic. Bell should not be telling people that “God is not angry.” (again I’m citing the quote from this posting) but he should be telling them that “God is not angry with those who are in Christ.”
I’m afraid that the message that is being heard is one that communicates that God is a friend of “all.”
Again, I’m not saying that he does it on purpose, but the as a teacher he should be more clear.
He should be clearly stating God is a friend of “all who are in Christ.”
November 24th, 2007 at 12:44 am
Inquisitor,
I think you miss a very foundational understanding… God gave Jesus so none should perish… Now some will because of their choice not to believe and receive… yet it is that God’s wrath rests on them, not that God judges them out of any emotion… in fact the Father does not judge them at all…
Just read through John 5 and 12…
Also, men are judged by the words of Jesus… but not by Jesus himself for Jesus stated “I judge no one.”
John 2:1-2 states:
1 John 2
The word propitiation has in its meaning, a completely satisfying sacrifice as well has bring reconciliation… this is more than “atonement” which most bibles sadly translate the word.
Note that above this sacrifice was not just satisfactory for “our sins” but the sins of the “whole world.”
So every one’s sins are forgiven.
Yet, we still need to receive the Life of Christ which is eternal life, so that we live. `For in him we live and move and have our being.’ Without His Life, we are forgiven dead men and forfeit eternal life and stay under the covenant of death.
For these fulfill the words of Isaiah 28:15
So, if you state God still “angry with them” as you have above and seem to beleive, you negate that Jesus was the propitiation for their sin and are then doing the ministry of death and condemnation… instead of the ministry of reconciliation.
So, God is not still angry or esle Jesus died for nothing.
Blessigns,
iggy
November 24th, 2007 at 7:06 am
I think the prophecy in II Thesselonians that speaks of Jesus coming back in flaming fire and taking vengeance on them that know not God and obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ gives us a glimpse into the manifestation of God’s wrath.
Romans tells us that “there is no fear of God in their eyes” which again implies a reason to fear. Jesus’ death and resurrection is only made active and effectual by faith, all others stand in condemnation before God with their sins uncovered. Some save with fear…
November 24th, 2007 at 7:48 am
Fear has to do with punishment, yet the punishment is unneeded as the price has been paid… yet some will not receive that and will stay under the punishment.
I do not deny a “punishment” but more I proclaim that all men are reconciled unto God in Christ in hopes that men will be so reconciled and become the righteousness of God.
iggy
November 24th, 2007 at 8:46 am
There is nothing we can do to appease God’s anger (which was the purpose of blood sacrifice), and Jesus’ sacrifice has paid all the blood ever required to appease God’s anger.
Bell never states that all those in the world will not be judged, but that if you will accept his sacrifice, it has already paid the debt owed. His point is that the debt is already paid for all who will accept it. Where the rub seems to be is that he emphasizes the consequences of acceptance rather than the consequences of rejection. (Though of course, some (not all) Calvinists will want to bring predestination into the discussion to place limits on Christ’s blood, which has the capability of saving all, if it is accepted.)
November 24th, 2007 at 8:46 am
BtW - Anger is NOT Judgment, nor is it punishment…
November 24th, 2007 at 8:49 am
Here is a link to the Verum Serum review of The gods Aren’t Angry.
November 24th, 2007 at 9:58 am
I don’t understand how God could be angry in a Calvinistic system, really. Jesus died for the past, present, and future sins of the Elect, and well, the non-Elect, it seems it would be pointless for God to be angry with them. That’s why it’s so puzzling to me why so may Calvinists seem to be so angry.
Inquisitor,
What Scripture do you point to that says God is angry with those who aren’t in Christ? It seems to me that Jesus went out of His way to tell sinners that God wasn’t angry with them. God runs to the prodigal son. He searches for the lost sheep. He’s not doing it out of anger, He’s doing it out of love. Sometimes I think John Calvin did more harm to the Gospel than we imagine.
November 24th, 2007 at 10:05 am
The Calvinist view is meaningless. Why emphasize God’s judgment to thoe who are unable to by faith escape it? That is akin the Rick Ianniello’s post on a Phelps inetrview where Phelps says he rejoices in telling the non elect they are headed for hell and cannot do anything about it. I am not saying that is the heart of most Calvinits, but the theology itself is mean spirited.
Telling people they are under God’s judgment and they might not have been given a way of escape is like rubbing their nose in fatalism. What kind of a God would do something like that? I agree that a presentation of the history of man and the redemptive thread must also be balanced with the seriousness of God’s judgment without Christ.
November 24th, 2007 at 11:50 am
At long last.
November 24th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Iggy,
Nice response. However you miss one important point.
God is angry at those who are not in Christ. Simply for the reason that they are not in Christ.
God sends his son to earth and pours out his anger and wrath upon his son, thus making a way for us who are guilty under the law to become innocent.
Then he commands all men everywhere to repent and accept the sacrifice of His son.
Some men don’t. They reject the sacrifice, they treat Christ’s blood as if it was common and unholy. This makes God angry.
I recently read a news article where two men helped a woman change her tire, then they kidnapped her, raped her several times and then tried to kill her by bashing her head in with rocks.
Does that make you angry? Does that make God angry?
I believe that it makes God very angry.
Instead of accepting his son’s sacrifice, repenting and living for God, they continually reject the sacrifice, and live for the enjoyment of their sin.
This makes God angry. If your God doesn’t have emotions, then your God is not the God revealed in scripture. The God of the Bible has emotions, and I would hope that he gets angry at sinners who refuse the sacrifice and go out raping children.
Like I said, your response is very good. Christ was our propitiation, he did take all of God’s wrath.
But for those who have rejected Christ and for those who treat Christ’s sacrifice us unholy this is cause for God to be even more angry then in the OT.
Hebrews 10:26
“For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, ‘Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord. And again, ‘The Lord will judge His people.’ It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”
Sounds to me like God is angry at those who reject his sacrifice.
November 24th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
God is slow to anger and abounding in love.
(I think that’s somewhere in the Bible but I have no reference.) God’s anger is a righteous anger. I don’t really think we need to focus on God’s anger and wrath all that much, except to keep ourselves away from sin and have a healthy fear of the Lord. Thankfully God forgives faithfully and his mercy is great. He holds no grudges. For that I am grateful. 
November 24th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
When I first read this, I read it in a slightly different order: “If God doesn’t have your emotions…” and it really threw me when I realized the question was entirely different as it was written than as I read it.
I actually find this an intriguing way of putting that concept — I’ve not thought of this in these terms.
Do I give God all of my emotions? Even when they arise after being told I’m being emotional. (Ah, OK, I just had to put that in there.)
The emotion of anger. Whose is it, in my life? Who do I let control it? If it isn’t God’s, would that make it unrighteous anger? How about other emotions (happiness, sadness, etc.). When they’re not given to God…
Does God have our emotions if we don’t give them to him?
How does this apply to anything said here? I don’t know. It just clicked on in my mind as somehow applying.
November 24th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Julie, I think that you have misunderstood the point.
I’m simply stating that God has emotions. Not that they are the same as mine. Some things that make me angry wouldn’t necessarily make God angry, and so on and so forth.
However, the point made is that God does have emotions. God does get angry. Someone above quoted “God is slow to anger” Thus we know that he does get angry. Albeit very slowly, he does get angry.
The questions that we must ask ourselves is what makes God angry?
I submit that people who have not repented and placed their trust in Christ, thus rejecting such a wonderful sacrifice are under God’s anger.
What do you think makes God angry? What does the Bible say that makes God angry?
November 24th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Inquisitor, please stop living up to your nom-de-plume. I stated that I misread the initial quote and wasn’t actually replying to you. I’m not even addressing the issues you have been pounding out in this comments section. I’m just throwing out something that came to mind after misreading your earlier comment.
I’ve misunderstood no points you’ve made, because I made my own point, free of yours, based on an openly admitted initial misreading.
Good grief. It wasn’t a comment in need of your clarification inasmuch as you responded.
November 24th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Excellent response Merry. Unfortunately many watchdoggies seem to think God is a raging maniac and if you don’t include that in a gospel response then you’ve forgetten the gospel entirely.
November 24th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
I sometimes wonder about people who seem to think discussion of value must be like some sort of rhyme scheme: ABABAB. That is, discussion must have one idea (A), then be rebutted (B), then the rebuttal of that which harkens back and perhaps reiterates the original idea (A), which is then really rebutted (B) and so on.
Sometimes, the discussion winds about and we get more than a 2D version: ABABCACBA
Relying to much on a ABAB back-and-forth seems to make dogs barking at each other from their corners and little is added to the discussion. ABAB discussion and thinking is a favorite of many of these ODM sites, which is why it is so frustrating to me when I try to respond to something I agree with but in a different vein of thinking, only to be replied to in rebuttal.
Of course, ABABCACBADA is very confusing to people programmed in ABAB, and so they assume that a C is a B and respond bizarrely as such.
This comment would fall in the “E” category, which is my favorite.
November 24th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Thanks Tim. While to some point I agree with them that we need to remember God’s anger and his warnings in the Bible, but we also need to keep a healthy balance in the way we view God and focus on his wonderful love and grace. If I only focused on my own father’s (or mother’s) anger and never noticed their love and compassion for me and others, I couldn’t have a very good relationship with them at all! I think it’s like that with God.
On the other hand, while God may not be a “raging maniac,” I think He is very powerful and almost has a “wild” side to Him, if I can say that. We see this more in the Old Testament, but God is unchanging. I think God is probably more fascinating than we can ever imagine.
November 24th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Why are you always addressing what the watchdoggies believe?
Who cares what they believe, what does the Bible say?
If God is angry at some people, should RB be telling them that He’s not? If God is angry and RB is telling them that it’s all okay, isn’t he doing them a disservice?
November 24th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Merry,
I suspect you’re correct, but I don’t think his wildness is in the form watchdoggies seem to wish it were.
November 24th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Inquisitor,
Your hypocrisy is amazing. How did you manage to go from proclaiming the irrelevance of what one group of people believes to the relevance of what a single person believes?
I suppose the answer to that question is that you don’t like Rob Bell but you love snuggling up to those like the alleged Pastor Silva.
November 24th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Inquisitor,
You are not stating the bible s narrative, but Darby’s narrative of the rapture scenario.
You are referring to the wrath and judgment that came on Jerusalem in 70AD…
and miss that the faithful had two witnesses which the Roman sought they had killed, but God resurrection and later conquered Rome.
That was to that “they overcame by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony”. You are doing some very selective “literal” reading in the very symbolic and allegoric book of Revelations which is a horrible way to read any book of the bible. Of course that is my best guess, as i am nto sure where you are stating from scripture that God is still angry… you gave no verses to back your point.
And the verse you quoted, I already stated from John the HOW Jesus was to judge those, by the words His mouth, which is the double edged sword in revelations…
You are adding to scripture that God is still angry with sinners… and negate almost all of Paul’s writing… especially,
So the narrative you are using is causing all sorts of short circuits in the propitiation of our Lords sacrificia on the Cross and then negates it… and that is not a good thing at all!
It also is wreaking havoc on Paul’s words and is misinterpreting the very words of Jesus Himself.
What you are under is some very bad theology that has lead you into grave error.
blessings,
iggy
November 24th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Oh, also to understand that I am not saying God does not have emotions… but that God is not ruled by His emotions and thus gives into His wrath… proof of this is that he sent His Son because of His Love for us… not His hate.
iggy
November 24th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
I agree iggy that God is not ruled by emotion. However, God does have anger, and He will “unleash” His anger upon those who don’t accept Christ. I already gave you Hebrews 10:26, you say that I’m following the Darby interpretation. However, you seem to be following the McClaren interpretation. Now, I think we’re getting somewhere. I believe that “God has set aside a day in which He will judge the World in righteousness.” “Giving to every man according to what he has done.”
So you believe that God’s judgment has already come in AD 70 and I believe that God still has a judgment for those who are not in Christ. Only one of us can be right. Is it Darby, or McClaren?
Mr. Reed,
My hypocrisy would be amazing except for the fact that this post is focusing on RB and his success or failure at teaching the truth about God’s anger. It isn’t a review of what the watchdoggies believe about God’s anger. Thus I was saying, who cares what the watchdoggies think. According to your reasoning, then we should start mentioning what the JW’s, Muslims, etc. think about God’s anger. My point is, who cares what they think, that’s not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is what is RB teaching, and is he leading people into a slumber when they very well might be in danger of God’s wrath?
Ironically, no one seems to be willing to address the issue clearly. It seems like everyone is afraid to come out and say what they believe.
I believe that God is angry at those who reject the sacrifice of His son. I believe that RB is doing a disservice to his hearers who are not yet “in Christ” by telling them that everything is okay.
Everyone here wants to talk about the good things, and no one wants to warn about God being angry. Well, God is angry. He’s angry at the rapists that I mentioned earlier, and He’s angry at many others as well. This is what scripture teaches.
If a kid was sitting in the street playing and a truck was coming right at him, I wouldn’t tell the kid the benefits of playing in the shade on the grass. I would warn him about the fact that he’s in danger by sitting in the road.
Everyone here prefers to tell the kid that it’s so much nicer in the grass, and they neglect to warn him of his danger.
This is RB’s mistake to the potential death of some of his hearers.
November 24th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
For what it’s worth… if the beginning of wisdom is fear/respect of the Lord, particularly if you go with the “fear of the Lord” take on that, why would I fear a God without some anger and wrath directed towards humanity?
I probably wouldn’t. Is fear tied to respect? Are people who are told that God is only a loving God prone to not fearing him because they don’t understand the wrath aspect of his nature? And does this lead to the obvious careless disrespect in how they refer or relate to God? And does that make God more angry, or is he merely saddened?
If I use my earthly father, and my earthly, human examples as a way to figure out what it means to be a “sinner in the hands of an angry God”, I’m not going to get a good understanding at all. I’ll probably overreact and either say “No, that can’t be right. He loves me” and go the extreme other way of discounting anger, or march around saying “God is angry with you sinners and his wrath is coming and every bad thing that happens to you is because he’s out to get you!”
The anger and love of God is a curious thing. I don’t think we’ll ever fully grasp it, which is the nature of us trying to figure out God through the “clues” he has left us to help us understand him in his word, in our human examples, and in the stories that make up our world.
November 24th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
No, actually its a post about the watchdoggies and their success or failure at accurately relaying what Rob Bell taught.
I should know, I wrote it.
November 24th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Then, a) You believe a lie about God’s anger, and b) you are critiquing something you didn’t go to and only have half an inkling (colored by your assumptions) of what was said by Bell.
Thank you, Mr. Inquisitor for making Jesus’ sacrifice nothing more than eternal Fire Insurance (or a ticket to an eternal party). In reality, though, the gospel is not God’s marketing tool. The gospel is that God sent his son to reconcile all things to him (unless, of course, all doesn’t really mean all, which doesn’t fit the literal or contextual interpretation of Paul’s writing):
God blesses us by His grace, so that we, in turn will bless others, so that the world will know that He is the One true God. He will draw all men unto him. The purpose of serving Him is out of love - not out of reward or fear of punishment. Jesus’ blood ALREADY HAS SATIATED God’s anger. There is nothing we can do to satiate it, because it has already been done. What happens from here on out is not a result of God’s “anger” - it is a result of justice, which can be avoided by accepting grace.
Bell’s message - if you’d read 19 out of every 20 reviews (i.e. the ones not predisposed to looking for fault), Bell’s message is Paul’s message - that Jesus has paid every price that can be paid, so we cannot repay it. Thus free of this need of repayment, we are able to serve unselfishly, out of love.
November 24th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Has anyone been to the “gods aren’t angry tour”? Or is everyone here pretending like they are more familiar with it than I am?
Here’s a unbiased opinion of someone that has gone.
http://www.buzzardblog.com/buzzard_blog/2007/11/rob-bell-the-go.html
November 24th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Inquisitor,
I find it funny you invoke Mclaren…. I never mentioned him but between the two I think his is better than Darby is on may things. At least he studies Chesterton and NT Wright over taking a vision from a prepubescent girl and built a whole theology on it… LOL!
Now, what you are missing is that the theology I am stating is taught by all the early Church Fathers, and is backed by History.
Do I beleive all is fulfilled in Revelations… of course not as we are nto in the New Creation in its fullness yet. But as far as the verses you chose to use as proof-text, you have yet to prove you case from scripture… at least I have given scripture and backed every point I made by it…
So instead of invoking those you think are heretics… try to use scripture in the appropriate manner.
Until you can prove that that Paul is wrong and Jesus words mean nothing, then I will agree with you.. but until then I will stay with the Scripture’s narrative and enjoy my Loving God who sent his Son so that even His enemies could be reconciled unto Him through Jesus Christ.
I think you confuse bringing justice with the wrath of God… which then makes God “hate” sinners (which is OT theology and changed after Jesus) and is all about vengeance.
God will take vengeance, and has already, yet to state He is angry misses that it is God’s will that none shall perish and that it implies God relishes that some will be lost… I think that is a sick and twisted misrepresentation of our Loving Saviour and His Father as well as the workings of the Holy Spirit. Vengeance is about setting things right and not just about punishment. It is that in setting things right, that those who opposed Jesus will receive their just due… and that is their reward for their own works that cannot save someone.
Be blessed,
iggy
November 24th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Inquisitor,
My question to you is why do you hide behind a fake name and give no way of contact?
what are you hiding? And what are you afraid of?
iggy
November 24th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Inq,
I have tickets for next Friday, and I’ve already talked with folks who have gone out west… Additionally, two guys I know and trust run Verum Serum, and have written a review here, and a response to the review you’ve posted in their comments:
November 24th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
BtW, Inquisitor - nobody is “unbiased” - if you looked at that guy’s blog, you knew he was looking for a fight going in, and that he fit more with the guys outside the venue than the ones inside…
November 24th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
God is in perfect control of His emotions. He does not lash out in anger when the time is not appropriate. He showed anger in the OT because of sin, disobedience, worshiping false gods, etc, because He loved His people. If He hated them He wouldn’t care what they did. To me, His anger shows nothing but love. So in sharing the gospel instead of warning of God’s anger, I would show the complete picture of God’s love.
November 24th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Here’s some references on God’s anger:
2 Kings 22:13
Deut. 29:26-28
Ex 32:10
Ex 34:6
Psalm 30:5– this is my favorite: “For His abger lasts only a moment but His favor lasts a lifetime . . .”
November 24th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
^^ That’s supposed to be anger, not abger, sorry!
November 24th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
be careful Merry…
you might expand the lexicon of the “discerning”…
I’m not just angry! I’m ABGERY!!!!
And I believe that God is Abgery too. all the time.
thus I show my devotion to my god by being in everyone’s backyard, kicking them in the shins and poking them in the eyes!
I am so abgery it’s the an annointing!
I tell LIES as unto the Lord! For it seems good in the abgery god to do so, beloved flock!
November 24th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Inquisitor,
First off when you actually look at this scripture you should not some little words often overlooked.
“do you suppose” leaves open that this should be how it is… yet that is not necessarily stating that it will be.
For, though someone continues to sin, be they in Christ or not, sin is dealt with. But to state that one can continue to sin and still be saved some other way is the point that which one has denied Jesus and can only look forward to punishment for their own works that do not equal that of Jesus.
Interestingly, by stating that God is still “angry” you are treating the blood of Jesus in an “unholy manner”. You are negating the Cross that brings reconciliation and salvation as wrath cannot be poured out on Jesus for all men’s sins, then also poured out agian to judge what has already been judged. Sin will not be judge twice… for that would imply that the first judgement was not just.
Men will be punished for rejecting Jesus. Once one is judge by He who is Just and the Justifier, then it is truly right and true.
Notice also that this verse includes believers also? “The Lord will judge his people.” Or are you implying that those lost are also the Lord’s “people”.
Be careful as God will judge and if one has misrepresented Him that also will be set right by His Judgment.
The point being, is that you gave this one scripture as proof and it does not prove that God is “angry” but only what i have been stating all the while. That if one is not prepared to be in the Hands of the living God, meaning not having the Life of the Son… then all is expected is to receive the second death that was chosen instead.
be blessed,
iggy
November 24th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
NC,
“And I believe that God is Abgery too. all the time.”
ROFL!!! Your funny.
November 24th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Iggy and ChrisL,
You seem to be saying that all who call Christ Lord will be saved. I think that you are over applying the work of the Cross. The work of the cross doesn’t apply to everyone. You seem to say that the only ones that it doesn’t apply to are the ones who openly reject Christ. However Christ made it clear that even some who love Him will be rejected by Him.
November 24th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
I can’t understand how you’re interpreting it in this way at all.
November 24th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
All who are truly born again have suffered the vicarious judgment of God through Christ. All others will suffer God’s judgment for eternity. Fairly succinct as well as disturbing.
November 24th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Jesus seems to have said that not all who call Him Lord will be saved. I’m citing Matthew 7.
November 24th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Nicely stated Mr. Frueh.
November 24th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
inquisitor said:
Be careful here. Christ will only reject those who call Him Lord but don’t really live like it. All those who truly love Him, He will accept. There is a difference between calling Christ “Lord” and loving Him. Christ won’t reject anyone who genuinely turns to Him.
November 24th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Inquisitor,
So far you seem to only offend the Cross and blood of Jesus by your statements…
Let’s look at this one point at a time.
1. You seem to be saying that all who call Christ Lord will be saved.
Acts 2:21 And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’
Romans 10: 12-13 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile–the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
So if you are saying that is wrong, you are at odds with scripture…
If you are stating that not all who call “lord, Lord” will be saved, you are right and that is my case against Lordship Salvation. Yet, you need to go and read why those that call Lord, Lord” and find out why they are rejected… but here is why, they did it on their own power “in His name” but Jesus never knew them… they did not depend on Jesus’ works but only on their own. Go and re-read Matt 7 and you will see the why is as i have stated… for you then contradict Jesus’ words by your assertion as he stated in John 17: 12. “While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.” Or as Jesus clearly states in John 10:28 -30 ” And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. I and my Father are one.” So you make out God to be a liar, or you are still in error in your belief.
2.
Interestingly you seem to fall into the “limited atonement” theory that is no held up by scripture unless you jump hoops and ladders to get to.
Romans is full of “all men” but I do not care to get into “all” means “all”.. but take care how you read…
Romans 11: 32. For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
Did God not have mercy on all men who were bound in disobedience?
Do you argue with God who now states in His Word “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men–the testimony given in its proper time.”? 1 Tim 2:5-6
Do you also reject Paul’s words to Timothy as he states, “This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe. Command and teach these things. ”
1 Timothy 4:9-11
Again, do you argue against Paul as he states in Titus 2:11 “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.”
The Cross brings salvation to “all men” but not all men will receive it. Again, you are not arguing your point, but proving again you do not truly believe that the Blood of Jesus can fully save all men… you believe error and negate the efficacy of the Sacrifice of Jesus and His finished works.
Again you only have given two scripture for your case and both times they are out of context and prove you do not fully understand the workings of Jesus at the cross.
blessings,
iggy
November 24th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Iggy,
Truly astounding ‘take down’ friend. I’m with you on this one. I wonder if this will post….it’s been not letting me lately.
Joe
November 25th, 2007 at 6:50 am
Joe C,
Don’t take it personally. I’ve been springing your comments from moderation. From time to time it decides some of us are spambots.
November 25th, 2007 at 8:12 am
it happens to me aaalot.
ig
November 25th, 2007 at 10:39 am
I think the last two lines of this post hit the nail on the head concerning christianresearchnetwork.com - what they have is a distorted version of a 16th century religion, not the gospel. (If the site is actually serious; I’m still wondering if the joke’s on us)
November 25th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
I’m glad to see that the ODM’s are talking about the gods aren’t angry tour…
…cause I have my ticket for tommorow and I hadn’t seen a single watchdoggie flip out about it yet, so I was worried that Rob Bell wasn’t saying anything good or interesting on the tour! But seeing as now it’s set off the ODM’s, I’m confident I’m in for an excellent and challenging night.
November 25th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Iggy, you say that
“you need to go and read why those that call Lord, Lord†and find out why they are rejected… but here is why, they did it on their own power “in His name†but Jesus never knew them… they did not depend on Jesus’ works but only on their own.”
Actually if you read what Jesus is saying, He’s telling them that there will be some who believe on His name, yet never repented of their sins. Not that they were trying to “earn” salvation, but they simply over-applied the cross to their own lives. They were people who thought that they would be forgiven because of their “faith” in Christ, but because they didn’t have true faith, they still lived in sin they were “anomians” Jesus calls them. People who continued in sin. (back to Hebrews 13 “those who continue in sin will be destroyed”) these are people who continue in sin even though they applied Christ forgiveness to themselves.
They were exactly the opposite of people trying to earn salvation, it was people who over-extended the forgiveness of the cross to those who never truly repent and place their faith in Christ. They weren’t trying to earn it, they thought that it would just be given to them even without repentance.
Salvation is a free gift by faith, but those who continue in sin show that their faith is not real, they think that it’s okay to sin because Jesus will forgive them, (Jude 4) Jude tells us that they will perish.
Warning to those of you here who believe that it’s okay to sin because Jesus will just forgive you, your attitude shows that you really haven’t repented. (it reminds me of the roman catholic church which would allow the sinner forgiveness for a sin that they were planning on committing at a later time)
That is not repentance, and talking to some of you here, it seems that you believe that it’s okay to sin because you believe that “it’s okay, Jesus will take care of it”
Read Jude 4 very carefully.
November 25th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Where’s my friend Mr. Frueh, I want to know what he says about all this.
November 25th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
I am wary of the “over applied” phrase as it applies to the cross. The matt. 7 warning by Christ seem to have a measure of mystery to it and is probably designed as a serious warning without giving people an easy escape. Only God knows those that are His, but fruits are an earthly measurement but not always absolute.
To believe on Jesus while assuming a continuing life of unchecked sin is believing on another Jesus. The entrance of the Holy Spirit into a life guarantees that a child of God will be dealt with.
No chastening, no sonship. These are serious issues that no one can discern for sure but the Lord, but we must preach them as warnings.
November 25th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Gee Inquisitor, its like you’re thanking God that you’re not like the terrible sinners over at CRN.info.
November 25th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
I’m was simply giving a warning to some who “sound like” (to me) to be some of those that Jesus was warning. I don’t personally know anyone here at CRN.info, I’m only going by what I’ve been hearing from some of the posters here.
Like Mr. Frueh said, “we must preach them as warnings.”
I’m simply just trying to warn some here (because of what I’ve been hearing from them)
However I have a question for Mr. Frueh,
How can we preach these things as warnings while at the same time not understand what they are?
You say that these are things that can’t be discerned, but need to be preached as warnings. This doesn’t make sense to me.
How can you preach that which you can’t discern?
November 25th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Mr. Reed,
it’s a little unfair to say that I’m acting like the pharisee of the parable. I could easily return the accusation back at you and say that you’re saying “thank God I’m not like that Inquisitor guy”
But starting to point fingers at each other doesn’t do anyone any good. Is it impossible to warn someone of something without being judged as a pharisee?
If everyone that gives warning is acting as a pharisee then we could classify Paul as one as well. He did say, “test yourself and see that you’re really in the faith.”
Jesus warned, Paul warned, the Apostles warned, warning someone is not the same a judging them.
November 25th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
A warning like Matt 7 has some mysterious components. We cannot identify people who the Lord means. The core of that teaching is that their are people who seemingly have done works for Chrsit who were never born again. But Jesus also said do not attempt to point them out personally because you may accidently pull up a wheat (saved person).
Preach it with conviction and authority, but allow the Holy Spirit to carry it to the appropriate hearts, only He knows for sure.
November 25th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
“Warning to those of you here who believe that it’s okay to sin because Jesus will just forgive you, your attitude shows that you really haven’t repented.”
I agree, this is something ALL Christian need to understand (including myself). Sometimes repenting of your sins includes a thorough searching of your heart for sins you might not realize you’re even guilty of because they come so naturally. Sins such as self-righteousness, pride, judging others, an unforgiving heart, etc, are ones that are hard to realize and deal with. We need to really rely on the Holy Spirit to point these things out to us as well as the more obvious sins.
November 25th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Mr. Frueh,
I think that you misquoted the scripture a little. Jesus didn’t say don’t “point them out” He said “don’t PULL them out” there is a huge difference between pointing someone out and pulling them out.
You as a pastor should understand that when you have people in you congregation that claim to belong to Christ, but their fruit doesn’t back up what their claim that they should be warned about your fear for their salvation.
This isn’t pulling them out, it’s simply saying “hey there so and so, I really fear for your salvation because of the way that you live. I think it’s possible that you might not really be saved, you fit the description of the followers of Christ in Matt. 7 and I think it would be wise to do as scripture tells us and test ourselves to make sure that we’re in the faith”
When you see someone in your church that you fear for, do you not tell them anything? You wouldn’t be much of a pastor, and it wouldn’t be very loving to simply say, “well I can’t point them out, so I won’t tell them anything”
November 25th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Inquisitor said:
Which is interesting given his finger pointing earlier in the conversation.
November 25th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Inq - that is totally different than approaching someone who is doing the things that Matt. 7 states. That person seems to be bearing fruit but is actually not saved. The exortation to “examine yourselves” goes to all of us, and except in extreme cases pulling someone out of your congregation and telling him you doubt his salvation is very subjective.
Paul didn’t even say that the man who was living with his father’s wife wasn’t saved and it turns out he was. And your “well I can’t point them out so I won’t tell them anything” is something you made up, certainly I did not endorse that. I believe I said we should warn everyone with conviction and authority.
And so that means everyone, you, me, everyone. So it is presumptous for you to define what you believe is or isn’t “much of a pastor”is. There are people in every church including the one you attend whose fruit doesn’t meet up with someone’s subjective standard. The “pointing out” verses the “pulling out” difference escapes me.
November 25th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Inquisitor,
You seem overly fond of trying to figure out who is in the kingdom and who is not. Perhaps your time would be better spent doign something other than trying to fill in for God.
November 25th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Tim Reed said,
Can you really call it a conversation when someone calls himself, “Inquisitor?”
November 25th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Frueh,
I think that you’re reading the text wrongly. The man is not saved. Paul tells the church to expel him so that he might come to his senses and get saved.
Tim,
Don’t you think that it’s important to know if someone is saved or not? Are willing that people go to hell? If someone is going to go to hell, we should care about that.
If you were in Paul’s shoes in 1 cor. 5 what would you say about the man who was sinning sexually? Would you not be concerned for his salvation?
November 25th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Inquisitor,
Lets see, we’ve got an apostle, intimately familiar with the people and the situation.
Which of those attributes applies to you? To give you a hint its less than 1 but greater than -1.
November 25th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Joe martino,
I’m glad you like my name, I’ve gotten several comments on it so far.
Which brings up something that’s been troubling me. Why is everyone so concerned about stupid things like “what’s with that guy’s name” or “i bet some people don’t like ABACDA pattern posts” and “it sure seems like you’re acting like a Pharisee”
these things don’t really matter, what if I am acting like a pharisee?, what if inquisitor really is a dumb choice for a name?, what if i really don’t like ABACDCACD pattern posting? what if I am acting like a Pharisee, what if I am trying to find out who’s saved???? In the scheme of eternity, NONE of these things matter. However, what does matter is having a correct understanding of salvation!
If you don’t understand salvation, then there is a chance that someone that you think is saved will end up in hell. I don’t see a reason to take this subject lightly or avoid the subject by bringing up things that don’t matter or by name calling.
Does anyone here wish to have a correct understanding of salvation? Or is everyone here completely sure that they understand it completely 100% and couldn’t possible benefit from having a conversation about it? I for one don’t think that I know everything, (even though I might come across that way) but I find that by discussing things and understanding different points of view it’s helps me to learn.
However, it seems that everyone else here is afraid to address the issue and would prefer to call names or make a comment about my name being inquisitor.
Let’s try to stay on topic.
It started out by addressing RB’s “the god’s aren’t angry”
I made the point that God is angry at those who reject his son. (no one came out and said that God isn’t angry with them)
Then i brought up hebrews 13 “God will destroy with “zelos” (zeal) those who reject His son” making the case that this “zeal” shows emotion.
Then it seemed as if many of you here were over-applying the grace of the cross to EVERYONE.
I then was concerned that the chapter in matt 7 wasn’t interpreted correctly by many of you here.
Mr Frueh said that these verses couldn’t be understood but should be preached anyway.
He then said that in 1 cor. 5 the man sleeping with his dad’s wife was sinning but was saved.
I then said that he read the passage wrong, Paul is saying that he isn’t saved and must be kicked out of the church in the hopes that he might come to repentance and be saved.
This is where we are now! Does anyone have anything to say about this topic of 1 cor. 5
Not about my name, or about my attitude, or my grammar or the length of this post, or whether or not I’m angry or whether or not I like chocolate chip cookies, but about the topic at hand.
1 corinthians chapter 5
Does anyone want to comment on scripture?
November 25th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Tim
Actually paul wasn’t familiar with the people. He simply heard about the man in his sin and said, “i judge him already”
then he said:
“I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked man from among you.”[b]
November 26th, 2007 at 12:05 am
Inquisitor, I would prefer to be called Rev. Martino in the future from you please. Furthermore, it is the policy of Rev. Martino to not discuss things with people who fail to provide their real name. I realize you may believe this to be a dumb policy but policy it is.
Peace, Love and Happiness
November 26th, 2007 at 12:41 am
Inquisitor, you said
“what if i really don’t like ABACDCACD pattern posting?”
This is how most conversations go, just letting you know. And also just a friendly “warning” that the original post and conversation doesn’t necessarily revolve around you. So every comment isn’t going to be in answer to your previous comments. So if other people have questions/comments don’t be alarmed. Thanks.
November 26th, 2007 at 1:59 am
Inq,
God isn’t “angry” at anyone - even those who have not accepted grace through Jesus’ sacrifice.
Just as in the Exodus, God has provided a lamb, whose blood we can either accept, “placing it on the lentils of our doorway”, or that we can neglect.
There is absolutely nothing we can do to “appease” His anger, because it has already been appeased in Jesus’ blood. What remains is not anger that must be appeased - it is simply judgment which may be avoided by acceptance of grace… Bell’s point in Mars Hill sermons is consistently that there is nothing we can do to “earn” God’s love (i.e. appease his anger) - He accepts us where we are when we call on Him, and anything we do from there on out is out of love and gratitude - not appeasement…
November 26th, 2007 at 4:29 am
inquisitor,
Go and read Matthew 7 and you will realize that yes they CLAIMED Jesus, but He never knew them… why? It is in their own words that they are condemned.
“Didn’t I…”
That is enough… they did not depend on Jesus, they depended on themselves… and their own works. This is exactly where you are heading in your comments as you assert that the Blood of Jesus is not sufficient for “all men” to come to salvation.
Now, I am not understanding as I have quoted scripture after scripture and you sit on one that you misinterpret and insist you are still in agreement with the teachings of the Scripture. It seems more you deny these clear teachings so you can hold to your errant ones… and that is the very sin that held back these people in Matt 7
Be blessed,
iggy
November 26th, 2007 at 5:46 am
Inquisitor,
How can you say that my attitude shows I have not really repented?
I think that you have not really repented and come to the knowledge of Jesus and His finished works and still depend on your own works to prove yourself to God… at least that is what I keep getting out of this phony inquisition you are doing.
It seems you are the one who denies the blood of Christ, and then misuses and misrepresents scripture to prove your point. It seems clear to me that you mistake that you have some righteousness above me… which is really sad as I have none nor boast in any except that which is imputed to me by Jesus.
I think you need to really go and re-read a few things on judging others especially Roman chapter 2… after you read chapter one slooooowly… and prayerfully.
Truly your own arrogance seems to blind you as you sit accuse your brothers in the Lord from some high self appointed throne.
Come to repentance and into the Sabbath rest that is Christ Jesus and forsake your denial of the Blood of Jesus.
As far as I am concerned you hide behind a false name and proclaim a false doctrine that declares God a liar and denies the blood of Jesus and calls Jesus a fraud for dying on the Cross… You have yet to show one scripture that even remotely proves anything you are stating here and the ones you have quoted you have sickly twisted to fit your own doctrines that lead to death and condemnation.
You seem to have contempt for the kindness of God…
In fact this wrath you are warning me about, seems to be what is being spoken about people like you!
I see that you add to the works of Jesus as you fear that grace given as freely as the Bible states CANNOT be true… but it is my friend.
I do not not judge you as far as salvation, but by your words here I wonder if you know what a great and wonderful salvation you have if you do! If you do not know Jesus in this way, then I implore you to come to Christ for all He is and not settle on your own rationalism to save you.
iggy
November 26th, 2007 at 6:50 am
Inq - Have you ever read the rest of the man’s story in II Cor?
“Does anyone here wish to have a correct understanding of salvation?”
No.
November 26th, 2007 at 8:09 am
I’m joining the conversation late but ciest la vie.
Inq are you saved? How do you know this? If so who saved you?
Most of what you have written does imply that you believe salvation comes through what you do. Furthermore your presupposition that someone I know may end up in hell because of my percieved misunderstanding of salvation really denies the Holy Spirit.
November 26th, 2007 at 8:15 am
The following two videos seem pertinent to our conversation. The first one is a parody of the Nooma bullhorn guy. It really is all about Jesus overturning tables in the temple to justify angry preaching.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Z9XorvaC4qs
The next one is of a guy (21 years old or so) standing outside of the Gods aren’t angry tour. Doing “Open Air Preaching”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7mEazce3D0
A few things for the masses…Rob Bell is not a heretic and he is not emergent. Just some food for thought.
November 26th, 2007 at 8:55 am
Inquisitor,
Paul was familiar with the church itself. Not to mention he was an authority for that church.
You are neither.
November 26th, 2007 at 9:00 am
Also, though I’m sure you’d claim a grace based salvation you’re sure attaching a lot of work to it. Your reasoning is very similar to the reasoning of the Catholic church that drove Luther to search the scriptures and formulate the saved by grace through faith theology.
November 26th, 2007 at 9:14 am
I think I can identify somewhat with where Inquisitor is coming from (who, by the way, should probably think of changing to a screen name that doesn’t conjur up images of torture). Growing up in a Wesleyan/Pentecostal Holiness tradition, I remember thinking many times that God was very ticked off. If it wasn’t said explicitly (which it was a lot), we certainly implied it. God was basically very angry at everyone. I think I had the idea that God sent Jesus because He was so mad that it was like a last ditch effort to appease His anger. If I messed up though, I just made God more angry. It was kind presented itself as a viscious circle. Now I don’t blame any one person for this, really. It just was kind of the way of that culture.
It wasn’t until after college that I really started seeing God differently. I understood that, yes, God is holy and hates sin, but He is still loving and He is for people. He is not jumping on our backs trying to catch us in sin. The Holy Spirit does convict, but He does it in a way that doesn’t shame people. It is really hard to explain to someone who hasn’t experienced it. God is not angry. He longs to reach people.
I find it interesting that in Hebrew, the name Satan basically means the accuser. Satan is constantly calling God’s creation worthless. In doing so He is implying the God is not good. To be saved, is to refute this. A person is who is saved realizes that God is good, and that no accusation against God can stand. To be saved is to realize that God does not have ill intentions toward us, but that He loved us and wants the best for us. It is people who refuse to believe this that will live eternally separated from God. The choice we have is to agree with the Holy Spirit and declare God good, or agree with Satan and accuse God of not being good.
November 26th, 2007 at 9:37 am
chris,
Through all Inq’s accusations I can see that I am not the only one that noticed all his added works to his ineffectual version of the blood of Christ...
Inq,
Just courious, are you a follower of John MacArthur, you sound like one to the tee!
Phil,
I agree, when I was younger before Grace found me, I was on a rage to make sure all those “eternal security” people knew they were on their way to hell… or at least wish they were by the time I was done with them… funny how Grace changes the heart and the man, while works and a performance based faith tends toward judgmentalism…
I guess it is that one does not want to examine themselves and it is easier to look at others and accuse then to look at Jesus and realize one needs to fall at His loving feet for mercy and find Grace through His loving kindness.
But, that is sometimes found out the hardest way as i almost walked away from my faith and would have if not for God’s divine hand of love giving me a new heart.
Be blessed,
iggy
November 26th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Chris L., I do believe God’s wrath is being held until the age of grace is over. II Thess tells us God will come with vengeance on the unsaved still alive on the earth, and Romans says the some do not have the fear of God in their eyes which is to their detriment.
Revelation speaks of the wrath of the Lamb, and Romans talks much about sinners compiling God’s wrath. There is no doubt that God has provided an escape and refuge from the wrath to come, but God’s anger continues to build and one day His cup will overflow. To present the judgment side of God as more benign than His grace side misrepresents the character of God and makes it unbalanced.
Salvation is free and simple but easily understated, but part of the reason Jesus is the Passover Lamb is to place theblood on the doorposts so the angel of death will pass over us. The appeasement of God’s wrath against all unrighteous has been fulfilled and offered at the cross.
I cannot substantiate this but besides God’s justice against those who refuse Christ, is it possible that God’s wrath will be kindled against those who counted the blood of God’ Son, bruised by God Himself, as an unholy thing. The Father struck His Son and men mocked it.
November 26th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Rick,
Are you a dispensationalist?
November 26th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Ok, the spam catcher keeps swallowing up my comments. It’s a conspiracy!
November 26th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Joe - not a strict dispensationalist, I believe in the gifts of the Spirit but I also believe in the church age (times in the gentiles).
November 26th, 2007 at 10:56 am
These two statements seem at odds to me. If I answer “yes” to the first, wouldn’t I then fall into the category of the second, which seems a reprimand?
It’s this kind of writing which makes it impossible to carry on even an ABABAB conversation.
November 26th, 2007 at 11:08 am
On the bullwhip guy video:
How can you take the entirety of Jesus’ ministry and force it all into a single incident to justify a ministry of anger.
November 26th, 2007 at 11:10 am
Julie - he was just inquisinating about salvation.
November 26th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Chris
Watching the shouter with the sign from the video you posted, how would you respond to him? What specific points would you make?
I’m going to see Rob Bell’s tour tonight and want to know what to say to shouters outside of it. My usual policy is to ignore them outright, but I would hate to see someone who may have just found faith at this event busted down by someone with an axe to grind outside, and would hopefully like to engage the person in conversation to keep them from seeding confusion.
November 26th, 2007 at 11:18 am
…although I would rather talk with the person who would be potentially confused and put off by the person with the sign, they don’t wear signs around their neck and shout, they’d be harder to spot
November 26th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Kevin,
I would suspect that if someone is willing to go out and misrepresent Christ so publicly that a conversation won’t change their minds. THough you may keep them occupied long enough to keep them from screaming at a few people.
November 26th, 2007 at 11:34 am
That would be the goal, I know as someone who formally was like that person with the sign that they aren’t out to listen or to learn and that they probably don’t have a clue what is being said inside outside their own filter. But if I can touch conversation points that keep their interest, I can do my part to help those who God may be working on from what Rob Bell presents on this tour.
November 26th, 2007 at 11:43 am
What would you guys think of someone holding a wooden sign that says “Prepare Now - I am Coming - Jesus” ? No shouting and no unpleasantness, just holding a sign.
November 26th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Rick,
I hate even the vast majority of the messages on the signs out front of churches.
November 26th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Rick,
I have actually seen a few people do things like that. There’s a guy here that sits out on the corner of an intersection holding a big cross while reading his Bible. I don’t know if people even notice him anymore, actually.
While I can’t automatically discount all those types of things because God did ask the prophets in the OT to do some crazy stuff, it seems to me these types of public professions almost seem more cowardice than bold to me. Once a person gets over any initial “stagefright” of doing something like this, it almost seems to me that they are taking the easy way of presenting the Gospel. It is quite easy to make bold proclamations to strangers. It seems quite a different thing to live a consistent Christian life in both word and deed among coworkers, family members, classmates, etc.
A living epistle is more of a testimony to the power of the Gospel than any sign will ever be.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
I witness in the conventional way, of course. But 2 years ago I felt the Holy Spirit lead me to step out and do something for Chist that was bolder than normal. I hold up that sign on the side of a 8 lane intersection during Friday rush hour. My health dictates about a two hour stint which means approximately 5 thousand carssee my sign.
I agree that yellingand screaming hell and damnationis counterproductive, but holding a sign just might be used by God in someone’s life who might be being drawn already.
November 26th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
[...] Recent Comments Rick Frueh on The gods may not be angry… but some of their followers are [...]
November 26th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Rick,
Ah, yeah, I kind of thought you were setitng us up with that question.
Anyway, I hope you don’t take my last comment to mean that I’m calling you a coward. Like I said, I do have to make room for the Holy Spirit calling certain people to do such things. You never know what God will use.
Also, I would add that holding a sign on a street corner seems a bit more innocuous than at an event where another Christian is teaching. Even if there are legitimate issues with another pastor’s teaching, I don’t think that is the correct way to deal with those issues. All a non-believer sees in those cases is Christians fighting with one another.
November 26th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
I also have another sign that reads:
“Phil Miller is goofy!”
That sign seems to be met with much acceptance.
November 26th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Rick,
I think you let Phil off light.
November 26th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
A little background on the “screamer”. His name is Jesse Morrell. And he has been at, what he calls “Open Air preaching” for about 3 years now. He was recently on Todd Friels show because he has been arrested for what he is doing. Todd painted it as persecution of Christians.
My problem is he is neither preaching nor is he a good witness for Christ. He just blathers and blathers. How would I deal with him? I wouldn’t.
November 26th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
I normally avoid all discussions about Rob in a public setting but in his video he flat out lies about what Rob teaches. Rob does not teach anything heretical about the blood atonement. I wonder if he actually went inside or if like Friel he just filled in the blanks. I emailed him and asked him if he went inside but he hasn’t yet responded.
November 26th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Thank you, Joe, for chiming in. I seriously doubt Morrell went inside, or - if he did - he started writing his critique (like the critic cited on Verum Serum) ten minutes in and didn’t pay attention from there on out.
I wonder if the monster shouters will be out this Friday in Indianapolis?
November 27th, 2007 at 8:35 am
I went to the Electric Factory in Philly last night and saw Rob.
It was a wonderful, edifying and challenging time.
I am going to post a synopsis tomorrow on my blog.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:59 am
And there were no sign-carrying screamers…just a lot of dark-rimmed glasses and soul patches.
November 27th, 2007 at 9:13 am
OK, I’m officially jealous of all of you who got to go. I was going to go to the one in Pittsburgh because my family live pretty close to the city, but unfortunately we had to cut our stay short because my wife had to work in the lab on Saturday. I guess I’ll just have to wait for the DVD.
I think the whole treatment of this by the ODM’s is almost a parody. Talk about judging a book by its cover. They are just going by the title of the tour itself, and not really talking at all about the actual content. It’s the same way the talked about Sex God.
They probably think that Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle is a tour guide to the Amazon…
November 27th, 2007 at 9:30 am
I was at the Electric Factory as well last night.
There wasn’t anything heretical or out there. I can see why people would get upset though, if you come in expecting certain things to be adressed and find a time spent on other subjects it could seem like Rob Bell was avoiding something, but rather it was a time focused on certain ideas and concepts, using a certain language.
I imagine if you went in with certain priorities and expectations of certain things to be in certain terms then you may feel like Rob Bell avoided things or ignored things, their problem wouldn’t be with anything Rob Bell said but with things he didn’t add in.
The only way you could go in and see heresy is if you already had your sign made up in the car and needed it to be heresy for your night to be complete. What is weird to me from the protester video is that he seemed to think that there was no talk of repentance in Rob Bell’s time of sharing, but there was a whole excellent section of the talk on repentance and how it is not to gain God’s peace but how we live because we accept said peace.
I thought it was a great night and I recommend it, but if you’re going in against Rob Bell hoping he’ll explain his views on every single subject and lay out everything ever instead of living to preach another day, you’ll be frustraited.
November 27th, 2007 at 9:55 am
I am one who believes what Rob Bell didn’t say (according to both his supporters and detracters) is importanat and diminishes the prsentation. Every Christian talk/speech/sermon/teaching given to the public should include a gospel thread. Not necessarily an invitation, but a redemptive tie in.
I also have a distaste for an admission charge. Offering would be more appropriate.
November 27th, 2007 at 10:01 am
Rick,
As far as charging admission, I believe it’s kind of necessary for this kind of event. Most, if not all, of these talks are sold out, and I believe not charging admission would cause chaos at the door. Also, all the proceeds above the cost are going to a micro-finance missions project that Mars Hill is overseeing.
As far as presenting the Gospel, it seems to me like does it from what I’ve read. It might not use all the buzzwords, but it seems to me like he does it. Of course I wasn’t there, so I can’t give a full account of what was said.
November 27th, 2007 at 10:20 am
The “Gospel” was presented…albeit without an alter call.
It was a welcoming into this peace with God through Jesus Christ. It was moving and real. I was planning on posting my synopsis tomorrow on my blog, as I did not have time this morning, but I think I’ll try to type it up on my lunch break while it’s still fresh.
November 27th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Rick,
All proceeds from the admission charge (beyond the renting of the space) go to the Turame mission in Burundi, one of the three key outreach missions of Mars Hill Bible Church. Proceeds from last year’s tour (Everything is Spiritual) went to an organization that provides clean water for villages in Africa.
If I read the VS review correctly and some of the other reviews correctly, as well, it sounds like Bell did present the gospel, though just not with all of the “Christianese” accoutraments (substituting descriptions of sinful behaviors/addictions/etc. rather than just summarizing them as “sin”, for example). Critics went in looking for specific buzzwords and didn’t hear them…
November 27th, 2007 at 10:48 am
I appreciate the clarification of the financial direction, we need more of that. I cannot make an opinion on the gospel presentation though he should give some time to it. Discussing the evolution of man’s theological superstitions are only information without a productive destination.
Philosophy has no benefit whatsoever unless, like Francis Shaeffer, it is used to show the meaninglessness of the human experience without Christ.
November 27th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Nathanael and Kevin I,
I used to work at the Electric Factory way back in the day. Are you guys from Pa.?
November 27th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Rev. Martino,
I am from PA…born and raised in Boyertown.
I now live in Parkesburg with my wife.
We’re about an hour from Philly with no traffic.
November 27th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Yeah, man, I know where that is. I grew up in Bloomsburg, went to school in Clarks Summit. Lived in Scranton. My Dad still lives up there.
November 27th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
I’m a Jersey guy who grew up outside of Trenton
November 27th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
RE: Philosophy has no benefit whatsoever unless, like Francis Shaeffer, it is used to show the meaninglessness of the human experience without Christ.
Ouch. I guess there goes the whole framework of categories that drove our christological formulations for the first 400 years of Church history…
November 27th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Ick,
Jersey
November 27th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
“I guess there goes the whole framework of categories that drove our christological formulations for the first 400 years of Church history… ”
Unless you acknowledge the hidden ministry of the Holy Spirit in all of it.
November 27th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
I hear you Rick,
Thus meaning that philosophy is more than an exercise in futility…
November 27th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
A tool in exposing futility.
November 27th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Okay, I posted my brief synopsis from my fading memory of last nights “The gods aren’t angry.”
Here’s the link:
the gods aren’t angry