“I think if we were given the Scriptures, it was not so that we could prove that we were right about everything. If we were given the Scriptures, it was to humble us into realizing that God is right, and the rest of us are just guessing.”
This entry was posted
on Friday, January 4th, 2008 at 8:17 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
128 Comments(+Add)
Nice!
Amen.
If only we would all realize this. I am humbled by the Word daily.
if we were given…”?
Is that just him doing a hypothetical reality or something?
Joe
Weird…my comment got all screwed up…let me try again.
I pointed to myself…with an arrow…but the markup must have thought I was doing script…
Then I said… “I’m still guessing”
Then I said…”But I have a question…”
Why did he say “if we were given…”?
Is that just him doing a hypothetical reality or something?
Ok there. lol
Joe
Joe,
I think he was giving a conditional statement based on the view that the Bible was given to us.
“If” in this sense is a “first class conditional” – It assumes the “if” is true to make the contrasting point. I believe there are examples of this even in Scripture, but none come to mind at this moment.
Neil
What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us?
Romans 8:31 – a first class conditional where the “if” is assumed to be true to emphasize the “then”
But if all we are doing is ‘just guessing’, then how do we determine what view is right or wrong, or at least better or worse?
WOW, JazzAct, please send me your address. I want to send you a prize. Did you even read the comments? Was Paul guessing in Romans? If you really think that Rich Mullins is saying we’re guessing, then you win the “Adventures in Missing the Point” award.
Jazz,
one must take this in the context that WE do not know the truth and must depend on God for the truth… if WE think WE can determine truth without God, then we are deceiving ourselves. The bible should humble us to depend on God as He leads and teaches us. The Bible only become a living document in relationship to Jesus. Without that relationship, one can get puffed up with knowledge and pride and miss the point.
iggy
jazzact13,
What I see Mullins essentially affirming in this quote is the theory of epistemiology known as critical realism. Oversimplified, it is somewhere between absolute foundationalism, which says we can empiracly prove we are right, and relativism, which says anyone is as right as anyone else.
I think it best, when presented with a comment such as this, to take it as a whole and not try to exegete each particular phrase. Particularly when we have no greater context inwhich to place it.
Every time I come to this thread, I just say, WOW. That’s all I can write. I actually say a lot more, but that’s all I can write. WOW.
Why’s that Joe?
The fact that there seems to be a surprising amount of disagreement over a rather innocuous quote?
It seems to me like if I put up a quote by someone that said, “The Bible is God’s words” someone would want to know why he said words instead of word. WOW, just WOW
OK – I don’t know if that is what Mullins was advocating… I think it’s a stretch to pour that much meaning into one simple statement (see comment above)… that said, if critical realism boils down to “…there exists an objectively knowable, mind-independent reality, whilst acknowledging the roles of perception and cognition…” – I can live with that.
Joe, I agree with ya as well.
This is why I am a 3.7 point Calvinist. I used to sit on the fence and say it does not matter until a brother slapped me upside the head and said it effects all of my systematic theology and oh by the way, it is God’s Word your ignoring. I can say now that no other issue, aside from desire for spiritual growth, has caused me to study the Scripture more intently. I have learned so much about God’s love, compassion, character, etc. by studying the issue of God’s election. I still don’t have a firm position and am less likely to pick one the more I study.
Is it possible God gave us this issue to drive us to the Scriptures? Could this be said of other things? Our “guessing†keeps us studying, meditating, expositing, exegeting, observing, correlating, applying, and loving the precious Scriptures.
Darren,
How did election enter in… or is that your example of “guessing?”
Neil,
Yeah, I totally agree with you. I’m not saying Rich was officially endorsing the concept of “critcal realism” or anything. It just seems to to me that he was affirming it, whether he knew it or not. I think a lot of people do.
I was just trying to make the point that it seems that a lot of people assume that if someone says something like “it was not so that we could prove that we were right about everything”, they take it to mean that we can’t be right about anything, and an endorsement of a relativistic worldview. I was just saying there is a third option between saying we can perfectly know everything and we can’t know anything.
In other words, typical blogosphere over-analyzation.
Phil,
Understood and agreed!
Neil
Neil,
I mean “guessing” to be that I cannot at this time say with certainty, which is correct between limited atonement and unlimited atonement. I would have to guess as to which one is right from my study of the Scriptures. Many godly men have eloquently argued both positions. Norman Geisler’s Chosen but Free is an excellent source.
I can say with condidence that is possible for God to create a free choice system where He has already determined every choice. One might say it is impossible but we know that all things are possible with God.
This is the part where I issue the standard cliché that a finite mind cannot comprehend our infinite God.
So basically what Rich is saying is…
The Bible was not given to us so we could throw it around and say we know everything, but it was given to us so we could know we must rely on God for Truth.
I can definitely agree with that. Fo show.
Joe
Darren,
There are a lot of examples of that – limited vs unlimited… various eschatological scenarios… the divinity of Jesus… WAIT, scratch that last one…
Neil
Seriously, how do we move from a great quote to this discussion?
Joe, it was just predestined. You’ll never truly understand it.
I guess this is what happens when a website attracts a variety of viewpoints and lets everyone post. Its kind of cool, kind of frustrating. Kind of like church.
I tried to get back on subject….don’t hate don’t hate…
There IS a TRUE church and THIS is NOT it! Sorry, I couldn’t help myself.
I think the Bible itself tells us why God gave it to us. We don’t need Rich to go around contradicting what the Bible has already said about itself.
David D,
Whatever stream of Christianity you come from, it owes its existence to explanation about what the Bible says, and why it was given to us by a non-apostle, non-prophet. Pretending that you haven’t assimilated these beliefs from whoever that person/people is/are in order to bash a quote posted here is at least silly, and at most dishonest, depending on your amount of self-reflection.
David D,
Instead of just saying it…can you show us how Rich’s statement contradicts the Bible and why God gave it to us?
Is it for us to rely on God for the Truth, or ourselves?
Joe
Let the Scriptures speak for themselves;
Deut 6:
4″Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. 5You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. 6And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. 7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.
Deut 8:
1″The whole commandment that I command you today you shall be careful to do, that you may live and multiply, and go in and possess the land that the LORD swore to give to your fathers. 2And you shall remember the whole way that the LORD your God has led you these forty years in the wilderness, that he might humble you, testing you to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep his commandments or not. 3And he humbled you and let you hunger and fed you with manna, which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that he might make you know that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD. 4 Your clothing did not wear out on you and your foot did not swell these forty years. 5Know then in your heart that, as a man disciplines his son, the LORD your God disciplines you. 6So you shall keep the commandments of the LORD your God by walking in his ways and by fearing him.
Deut 29:
29″The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.
2 Peter 1:
16For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” 18we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. 19And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 21For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
John 14:
26But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.
John 15:
26″But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me
John 17:
17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. 18 As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. 19And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. 20″I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.
John 5:
37And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness about me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen, 38and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe the one whom he has sent. 39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, 40yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. 41 I do not receive glory from people. 42But I know that you do not have the love of God within you. 43I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him. 44How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God? 45Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. 46For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. 47But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”
You cannot separate the WORD from the Word.
“The Bible was not given to us so we could throw it around and say we know everything, but it was given to us so we could know we must rely on God for Truth.”
So does the fact that some claim we can’t understand, reveal their non-reliance on God especially, the Holy Spirit?
“Hear (shema) Oh Israel”
Shema literally means hear,understand, and obey.
The context of the scripture is the scripture revealed by the Holy Spirit.
Says the Calvinist.
Bah Chris P you totally missed the point.
I’ll go with Joe M on this one and go…
WOWW….
=)
I still stand by my analysis and paraphrase of what Rich was saying…and say I agree with it.
Humans don’t know jack. God gives us the Truth.
That’s an even better paraphrase I think!!! LOL
Joe
Somehow, Chris P., you end up missing the total point of the quote. The point is not questioning the truthfulness or usefulness of Scripture. It’s talking about it’s purpose. Its purpose was not to give us all the correct answers as to puff us up. Its purpose is to point to God.
Tim,
Funny even though Chris P missed the point, the quote,
I agree with… Jesus is the Living Word that gives the written word meaning and Life… in fact Jesus stated that the purpose of the written word was to testify who He was…
But then all Chris P will say to me is I am stupid, ignorant, and to shut up…
Still praying for you Chris!
iggy
Hey Iggy,
Don’t assume the worst about people, even if they deserve it. It just makes your assumption a self-fulfilling prophecy, and you’d be the catalyst in that case.
Just sayin, bro…
Joe
Creating false absolutes is not helpful to the discussion. No one, that I recall, said we cannot understand. What is being discussed is/are the limitations of that understanding.
As much as “straw man” is overused, this is what you did. You took a statement, reduced the meaning to a false absolute (false in the sense that your reduction created a meaning foreign to the riginal comment), then you addressed that false absolute.
What you said was true – just not germane to the discussion since you addressed something not said…
Neil
I’ve thought of this quote several dozen times in the last few weeks when looking at some of the responses on this site. It never occurred to me to make a post of it.
Darn it, Tim! I want partial credit.
Brendt,
How much credit is there in posting a post comprised entirely of someone else’s words?
What’s half of zero?
The title is your’s though – right?
ISay something good about a person and I still get rebuked! LOL!
I will take it into consideration, though I do doubt Chris will be anything but hostile to me… (Sorry, I am a bit of a realist) But, I do always believe a person can change if Christ is their hope.
blessings
iggy
“Its purpose was not to give us all the correct answers as to puff us up. Its purpose is to point to God.”
The Scriptures do serve to give us “correct answers”i.e. they not only point to God they reveal Him,His truth, and His plan, in full. Truth, usefulness, purpose;What is the difference?
You are the ones missing the point.
Joe C. I did not disagree with you at all. I did ask a logcal question coming off your definition.
Break out of the minimalist, post-modern, deconstructionist mode please. Strain out a gnat, the neo-legalists.
iggy, doth protest too much. I have never said you were stupid or ignorant. Obnoxious ….yeah.
“I do always believe a person can change if Christ is their hope.”
LOL Thanks for proving my point. Not only obnoxious, but arrogant and condescending., which you have proves elsewhere. Worry about yourself.
You have a tiny, tiny God if he can be fully revealed in pages.
Chris P,
One of my weaknesses is having a good memory when someone states rather nasty thing toward me. I can easily go through the archives here and quote your own words toward me… but really I do not want to waste my time if you deny them. Remember God hears every idle word you have stated to me and others hear… so I am content he will deal with you.
B
It also seems you are the one stuck on labels and definitions… I keep pointing to the bible and you call us names such as above.
Really, how can anyone take you serious as you speak one way and act another?
iggy
Oh my.
You all have destroyed and read into a nice quote.
I am absolutely aghast. I am humbled by the scriptures. We can know God, yes. Absolutely. He revealed Himself in the Word- both in the Bible and made flesh. And the Bible does provide answers, even to questions we don’t know to ask. But beyond that, it is living and active. It can speak to you and to me directly. It can communicate new truth to me that I missed the 100 times I read the passage before. And it can get to the heart of a matter, if you will allow it to.
Hi, I’m Joe, have we met?
You don’t know me Chris P, you could have addressed me without ridiculous insulting labels (that you can’t even know the meaning of half of them, since they were all cherry picked out of context).
Care to clarify your definitions and show me how I am worthy of those insults?
You owe me an apology. Thank you.
Joe
pastorboy,
By “all” do you mean many?
Cuz what I stated seems to agree with you… can you at least qualfiy you “all”?
be blessed,
iggy
Chris P.
Well at least your are consistent. Once again you have reduced what is being said to an absurd level – and by absurd I mean you are wrong.
You took “give us all the correct answers” and responded with “…does serve to give us…” – your reductionist absurdum is showing in the omission of “all.”
You took a true statement, changed it, and addressed the change.
As before, you may be right. But also as before, your comment is irrelevant since it is addressing a point no one made.
Neil
Iggy,
Sorry, southern slang. All of those submitting commentary did not do this.
I have not the experience of people parsing my sentences so often since I have been in my Master’s program!
pastorboy,
I just find many come here and assume that since I am the ‘emergent’ they would never agree with me on anything…
So, I am just pointing out that this is at least the second or third time you have… so now I am wondering about you!?!?! LOL!
be blessed,
iggy
Ooo, ooo! I know this one — I’m married to a math teacher.
– If you really think that Rich Mullins is saying we’re guessing, then you win the “Adventures in Missing the Point†award.–
I can only refer to Rich’s own words…
–If we were given the Scriptures, it was to humble us into realizing that God is right, and the rest of us are just guessing.†–
…and wonder, what does he mean. If we were not given the Scriptures so that we can understand what is right or wrong, and also to prove what is right and wrong, then yes we are in essence guessing. All the time.
–Was Paul guessing in Romans?–
You’ll have to ask Rob Bell about that one. After all, he thinks Paul was out of him mind in some things he wrote.
Ok, off topics, couldn’t resist, didn’t want to resist. The question isn’t about what I think, but about Mullin’s statement. You may think I’ve “missed the point”, maybe I have, but then again, saying we are all “just guessing” is a pretty strong statement. Was Rich himself “just guessing”? Was he completely without any kind of certainty?
And please understand, I say that as someone who has a good bit of respect for Rich Mullins, both as a musician and as I understand how he lived.
Jazz,
can you give the exact quote where RB states anything remotely close to this? Now, I have not read much of any RB but I almost for certain with even doing that see that quote as slanderous and without merit… unless there is an exact quote stating…”Paul was out of his mind on this and was so wrong!” ~ quoteth Rob Bell (written on the side of a Starbucks cup)
This is the sort of junk I just hate… really I do.
Spurgeon once stated, “My Creed is Jesus.” So he must really have thought Calvin was out of his mind… sheesh… Spurgeon did say that… but let’s take things in context and realize that RB would not state anything like that… He may have a differing view about what Paul stated than you, but RB does not nor has not state “Paul was out of his mind!”…
But, Paul does state that about himself! “I am speaking as a fool!” said Paul… and he did… so take that literally will ya! LOL! (2 Cor 11:21) At least RB has some biblical backing if he did say such a thing. LOL!
be blessed,
iggy
If there is ever a thread that shows the absurdity of man’s hearts and the assanine things that come out it, surely by all that is green on this earth, and all that is wet in water this thread is it. No, that’s not a guess.
“You’ll have to ask Rob Bell about that one. After all, he thinks Paul was out of him mind in some things he wrote.”
Actaully it was Festus that said Paul was “out of his mind”.
And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad (Acts 26:24 KJV).
F Whittenburg
http://www.christiannewbirth.com
If you promise to send me $50 bucks I can show you a verse where Paul said he himself may have been out of his mind. But I want the 50 first
Iggy,
I am an emergent like Mark Driscoll, without the crass speech. I wish to emerge from the church culture that says we hang out in a building and never connect with people in the world around us.
I want to emerge back to the church of Acts 2:42-47.
I want to emerge, not deconstructing the scripture or orthodoxy, but by being dead to myself and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
Believe it or not, I am also a Calminian.
This thread is kind of like a Rorschach inkblot test – whatever you’re predisposed to see, that is what you will see.
In my own case, I’m doubly cursed, because I was with Rich on at least one occasion when he made this comment, and the context was all about how people use the Bible to justify all sorts of evil (and yes, Neil, it was ‘first conditional’, as he had just indicated that everyone he was talking about believed the Scripture was given to us by God), or to just try to justify themselves…
pastorboy,
Ahhh, that explains so much! LOL! The conflict of really really liking you and yet not sure where you are coming from…
Thanks for clearing that up…
Actually, I really am not much of a Driscoll fan… except when Steve Camp totes out Luther to put down Driscoll and his potty mouth.
Really I am one that has talked to some of those at “emergent” about language. Driscoll really never has stated anything that bad to me… I think it is a little course, but compared to SC’s reformed hero Luther, Driscoll is an armature in course language! LOL!
I used to think I was Calminian, then I realized that I do not have to be either or even part of both… in fact I see that both were just great thinkers, but to base my whole theology on either or both seems silly and and an insult to the many, many other people who have given us so much in church history.
I usually stop before the writers of Constantine, though I dip into St John of the Cross and a few others at time. I am planning on doing a study in how Gnosticsm moved from Clement of Alexandria to Aquinas to Augustine and St Bernard and then to Calvin… it seems pretty much a straight line as far as the influence of Plato and Greek thought with Gnostic beliefs infusing themselves on the Gospel.
Now, not all I see is “bad” but i do see that there is much confusion in the christian world with dualism and and abstract view of truth apart from the Person of Jesus caused by the Gnosticism at Alexandria.
OK… So how i got there I am not sure! LOL! But, I think you might “get” me more that some here…
Be blessed,
iggy
–can you give the exact quote where RB states anything remotely close to this?–
Velvet Elvis, p. 42
And while we’re at it, what about those letters in the New Testament from one person to another group of people? Notice this verse from 2 Corinthians: “I am out of my mind to talk like this.” A man named Paul is writing this, so is it his word or God’s word?
Is God out of his mind?
Is God out of Paul’s mind?
Is Paul out of God’s mind?
Or does it simply mean that Paul is out of Paul’s mind?
And if the verse is simply Paul being out of Paul’s mind, then how is that God’s word?
Jazz,
So the literal interpretation would mean that Paul was literally out of his mind and in need of medication by today’s standard, right?
LOL!
Again, Rob Bell states this but is he meaning what I am stating above? I do not think so, he is writing a letter, under inspiration from God, (whom I believe has a great sense of humor at times) and is willing to sound like a fool, or someone totally out of his mind for the sake of truth.
So then is Rob being taken out of context? Or is Paul?
It seems that even when Rob is quoting scripture, he is said to be wrong?
Maybe i am really tired of all this sort of stuff or I am taking you totally wrong Jazz, I am not sure if you are defending RB or stating he was wrong in quoting Paul from Paul’s inspired statement in the bible… but if you where critiquing RB, my original question still stands… How does this mean Rob Bell is wrong?
iggy
–Maybe i am really tired of all this sort of stuff or I am taking you totally wrong Jazz–
I am tired of it as well. I am tired of Bell saying that the virgin birth isn’t important, and peole defending him and selling his book in their church’s bookstore. I’m tired of Bell saying stupid stuff like Peter sank because he stopped believing in himself. I’m tired of Bell saying Paul was out of his mind when he wrote that.
Here is the context of the verse Bell references
http://bible.christianity.com/mybst/default.aspx?reference=2%20Corinthians%2011&type=bible&translation=niv
Look at it, at places like these in it…
1. I hope you will put up with a little of my foolishness; but you are already doing that.
16. I repeat: Let no one take me for a fool. But if you do, then receive me just as you would a fool, so that I may do a little boasting.
17. In this self-confident boasting I am not talking as the Lord would, but as a fool.
18. Since many are boasting in the way the world does, I too will boast.
19. You gladly put up with fools since you are so wise!
21. To my shame I admit that we were too weak for that! What anyone else dares to boast about–I am speaking as a fool–I also dare to boast about.
And in the next chapter
11. I have made a fool of myself, but you drove me to it. I ought to have been commended by you, for I am not in the least inferior to the “super-apostles,” even though I am nothing.
Perhaps that last is the point–Paul shouldn’t have had to have boast about himself to them, they knew him and knew the things he had done and said. But they had started following after “super apostle” false teachers, and Paul in trying to make them listen to him resorts to these kinds of boasts, and to his mind it’s in some ways foolish.
A person may speak as a fool, but not be out of their minds.
Jazz,
I’m tired of people only quoting half of Bell’s statements, leaving them completely out of context – just as you have done and all of the other “virgin birth” posters have done – he reaffirms his belief in – and teaching of – the virgin birth. (I would note that, by asking the question about the VB, you end up stripping away all of the systematic “stuff” that isn’t in the Bible regarding Mary if you deconstruct what the VB means to Christianity.)
As for Peter sinking, it IS an orthodox teaching. It has been around longer than Bell has been alive, particularly in Messianic Christian circles. The problem with critics of this particular lesson is that they are either purposely or accidentally obtuse to the nuance that it is not Peter’s belief that he, of his own accord, has the power to walk on water. Rather, Peter’s doubt is in the power of God to work through him. Look it up in the Bible – Jesus does NOT say – “why did you doubt me?” it says “why did you doubt?” Bell took this teaching directly from a lesson taught by Ray Vanderlaan on a trip they took to Israel in 2003. Here is a link to RVL’s teaching page on the subject.
Jazz,
You see i did not take you wrong and you are lying and bear false witness against Rob Bell… The point that Rob made was what you stated above…
That’s it… live out your convictions in Christ… who is The Truth.
iggy
Jazz,
I recommend you read more than one sentence taken out of context by Rob Bell, I guarantee that you are taking this sentence and making it mean quite the opposite of what Bell stated.
As far as the Virgin birth… Which RB affirms in the very same book but you are purposely overlooking…
What if I asked you,
What IF they did find Jesus bones? How would that effect your faith? (I firmly believe they did not, but what if?) Or, what if we found a very authentic letter by Paul that stated that much that was written and accredited to him was not written by him but an impostor? (I do not believe that either)
And on the next few pages I state I do not believe these things, but wanted to make you think about your faith…
Now, the real question I have for you, is how can one like you, who stated they believe in the truth, use lies slander and innuendo against a brother in Christ to promote truth?
That to me is the real issue and problem I see here… not what Rob Bell states on page 41 then answers on another page, but is over looked on purpose… but that some desire to hurt an destroy him by using Satan’s tools in the Name of Jesus.
iggy
Now, Chris L, if they can’t half quote the man, that will take away all of their fun.
When the “ministry” you run puts food on your table, and that “ministry” requires that you find heretics to hunt, it’s not just fun…
A man’s gotta eat, y’know…
~ John MacArthur…
Oh my! John MacArthur denies the virgin birth because he uses the word “if” and then says Jesus was probably born like other men!!!!
Now, that is not all of what JM stated, but this is how the anti Rob Bell people read Bell…
Good grief, I thought being honest was part of being a Christian! LOL!
iggy
Chris,
So, you do not think that a person can change if Christ is their hope?
LOL!
You may be right Chris, I may be and can be condescending but then as you stated, you should worry about yourself.
Be blessed,
iggy
–I’m tired of people only quoting half of Bell’s statements, leaving them completely out of context – just as you have done and all of the other “virgin birth†posters have done – he reaffirms his belief in – and teaching of – the virgin birth.–
Iggy, look at what I wrote above. I did not misrepresent Bell’s position. I know that in the book he says he believes in the virgin birth, and I did not say that he does not. What I said is that he says it is unimportant, that if we were to find out that Jesus wasn’t really virgin-born, in his view it would not matter.
And that is exactly what he does, with the whole “Larry is Jesus’ dad” thing. That’s not a misrepresentation, it’s the truth.
jazz,
That is not his point at all… the point is IF something like this which so many hold as so important happened, how would it effect you?
To me, IF the virgin birth were disproved without a doubt, it would not change that much to for me as I place my faith in the Person of Jesus, not just the doctrines.
I am not stating the doctrine is unimportant…
However, what IF one of the springs was “prosperity” and like in the case of Job, God allowed everything to be taken from you? How would that effect your faith?
If they proved that the God did not part the Red Sea, but that it was another sea and that there was a strong wind and a land bridge… how would that effect your faith if that is the “spring” you hinge your faith on?
It was not about stating the virgin birth is not important at all. Actually, I think he is not saying it does not matter, but how would it matter is one found these things as not true after all? How will your faith stand?
iggy
I had a weird thing happen to the comment before this last one here… It seemed that Chris P had posted again… and so I resonded… then there was a whole lot of other comments. I think it has to do with the server at my work.
iggy
Jazz,
That’s exactly not the point that Bell’s trying to get at. Think about his example – it would be a scientific impossibility to prove that Jesus’ dad was someone named Larry. Where would you get the DNA from? Jesus?
What he is saying is that we don’t believe the Virgin Birth because of scientific proof, but we believe it because it’s written in Scripture. The more obvious question about proving the Virgin Birth is how would you really ever prove that Mary was a virgin? You can’t apart from the testimony of Scripture. That’s all Bell is getting at. There’s a point where we just have to say, “I believe this, and I don’t need the scientific ‘proof’ to back it up”. We trust the narrative of Scripture rather than a wall of made up of bricks representing different beliefs.
I should probably not even have wasted the time typing this, but I felt compelled. This horse is long dead, but we insist on beating it.
“What if that spring was seriously questioned.
“Could a person keep jumping? Could a person still love God? Could you still be a Christian?
“Is the way of Jesus still the best possible way to live?
“Or does the whole thing fall apart?
“I affirm the historic Christian faith, which includes the virgin birth and the Trinity and the inspiration of the Bible and much more. I’m a part of it, and I want to pass it on to the next generation. I believe that God created everything and that Jesus is Lord and the God has plans to restore everything.
“But if the whole faith falls apart when we reexamine and rethink one spring, then it wasn’t that strong in the first place”
Iggy, I’m trying to read this as fairly as I can, and what I’m seeing is this–Bell is saying that the virgin birth is not all that important. Yes, he says he affirms it, but then says that if it didn’t happen that way, that if Mary wasn’t really a virgin when Jesus was conceived and born, that Jesus actually did have a human father, then no big deal.
If Jesus had a human father, Iggy, what does it do to our faith? How could His life and death and resurrection be the means through which we can find salvation and eternal life? If the Bible lied about Jesus’ conception and birth, what else is it lying about?
This isn’t some kind of peripheral issue, Iggy, it’s central to what we belief, the faith we claim. Is our faith in Jesus, or is it in the stories about Him? If the stories about Jesus are only myths, then why should we believe them over some other mythic stories, and if our morals and ethics are based only on myths, then what makes it superior to someone else’s?
People like Bell keep undercutting themselves, Iggy, and some day it will come back on them. They want to make the Bible manageable, comfortable, they want to keep what agrees with them and explain away that which they don’t like.
They are sowing seeds that will cause a harvest they will regret, Iggy. By trying to discard what they don’t like–hell, salvation through Christ only, elements of judgment and God’s wrath–they will someday lose what they say they love–social ‘justice’, charity–because in undercutting what the Bible says about the one they have undercut what it says about the other.
The Bible is an all-or-nothing, Iggy, not a pick-and-choose.
Amen, Jazz
Jazz and PB, (or should I say PB & J)
The fact is that you are unwilling to see past your bias against Bell to hear the truth of what he’s actually saying. Based on the sermons I’ve heard from Bell, I have no doubt in my mind that he believes in the importance of the Virgin Birth and other tenets of historical, orthodox Christianity. I’ve heard him affirm them again and again.
It would be one thing if VE was the total extent of Bell’s teaching, but the fact is represents only a small portion of it. You and other critics are proof-texting small portions of it to supposedly prove a point, but you neglect the whole. The fact is if you look and try hard enough, you can probably do similar things with any author.
The great irony to me is that Bell is accused of making the Bible “manageable” and “comfortable”. Bell seems to have done the exact opposite for a great number of people. People are comfortable with their doctrinal ducks in a row, unchallenged, unaffected. To me is seems that if we can’t look back and see a change in our perceptions and understanding as we grow, we’re missing out on a lot of what God has for us. And yes, this change will seem uncomfortable while it’s happening.
Amen, Phil
–Based on the sermons I’ve heard from Bell, I have no doubt in my mind that he believes in the importance of the Virgin Birth and other tenets of historical, orthodox Christianity. I’ve heard him affirm them again and again–
How many times mustmustmust I point out that I am NOTNOTNOT saying that Bell doesn’t believe in the virgin birth. If you’re going to accuse me of misreading Bell, at least stop misreading me.
–The fact is that you are unwilling to see past your bias against Bell to hear the truth of what he’s actually saying.–
And you know this…how??? I have provided text from Bell’s own book to back up what I have said. My contention has been that Bell is saying the virgin birth is unimportant, and have given statements from his book to back up that claim. You accusation that I am being “biased” is hardly credible, and seems more like an attempt to ‘label and dismiss’ then really answer my points.
–The great irony to me is that Bell is accused of making the Bible “manageable†and “comfortableâ€.–
There is no irony in it.
–Bell seems to have done the exact opposite for a great number of people.–
I’m not dealing with a ‘great number of people’, I’m deal with Bell and such as he is.
Jazz,
Obviously we could go around and around on this.
The point I believe Bell was trying to make ultimately is that correct doctrine is not what faith is all about. Sure it’s important, but to what end? If it doesn’t propel forward, and doesn’t produce fruit, it’s useless.
You take one paragraph out of the whole book and neglect the rest of it. You’re reading it in the worst possible way.
Let me ask you this. Do you really believe it would be possible for anyone to really prove or disprove the Virgin Birth? It seems to me it would be an impossibility from both a scientific or historic perspective.
Jazz
The point that Bell was making is the same that Rowan Williams made in a debate over Christmas with Ricky Gervais. Belief in the Virgin Birth is central and important, but it is not what makes you a Christian. Only repentance and following Jesus does that.
If someone says “I would follow Christ but I just cannot accept the Virgin birth” is the correct answer:
a) Sorry dude, without that forget it – try the Buddhists; or
b) Hey – come and follow Him anyway – we’ll work it out.
Phil,
You obviously have never watched these crack research men. I mean if they can prove that with that, then imagine what they can do when they turn their attention to the Joseph vs. Larry debate
Joe,
You should see what they can prove with a watermelon!
I have learned well from the emergent church, then…..
I mean, isn’t that what emergent-types like Bell do with the Bible?
Phil….good one with the PB&J…..LOL!!
PB,
Well, I don’t know how you would get from Bell, but you’re entitled to your opinion.
Bell actually uses more Scripture in his sermons than most pastors I’ve heard. This is probably because he teaches in a very narrative manner, and pretty much always comes back to the story.
I think it comes down to whether or not we view the Bible as “raw data” that needs to be systematized and codified, we see it as a story of God and His people. Most sermons I’ve heard throughout my life have emphasized the former, but it makes a lot more sense when presented in the way of the latter.
Actually, no – one of the things that the ECM and non-EC-but-similar-in-some-respects folks (like Bell) tend to do is to begin at the narrative (the whole) and then work down to the details.
Using the Virgin Birth discussion as an example – let’s briefly follow Bell’s suggestion to examine WHAT the implications would be if (somehow) we could determine that Jesus had an earthly father.
The primary implication would be that we had incorrectly interpreted the Greek/Hebrew from Luke and Isaiah to mean ‘virgin’ instead of ‘young woman’. (and I don’t believe this for a second, so don’t get me wrong here) Would this lead me to live or believe any differently in Jesus? No. Would this mean that I believed that the VB was unimportant? No – because I would still believe the Bible is true and that any misunderstanding of ‘virgin’ vs. ‘young woman’ was my own and that how it happened was the way God intended. [But, just to stress this again, there is no way science could prove this, and I believe Mary's response 'How can this be, for I am a virgin?' indicates virginity not fertility.]
Now, what I have seen others do next is start to list off systematic theological artifacts:
“If Mary wasn’t a virgin, then Jesus could not have been a perfect sacrifice”
“If Mary wasn’t a virgin, then we can’t trust anything else in the Bible, because her virginity is not literally true as translated.”
“Jesus can not have been born from a man because that lineage would pass on Adam’s sin.”
And on.
And on.
What Bell is doing is encouraging the examination of theology and doctrine in a way that identifies what was originated by men and what was originated in Scripture – because those two things have become so intertwined that it is not always simple to recognize when we’re believing something extra-biblical (which might be true, but might also be false) from what is in scripture (which is true).
So he eisogetes scripture is what you’re saying?
It is quite clear why Chris L and iggy do not think that the Virgin Birth is necessary – they do not agree that God in all persons is hyper-masculine.
If one believes that the feminine, or more accurately the hyper-feminine is part of the nature of God, a virgin birth is not necessary in the least, because the divine spark rests in each one of us, and especially women.
Concerning where Bell claims Peter started sinking because he didn’t have enough faith in himself, first…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wSAEezBc3s
…and this is a bit over a minute into the video
“Now, I always assumed that Peter doubts Jesus. But Jesus isn’t sinking. Who does Peter doubt? He doubts himself. He loses faith in himself that he can actually be like his Rabbi. I mean, Jesus wouldn’t have called him if He didn’t think he could be like Him. ”
Now, really, does anyone really want to make Jesus into some kind motivational speaker with a Disney-ish “just believe in yourself” message?
Does Jesus have faith in us? Come on, that would be the most misguided and misplaced faith in the universe. We are not the objects of faith, we are to have faith. We are nothing, helpless, lost without God.
When all of those people Jesus healed were healed because they had faith, in whom was their faith in? Themselves, or in Jesus?
Peter didn’t sink because he lost faith in himself. He sank because He lost faith in God.
Not at all, but the opposite – he examines what scripture says – and just as importantly, what it does NOT say.
A good chunk of “reformed” theology (and other systematic theology) is extra-biblical eisegesis. What this particular part of VE is encouraging is examining what is said in scripture and what it means – apart from systems developed by men.
I’m really straining to see how you found any eisegesis in that example…
Jazz,
I give up. I refuse to continue arguing about things concerning Rob Bell that have been discussed ad nauseum for over three years now.
Oh look, a wall I can bang my head off of…
Jazz,
1) You’re quoting 1 minute of the video (with none of the background material).
2) Here is the background material: http://www.followtherabbi.com/Brix?pageID=2753
3) If you listen to the whole thing, it is not a “believe in yourself” message. It is a “you can do what Jesus has asked you to do because he said so” message – it puts the source of power in Jesus, but the source of acceptance on the believer.
–If someone says “I would follow Christ but I just cannot accept the Virgin birth†is the correct answer:
a) Sorry dude, without that forget it – try the Buddhists; or
b) Hey – come and follow Him anyway – we’ll work it out.
–
Answer: none of the above.
If the virgin birth of Christ is said to have been a lie, then by extention so are the things that make Christ worth following–his divinity, his perfect life, his perfect sacrifice for sins, his resurrection, his ascension. We lose all of it.
We do not set the terms for our following of Christ. We do not get to pick and choose what we want to believe.
The Bible records some examples of people who wanted to follow Jesus, but some of them had their terms–one want to bury his father. Jesus had none of it.
Does that seem hard, even harsh? That I would not join in a “conversation” (using that word in the EC sense) like that? That I would tell such a person that they cannot pick what to belief and not belief?
Jazz,
Here’s a key excerpt from the article:
Also, you wrote:
But that’s NOT the hypothetical from VE – the hypothetical from VE was that the translation of the word “almah” into English for Isaiah 7:14 was consistent with the other 6 uses of that word in the OT – which was “young woman” (which assumed virginity, since young Hebrew women would be chaste), rather than “virgin”. So, in the hypothetical, it was NOT that Bible was wrong, but that the translation of the word “almah” was wrong, but that the Bible was still correct.
Anon:
I don’t believe that hyper-anything is in the scripture, so it is just speculation. You’re just whacked out – so far out that I would wager that even the Slice crew would shake their heads at your goofiness…
I DO believe that the traditional interpretation of “virgin” in the virgin birth is the correct interpretation of scripture.
As for moderation, it’s not “censorship”, but rather a mildly corrective response, hoping you’ll either engage in a reasonable fashion or go away.
I suppose at this point we can drop any pretense of Solus Christus and make it Sola Systematic Theology Developed 1300 Years After the Apostles Kicked the Bucket.
Chris L,
Do you believe that the trinity is in the scripture?
Chris L,
Do you believe that each person has a spark of the Divine within them?
So, which watchkittie do you think anon is?
Anon,
Please do not distort add to or even attempt to tell other or myself what I do or do not believe…
I consider that slanderous, as I never stated I do not see it as necessary.
jazz,
You are taking this way out of context and way out in left field and have started stating things and adding to my words I never stated.
If you will, go and read the book and look at the context.
I am done with this mess as I see it very clear what Bell is actually stating and doing… if you cannot move beyond the point you are taking it wrong, with all that was stated already I cannot do anything more.
Please, I never stated that Virgin Birth was not important, nor that it makes no difference if Larry was Jesus’ father and not God.
I was trying to point out the central issue is not whether it is virgin or young woman… either way they tend to be virgins…
and my point is; IF this was found to be true that there was no virgin birth, how would that effect your faith?
To me it effects it little because my faith is not in a Virgin who saves me, but in Jesus who saved me… Be her a virgin or just a young woman, I see it not an issue as I stated.
As far as Larry being God’s father, I see it as it would destroy the incarnation…
The point is that if one finds man made doctirnes and man made constructed doctrines, like for instance Ken Silva stating that “we end our brief look at “The Great Commission†with verse 20, where Jesus of Nazareth continues — and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. Not just the stuff they happen to like; but everything that Jesus taught—like for instance—Matthew 10:38 — anyone who does not take up his cross [daily] and follow Me is not worthy of Me.”
Later John lets us know what this “commandments” are…
So which is the doctrine of a man, and which is the true doctrine we need believe? If we believe like Ken states then we go against grace and go to works…
That is why we need to look at our doctrine to see what is sound… even the essentials.
What if somewhere along the way someone decided that it was to add more to the Virgin Birth as in making Mary a virgin all her life and never bearing other children?
Sound familiar? So if many believe that and never question if it was added or not, then that can grow to even bigger doctrinal issues.
I hope you can start to see what the point really is.
1) I believe that the Father, God, YHWH – the Creator – is identified in scripture, beginning in Genesis 1:1
2) I believe that the Ruach ha Kodesh, the Holy Spirit, is identified in scripture, beginning in Genesis 1:2
3) I believe that the Word, identified later by John as Jesus, the Son of God, is identified in scripture, beginning in Genesis 1:3
4) I believe that these are separate, Father, Spirit and Son, but that somehow, they are also Elohim – both plural (three) and one. How this is so, the bible does not explain, so any further explanation is unneeded.
I do not see “spark of the Divine” in scripture.
However, I believe that, according to Genesis 1:26, that mankind was made in the image of God, with His breath of life in them. I also believe, per Genesis 9:6 that man is still made in the image of God, though no longer perfectly so because of sin.
I also believe that it is likely that God exists beyond the three dimensions of space and 1/2 dimension of time, as we experience it. I cannot state this dogmatically, though, as it is not contained in scripture.
Anon,
Do you?
iggy,
There are absolute truths that are not represented with clarity – to the uneducated – in the Bible.
Just as the Bible does not mention what vitamins a pregnant woman should take, or tell us what the airbag deployment speed in an automobile collision should be, it does not list every truth that exists in our world.
The importance of vitamins for pregnant women, the hyper-masculinity of God in all three persons, and the doctrine of the Trinity are such truths.
Slice readers are probably OK eternally speaking, even though they tend to be “fundamentalists by not listening”, because they are as a rule “fundamentalists by absolute truth”. Their absolute truth is mostly a reasonably correct understanding of the Bible – they just don’t have airbags in the horse drawn buggies when they refuse to listen.
A worse fate awaits those who are
1) “fundamentalists by not listening” and
2) not “fundamentalists by absolute truth”.
This two dimensional picture of fundamentalism is not discrete though, but rather a continuum.
iggy,
So you agree with the hyper-masculinity of the three persons of God? I am unclear.
I see the screaming and covering the ears has started again.
iggy,
There are absolute truths that are not represented with clarity – to the uneducated – in the Bible.
Just as the Bible does not mention what vitamins a pregnant woman should take, or tell us what the airbag deployment speed in an automobile collision should be, it does not list every truth that exists in our world.
The importance of vitamins for pregnant women, the hyper-masculinity of God in all three persons, and the doctrine of the Trinity are such truths.
Slice readers are probably OK eternally speaking, even though they tend to be “fundamentalists by not listeningâ€, because they are as a rule “fundamentalists by absolute truthâ€. Their absolute truth is mostly a reasonably correct understanding of the Bible – they just don’t have airbags in the horse drawn buggies when they refuse to listen.
A worse fate awaits those who are
1) “fundamentalists by not listening†and
2) not “fundamentalists by absolute truthâ€.
This two dimensional picture of fundamentalism is not discrete though, but rather a continuum.
Thanks for your comment! It has been placed in the moderation queue, and if it is approved it will be published here soon!
Comment from anonymous
Time: January 11, 2008, 8:04 pm
I see the screaming and covering the ears has started again.
Thanks for your comment! It has been placed in the moderation queue, and if it is approved it will be published here soon!
No screaming and covering the ears. I just happen to have a life (and a Friday night community group meeting), so I wasn’t around to pull your posts out of the queue…
Anon,
If you will add the time that you are posting I’ll help out here.
Oh dear Lord, Anon rewound the tape player!
Heaven help us all!
If you had more special gnowledge you would must know what I believe… but you don’t and I do not see God as “Hyper” anything… I see God as He calls Himself…
He has reveal to all Who he is by the power of the Person of the Holy Spirit, and that be Jesus.
iggy
“I DO believe that the traditional interpretation of “virgin†in the virgin birth is the correct interpretation of scripture.”
What if you use other scripture that describes the virgin birth withou using the word “virgin”. Would that settle the discussion on the virgin birth?
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I KNOW NOT a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be called the Son of God (Luke 1:34,35 KJV).
Anon said:”Do you believe that each person has a spark of the Divine within them? ”
I don’t belive each person is born with a spark of the Divine within them as Paul taught:
That at that time ye were WITHOUT Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and WITHOUT GOD in the world (Ephesians 2:12 KJV).
You must be born again (i.e. born of the Spirit).
F Whittenburg
http://www.christiannewbirth.com/whenfaithcame.html
Anon said: “Do you believe that the trinity is in the scripture? ”
I Do……….
For through him (Jesus) we both have access by one SPIRIT (Holy Spirit) unto the Father (God) (Ephesians 2:18 KJV).
F Whittenburg
http://www.christiannewbirth.com/whenfaithcame.html
Now, this should be fun. Whittenburg and anony conversing. That’ll be a hoot. Somebody should make a book about that.
Chris L said: “I don’t believe that hyper-anything is in the scripture, so it is just speculation. You’re just whacked out – so far out that I would wager that even the Slice crew would shake their heads at your goofiness…”
Actually the Bible speaks of the things of this world as being a “shadow”. The Bible also add a fourth dimension called “depth” to the three standard dimensions (i.e. length, breadth, and height).
That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and DEPTH, and height; (Ephesians 3:17,18).
This fourth dimension of “depth” can be accessed thru the Holy Spirit.
But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the DEEP THINGS of God (1 Corinthians 2:10).
Maybe this hint will help, “let there be light”
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the DEEP. And the SPIRIT of God MOVED upon the face of the waters (Genesis 1:1,2).
Back in 1998 the Lord also gave me a revelation on a dimension of time where time may in another (4th?) dimension might not be experienced sequentially, but simultaneously. I wrote a chapter about this in my rebook When Faith Came chapter “It’s About Time”.
A higher dimension could explain how John was “caught away” in the spirit and shown the future and returned and wrote about what he saw in the book of Revelation. For John to be taken “somewhere” and shown the future, means that the future would have to exist already “somewhere” for him to be taken there shown it and returned and wrote about it.
I also discuss in the book different aspects of people in the Bible actually operating in a higher dimension:
Page 342 When Faith Came
Remember that the Christian can operate in this spiritual dimension because he is “in the Spiritâ€.
But ye are not in the flesh, but IN THE SPIRIT, if so is that the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if any man has not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his (Romans 8:9).
The Christian learns through the Holy Spirit how to apply a spiritual solution to a natural problem and uses spiritual law to overcome natural law. For example: If you toss a rock into the air then the law of gravity will cause it to come back down to earth, but the principle of lift or aerodynamics that a airplane uses overcomes this law of gravity and stays in flight. The principle of lift or aerodynamics that a plane uses does not do away with the law of gravity; it just simply overcomes it with a greater law. This is what the prophets did in the Bible. There are many instances of this principle in the Bible. We call them miracles. There is a story in the Bible about how an ax head fell into the water and sunk to the bottom, which was natural law in action. Elijah touched the water with a branch and made the ax head float (2 Kings 6:5-7). Elijah simply applied spiritual law to a natural problem. Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirit could on water, turn water into wine, walk through a closed door, etc. I wonder if Einstein ever read a Bible? Einstein said:
A problem cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created it. (Albert Einstein)
As we can see by the precise accuracy of the Bible in it’s prophecies, and the fact that the prophets and apostles were taken somewhere and showed these things, and returned and wrote about what they saw, proves that the future has to already exist somewhere at this present time and the past also in another dimension. When John 2000yrs ago saw the multitudes of saints worshiping Jesus Christ around the throne. He was looking at me as one of the multitudes worshiping Jesus in the future. So that would mean that right now in another dimension, a part of us are already seated with Christ where He is! Could this explain how the Christian be predestined from beginning?
But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and MADE US SIT together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: (Ephesians 2:4-6).
The main problem that the present world has, is trying to take a knowledge that has come from a different world where time is irrelevant and tries to force it to fit in a world where time is relevant. Remember Jesus said that this world is not his world!
Jesus answered, my kingdom IS NOT of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delievered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence (John 18:36).
And he said unto them, ye are from BENEATH; I am from ABOVE: ye are of this world; I am not of this world (John 8:23 KJV).
The way of life IS ABOVE to the wise, that he may depart from HELL BENEATH (Proverbs 15:24 KJV).
If ye then BE RISEN with Christ, seek those things which are ABOVE, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid WITH CHRIST in God (Colossians 3:1-3).
If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because YE ARE NOT of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you (John 15:19 KJV).
Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins (Colossians 1:12-14 KJV).
In fact, Jesus said he came to free people from this present evil world.
Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this PRESENT (3 dimensional) evil world, according to the will of God and our Father (Galatians 1:3,4 KJV).
As far as all this other talk about other dimensions I threw away my “Calabri-Yau Manifold” awhile back. I have no desire right now to look forward in a mirror and see nothing but the back of my head………..
F Whittenburg
http://www.christiannewbirth.com/whenfaithcame.html
F.W.
There was a rabbi (Nachmonides?) who read Genesis and saw 10 dimensions over 700 years ago. He saw that 4 were measurable and 6 were not. This is what I understand is being discussed in string theory.
Now, I am not a quantum physicist, yet I find multi dimensions interesting. I see that it answers a lot of questions… be the UFO, Biblical manifestations of demons and angels, the existence of God’s Kingdom, the fallen state and the kingdom of darkness existing at the same time.
As far as “hyper”, I see it as normal except for the fallen state. This to me is the distortion of the reality that has become the shadow of the reality which is Christ Jesus spoken about in Hebrews.
(See I can talk Anononeeze too!)
Yet, this is a bit beyond me as Anon stated and I choose to dwell amongst normal people and speak to them about things that are more clearly stated in Scripture.
Be blessed,
iggy
–You are taking this way out of context and way out in left field and have started stating things and adding to my words I never stated.–
Iggy, I can read and understand as well as most people can. I have read the passage, and I have tried to take it in context. I have not put all of several pages of the book on here, of course, because it would not be practical (not to mention potential copywrite issues over such large excerpts).
What I am saying is what I am reading in his words. I’m not being dishonest, I am trying to question any possible biases I have, but I’m not going to change my mind just because someone dislikes it or claims without support that he means something else.
–Please, I never stated that Virgin Birth was not important, nor that it makes no difference if Larry was Jesus’ father and not God.–
I know you haven’t, I’m responding to Bell’s own words, not yours, Iggy. But you are defending what he said.
Iggy, I am reading a book right now called “After the Death of God”, written by a couple of people who have already moved beyond Bell’s current position in regards to mythologizing and questioning the Bible and God.
Getting into all these men have written is beyond what I can do at the moment, but it comes down to this–despite some differences in their views, they discount much of what the Bible says about God and Christ, they may even be said to not even believe in God. Jesus’ death was not about saving us from our sins and providing us a way to God.
Why is this so imporant? Well, they do claim to be “postmodern”, but more then that, you can go to Emergent Village and find podcasts of discussions they ran where one of these men, John Caputo, was involved.
This, I am saying, is what Bell and others in EC have left open, and sadly it may even be thought that they are starting to embrace it, if podcasts mean anything.
Has anyone ever wondered why he chose the name Larry? Could it have something to do with Veggie Tales? LOL LOL LOL
Whit,
While I believe there is Biblical evidence of dimensions beyond our own, I hesitate to be dogmatic about how it works, particularly in assigning esoteric titles (”hyper-masculine”, etc.) to them, which is the first step in creating a ’system’ out of them (which is what Anon is doing). Certainly, hyper-dimensionality removes the fixed variable of time and 3D space (which gives a shadow of an explanation to modernist-fueled paradoxes in the Bible).
However, I would also note that you’re doing a bit of proof-texting on the matter:
You’re missing a common grammatical device of two doublets, often used in Hebraic teaching. Breadth and length both go together to describe the cross-section (as if it were a wall). Height describes how high it goes and depth how low it goes – you’re reading too much into this passage, in which Paul is describing that one cannot go AROUND, OVER or UNDER the love of Jesus. From the NIV:
And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ
Again, you’re missing a few things:
1) The evidence of God’s existence beyond time is in the first 4 words (in the English): In the beginning God.
2) The world was “formless and void” – tohu a vohu in the Hebrew, and the darkness was over the theum – the abyss – which some versions translate “the deep”. The ‘abyss’ – the deep – is seen as the source of chaos, which is the opposite of creation. This is why the Jews were afraid of large bodies of water, and why Jesus says that those who cause little children to stumble should have millstones tied ’round their neck and be tossed into the abyss. It is also where the beast in Rev 17 comes from. In short – “the abyss”, sometimes called “the deep” is a rich Hebrew cosmological concept – not a scientific reference to another dimension. [This is example of why it is important to examine usages of specific words across scripture (or in contemporary literature, if a word is unique) in the original language.]
3) It is possible that multiple dimensions might explain how God worked through men to create miracles, but ‘possibility’ (or ‘probability’) is not certitude, and we are wise to allow that room for error in interpretation.
4) You wrote:
You are again missing the point Jesus is making regarding the kingdom (and it is possible you missed some earlier discussions on this). Where Jesus uses the phrase ‘of this world’, like in John 18:
Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.”
The word he uses is κοσμου, ‘kosmos’, which literally translates as ’system’. Had he meant the physical world, he would have used γην – ‘ge’ – the land. Kosmos is a Greek word which describes the systems by which things work. Jesus’ kingdom is not like the systems of this world, where physical strength, wealth, charisma and politics rule. Rather, it is where things are as God would have them, where the last are first, where leading is serving, and where the poor, the widow and the stranger are cared for – a completely different system.
So, being ‘of the world’ is not a statement of dimensionality (or a statement of artistic culture), but rather it is a statement describing being bought into the systems by which things are run. When the church trusts in political power to solve its problems, it is being ‘of the world’. When the church sends out invaders to “do God’s will” (as in the crusades), it is being ‘of the world’.
_________
So, in summation, while I agree that there is evidence in the Bible and in creation of dimensions beyond our own, you need to be careful in avoiding dogmatism and proof-texting in its regard…
Chris L.
Verrrrry interesting.
Chris L said: “You’re missing a common grammatical device of two doublets, often used in Hebraic teaching. Breadth and length both go together to describe the cross-section (as if it were a wall).”
I thought Ephesians was written in Greek, I guess that is why I missed the interpertation of it through “hebraic teaching”…..
Breadth and length also describes a 2-dimensional plane.
F Whittenburg
http://www.christiannewbirth.com/whenfaithcame.html
cha-ching
Good retort, Whit
Iggy said: “Yet, this is a bit beyond me as Anon stated and I choose to dwell amongst normal people and speak to them about things that are more clearly stated in Scripture. ”
I don’t believe my posts are “over the head” of most of the readers and commenters of this blog. I think you and Anon may be underestimating their intelligence…..
F Whittenburg
http://www.christiannewbirth.com/whenfaithcame.html
Whit, ‘Hebraic’ not only refers to linguistic matters, but also to thought patterns, and Jesus and his apostles were Hebrews, not Greeks. The first century linguistic situation with Greek was much like it is with English today – most people spoke Greek as a second (common) language, but retained their own traditional language as primary. There is debate over whether first-century Jews spoke Hebrew or Aramaic as their primary language, though most modern evidence (supported by the Dead Sea scrolls) supports it as having been Hebrew.
If you examine the scripture in question, the doublet of doublets is describing the love of Christ, not a ’scientific’ truth, as being insurmountable. The concept of ‘dimensionality’, as defined by modern science, didn’t come along for another 1,300 years or so.
In essence, Paul is describing a cross-section (breadth and length), and then describing how high far it goes up and how far it goes down.
Chris L said:”
Jesus’ kingdom is not like the systems of this world, where physical strength, wealth, charisma and politics rule. Rather, it is where things are as God would have them, where the last are first, where leading is serving, and where the poor, the widow and the stranger are cared for – a completely different system.
So, being ‘of the world’ is not a statement of dimensionality (or a statement of artistic culture), but rather it is a statement describing being bought into the systems by which things are run.”
Sorry it took so long to responed, Chris L. I was installing some kitchen cabinets for a buddy of mine this weekend and didn’t have the time till tonight to answer your post.
In my original post I was talking about an invisible “spiritual world†of actual activity, existing possibly in another dimension. The Bible plainly speaks of angelic activity operating in a spiritual world that is different from the natural world. Here are two examples:
Balaam and the donkey. By reading this story we can see that there was an angel that was standing in front of Balaam that he could not see, but his donkey could. As the story continues, God gives Balaam the ability to see with his eyes into the spiritual world. This story also tells about how God gave the donkey the ability to talk to Balaam. When the Lord releases our eyes, we can see into the spiritual world and according to this story, apparently animals can also.
Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and he bowed down his head, and fell flat on his face (Numbers 22:31).
The second story is about Elisha at Dothan.
And he said, Go and spy where he is, that I may send and fetch him. And it was told him, saying, Behold, he is in Dothan. Therefore sent he thither horses, and chariots, and a great host: and they came by night, and compassed the city about. And when the servant of the man of God was risen early, and gone forth, behold, an host compassed the city both with horses and chariots. And his servant said unto him, Alas, my master! how shall we do? And he answered, Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them. And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, OPEN HIS EYES, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha (2 Kings 6:13-17).
These examples are not “world systemsâ€, but actual angelic activity in another world (i.e. spiritual world, dimension, etc.)? These verses are not talking about superior “world systems” of feeding the poor, leading by serving, etc). This is talking about an actual invisible “world†that exist simultaneously with the “natural worldâ€? I always heard this angelic realm called the “spiritual worldâ€. For example, in the following verse, Was Philip “caught away in the Spirit†and taken to another “world system†where the homeless are feed, and the widows are taken care of, etc. or was he “caught away” into a spiritual dimension that was hid from the eunuchs eyes?
And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the SPIRIT of the Lord CAUGHT AWAY Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea (Acts 8:38-40 KJV).
How do you account for the “third heaven†that Paul spoke of in 2 Corinthians ?
It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the THIRD HEAVEN. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter (2 Corinthians 12:2).
Is the “third heaven†just another “world system†or an actual place? What is your understanding of what transpired at the Mount of Transfiguration? If you can’t explain them either, then how do you know my explination is wrong? The verses I quoted about Jesus saying he was from “above†do you think the word “above†is referring to a superior “world system†of feeding the sick, leading by serving, taking care of widows, etc. or an actual spiritual realm? A higher plane of reality than this physical world? Ezekiel was “caught away†by the hair of his head to a place the Bible says is “between heaven and earth” and shown the building of a temple. In your understanding of scripture Chris L, what is the appropriate term to describe this angelic spiritual realm “aboveâ€? Shambala? Narnia? Middle Earth? I am searching for some common ground here, but since you don’t like my interpertation of the spiritual world, you tell me what you think the appropriate word should be, in the Hebrew teaching of course. Do you believe, like John Lennon, that there is no heaven “aboveâ€?
F Whittenburg
http://www.christiannewbirth.com/whenfaithcame.html
Excellent, Whit! I agree on the potential dimensionality in the biblical incidents described with Baalam and Elishah and Philip. I agree that these are not issues of kosmos (the systems of the world), but of the supernatural. This is different than Jesus usage of ‘kingdom’ and ‘kosmos’.
Please don’t misunderstand me – I believe in a spiritual world/supernatural world/additional dimension/etc., based on these and other narratives in scripture. I just disagree that this is what Jesus is referencing in his comments to Pilate about the kingdom.
With the “third heaven”, Paul is referencing the cosmology of the Ancient world to which he belonged. The “First heaven” is that which we can see (the land, people, etc.), the “second heaven” is the water/abyss/chaos and air which cover the land, and the “third heaven” is the spiritual world in which one can ’see’ spirits. This could literally be another dimension, or it could be the supernatural reality in which he saw Jesus on the road to Damascus.
I think you misunderstood me. I believe in a spiritual realm that we cannot see and that it is (scientifically) probably a function of additional dimensions. I do NOT, however, ascribe certitude to how it operates, including gender (hyper-masculine, etc.), as this is not made plain in scripture. All I disagreed with was the suggestion that Jesus’ discussion of ‘kingdom’ was relegated to that plane of existence (as evidenced by his teaching of ‘kingdom’ and the usage of ‘kosmos’, which we translate as ‘world’).
As for how heaven (shamayim in Hebrew) exists, I believe that it is an eternal existence with God. I believe that the “kingdom of God” (or “kingdom of Heaven” – they are interchangeable) began its existence here with Jesus, and that it is among us now, where things are as God would have them, but that it will reach perfection upon his return.
Hello Chris L,
Thank you for the response, please feel free to ask me questions about my belifs also. I will try to answer them as best as I can with what I have learned from my personal spiritual studies. I respect a man that is willing to present their beliefs and can articulate them, whether I agree with them or not. Interesting response……..thank you
F Whittenburg
http://www.christiannewbirth.com/whenfaithcame.html