More Discernment
Posted by Joe on Jul 29th, 2008
2008
Jul 29
Mike Ratliff to Joe Martino, “You have an unregenerate heart.” Click here to read more.
Mike Ratliff to Joe Martino, “You have an unregenerate heart.” Click here to read more.
July 29th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
You seemed to go on the offensive first there Joe would it be fair to say?? i.e You stated you think their part of the counterfeit church…
I just wonder what response your expecting ,when that’s your first post to their thread??
July 29th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
PS not to make light of what hes said to you,but it just seems the nature of the beast these days i.e blogging its getting all very personal
July 29th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Andy,
I was responding to his assertion that all “the others” were counterfeits. He was attacking a friend of mine–The youth pastor named Chris, so I wanted to point out that he and I might disagree on who was who.
July 29th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Andy,
Also, for what it’s worth, I admitted that he would probably feel that way about me.
July 29th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Ok well i understand standing up for a friend..The clips a bit of a car crash on both sides to be honest..
I don’t particulary think its wrong to witness in the street in the way they do,some great Christians were led to Christ that way Nicky Cruz and Tozer for example…I guess its all about the tone of the person ?? The other guys seemed slightly sarcastic towards your friend..
July 29th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
This post just add fuel to the fire.
what are you trying to accomplish?
July 29th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
I just found it odd that you seemed offended,after ur first response to them..
And personally i don’t see why ur friend needed to tell them their wrong in the first place…Just let them do their thing..
Sorry didnt mean to offend you
July 29th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
was that to me Jose or Joe??
July 29th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Joe M.
July 29th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Therein lies the problem i just posted because i thought Jose reply was Joe’s response to me..It seems a lot of reactions is driven by people feeling slighted..
I guess we just need to let people do their own thing and let them be
July 29th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Joe M,
There’s nothing new there with Mike R.
He’s always been quite fragile, and frequently deletes anything he disagrees with (aside from questioning the regenerate nature of anyone not Calvinist). When I make comments about they way some treat Calvinism in a way to make it “another gospel”, Ratliff is a poster child for such activity…
July 29th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Ok ive totally missed the boat on this one sorry Joe ,ur friends Chris here ,not the guy in the video duhhhhhhhh i’m dumb i did kill some brain cells recently thats for sure …
July 29th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
I asked this elsewhere…
Who is Mike Ratliff and why should anyone care about what he has to say?
Seriously….
July 29th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
He’s one of C?N’s writers, and when I want to demonstrate the Pharisaical, bigoted nature of the site, I usually point folks to one of his articles and one of Silva’s.
It usually works the trick…
July 30th, 2008 at 7:20 am
So, let’s see…
Joe M goes on Mike R’s blog and says Mike R is part of the false church…
Then comes back to here to whine and gloat (quite a trick there, too) about how Mike R questions his heart…
Yeah, that makes perfect sense. (not)
youbecomewhatyouhate
July 30th, 2008 at 7:42 am
Jazz I approved your comment with some trepidation. Please stick with one “handle”.
It would also help if you chose to be more careful in your choice of words with critique. It’s not helpful and certainly inflammatory.
July 30th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Joe - honestly, you need to grow up a little here.
Aside from your timing and even wanting to post this thread (for whatever reason, I don’t know) - “Somebody called me a name, Mommy!”…
Let me see:
- You state (in couched terms) that Mike is not saved if he continues on the path he’s on
- then you whine (and post) that he questions your salvation
Very productive
July 30th, 2008 at 8:46 am
Emergent Village wrote:
You essentially agree with the assessment here of ODMs, so why aren’t you also writing against them, instead of agreeing with them?
July 30th, 2008 at 8:48 am
The fact of the matter that there are two Christianities was lost in this post here at CRN.
This has been my argument and contention from the start, and these Christianities are illustrated very well by the events that have transpired over the last week or so.
There is a Christianity which has a low view of God, a low view of scripture, and a high view of man. This is the type which holds church services to tickle the ears of the participants, elevates feeding stomachs over feeding souls, will work together in a machavellian sort of way to accomplish an end rather than trust in God and His way of doing things. These people have their theology built on springs, and like springs it can be bent and twisted and stretched to please the company that they find themselves with. This is greater Israel, holding only the name of Christ and not the qualities of the true church.
There is a view of Christianity that holds God in higher esteem, and cares more for Him and His commands than for the changing opinions of people. This Christianity finds its power flowing from the heart of God by the Spirit of God, and the love that they have for others flows from their love for God. It is a non-compromising love, caring more about reconciling men to God than men to one another. It is a Christianity that feeds both the soul and the body, that cares for the brethren, and trusts God to accomplish His will through them without compromising by joining other groups that have the same goal but a different god. This Christianity preaches the word without apology, and needs not the entertainment or approval of the outside world. This is the remnant that God will take, the true church.
Which one are you a part of?
July 30th, 2008 at 9:03 am
PB-
No doubt you are in the “right one”, yeah? Of course, all of us like to think we are.
The problem with your dualist approach above is that it is woefully inadequate, even if you do affirm that there are only 2 sides to the coin (as if it is either ALL the first or ALL the second and no comingling).
There is also the way of Christ that has a very high view of scripture, a very sovereign view of God, an very high view of humankind because they are made in God’s image, a very deep respect for one another, a heart of service and love and humility and sees the gospel as something that is good news for all the world, not just those who can cross their docrinal T’s and dot their I’s. That view is out there as well and comes accross looking very different than the view you seem to think is the only right way.
peace,
Chad
July 30th, 2008 at 9:03 am
Well John,
May I offer a third Christianity? There is a “christianity” that holds to a high view of their own righteousness and writing skills. That believes there are rules for “them” and for “us.”
July 30th, 2008 at 9:03 am
I am a stumbling follower of Jesus, PB.
This is an interesting twist on our brother Rob’s excellent imagery. It reveals a certain bias in your interpretation.
July 30th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Says the Calvinist.
July 30th, 2008 at 9:16 am
My prayer is that God will knock us off of our towers of doctrine and that we will fall into His grace that is able to save and restore.
July 30th, 2008 at 9:49 am
I don’t think we all have found true christianity.
We both ( all ) lack in many areas.
No reconciliation on both ( all ) camps.
No forgiveness on all sides even if we write it down.
Accussations, slanders, I’m better then you are.
Rob better then washer or vice versa.
We have yet to see or meet Jesus where he wants us to be.
DO we all try? ofcourse in our own way. There lies the problem.
The problem is us.
July 30th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Bo,
I am not a Calvinist. I am a Christian.
Joe,
I don’t agree that anyone can look into a persons heart and say that he is not redeemed. I do believe that Christians can and should discern teachings and make judgement of those teachings based on the Bible. I still disagree with many of your Pastor’s teachings, and question if many of those teachings are actually Christian teachings. I urge Rob’s followers to do the same because of their love for him.
July 30th, 2008 at 10:07 am
PB-
Just to be clear, the above would be followers of Jesus, not Rob.
July 30th, 2008 at 10:11 am
You are certainly free to question, as we all are and ought to feel the freedom to do. However, there is a fine line between questioning a teaching(s) and already determining your verdict based on a judgment of one’s heart. That is where this all breaks down, I think. You don’t have to agree with Bell or with some of the writers here or with me or anyone else for that matter. But just because you do not agree with them does not make them a heretic. We all confess Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior and strive to serve him with all our heart, soul, heart and mind. To question someone’s understanding of the infinite is fine as long as we do it with the humility that says, “I could be dead wrong on this as well, but thank God we serve a God bigger than our limited understanding.” If everyone could show that sort of humility when having meaningful disagreements I think it would go a long way in reflecting the image of the Servant we all claim to follow.
peace,
Chad
July 30th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Then why did you equate being Reformed with following Jesus in your response to Iggy?
July 30th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Chad,
Sorry, pal, I have observed followers of Rob and not Jesus, so I was very purposeful (not in a Rick Warren sort of way) to say followers of Rob.
God is angry at sin, and for Rob to have a tour that indicates a multiplicity of gods demonstrates in one area his lack of concern in elevating the one true God and all of his attributes, one of which is justice and in that justice is a wrath that is being and will be revealed against all the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who supress the truth. God is angry, he is storing up wrath, and will pour out his wrath on everyone who has not been declared not guilty by the finished work of justification completed only in the death of Christ. Those who have taken this by faith have been saved, are being saved, and will be saved. Those that have not, you can bet that God is angry with them, and the scripture bears that out.
July 30th, 2008 at 10:15 am
John,
Did you even attend TGAA? You crack me up. You have no idea what was taught there. And you are either guilty of intentionally misrepresenting Rob or you are sincerely confused. Either way, you can clear that up by watching the DVD.
July 30th, 2008 at 10:16 am
PB,
Which gods aren’t angry lecture did you attend? When did you acquire the DVD?
July 30th, 2008 at 10:17 am
John,
I didn’t realize you addressed a comment to me. I can assure you that I am a follower of Christ, not Rob if that is what you are implying. I don’t understand the part where you don’t agree with me. Can you explain that to me?
July 30th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Joe,
The title alone tells me not to listen- it indicates that Rob is a polytheist to those who do not know better. I have heard enough snippets to know I do not want to waste my time hearing the whole thing.
God is angry. Whoever does not believe is condemned already.
July 30th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Joe,
I was saying that if MR or anyone else said you were unregenerate that I did not agree, because I do not believe that anyone can look into a heart and determine that.
That being said, we can discern teachings and make a judgement about teachings based on the Bible, and we should by all means do that, even in the case of RB
July 30th, 2008 at 10:20 am
PB,
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that God is angry.
Did you watch the Gods aren’t angry tour?
If so what specific point has you so riled up?
July 30th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Nevermind asked and answered while I was posting.
July 30th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Chris,
Lets start with the title.
July 30th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Joe and Bo -
I was thinking the exact same thing when I read PB’s response. He obviously has not seen it or heard it.
PB-
In my initial response to you I should have added to the part where I said you are free to question a teaching that you must first be familiar with it. I wrongly assumed that intellectual honesty was a given.
By the way, that should go for all of us. In seminary one of the first things they teach you is that you aren’t allowed to have an opinion about anyone until you have walked in their shoes, so to speak, and can understand and articulate their side of the story fairly. Then, and only then, are you in a position to offer a critique.
July 30th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Who is he angry at?
Who doesn’t believe he is angry?
July 30th, 2008 at 10:26 am
I’m expecting to receive several PhDs from an ODM approved institution as I just read the titles of hundreds of theological works over the last 10 minutes.
July 30th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Joe, Chad, et al…
I said the TITLE INDICATES a multiplicity of gods
point being I didn’t see it, won’t see it, don’t desire to see it, and have heard trusted brothers in Christ weigh in on both sides of the fence about it. The title itself indicates that there might be polytheism, it might be a history of religion of some sort, and that these gods are not angry.
The one TRUE GOD is angry. So angry that he promises an everlasting outpouring of wrath on all those who have not take the lifeline of grace offered in Christ Jesus alone.
July 30th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Is it fair to do that with every title?
Can I assume enough about book just by its cover?
How about these titles?
Everlasting Man? Sounds humanistic
Mere Christianity? Sounds trite
Liberated for Life? J Mac sounds herectical.
I’m sure you get the point.
July 30th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Ah, but those of us who moved beyond the title and attended the lecture (or watched the dvd) know that Rob is not a polytheist.
July 30th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Thanks for clarifying John. Obviously, at this point a discussion with you on the tour would be fruitless. It would be akin to you and discussing the finer points of being pregnant. We’d just be opining, not really discussing anything of substance.
July 30th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Then be resposible enough (and God forbid, charitable enough) to withhold your opinion.
Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
July 30th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Have you heard of this charlatan CS Lewis? He authored a tome entitled The Abolition of Man, clearly this is a fellow who desires the death of all of humanity. I would recommend staying away from all his works, as they are all clearly heretical.
July 30th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Chris,
He is angry at all those who suppress the truth in their unrighteousness. He is angry at all those who have broken his moral law. He has condemned all people already except those who have believed (place trust/faith in) Christ alone for their salvation.
Who doesn’t believe he is Angry? Brian McLaren for one. He believes that the PSA theory of atonement is cosmic child abuse. I believe that the very reality of God’s wrath makes his mercy very relevant to me. Rob Bell says the gods are not angry in his title…what is that supposed to communicate? From my reading of Rob’s books, he believes everyone is saved except those who specifically reject Christ. He said in a Wittenburg Door interview that the hell is for people who do not treat the poor correctly. That is not even CLOSE to the Biblical teaching on Hell.
July 30th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Considering your past methods of “research” I don’t think I’ll be relying on your analysis of what these men actually teach.
July 30th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Bo, John Piper has a book titled “Don’t Waste Your Life.” Apparently he thinks this life is all about me and that I have the power all by myself to either waste it or make it fantastic. I bet he is in cohoots with Rick Warren.
(by the way, I actually read the book and liked it. shhhh)
July 30th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Chad,
Interpret that.
July 30th, 2008 at 10:38 am
For a person who refuses to see or read or listen to what he so vehemently wishes to criticize than I guess it can communicate whatever you want it to communicate. PB, God speed. Conversing with someone as dishonest as you is simply idle chatter.
July 30th, 2008 at 10:38 am
P.B.
Thanks for the response but they still doesn’t account for why you have made a strong statement against Rob Bell.
Quite frankly in academia if you are going to hold a position the most responsible thing to do is be as well versed in all counter positions so as to more firmly be able to defend yours.
You have positioned yourself as an authority on biblical knowledge and have placed stakes in the ground on Rob Bell. It seems to me that it would behoove you to know all that you could know about his position.
One of my favorite quotes is: “Why raise your voice when what you really need to do is reinforce your argument”
July 30th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Ok. I see your point. I will not buy the DVD but I will watch it. You will see my response positive or negative later.
July 30th, 2008 at 10:42 am
pb- just being honest here: I won’t care either way.
take care.
July 30th, 2008 at 10:43 am
P.S.A. is only one theory of the Atonement John. There are several people who hold that it’s cosmic child abuse.
John I have a copy of the that issue and to say that is all that Rob said is quite frankly false.
I just wanted to point those out. We have certainly discussed them at nauseam here. So no real need to open them up again.
July 30th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Chad,
Way to be intellectually honest. Challenge me to watch it so I can render an opinion that you don’t care about.
Oh well. I guess it is okay for you to form an opinion about something and express it, but not for me? You demand an open mind from me, but you don’t have one? Oh well. At least you are honest.
July 30th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Chris,
I didn’t say it as all he said. It is a pretty accurate summary, however.
July 30th, 2008 at 10:48 am
John,
I challenged you to watch it so that you can at least sound somewhat credible when you offer your opinion. I never said I cared what your opinion is once you do. I have seen enough of your work to know how you twist things to your own advantage (post #51 is but one of many examples) and so I have no doubt about what your review will be of TGAA. I find you incapable of giving someone or something a fair hearing without preconceived judgments already blurring your vision. Feel free to prove me wrong.
ciao.
July 30th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Chad,
Help me understand, if I don’t agree with you I don’t give it a fair hearing? Isn’t that like saying you know what my opinion will be before I give it?
If God in your opinion, cannot predetermine the future, or His mind can be changed by your prayers, how in the world can you, a mere mortal, know for certain what my opinion will be?
If that is the case, then why should I even watch it? Why don’t you write what my opinion will be? That way I don’t waste my time, feel like vomiting, and I can read and study the scripture more!
July 30th, 2008 at 10:57 am
God isn’t angry. It is really a disservice to the truth to portray Him as such. That doesn’t mean that God isn’t awesome and terrifying. One of the best sermons of heard on this was one that Greg Boyd recently preached called “The Fire God”. It can be downloaded here.
The point that Boyd makes in the sermon is that God’s nature is analagous to a fire. Fire can be inherently constructive and destructive. It can warm, but it can also burn. That’s how God’s love is. For those who know Him and get a glimpse of his nature, his love embraces them and draws them in. For those who don’t understand or refuse to see, His love can appear terrifying.
It’s not that God is angry. It’s that his love and wrath are really the same thing. As Dallas Willard says (I’m quoting from memory), “the fire of heaven burns hotter than the fire of hell”.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Amen, Phil.
Portraying an angry God does violence to scripture. It also renders nonsensical anyone who would also claim we know God best as revealed in the person of Jesus Christ. God is love, not anger. We humans are angry, that is for sure. We are still trying to make God in our own image.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Phil.
The very fact that you referenced Greg Boyd and Dallas Willard lends credibility to the fact that the opposite of your statement is true.
Please show scripture that shows God is not angry, not the writings of a man who believes God is not omniscient and has left this world to spin with no real involvement or knowledge. Please use the whole scripture, not the teachings of a man who represents those who look to the 3rd and 4th century as the place where Christian practices of that time should be emulated.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:04 am
PB - the other day you asked why I bring your name into comments not directly related to you. It is because you are a poster-child for willful (and in some cases, pathological) ignorance on forceful display. To paraphrase a Proverb:
“Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and leave no doubt…”
In this particular case, had you actually done the basest amount of “research” (you know - actually watching the DVD or attending one of the lectures), you would know:
1) Rob doesn’t express a believe in multiple gods, but rather gives a demonstration on where the superstition of polytheism developed and how the One True God, YHWH, revealed Himself to man, and how He was different from all of the false gods.
2) The “anger” he speaks of, which God does NOT have, is one that must be appeased through rituals and sacrifices. Bell’s presentation is one of the best narrative refutations of the very idea of “salvation by works” I have ever heard/seen (and I’ve seen/heard some good ones).
3) Bell makes the point that there is nothing we, as followers of Christ, can do to make ourselves righteous, because God has already declared us so - because HE (God) provided the sacrifice to make peace with us - because we are incapable of doing so, though we often find ourselves trying (through rituals and good works) to earn His love and peace.
Really - then did Jesus’ sacrifice amount to nothing? Is grace nonexistent? Is God angry at me for my sin, or has he forgiven it and forgotten it? OR - because of Jesus’ ransoming be back, does God not hold my sin against me - removing it from me as far as the east is from the west?
July 30th, 2008 at 11:09 am
I couldn’t agree more, ChrisL.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Chad,
Portraying an only loving God and one who is not intimately involved with our whole lives does radical violence to scripture.
It is God’s wrath that makes his mercy very relevant to me. I deserve his full wrath, I can do nothing to save myself from even one second of my deserved punnishment. It is God’s mercy only that saves me from his righteous wrath. If there is no wrath, no anger, His love is just great information, and it cannot and does not change lives. The proof is in modern churchianity where only His love is elevated and it changes not lives.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Pastor Boy,
Ha ha you have given me a good laugh this morning. In fact my kids are standing next to me saying “Mommy what is so funny!” How do I answer that?
I would agree with Chad on this one; watch the video. You might be surprised! I would love to hear your take on it personally.
I think you should be careful to judge something you know nothing about. At least watch it then offer your opinion.
I attended the God’s are not angry and it was phenomenal.
BTW, I don’t follow Rob I follow Jesus. I trust Robs heart and character that is why I will defend him. I would do the same for you if I actually trusted your heart and character.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:13 am
FYI - I would note that “fool” has multiple meanings in both the English language and in the Hebrew.
In Proverbs, the common meaning of “fool” is one who is not wise (or is ignorant) and acts in a “foolish” manner.
Jesus’ use of “fool” (Raca) in Matthew 5:22 is one that speaks to the worth of a person (i.e. to call someone “raca” is to say “you are worthless” or “you should not exist”).
My quotation of the Proverb is in line with its original usage in the Proverbs - one who is foolish, ignorant and unwise - not with the first-century idiom ‘raca’ - implying worthlessness.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:13 am
It could not be appeased through repeated sacrifices, and it cannot be appeased by any works. As the book of Hebrews clearly states, it was appeased by the one sacrifice of our High Priest, Christ Jesus. But why did Jesus have to die? BECAUSE of God’s real wrath.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Tell this to the two children my wife and I adopted from Ethiopia. Or tell it to any parent who loves their children unconditionally. I am sure that those kids lives are “not changed” because someone first loved them but only because they know their parents would smite them if given the opportunity. Your god’s love comes with a price. That is not grace.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:16 am
While that is one view (which often leads to service out of fear, not love), it is not the ONLY Biblical view of the subject. Again, you mistake a narrow, systematic view of only portions of scripture with a holistic view of its entirety.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:20 am
I’m not sure, but I think you just quoted Bell from TGAA…
Now you’re suggesting that PSA is the only possible view of atonement - a view that has only existed for about 500 years.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:21 am
ChrisL,
Your right, he did. I laughed.
I wonder if he will to if and when he watches it.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Chris,
Atonement has existed since Jesus came and sacrificed his life-blood for me. The view of atonement is from the Bible, not man made.
Actually, the plan of atonement is from eternity past.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Anyone who believes this must read St. Athanasius’ On the Incarnation of Christ. I cannot stress that book enough. It helped me tremendously in seeing a far more deeper picture of why Jesus had to become man and why he had to die.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:24 am
It seems God is angry at someone gentlemen.
A word study on God’s wrath (post Calvary) is not for the faint of heart and you do a dis-service to the lost to minimize the danger.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:25 am
And you continue to despise the bride of Christ, just as you despise individual brothers. Reducing the worth of God’s people and Christ’s bride to assuage your conscience only inhibits the work of sanctification in your life that is God’s will for you.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Chad,
Your god seems impotent, because he does not know the future and what is going on all around us.
His plan is perfect, His wrath is real, I serve Him out of love and appreciation for what he has done…grace! His love! Christ’s sacrifice was for a person who didn’t deserve it like me. That is the ultimate demonstration of His grace.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:27 am
PB, I dont know you very well but assume you are a pastor by your name. Do you have any formal theological education? The sort of comments you make make me wonder…and worry.
ChrisL is not talking about atonement as an objective fact in the mind of God but about the theories of how it plays out in human history. That is the work of theology and humans have been speculating on just why God had to die on a cross for 2000 years. Up until 500 years ago NO ONE thought that Jesus died on the cross (the atonement) because God was ticked off. That is but ONE view among several that have develeoped over the course of human history and is the youngest, and in my opinion, most anemic of them all.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:29 am
huh?? Please provide your source, PB. Either you have me confused with someone else or you are making stuff up as you go along. Some call that lying.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:35 am
John-
The beauty of Rev. 14 is that it is eclipsed by Rev. 21&22, the end of the story.
But lets be honest: who among us wants to say definitively that we know what the Revelation of John is speaking to?
As for John 3:36 I think ChrisL has already made the proper distinction between God’s righteous judgment that we ALL will face vs. a human tendency to project upon God that he is angry with us and we must appease him by our sacrifices (the whole thrust of TGAA and what Bell is speaking out against).
But like Chris also mentioned, obedience out of fear rather than love is not the Good News of the Gospel.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Chad,
PB is making the assumption that because one person referenced Greg Boyd on one particular topic that everyone here agrees with everything he’s ever written.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Chad,
Amen. I am a tear filled convert, tear filled because it was my sin that placed Christ upon that tree. It was His love that drove Him there. My only destiny was hell, my reality was the wrath of God being poured out on me. But because of God’s love and mercy, He sent Christ to pay the penalty for me, and for all who would believe.
And by the way, the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.
Its called open theism, Chad. Greg Boyd teaches it. I believe you subscribe to it. If I am wrong, I am sorry.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Bo-
ahhh yes. I was afraid that might be it.
I once heard another proverb about what an assumption makes of someone
I guess I don’t get any points for saying I read and liked Piper’s book?
July 30th, 2008 at 11:43 am
A review on the tour PB.
Might help with this gang tackling going on.
http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/11/21/rob-bell-the-gods-should-be-angry/
July 30th, 2008 at 11:45 am
actually, pb, what you stated when you said this:
is not open theism but a charicature of it, and a bad one. But in any case, you are wrong on both counts. Apology accepted.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:48 am
PB- Should I even venture to ask if you have ever read Boyd’s books or listened to his sermons? Have you ever read, by chance, The God of the Possible? Or is this another example of how you can feel free to critique something you apparently know little about?
July 30th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Jose,
I refuse to read that review because the title indicates that the author is an adherent of polytheism and I will not sully my holy ocular sensory organs with such heresy.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:55 am
I have read some of Boyd’s books, and am very disappointed with his view of God.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Jose,
I had read that review when it was published. Excellent work.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Jose,
There are a number of online reviews - positive and negative - mostly based on preconceived notions before the event even started. Still, the only way to actually ‘research’ a lecture is to listen to it, rather than have it filtered by others.
Last week, while on vacation with the extended family, I watched TGAA with my parents, siblings and in-laws (who run the gamut from more conservative to more liberal than me), but only a couple had ever actually listened to or seen Bell (or had any opinion on him). The general consensus was along them was:
1) Excellent, thought-provoking look at faith & works, and having peace with God.
2) They expected it to be a discussion on covenants, not sacrifice, so it didn’t delve into the giving of the Law or Jesus’ fulfilment of the Torah. At least one was expecting this to be covered.
3) They thought it was more aimed at new Christians or Christians with cursory doctrinal background (which identifies more than half of the church) who do not understand rituals and works, and who find themselves ‘bargaining’ with God or trying to earn His love.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:57 am
BO,
ok it was not meant for you.
Since you already made up your mind.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Chris L,
I watched it myself and came to the same conclusion I had before.
But the problems lies on all of us that we can say to any of us ” you have preconceive notions”.
July 30th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Shocking.
July 30th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
I came to know about Rob bell while sitting in a friends church and having play the NOOMA dvd dust and it was though provoking and insightful. So I saw some more and came to feel something was missing in his message.
But ofcourse I may have preconceive notions. doesn’t everybody?
July 30th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
BO,
I sure was.
July 30th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
PB-
Which books? And where in any of them did you read something that would make you characterize Boyd’s view of God by saying this:
?
July 30th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
John,
I must say that you haven’t faired so well since I left for my lunch meeting.
I appreciate your willingness to watch the DVD. As so you don’t have to buy it I can send you my copy.
In regards to some of you comments I too am left wondering why your historical understanding of the faith seems so myopic. I understand that you have a tradition of faith that feels very comfortable and rationale but I wonder if perhaps your view of the faith may be limited because of a lack of scholarship.
If that is the case then you may actually be doing a disservice to the faith as you vehemently contend for it.
Please understand I make no assumptions about you only I wonder why it appears that you are opposed to anything outside your familiarity.
July 30th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Jose,
As Chad said, that was one review.
There are a myriad of others out there.
Here’s mine.
Shalom
July 30th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Chad I take issue with your statement that humans have “a tendency to project upon God that he is angry with us”. I think it’s just the opposite. We have a tendency to IGNORE the anger of God and say to ourselves that everything is “all-right” between us and God. The ONLY why things are right between us and God is when we accept His Son and His atonement for us and stand in His righteousness. Then and only then are things all right between us and God. And ** who ** is saying we must appease God by OUR sacrifices? That’s putting words in people’s mouth. PB certainly never intimated that.
No, I think the opposite is true. You are not letting Scripture speak for itself but are projecting a pre-conceived position – i.e., God is not angry at anyone — and ignoring the COPIOUS scriptures on the wrath/anger of God which state just the opposite.
The preponderance of Scripture on this issue is just too copious and consistent to just dismiss. What is the Gospel for? What are you saved from? There are obviously several answers to that question, but being saved from God’s wrath is certainly a major component of the Gospel’s benefits.
I’m at a loss. This seems so basic to me. What Scripture(s) do you base your position on?
July 30th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
I might propose that we (all the commenters) differ on definition and some of what we are trying to convey is getting lost in translation.
July 30th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
The very fact that you seem to write off people like Boyd and Willard, who are top-notch scholars, just because they don’t agree with you, is just sad. You also have demonstated again and again that you don’t really understand Boyd’s position on divine foreknowledge.
As far as emulating the 3rd and 4th century, I’m not sure what you’re referring too - possibly Willard’s spiritual discipline writings, but why would that be any worse than emulating practices from the 15th and 16th centuries?
The reason I respect Willard and Boyd is that they are intellectually honest. They don’t try to fit Scripture into a box.
July 30th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Does anyone know if this is copywrited? I will have to use it as my own if not.
July 30th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
What are we saved from? Let’s list a few things:
Death
Purposelessness
A life of sin and its effects
Hopelessness
Guilt and shame
I could go on and on. Anyway, as I stated before, I don’t think God’s wrath doesn’t exist. I just think we portray it in the wrong light. It’s not that God is both angry with us and wants to reconcile with us. Those things would be logically impossible.
It’s just that God’s love can be seen and felt as anger or discomfort. I guess a poor analogy would be the pain a heroin addict experiences when going through withdrawal. Though he must go through hellish pain, it is a necessary part of the healing process. I think that the love of God is downright frightening to some people.
July 30th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
I do not believe “open theism” is a big deal. It is extremely difficult to define, much less understand, the essence, operation, and knowledge of God. The easy way out is just to say “God orchestrated everything according to His will”.
Yea, right. As long as we understand the gospel and the redemption that can only be found in Jesus we can fellowship. I LOVE Boyd’s rejection of nationalism and politics! But to divide over musings about how God operates within the Godhead is “goofy”.
Here is an admission - I have listened to a message that someone here linked to by Bell where he said that Jesus was the only way to salvation and that is by faith. Aside from some other things that do not appeal to me about his teachings, I am hopeful he means what I mean when I say that same thing.
After reading some of his upbringing as a Christian, I believe he is a brother in Christ. For the record, though, I find no edification in some of the new teachings by many of these guys. The tours are definitely not for me.
July 30th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Chad, that just is not true. Of course it is not the sum total of the Good News of the Gospel but it is a part of the Christian’s instruction. For example:
The context is a loving Father. The purest motive of obedience should be out of love (if you love Me you will keep My commandments), but as God made us and knows us He has also provided (out of love) holy fear as a motivation of obedience. How many times did we “behave” as children more out of fear of our father vs. our love for him?
But to the point, the Scripture is there. It is unambiguous. It is a part of the whole counsel of God. It must be dealth with and assimulated into a healthy Christian world view. To ignore it is wrong and unprofitable as the Holy Spirit saw fit to include it.
It’s not presented as an either / proposition — why make it one? We obey our Heavenly Father out of love and we obey Him out of fear, just like with our earthly fathers. It takes nothing away from the Gospel.
July 30th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Whether God is angry as we understand anger is irrelevant. The fact that “he who has not the Son has not life” and that the “second death” looms should suffice as ample warning. If God is or isn’t angry, the answer is still Jesus Christ is the only way to eternal life.
July 30th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
JohnH-
We are certainly guilty of being overly smug of our own righteousness, as you point out. However, historically speaking, religion has sprung from a deep seated need of humans to appease the “gods.” If you have watched TGAA or taken any class on comparative religion than you know this just common knowledge. The point I was trying to make with PB is that Bell is not saying God is wrathless but that we have misapproriated that wrather (historically speaking) and more often than not try to make amends to this “angry god” in any number of ways.
With that said, however, I stand by my assertion that we as humans have a tendency to project upon God that he is angry with us. As a pastor I see it all the time. When I sit with a person on their death bed I have to respond to the wife or son or daughter who asks me, “what did I or they do that deserves this?” or “what could I have done to avert God’s wrath?” or any number of questions that highlight a deep seated belief that the forces that act upon us are somehow upset and if we do the right things, think the right things, say the right things, give the right things than we can somehow be at peace (this goes for Christians and non-Christians alike). To such people (the majority of people, in my view) they desperately need to hear that God is NOT angry with them and that peace HAS BEEN MADE through Jesus Christ - that through Christ God HAS RECONCILED all things and is making all things new. Because of this, we do not have to live this way (i.e. we do not have to beat ourselves up over what we did or did not do in hopes of appeasing some vengeful God who can’t wait to watch us step out of line). We can live in peace with the God who already made peace.
That is the gospel.
July 30th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Well, Boyd doesn’t make open theism a major issue, either. In fact, he actually go out of his way in the prologue of God of the Possible to state that there are plenty of great Christians who disagree with him. He doesn’t call them heretics or anything. He just is presenting what he thinks the Bible says.
It’s really only the dogmatic 5-pointers who have made it into a major issue. Heck, John Piper tried to have Boyd credentials stripped from him.
July 30th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Phil,
your list had many great things to which we both obviously agree with salvation from’s God’s wrath and judgement are major themes in the Scripture narrative and must be placed at the top of that list.
You state:
I see no contradiction at all. I can be angry with someone and at the same time seek to reconcile with them, especially people I love. I could give you a million wordly examples. (I’m angry with my wife because she hurt my feelings but I certainly want to reconcile with her; I am mad at my son for the stupid kid tricks he pulls, but I certainly want to reconcile with him, etc., etc.) That statement is out of left field. I don’t get that one.
July 30th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
John,
To be certain, I did not say there is no place for fear, only that those who call for obedience based on fear RATHER than love miss the point.
But you bring up 1 Peter:
The word “fear” as used in the 1st century is very different from the way we read it today. For Peter’s audience “fear” would be a way of calling one to be reverent. It is the same word used in 2:18 when Peter calls for slaves to “fear” their masters. He is not telling them to be afraid of them because they are wrathful but to be reverent - to be respectful. In 1:17 Peter is cautioning those who would call God “Father” to not think they are due any priviledges.
I have never understood people who would rather propagate a gospel of fear and intimidation over one of love and grace.
July 30th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
I mreally cannot see why it matters if God is or isn’t angry as we understand it. The avoidance of eternal punishment and the gain of eternal life isn’t enough? I am not sure I have ever witnessed anyone get saved because they realized God was angry at them personally.
I never thought about that at all when I came to Christ. It sems to me a theologians debate with very little relevance. If He is angry, Jesus is still the answer.
July 30th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
John,
I see what you are saying, but I guess, first of all, it seems like you are equating wrath and anger. Anger is an emotion and wrath, as I see it in Scripture, is more tied into judgement or due penalty for wrong-doing. If we the word “angry” to describe God, I believe it brings to mind a lot very wrong and negative pictures of Him.
God isn’t a rage-filled guy storming around tossing lightning bolts from the sky. He’s a loving father, and He approached His creation as such. Just as children don’t understand good discipline at the time, we don’t always see God’s action in the right light.
July 30th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Chad,
We are probably closer that farther apart then might be apparent in our views here. I certainly concede your view of the historical religious context of appeasment is absolutely correct. I also agree that even many Christians hold an inaccurate view of the wrath/anger of God. But that’s the rub, it’s an inaccurate (read wrong) view. You state:
I would say that is half correct. I believe the Bible says very plainly in many places throughout Scripture that God is angry with sin, in other words God is angry with them **BUT** peace has been made . . . etc. I just think that is more accurately scripturally. If no one is angry what is the need for reconciliation? Have you thought about that?
July 30th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Phil,
I agree.
July 30th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
My only thought on this is that I have known a lot of people who grew up thinking God was angry at them, and even after they come to a relationship with Him, they have a strong fear of Him becoming angry again. It’s like they can never really trust God.
July 30th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Phil - I am angry with you, not God!
July 30th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Chad, I would agree with your definition of fear, i.e., reverential awe. A Christian should never be afraid in the sense of condemnation or wrath from God, but shame, for example, is certainly still on the table. Our works will be judged unto reward. I think that is what Peter was getting at. But this is certainly not the situation for those outside of Christ.
July 30th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
I don’t either and that is not what I am promoting. I just believe in balance and in keeping in mind the whole counsel of Scripture.
July 30th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
I agree that is a problem Phil, but the answer is to correct their misunderstanding by taking them to the Scriptures and showing them where God has forgiven them and loves them and the security they have in Jesus Christ, not by ignoring the scriptures on the wrath of God. Again balance and education. That’s all any of us can do. The rest is in God’s hands.
July 30th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
I think so too, John. That is, about us being closer than further apart.
Good ques