“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.” – Lewis Carroll in Through the Looking Glass.

Many of the Arm-chair Discernment Ministries have expanded the words of Mr. Dumpty to: “When [insert name of some post-modern, pseudo-ancient, cult-of-the emerging-heretic, not-really-a-brother-in-Christ, leaven-spreading, Obama-voting, cult-of-the-liberal-evangelical, spiritual-mystic, Roman, bad guy preacher/author]… “when THEY use a word it means what WE choose it to mean, neither more nor less.”

In other words, what the heretic of the day actual meant is irrelevant and to be ignored. Previous comments are to be ignored. Context is to be ignored. What THEY really meant is simply what the ADM’s say they meant – after all, is that not the goal of discernment… to take plain speak and decipher it?

Case in point: On a recent post at CR?N Ken Silva lifts a couple quotes from a Bell interview from one and one-half years ago. These quotes are supposed to show that Bell either believes in, or hopes there will be – Universal Reconciliation. Of course, to do so Silva must become Dumpty… as so much more.

Let’s take a look at that interview. Bell is responding to a question about the existence of a literal hell. The question was: “Let me ask you, do you believe in a literal hell that is defined simply as eternal separation from God?” Bell’s first response was: “Well, there are people now who are seriously separated from God. So I would assume that God will leave room for people to say ‘no I don’t want any part of this.’” When asked if he believed people would be separated from God for eternity Bell’s response was to assume this to be true. Silva didn’t include this part of the answer.

Bell then continues his answer providing the first comment which Silva lifts and twists. Bell’s point: why focus so passionately on the existence of a literal hell? At this point Bell went beyond the question of hell’s existence to the question of why be so passionate about the literalness of people burning for eternity. This shift in subject Silva misses or ignores.

Responding to a follow-up, Bell then gives his hope that all would be reconciled to God. This will not happen, of course, Bell has already admitted that… but he asks, if we are serious about evangelism, if we want people to be saved from hell, should we not hope that everyone we share with will be reconciled to God?

Bell is not denying hell. Bell is not affirming universal salvation. Bell is questioning obsessions and hope as we tell others about Jesus.

Here in a nutshell is what you must do to “silvanize” these comments into an affirmation for Universal Reconciliation and/or a denial of hell:

1. You must ignore (or also silvanize) other clear statements wherein Bell has affirmed that reconciliation comes only through Jesus.
2. You must ignore (or also silvanize) other clear statements wherein Bell has affirmed that only those who trust Jesus will be reconciled to God.
3. You must omit the portion wherein Bell affirms that some are and some will reject the grace of God and be separated from him.
4. You must ignore (or just miss) the switch in subject from hell itself to an obsession with a particular kind of hell.
5. You must ignore (or forget) that Bell affirms that there will be some separated from God and take comments of hope for all as belief that it can or will happen.

Only if you engage in manipulation of meaning that would make an anthropomorphic egg blush can you come to the conclusion that Bell, in this interview, is advocating Universal Reconciliation, aka Christian Universalism.

[HT to Amy for pointing out these quotes]

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Saturday, December 13th, 2008 at 1:11 pm and is filed under Blogging, Ken Silva, quote. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

458 Comments(+Add)

1   Chris Rosebrough    http://www.extremetheology.com
December 13th, 2008 at 1:37 pm

Produce the quotes where Bell says that reconciliation comes ONLY through Jesus.

Produce the quotes where Bell says that ONLY those who trust Jesus will be reconciled to God.

Produce the quotes that support all these assertions.

2   Bo Diaz    
December 13th, 2008 at 1:42 pm

I guess its fair to say that Chris R is so busy fighting for the faith he doesn’t have time to actually listen to the people he damns. But I understand, being God does take a lot of time.

3   Neil    
December 13th, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Produce the quotes where Bell says that reconciliation comes ONLY through Jesus.

Produce the quotes where Bell says that ONLY those who trust Jesus will be reconciled to God.

Produce the quotes that support all these assertions. – Chris R.

Thanks for pointing this out Chris, I meant to source them and forgot. Here are the comments in all the glorious clarity and biblical orthodoxy. And even Pastorboy agreed (although he may not have known it wa Bell saying it)…

Jesus is our only hope for bringing peace and reconciliation between God and humans. Through Jesus we have been forgiven and brought into right relationship with God. God is now reconciling us to each other,ourselves, and creation. The Spirit of God affirms as children of God all those who trust Jesus.

4   Neil    
December 13th, 2008 at 1:48 pm

Bo,

Seriously, a jab like that right out of the gate is unwarranted… I’ll be more possessive about my own posts and playing nicelyt on them.

Although I suspect Chris R. will disagree that the statements are plain and biblical, he asked a legitimate question of my source for these comments.

Neil

5   amy    
December 13th, 2008 at 1:49 pm

I’ll reply to your comment on “Ya know that book over there” here.

Simply put, I read Bell’s comments in context and that’s what my questions to Chris L are based on. I did that intentionally for two reasons: one, I usually try to look at the primary source whenever I can. Two, I know that anything with “Ken Silva” as author as a very small chance of being looked at objectively on this site.

Also, I have been wanting to ask Chris L how Bell’s and Chad’s beliefs differ prior to Ken Silva’s linking to this post.

6   Chris Rosebrough    http://www.extremetheology.com
December 13th, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Bo,

Nice ad hominem attack. Did it make you feel strong and powerful and godlike to attack my person?

Let me remind you that I’m not the topic of discussion on this post.

Neil has made a lot of unsubstantiated assertions in this post. But, assertions prove nothing!

In order for this post to actually make its points it must provide the documented proof to support its assertions.

The burden of proof is on Neil to support his claims.

I want to see the undeniable proof that Rob Bell says that ONLY those who trust in Jesus will be reconciled to God.

Prove it Neil.

7   Bo Diaz    
December 13th, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Chris R,
How long will we have to wait for you to recant the lies you’ve spread about Bell at all the venues you’ve spread them? After all, it was you that said you held Bell personally responsible for what appeared on the website. Well, that appeared on the website.

The only question left is whether or not you have the testicular fortitude to stop tickling the ears of your powerbase. They already turned on you once like ungrateful dogs when you dared to say something positive about Warren. Personally, I doubt you’ll stop lying, you’ve been doing it so often, and so regularly that its a part of you now.

8   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 13th, 2008 at 1:53 pm

I want to see the undeniable proof that Rob Bell says that ONLY those who trust in Jesus will be reconciled to God.

Provided in #3 above.

9   Neil    
December 13th, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Amy,

I read Ken’s blog post and I believe I dealt with it fairly in this post. Ken misrepresented Bell’s comments in the manner I outlined in my “nutshell.”

How Chad and Bell differ was not the subject of this post, so I did not address it.

Bell clearly believes many will spend eternity separated from God. Therefore, on this matter, he is biblical and not a universalist. I will let Chad speak for himself.

Neil

10   Chris Rosebrough    http://www.extremetheology.com
December 13th, 2008 at 2:03 pm

Bo,

Grow up. You seriously sound like a fool. I haven’t spread lies about Rob Bell. And Rob Bell is the head pastor of Mars Hill. If you think that he had no say or is magically not responsible for the decision to put up the pdf’s on spiritual practices on the Mars Hill homepage then you have some serious growing up to do. The buck always stops at the top.

11   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 13th, 2008 at 2:05 pm

You seriously sound like a fool. I haven’t spread lies about Rob Bell.

is this the same Chris Rosebrough that runs “Extreme Theology”? If so, I’m not sure when he’s NOT spread lies about Rob Bell.

Just saying…

12   Chris Rosebrough    http://www.extremetheology.com
December 13th, 2008 at 2:11 pm

Neil and Chris L,

Jesus is our only hope for bringing peace and reconciliation between God and humans. Through Jesus we have been forgiven and brought into right relationship with God. God is now reconciling us to each other,ourselves, and creation. The Spirit of God affirms as children of God all those who trust Jesus.

I am not trying to be nit-picky but saying that “God affirms as children of God all those who trust in Jesus” is not the same as saying…”ONLY those who trust in Christ are reconciled to God and or saved.”

I’m not convinced. The verb “Affirms” is very imprecise. It leaves open the possibility that there are Children of God in other religions that have just not been “affirmed” by the Spirit.

Have you got anything that is clearer than this?

13   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 13th, 2008 at 2:11 pm

And Rob Bell is the head pastor of Mars Hill.

I thought he was the founding pastor, but not the head pastor.

Earlier this year, Don Golden was the lead pastor, and Rob is just the primary teaching pastor there. I believe Don has moved on, but I’m pretty sure Rob didn’t take his place. Rob hasn’t been the “head pastor” at MHBC for years, so you might want to revise your (convoluted) logic…

14   Chris Rosebrough    http://www.extremetheology.com
December 13th, 2008 at 2:16 pm

Chris L,

Unsubstantiated assertions. If I’ve lied about Rob Bell then PROVE IT! What was the lie?

You guys claim that ADM’s engage in ad hominem and unsubstantiated gossip. Yet, I never cease to be amazed by the ad hominem attacks and unsubstantiated claims (gossip) flowing from your keyboards.

When I take issue with something that a Christian leader or pastor is teaching or preaching or said I PROVIDE THE QUOTE OR AUDIO OR VIDEO of the offending statement and interact with it. You may not like my critiques and you may disagree with them but I don’t make up stuff nor do I make unsubstantiated allegations like you guys to here.

15   Neil    
December 13th, 2008 at 2:18 pm

I am not trying to be nit-picky but saying that “God affirms as children of God all those who trust in Jesus” is not the same as saying…”ONLY those who trust in Christ are reconciled to God and or saved.” Chris R.

From the Mars Hill PDF on their theology: Jesus is our only hope for bringing peace and reconciliation between God and humans (emphasis added).

16   Bo Diaz    
December 13th, 2008 at 2:18 pm

Chris R,
Its clear you do not possess the discernment necessary to understand basic communication from modern english speakers. I did not cite your “buck always stops at the top” argument to refute it, but rather to point out that this view you’ve now at least twice expressed affirms that Bell has stated “Jesus is our only hope for bringing peace and reconciliation between God and humans” per the document that appears on the MHBC website.

Its also a little distressing that your argument relies on the title Bell has within his church, and you seem wholly unfamiliar with what title he has.

Perhaps your spiritual gifts do not include discernment and you should be serving the body of Christ in other areas.

17   Neil    
December 13th, 2008 at 2:19 pm

OK guys – let’s get stay on focus… Bell is not a universalists (as his own words show) and Silva misrepresented him ina recent blog post.

18   Chris Rosebrough    http://www.extremetheology.com
December 13th, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Chris L,

It is not convoluted logic. Rob Bell is the face and voice of Mars Hill.

I was not aware that he was no longer administratively heading the church. But that does not absolve him in this case AND it isn’t even the most important issue.

The bigger issue is that Lectio Divina is a false form of meditation and it’s claim that you can experience God are false, bogus and deceptive.

Ya’ll constantly strain at gnats and end up swallowing camels.

19   Bo Diaz    
December 13th, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Do you really want us to bring up every instance of you claiming that Bell is a universalist? Or that he doesn’t believe the virgin birth, as the same document quoted earlier contains the statement of the virgin birth as fact.

20   Neil    
December 13th, 2008 at 2:23 pm

Rob hasn’t been the “head pastor” at MHBC for years, so you might want to revise your (convoluted) logic…

Regardless, what Chris R. says is probably true – that official statements made on the Mars Hill website reflect Bell’s belief.

Therefore, Bell is clearly not an universalist based on Mars Hill statements.

21   Chris Rosebrough    http://www.extremetheology.com
December 13th, 2008 at 2:24 pm

Neil,

I’d love to discuss this issue with you if you’re interested in having a real dialog. But, let’s do it via email. It is painfully clear that no real conversations can occur on your site.

22   Neil    
December 13th, 2008 at 2:25 pm

The bigger issue is that Lectio Divina is a false form of meditation and it’s claim that you can experience God are false, bogus and deceptive.

Ya’ll constantly strain at gnats and end up swallowing camels.

In this thread the issue is his orthodoxy when it comes to salvation through Jesus alone and that it is applied only to those who trust him.

Can you swallow that?

23   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 13th, 2008 at 2:27 pm

I’d love to discuss this issue with you if you’re interested in having a real dialog. But, let’s do it via email. It is painfully clear that no real conversations can occur on your site.

Translation: I don’t want to be held accountable for what I say.

You guys claim that ADM’s engage in ad hominem and unsubstantiated gossip.

You might want to brush-up a bit on the difference between ad hominem and hyperbole.

As for lies about Bell, I don’t have to go much further than (as Bo notes) claims about denying the virgin birth, or the misrepresentation of his appearance at the Seeds of Compassion conference in Seattle. When it comes to being a charitable and discerning reader, you end up scoring about a 0/10 (with your fisking of the word “affirm” above as just one example).

24   Neil    
December 13th, 2008 at 2:28 pm

I have not read the Mars Hill PDF on Lectio Divina – I will do so.

25   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 13th, 2008 at 2:28 pm

The bigger issue is that Lectio Divina is a false form of meditation and it’s claim that you can experience God are false, bogus and deceptive.

Ya’ll constantly strain at gnats and end up swallowing camels.

LOL! I can’t believe I just read someone diss Lectio Divina (a practice they probably don’t undestand worth a hoot to begin with) and follow that up with the straining the gnat bit!
Hilarious!

26   Chris Rosebrough    http://www.extremetheology.com
December 13th, 2008 at 2:28 pm

Bo,

It is clear that you have no clue what I’ve actually said about Bell.

Here is what Bell said about the virgin birth in Velvet Elvis:

What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archeologists find Larry’s tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of the Mithra and Dionysian religious cults that were hugely popular at the time of Jesus, whose gods had virgin births?

But what if, as you study the origin of the word “virgin” you discover that the word “virgin” in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew language at that time, the word “virgin” could mean several things. And what if you discover that in the first century being “born of a virgin” also referred to a child whose mother became pregnant the first time she had intercourse?

What if that spring were seriously questioned? Could a person keep on 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?

Answer: If Christ was NOT born of the Virgin Mary then all of Christianity DOES fall apart because it is then nothing more than MYTH when it claims to be history.

27   Bo Diaz    
December 13th, 2008 at 2:29 pm

Wow, the wounds left by your readers, listeners and fellow ADMs for saying something nice must have run deep. You’re really toeing the line like a good little boy.

Just be sure to leave out all references to the kinds of things found in Lutheran theology like baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, and the sacraments in general.

28   Neil    
December 13th, 2008 at 2:31 pm

Chris R,

I have given undeniable proof that Bell believes in salvation through Jesus alone and that this is applied, as it were, through trusting in him.

Language even Pastorboy approved of in another thread.

Do you have any other issues with the thesis of this post?

Neil

29   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 13th, 2008 at 2:31 pm

Answer: If Christ was NOT born of the Virgin Mary then all of Christianity DOES fall apart because it is then nothing more than MYTH when it claims to be history.

Oh ye of little faith. I feel sorry for people who put all their eggs in the basket of sola scriptura.

Chris R, you should do some study on what the word MYTH actually means.

30   Bo Diaz    
December 13th, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Now I’m confused Chris R, are you sticking with the “buck stops at the top” principle or not? Because in the same document quoted above it affirms the virgin birth.

Or is it just that you only want to use that reasoning when it gives you the opportunity to attack the people you want to attack?

31   Neil    
December 13th, 2008 at 2:33 pm

Answer: If Christ was NOT born of the Virgin Mary then all of Christianity DOES fall apart because it is then nothing more than MYTH when it claims to be history.

This may be true… but that is an argument about the essentials of what must be believed. That Bell actual does believe in the Virgin Birth is also affirmed in the same document I linked.

This is simply an illustration on Bell’s part – probably poorly chosen, but an illustration nonetheless.

32   Neil    
December 13th, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Seriously – lighten up!!!

33   Chris Rosebrough    http://www.extremetheology.com
December 13th, 2008 at 2:37 pm

Bo,

Now I know that you don’t know your Bible.

Here’s something I’ve written on Baptism. http://podcast.extremetheology.com/extreme/TSBaptism.pdf

You might want to review it because it lays out what the Bible teaches on the subject.

34   Chris Rosebrough    http://www.extremetheology.com
December 13th, 2008 at 2:39 pm

Chad,

Thanks for your honest and enlightening comment. Your honesty regarding that fact that you deny sola scriptura is refreshing.

35   Chris Rosebrough    http://www.extremetheology.com
December 13th, 2008 at 2:40 pm

Neil.

The quote you’ve provided does not convince me. Do you have others? If so email them. I’m checking out of here.

36   Bo Diaz    
December 13th, 2008 at 2:41 pm

Chris R,
Now I know you don’t have the discernment to be doing what you claim to be doing.

I made no statements about what I believe, nor did I make any statements about what I think about what you believe. I did, however, make a statement about what a large chunk of the people who generally support you believe and what they think about what you believe.

Instead of posting it in the comments here why don’t you post the text of it on the front page of your various and sundry websites and break down a discussion of it on fighting for the faith?

37   Bo Diaz    
December 13th, 2008 at 2:41 pm

The quote you’ve provided does not convince me. Do you have others? If so email them. I’m checking out of here.

Bwahahahah.

38   Jerry    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
December 13th, 2008 at 2:50 pm

I wonder if the elders of MH think that Rob Bell is wrong? I wonder if the local leadership has any more importance in this than say someone who clearly does not worship there on a regular basis? I wonder who is more responsible for Rob Bell: online critics or the leaders that Christ himself has gifted to lead and shepherd the church?

39   Jerry    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
December 13th, 2008 at 2:51 pm

The quote you’ve provided does not convince me.

I’m shocked!

40   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 13th, 2008 at 2:58 pm

Thanks for your honest and enlightening comment. Your honesty regarding that fact that you deny sola scriptura is refreshing.

I am glad you would find it “refreshing” that a person does not hold to something that you deem necessary for salvation.

You remind me of the pastor who tells his congregation they are all going to hell with a smirk on his face, as though he is pleased to be the bearer of such good tidings.

Hey, am I still banned from commenting on your site? I loved the email posted by you around here some weeks ago that talked about how you love to keep the air ways open for discussion even among people who disagree with you. It gave me quite a laugh.

41   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 13th, 2008 at 3:00 pm

I want to see the undeniable proof that Rob Bell says that ONLY those who trust in Jesus will be reconciled to God.

It seems to me that the burden of proof is always on the accuser, not the one being accused. So, frankly, Bell has no responsibility to answer to the charges the ADMs make against him. Seriously, I think he’s handled it correctly by largely ignoring them.

He died and made them the new inquisitors?

42   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 13th, 2008 at 3:02 pm

Phil, good point.

I would like to see the proof that Rob Bell says that there are many paths to God and that Jesus is not necessary for salvation.

Where is that “undeniable proof”?

43   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 13th, 2008 at 3:10 pm

I would like to see the proof that Rob Bell says that there are many paths to God and that Jesus is not necessary for salvation.

Where is that “undeniable proof”?

Exactly. In a court case, it’s always the job of the prosecution to present evidence to the jury that proves the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s not the responsibility of the accused to necessarily prove his innocence.

To me, ADMs are like Joe McArthy. “Prove to me you aren’t a communist.” They just engage in pointless witch hunts.

44   Bo Diaz    
December 13th, 2008 at 3:18 pm

Something interesting to note as well. When Chris R failed to discern what I was actually saying and challenged me with his PDF he said “Now I know that you don’t know your Bible” as if a rejection of infant baptism, and baptismal regeneration can only be the result of not studying scripture.

The current make up of Christianity in America is such that the majority of Christians don’t believe in baptismal regeneration and reject infant baptism. Are all of them Biblically illiterate? Can’t it possibly be that someone has studied the scriptures and has just come to a different conclusion than you? Of course, if that’s a possibility, then its also a possibility that despite your extensive studying that you could be wrong.

45   Bo Diaz    
December 13th, 2008 at 3:19 pm

Its also pretty funny that he claims to be a proponent of sola scriptura yet produces his own non-scriptura work in order to bolster his own position.

46   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 13th, 2008 at 3:44 pm

It is undeniable to a listener attempting to be impartial that some of Bell’s words are troubling. I would love to have just 10 minutes in private to ask him a couple of questions. Even if Bell believes unequivicably that no one is saved apart from personal faith in Christ, his close relationship with Paggit, McClaren, and others are at least very confusing to someone like me.

PS – Baptismal regeneration is heresy.

47   Aaron    
December 13th, 2008 at 3:45 pm

“I believe in Christ!” -Random Guy

“Prove it!” -Angry Guy

“Uh….I’m new, how do I prove it?” -Random Guy

“Here, read this book on Systematic Theology, there’ll be a test on tuesday, we’ll see if you’re really a believer.” -Angry Guy

“Can’t we just wait until we’re dead and standing before God and let Him decide?” -Random Guy

“No. My balls are too big to let Him do it for me.” -Angry Guy

Just a weak attempt at humor to lighten the overly serious and angry mood. It’s gotta be so tempting to just starting banning people for the sake of sanity. Props for holding out for so long.

48   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 13th, 2008 at 4:18 pm

It goes to show that no matter the proof, it is not good enough to the self appointed judges of others.

I hope God does not choose to judge these ODMs/ADMs by their own standard… they might not even get in themselves…

It is sad when love is overlooked so that another can nit pic others preceived outward sins. Good thing God judges the inside and not the outside. At least for some.

iggy

49   corey    
December 13th, 2008 at 4:47 pm

Chris R -

Though the virgin birth isn’t really the topic of this post, the way that you quoted Bell out of Velvit Elvis is exactly what the post describes.

Immediately following the quotation that you included, Bell writes: “I affirm the historic Christian faith, which includes the virgin birth and the Trinity and the inspiration of the Bible and much more.”

See, it is this kind of selective quoting that demonstrates either a determined agenda to move forward or a serious lack of reading comprehension or a refusal to take people at their word. I would take your research far more seriously if you acknowledged the statements that disproved your point.

50   Neil    
December 13th, 2008 at 5:39 pm

Neil.

The quote you’ve provided does not convince me. Do you have others? If so email them. I’m checking out of here. – Chris R.

If a clear definitive statement of belief does not convince you… nothing else I might provide will.

Neil

51   Neil    
December 13th, 2008 at 5:45 pm

It seems to me that the burden of proof is always on the accuser, not the one being accused. So, frankly, Bell has no responsibility to answer to the charges the ADMs make against him. Seriously, I think he’s handled it correctly by largely ignoring them. – Phil

He pretty much does. I made the statements and accused Silva of twisting them. So, in one sense Chris r’s first post was valid. I’m disappointed (but not surprised) that he was unconvinced.

52   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 13th, 2008 at 5:46 pm

The problem is that ya’ll produce one quote, when there is more than one quote in Bell’s writings where he supports universalism. The other problem is that you do not source the quotes. This makes guys like me a little more suspicious.

Jerry would be right if Bell’s influence was just in Grand Rapids. He has become the Pastor of much of America’s new generation of young ‘evangelicals’ through his books and his Nooma’s. This makes critical reading and watching all the more important. Words matter, especially when we are handling the Word of God, which Bell has stated clearly that he values, but the way he handles it bothers many great students of the Bible.

53   Neil    
December 13th, 2008 at 5:49 pm

The quote you’ve provided does not convince me. – Chris R.

Why not be convinced by a simple clear statement? How many others would it take? Why is “here is what I believe” post prominently on his website not enough?

54   Neil    
December 13th, 2008 at 5:52 pm

It is undeniable to a listener attempting to be impartial that some of Bell’s words are troubling. – Rick

I agree. I have found some troubling as well.

55   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 13th, 2008 at 5:59 pm

Ok, last question, what is at the top of your IPOD list these days?

Let’s see…Early Police – Zenyatta Mondatta, Regatta de Blanc, Outlandos d’Armor. Beastie Boys Ill Communication has been getting a lot of spins lately, and my six year old is all over the Jay-Z unplugged album. But I am obsessed with British bands so everything from Doves, who I think are the greatest ever, to Athlete, Starsailor, Ash and Charlatans. I love that stuff

This is a song of of the Jay-Z unplugged album that Rob Bell allows his six year old to listen to. pretty disturbing, bordering on child abuse if you ask me. The fact that Rob ‘loves this stuff’ is all I need to know.

Of course, everybody will jump on my case about being a pharisee, or as Rob said in his interview, morality police. God’s Word clearly speaks about loving the world and the things in the world. About what is pure, noble, good report, thinking on these things.

I wonder if Rob’s Son uses the word ni**a or F&*k in his contemplative prayer to his god. Six year old kids pretty much repeat what is said or sung around them.

56   Neil    
December 13th, 2008 at 6:04 pm

The problem is that ya’ll produce one quote, when there is more than one quote in Bell’s writings where he supports universalism. The other problem is that you do not source the quotes. This makes guys like me a little more suspicious. – Pastorboy

His statement denying universalism is so clear, so prominent it needs no others…, it is linked above, and approved by you as acceptable in another thread.

Neil

57   Neil    
December 13th, 2008 at 6:06 pm

Here is where Pastorboy approves what Bell wrote – I commented(BWII, Comment 69) this:

Pastorboy,

This is what I was talking about when I said it becomes efficacious. Somehow it moves from the realm of universally possible to individually applicable. One way to put it would be the Spirit of God affirms as saved, as children of God all those who trust Jesus.

There is an issue of effectiveness however you word it – trusting Jesus, putting your faith in Jesus, receiving Jesus – I think these are all valid ways of expressing the fact.

Would you agree?

Neil

The bold being directly from Bell’s narrative theology. I even gave Pastorboy optional ways of saying it.

Pastorboy responded comment #75:

Neil,
Yes, to a point, because what does receive mean? How does one go about receiving?

I prefer trust, placing faith in, replacing trust in self and my good works and putting trust in Christ alone.

But I think we are on the same wavelength.

I still am not sure about Iggy. Iggy, make it so a 2nd grader could understand.

So you chose the very words Bell used… when you thought they came from me. In fact, I used the word “receive” (which is a biblical quote) and you opted for Bell’s words.

In that thread I also asked for statements wherein Bell advocated universalism – so far none have been forthcoming… unless they’ve be silvanized like the quotes in my op.

58   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 13th, 2008 at 6:08 pm

This is a song of of the Jay-Z unplugged album…

Translation: Don’t confuse me with the facts. If you utterly refute me, I’ll just change the subject to some irrelevant, extarnalist, Pharisaical version of “purity” I’ve created for myself and just pretend my earlier drubbing didn’t happen…

Now, granted, we don’t know whether it’s the ‘clean’ version of the album sold in Wal-Mart, or if it’s the whole album, or what. We’re ready to whine and moan about every Christian we hate and shred them like the dawgs we are…

59   Neil    
December 13th, 2008 at 6:13 pm

This is a song of of the Jay-Z unplugged album that Rob Bell allows his six year old to listen to. pretty disturbing, bordering on child abuse if you ask me. The fact that Rob ‘loves this stuff’ is all I need to know.

So, since he listens to this stuff you are unconcerned with what he believes? He listens to this stuff is all you need to know? Since you know this, it’s acceptable to believe every other error about him as well? And promote them… because you know this about what he listens to?

Is it really ALL you need to know?

60   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 13th, 2008 at 6:13 pm

PB,

Did you know there are CD versions that do not have swearing in them and that Bell may let his 6 yr old listen to the edited versions often sold at Walmart and such?

Why oh why do you always assume the worst? That is not of the fruit of the Spirit at all…

I doubt the layers upon slayer of accusations you just cast truly are the reality… but then it seems this thread does not have much to do wiht reality from those bent on attacking and maligning others.

So… Ingrid observes Advent which your boy Ken says is evil and of the RCC… will you cast stones at her for observing Advent because Ken states many Evangelical are doing this?

It seems I am right about the sickness that surrounds many of those who only choose to see evil in what is good and nit pick over petty things.

iggy

61   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 13th, 2008 at 6:14 pm

Chris L,

Even better stated that what I said. :smile:

iggy

62   Neil    
December 13th, 2008 at 6:15 pm

I’d e-mail Chris R if I had his address.

63   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 13th, 2008 at 6:17 pm

I still am not sure about Iggy. Iggy, make it so a 2nd grader could understand.

I had to laugh at this quote and that PB never answered me back in the other thread. As I stated, even my preschooler son can understand and explain the things I explained to PB in that thread… :lol:

64   Neil    
December 13th, 2008 at 6:19 pm

Yeah – well, I wanted to include the entire comment…

65   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 13th, 2008 at 6:39 pm

You guys should let iggy be a contributor here. He is so smart and all. Plus, if someone gets angry, he used to roll with Hell’s Angels.

Chris L, I never got drubbed. You have a quote off of a statement of faith. I have multiple Nooma’s, interviews, quotes from his books, etc. that say otherwise.

No wonder emergents love Obama. They make statements then change their statements and expect people to take them at their word. They make one statement and expect it to erase al the other ones they made previous.

66   Neil    
December 13th, 2008 at 6:46 pm

Things shown/proven so far:

Even when an emerging kinda guy (not emergent BTW) makes definitive statements – they are dismissed.

People are still confusing emerging and emergent after all this time.

If the right person says it, it’s agreeable, if the wrong person says it – well, it is still agreeable, but it’s not enough.

Clear words, when heard by those who oppose, are not clear any longer.

They demand proof, but do not provide it when asked (repeatedly).

They like to switch the subject when backed into a corner.

67   Neil    
December 13th, 2008 at 6:49 pm

And if all that were not enough… we still have the video bite from “The Real Reason Rob Bell is a Heretic” – in it he is impassioned about calling people to Christ.

Why bother if you are a universalist

68   Neil    
December 13th, 2008 at 6:53 pm

I have multiple Nooma’s, interviews, quotes from his books, etc. that say otherwise.

I have asked repeatedly for comments that show Bell advocating universalism as clearly as he denies it in his statement of faith… so far – nothing.

I’ll check back in a couple hours to see what’s been offered… if anything

69   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 13th, 2008 at 6:56 pm

PB,

You are distorting my testimony… and I ask you to stop… Yes I had friends in the Hell’s Angels and used to roll with them… there was one Christmas Toy Run were they organized and were able to give many toys to kids who would not have had them.

Really, you seem to have this disdain for what God has done in my life and how Jesus has changed me… and that is very disturbing to me if you are a sincere believer in Christ Jesus. It really gives me doubts as to whether you ever found true grace of God or that you just play religious games.

And I have never claimed to be smart… I stated my preschooler son seems to be able to comprehend basic spiritual concepts you seem to have no clue about… so my preschooler son may be smarter than you and me. :smile:

iggy

70   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 13th, 2008 at 7:00 pm

No wonder emergents love Obama. They make statements then change their statements and expect people to take them at their word. They make one statement and expect it to erase al the other ones they made previous.

No wonder Jesus had disdain for the religious Pharisees who would use words and try to trap true believers in their religious games. No wonder Jesus had disdain for those who are of an unforgiving spirit and judge others unrighteously… Thank God Jesus is more forgiving than those who play religious games.

iggy

71   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 13th, 2008 at 7:02 pm

Iggy, you said you could handle yourself and used to roll with the HA’s when you threatened me.

I laughed it off and forgave you. You never said anything about a Christmas toy run.

Really, you should tell the whole story instead of trying to intimidate me.

72   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 13th, 2008 at 7:13 pm

PB,

I am not going over this again… you threatened me and now lie about it over and over.. You are habitual in this and I am seeing why I do not like interacting with you…

Grow up will you?

You threatened me… I stated I was big enough to handle you or most anyone but God has change me and I no longer fight. You twist this and lie about what actually happen just as you do with Bell and others.

Liars will not inherit the Kingdom of God… so I plead with you by the Blood of Jesus to stop your lying against others.

I had hoped we had moved on but it seems you are but a child bully who wishes only to mock God in my life. You are quite a sick person. In mocking me, you mock the Blood of Jesus which was shed for me and His life that now works in me. I can only think of one other that would joyfully treat the Blood of Jesus as you do…

I forgive you, and I hope you are not blaspheming the Holy Spirit in your words and actions.

iggy

73   Neil    
December 13th, 2008 at 7:34 pm

I’m glad that’s cleared up… I’ll check back later for all those statements in which Bell advocates universalism.

74   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 13th, 2008 at 7:35 pm

I am not mocking you Iggy!

I was just suggesting these folks might need an extra contributor with your unique skills of logic, theology, and emergent thought. The bonus was your physical skills.

Dude, you need to lighten up. I get beat up on Martino’s blog, insulted here personally all the time. Its alright, I am used to it. It does not matter what people think, I just fear God.

May God bless you, Carlos.

75   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 13th, 2008 at 7:38 pm

Neil, Do you really want me to post them all again so you and your cronies can just rip them up and say that they do not promote universalism?

I mean, I will.

76   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 13th, 2008 at 7:40 pm

PB,

Please just stop… you were mocking God’s work in my life and now are lying about that.

Please just stop…

I pray you are filled with the Holy Spirit to overcome your sin. I pray the power of the Blood of Christ for you now.

In Jesus Name.

77   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 13th, 2008 at 7:41 pm

*is amused that the very thought of God being so sovereign and loving that he just might save all the world is the big boogie man in the room*

78   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 13th, 2008 at 7:42 pm

What matters to me is that you see that you are mocking the Blood of Jesus… I care nothing for my own person… but you claim to be a believer in Jesus and stand here mocking Him…

And I stand here only praying for you to turn from your sin and turn to Jesus and be filled with the Holy Spirit to overcome your sin.

iggy

79   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 13th, 2008 at 7:46 pm

Listen to this quote about salvation from the infamous Velvet Elvis:

“So this reality, this forgiveness, this reconciliation, is true for everybody. Paul insisted that when Jesus died on the cross he was reconciling “all things, in heaven and on earth, to God.” All things everywhere. This reality then isn’t something we make true about ourselves by doing something. It is already true. Our choice is to live in this new reality or cling to a reality of our own making.” (146, emphasis mine)

Romans 9:30-10:13 States:
?30? What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness,

have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith;

?31? but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. ?32? Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone.” ?33? As it is written: “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”?10 Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. ?2? For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. ?3? Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. ?4? Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. ?5? Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: “The man who does these things will live by them.”? ?6? But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’?” (that is, to bring Christ down) ?7? “or ‘Who will descend into the deep??” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). ?8? But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,”? that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: ?9? That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. ?10? For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. ?11? As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”??12? For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, ?13? for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”??14? How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?
Why would Paul insist that we would call on the name of the Lord to be saved if we had all already been reconciled? Why would he say that Christ is the rock, upon whom we must place our trust or a stumbling stone for those who put their trust in works if it was universal? Why would he say that righteousness comes for all who believe? Why do we have to confess and believe, or call upon the name of the Lord if reconciliation has been bought and paid for all? Why would the proclamation of the gospel be necessary if everyone was reconciled already to God? Gnosticism by any other name still stinks.

Didn’t they teach Rob Bell hermeneutics at Wheaton and Fuller? I must be, like Rob Bell used to, seeing scripture in ‘black and white’. It must take Bell’s technicolor view to dig universal atonement up out of the scripture. Or, he must, as he says, not be able to understand scripture, as it is a mystery along with God. Bell has created his own reality, where the proclamation of the Gospel is replaced with talk about reconciling the rich world with the poor so that nobody dies without food in their bellies, and everybody when they die gets to live with God.

80   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 13th, 2008 at 7:47 pm

Iggy,

Thanks for your prayer. I can always use it.

81   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 13th, 2008 at 7:51 pm

This conversation is so old and boring. Seriously, it’s been beaten to death for the last three years now. Obviously, if the ADMs haven’t offered up sufficient proof yet, they aren’t going to. Why can’t they just be mature enough to admit they’re wrong? It’s sad, really. That a whole group of people have dedicated themselves to tearing down ministries of servants of God.

I would not want to be in their shoes and explain to God why they felt it right to attack His servant.

82   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 13th, 2008 at 7:53 pm

Velvet Elvis “For a Christian, Jesus’ teachings aren’t to be followed because they are a nice way to live a moral life. They are to be followed because they are the possible insight into how the world really works. They teach us how things are. I don’t follow Jesus because I think Christianity is the best religion. I follow Jesus because he leads me into ultimate reality. He teaches me to live in tune with how reality is. When Jesus said, ‘No one comes to the Father except through me’, he was saying that his way, his words, his life is our connection to how things truly are at the deepest levels of existence. For Jesus then, the point of religion is to help us connect with ultimate reality, God.” – p. 83

To help us connect? No, Rob, the ONLY way to ‘connect’. And Jesus is not about ‘connection’; he is about providing righteousness without which we cannot enter into God’s kingdom. Jesus is not ‘a’ way, he is ‘the’ way.

83   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 13th, 2008 at 7:54 pm

Phil,

I would stop, but Neil is begging for it #73

84   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 13th, 2008 at 7:57 pm

I would stop, but Neil is begging for it #73

And you haven’t come any closer to proving anything, other than that you know how to use the Ctrl + C and Ctrl + V keys on your keyboard (although you might be a right-click kind of guy)…

85   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 13th, 2008 at 8:01 pm

PB<

So you deny that this statement?

When Jesus said, ‘No one comes to the Father except through me’, he was saying that his way, his words, his life is our connection to how things truly are at the deepest levels of existence

So you deny that Jesus being “The Way” is not the same as saying “his way, his words, his life is our connection to how thing truly are at the deepest levels or existence”?

I mean in His way His words His life there is righteousness… and that is the thing you state Bell is not stating… yet if we have Jesus we have righteousness….

I see you are disagreeing with Bell and twisting what he states to fit your perverted view of what he is saying!

Again, you do this so often and I am in earnest prayer for you.

86   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 13th, 2008 at 8:02 pm

Why would Paul insist that we would call on the name of the Lord to be saved if we had all already been reconciled?

I like what Willimon says here:

I know that Paul wrote, “if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord..you will be saved,” words meant to reassure anxious believers (I suppose) rather than make a sweeping judgment about nonbelievers.

The church is composed of those who confess with our lips and our lives that we have somehow heard our names called by Jesus when he said, “Follow me.” I confess that I have often wished the story of my salvation were more dramatic, more interesting. Nothing would please me more than to tell you that I led a life of degeneracy filled with murder and mayhem hen I found Jesus and got my life put right. Unfortunately, my salvatoin is just not that interesting. I got put here by my family when I was an infant, before I could resist. True, I wandered a bit as a youth, but nothing too noteworthy. Eventually I found that my efforts at resistance were futile. I relented; I believed. The folks at the church just wouldn’t let me go my own way, took time for me, put up with me; salvation is always a corporate gift rather than a personal attainment. Looking back, I can’t believe that church people believed in God enough to believe in me.

(emphasis mine)

He goes on….

To believe in salvatgion is to acknowledge something as true. It is to wake up to what is. Yet to hold such a belief means that one’s life is summoned to be different. Christian belief is linked to Christian witness. Christian believing is not just to adopt some intellectual proposition but rather to get in step with reality, to join up, to have your life subsumed by the one who, despite all the perfectly rational reservations based upon your inadequecies, called you to follow him, to go public with your profession.

87   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 13th, 2008 at 8:03 pm

I am confused… to connect or make a connection means to have a “relationship with” and PB states that Jesus is not the way to have a relationship with! PB denies we need a relationship with Jesus to be saved.

iggy

88   the template of general disdain    
December 13th, 2008 at 8:07 pm

This thread is a real laugher.
Who cares if Bell has a board and a congregation that gets to hear him regularly?
Look at recent events in the political arena, and things in the “church” like the Todd Bentley scandal.
These are proof that when it comes to money and notoriety, men will defend the devil if necessary.
Most drank the Guyana kool aid voluntarily, after forcing it down the throat of their children.
Your arguments are deficient

Bell, as well as many others, are celebrities, those we are warned of in Matthew 7:15-23.

Romans 2:
11For God shows no partiality.

I suggest you study the meaning of the Greek; pros?pol?mpsia

God’s not impressed with Bell or anyone here, and (since I am not greater than my master) neither am I.

89   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 13th, 2008 at 8:09 pm

I find it interesting that PB calls Bell a heretic and then lies, mocks the workings of God in someones life and then denies a relationship with Jesus is needed to be saved.

I wonder… who is the real heretic here?

90   Jerry    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
December 13th, 2008 at 8:17 pm

So what if Bell is a ‘universalist’ (which I don’t know that he is, but I will entertain the idea that he might be for the sake of the argument). But so what? I haven’t heard him say that everyone is universally saved except through the death of Jesus. All that quote above demonstrates to me is that it was Jesus who made it possible. That is, he didn’t say anyone else leads us into the ultimate reality (whatever that is) I didn’t read that he said Buddha or Mohamet made it possible. Only Jesus. That’s rather exclusive to me.

91   Neil    
December 13th, 2008 at 8:19 pm

Thanks Pastorboy, though I was dissapointed that you could not come up with anything definitive.

Picking on Bell for unlimited atonement is one thing, calling it universalism is another – particularly when he denies universalism in the very quote you produced.

Bell concluded with “Our choice is to live in this new reality or cling to a reality of our own making.” – you may argue how much of a choice there is… but you cannot use a quote that ends with this to say he advocated universalism… this very statement shows he does not.

Again I ask – please provide a statement wher he clearly advocated universalism…

92   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 13th, 2008 at 8:19 pm

IGGY,
stop lying about what I believe.

93   Neil    
December 13th, 2008 at 8:20 pm

Please guys – stick to the point…

94   Neil    
December 13th, 2008 at 8:25 pm

To help us connect? No, Rob, the ONLY way to ‘connect’. And Jesus is not about ‘connection’; he is about providing righteousness without which we cannot enter into God’s kingdom. Jesus is not ‘a’ way, he is ‘the’ way.

You must have missed the part where I linked to Bell saying Jesus was “the only” way – so that’s a moot point on your part.

And Jesus is about connecting – and so much more. That Bell left it at that may be unfortunate, but it does not negate the fact that it is true, nor does it negate the fact that elsewhere he references the need to trust in Jesus alone.

Pastorboy. if you take what Bell said at face value, if you read it without silvanizing it, you must agree that he is not an universalist. For they are his own words… and they a clear, saimple, and consistent.

95   Neil    
December 13th, 2008 at 8:28 pm

BOTH of you STOP calling each other liars and stick to the point…

Pastorboy, if you have a clear quote you can provide do so – so far what you have provided proves the opposite of what you claim.

96   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 13th, 2008 at 8:31 pm

Neil,

I am… PB claims Bell in that statement denies that in Christ we have righteousness. I am pointing out to have Jesus is to have all He is… and has for us. PB denies that a “connection” is needed… he stated that was wrong… so to understand what Bell is stating that connection is a relationship… as Bell’s theology is relational, PB denied we need a relationship with Jesus.

Now, granted PB does not understand many of the underpinnings of what he denies in statements like this one he trotted out as “proof” of heresy, but PB did show us he is heretical in what he denies.

So the burden of proof is on PB to now prove that he is not a heretic as it is been proven here in this thread clearly by his own words what he believes… that a connection (relationship) with Jesus is wrong….

PB’s own words:

And Jesus is not about ‘connection’; he is about providing righteousness without which we cannot enter into God’s kingdom.

In this one statement PB is stating that we do not need a relationship with Jesus we need only His righteousness… but that can only come if there is a relationship… so PB is preaching another Gospel I have never heard of… a non relational righteousness given by Jesus non relationally.

That is the only logical conclusion of PB theological stand against Bell.

iggy

97   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 13th, 2008 at 8:33 pm

Neil,

I am very much on point… I am looking at PB’s own words as to who is the real heretic and what is affirmed by Bell.. a relationship with Jesus and what is denied by PB… just getting righteousness without a relationship with Jesus. I am using both of their quotes and that is the logical conclusion…

PB denied that a relationship is need to be saved, while Bell affirm this is the ONE THING NEEDED.

iggy

98   Neil    
December 13th, 2008 at 8:43 pm

Iggy,

I agree that the whole “relationship” language if used by someone else would be acceptable… where it is not acceptable when used by Bell. Maybe he emphasizes it too much.

At this point I cannot fathom why Pastorboy still denies Bell’s orthodoxy when Bell has made such clear statements… and even Pb’s own quoates of Bell’s show he’s not an universalist.

That said, I think both of you have gotten a little too personal and hyperbolic and I was just trying to calm things down.

Neil

99   Neil    
December 13th, 2008 at 8:45 pm

Pastorboy,

Again – in the quote you provided Bell ends with a comment on people choosing reconciliation or rejecting it. So clearly this denies your claim that he is advocating universalism.

Do you have anything wherin Bell actual does advocate universalism?

Neil

100   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 13th, 2008 at 9:03 pm

PB has gotten personal in mocking the work of God in me… and I forgave him though he still denies his own actions.

I am trying very hard to keep it civil but if a liar speaks a lie, I will stand against it. It seems PB plays games and mocks others then pretends they are being too soft. He is like someone who blames the rape victim for being a woman and mocks her for getting raped. I PB as a sick child who needs the JEsus he claims he believes in. In almost all my interaction with PB I have seen nothing that leads me to believe he is a true believer in JEsus. In fact the outright denial of a relationship with Jesus as PB did above confirms this even more to me. PB’s actions and words seem to speak as one who has never met the Living Christ and has never been gutted by the Holy Spirit to be rebuilt into the image of Christ. The bible is clear that he who hates his brothers does not have the Truth living in them… and PB seems to personify that.

Again that is why I plead the Blood for him and ask God to bring the Holy Spirit down on him to lead him to Truth. That the PB no longer shows contempt toward the Kindness of God which leads us to repentance. In fact I pray that the Kindness of God rests on PB so that he weeps for his sins and seeks only the righteousness of Jesus and not his own.

I see this all for what it is… a spiritual war that some who claim Christ deny him by their actions need the discipline of God to restore them to Grace out of works righteousness.

iggy

101   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 13th, 2008 at 9:22 pm

Iggy is still lying.

I never said you didn’t need a relationship with Jesus.

Bell’s language is misleading at best. He does not afirm this as the only way to heaven in any of these quotes.

Iggy, back off. You are disobeying your idol Bell and accusing me of lacking the Holy Spirit. I have never called you a heretic. You are the only one being unreasonable on this whole comments section.

102   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 13th, 2008 at 9:52 pm

PB,

I have not even read a book by Bell.. so he is far from my idol… and I am not lying this post is about words and what they mean. You are saying that a “connection” is not needed to be saved, that only righteousness is. I am saying that the word connection means relationship in how Bell uses it and you denied that a connection is needed. I even quoted your own words…

I mean you do this to others all the time why is is wrong and lying to do it to you? I mean I am NOT lying as I quoted you in context as you gave a very clear admonishment that Bell was wrong in asserting a “connection” with Jesus and “his way, his words, his life” are wrong… you stated clearly:

To help us connect? No, Rob, the ONLY way to ‘connect’. And Jesus is not about ‘connection’; he is about providing righteousness without which we cannot enter into God’s kingdom.

~ thus quoted PB from comment 82.

Thus denying a relationship is needed to get this righteousness you say we need to get into God’s kingdom. I mean… do your own words mean nothing? I am only restating what you stated against Bell who stated we need a connection (relationship) with Jesus… so either you just lied or you actually agree with Bell and made a mistake. I mean mistakes can happen, but you seemed rather firm in your assertion no connection is need for salvation and only righteousness is…. though I am confused how one would get right with God without Jesus… but I suppose you have that at the ready to explain.

Now give me proof that I am wrong in all this… real solid proof you are not a heretic. So far you just assert I am lying but have given nothing to show I am… I am only going by your own words…

iggy

103   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 13th, 2008 at 9:57 pm

Iggy,

You need help, dude.

Talk about an uncharitable reading.

I wonder if there are psychatrists in Billings.

104   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 13th, 2008 at 10:03 pm

PB,

It is you that seem very sick to me… I quote your own words and you deny them… then call me a liar over your own lies… talk about psycho!

Sincerely you have denied your own words and ignored I even gave you a way out… that you could admit you made a mistake and accidentally denied a relationship with Jesus is need for salvation. But instead of humility and admission that you did so you point at me and call me crazy. That is actually very sad to me. I know I am pushing it as you are a sick person and are in need of the Counselor in your life. I hope only the best for you.

Still praying you find the Truth.

iggy

105   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 13th, 2008 at 10:04 pm

PB,

I am done with your once again. You are too sick to do much more than pray for. I will no longer interact with you until you can behave as an adult.

iggy

106   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 13th, 2008 at 10:06 pm

Please don’t give me any admonishments to stop… I had hoped PB would see his own words and own them but he will not.

I am done and I will not interact with PB no matter how much he goads me with his mocking of what Jesus has done in my life.

iggy

107   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 13th, 2008 at 10:38 pm

I do not know how I can make this much clearer.

Bell says “this reconciliation, is true for everybody and all things, everywhere.” Further, he says: “This reality then isn’t something we make come true about ourselves by doing something. It is already true.”

If so, then as Bell also says elsewhere in VE, all of creation itself i.e. “all things” and “everybody” have already been restored, reconciled, into “this new reality” which it/they don’t have to “make come true” by “doing something.”

The cosmos i.e. “all things” certainly includes mankind (even Satan) so Bell’s really left with a Universal Reconciliation/Christian Universalism of some sort as “this new reality. And since it “isn’t something we make come true” by “doing something” because it’s “already true” now we know why he’d say there are “forgiven people in Hell.”

At best this is a hyper-Arminianism but even in Arminianism people must repent i.e. “do something” so if Bell was trying to hint at CU, without owning it outright (yet), he couldn’t have stated in a clearer way in his (in my opinion) purposely ambiguous style.

Are Jesus’ words a possible insight into how the world really works? Or are they the words that show us the way to eternal life? Does Jesus lead us into the ultimate reality, or has He paid the penalty for our sins to give us righteousness? When Jesus said that no one comes to the Father but by me, He was saying that He was the Way the Truth, and The Life. He is the only way, that is by His ultimate sacrifice, the only way to peace with God, the only way to Salvation. The point of Jesus’ coming was NOT to connect with the ultimate reality, it was to reconcile us with God. Ultimately, the point of Jesus’ coming was to bring Glory to God!

If this is not universalism, I do not know what is.

108   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 13th, 2008 at 10:44 pm

PB -

Now, you’ve just basically cherry-picked Bell (and Paul) to make him say whatever you want. I would note (as I did on the other thread) that “reconcile” does not equate to “save” – reconciling is setting things to right (which would include separation of wheat and tares – which reconciles the field in which they grew).

“There are forgiven people in hell” (as we’ve pointed out to you ad nauseum)) is not a universalist view of atonement. Rather, it is a view that says Jesus’ death paid for all, even if all have not chosen to accept his grace.

But go ahead – keep lying about Bell. It says more about your character than his…

109   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 13th, 2008 at 10:48 pm

Chris,

I am not lying, and your doublespeak and your origami theology does not impress me. Words mean things. At the worst, it is heresy. At the best, it is hyper arminianism.

You all are impressive in your emergent view of scripture, though.

110   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 13th, 2008 at 11:10 pm

Chris L,

PB states words mean things, but he does not get what hey mean… He is sick… he lies habitually and really… it is truly sad. I already tried to show him by his own word exactly what he is doing to Bell but then I was a liar and not he who stated “words that mean something” then denied their very meaning.

PB needs lots of prayer and help.

iggy

111   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 13th, 2008 at 11:12 pm

Wow, PB, are you taking lessons from Ken Silva in self-linkage now?

Seriously, linking to articles you have written as some sort of source is just below writing your mom in as a reference on a job application.

As far as hyper-Arminianism, I wonder if you even know what Arminianism is, really. If anyone engages in a hyper version of it, it’s a person who hands out tracts and harasses people on the streets. If pressuring people to make a decision isn’t a hyper-Arminianism, than nothing is.

You also act as if Velvet Elvis is the bulk of Bell’s work. Many of us have spent countless hours listening to his sermons. We’ve read his other books. He’s a solid expositor and a great communicator. Frankly, I stand by my gut feeling that a majority of the criticism Bell receives is based on jealousy.

When people quit listening to you and start listening to someone else, it’s only natural for jealousy spring up. The sad thing is that instead of confronting this, the ADM wrap it up a false holiness and say their “standing up for the truth”.

It’s just sad really…

112   Bo Diaz    
December 13th, 2008 at 11:38 pm

Wow, the hilarity of PB declaring that “words mean things” while cherry picking Bell’s quotes to make him mean the opposite of what he said is amazing.

I’m interested to hear how “there are forgiven people in hell” actually means “there is no hell”.

PB, have you actually read Bell’s book? Or is this another case of you not actually reading what you’re critiquing?

113   Bo Diaz    
December 13th, 2008 at 11:43 pm

Also, at some point the “misunderstandings” stack up a little too much and it just becomes flat out lying to garner attention and praise.

114   chris    
December 13th, 2008 at 11:55 pm

I believe that there is a hell. As in separation from God and not an actual place like a Motel 6. Well a Motel 6 is actually hell. I stayed in one once on my way to Omaha. Speaking of Omaha; that is also hell.

Completely random and as nonsensical as Chris R. and PB’s assertions about Bell.

Carry on!

115   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 13th, 2008 at 11:58 pm

I believe that there is a hell. As in separation from God and not an actual place like a Motel 6. Well a Motel 6 is actually hell. I stayed in one once on my way to Omaha. Speaking of Omaha; that is also hell.

LOL…

Did you steal this from Dave Barry?

116   John Hughes    
December 14th, 2008 at 12:06 am

“You must be born again”.

Reconciliation is a PART of but not synonymous with Salvation.
Forgiveness is a PART of but not synonymous with Salvation.
Justification is synonymous with Salvation.
Forgiveness and reconciliation make Salvation POSSIBLE.
All are reconciled, all are forgiven,

2 Cor5:18-19 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

but not all are justified which comes through faith in the propitiary sacrifice of Jesus and His resurrection from the dead.

This argument goes beyond Bell and into the Arminian/Calvinistic debates and I believe Christian Universalism is heresy. But one does not teach heresy simply because they believe in universal reconciliation and forgiveness which again is not the same as universal salvation.

117   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 14th, 2008 at 12:11 am

John H,

The one question I have is this. When did justification happen?

iggy

118   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 14th, 2008 at 12:14 am

“When did justification happen?”

At the moment of faith. We are justified by grace THROUGH FAITH. It isn’t automatically assigned to evryone.

119   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 14th, 2008 at 12:22 am

Rick,

Nice try … but… lets look at the Scripture as to what and when we were justified.

Romans 3: 21. But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23. for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24. and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished– 26. he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

So, as we read in Romans, we were justified at the Cross when the atoning sacrifice was made through faith in His blood. And we are told this was to demonstrate God’s justice.

So John H. is wrong and we have already been reconciled and justified at the Cross… but the Life is in the Son… so that is the part John is also missing. We need not only to be reconciled, justified (which if you think about it is the same thing only approached from an accounting view and an legal view) but then we must receive the Son to have eternal life.

To say we are justified when we accept Jesus is very Arminian in view as it puts the idea we in a sense justify ourselves when we believe. In truth all is already done in Christ and his finished works at the Cross. All that is left is to trust and totally depend on Jesus and receive His Life or reject Jesus and remain in death.

iggy

120   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 14th, 2008 at 12:25 am

Iggy – your view is just parsing of words and meaningless in the life of an unregenerate sinner, unless you are suggesting that everyone will end up with God eternally.

121   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 14th, 2008 at 12:32 am

RIck,

No, I am pointing out what the bible states. Did Jesus bring justice to the world at the Cross or not? You are saying He did not but it comes only when we accept it. But IT must already be there to be accepted… I hope you can understand that. If justification is not already there unless we initiate it, then it is works. But it is by Grace as you stated. God freely justified us… that is what the scritpure states.

You miss that the unregenerate sinner, either rejects or has not come to faith yet… true faith is recieiving the Holy Spirit, and the very Life of Christ Jesus. We are saved by the Life of Christ not His death. (Rom 5:10)

We have been reconciled, justified and forgiven at the Cross, yet one must enter into a relationship with Jesus to receive the Life which is eternal. It is Cross and Resurrection. Or as 1 Cor 15: 3.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4. that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

The full Gospel is death burrial and resurrection. To leave it all on the Cross misses that Jesus is alive and to have eternal life we must have the same life from Christ and be born again from Heaven.

iggy

122   Neil    
December 14th, 2008 at 12:34 am

Bell’s language is misleading at best. He does not afirm this as the only way to heaven in any of these quotes. – PB

If you cannot see Bell say Jesus is the only way when he says: “Jesus is our only hope for bringing peace and reconciliation between God and humans,” – I guess we might as well give up trying to communicate at all.

Neil

123   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 14th, 2008 at 12:35 am

Rick,

I can’t see how you would say I am saying that all will be saved in the end any more than I can understand how PB and Chris R can say that Bell is a Universalist as Bell does not want people to go to hell. It is nonsensical. If Bell is a Universalist, then there IS NO HELL. But since Bell states many times he does not want people to go to hell, and in that states he believes there is a hell people may go to, he cannot be a Universalist…

iggy

124   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 14th, 2008 at 12:36 am

Round and round the words they go, what they mean, nobody knows.

I suggest it doesn’t matter to a sinner in hell if he is justified or not.

125   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 14th, 2008 at 12:38 am

Neil,

the amazing thing about PB’s quote is that the goal of the Christian is not Heaven, but to be transformed into the image of Christ. Again, PB view is that of what he gets out of the deal of salvation while Bell and others teach what Paul taught in that we are to be Christ Bearers now and to Glorify God later in what Jesus did in and through us. PB and others view is only that we “go to heaven” which is only a small part of the very huge picture of what God is doing in His Kingdom.

iggy

126   Neil    
December 14th, 2008 at 12:39 am

Words mean things. – PB

Yes they do. And the words of Bell I quoted show he believes Jesus to be the only way. And the words of Bell you quoted show he believes that not everyone will be saved.

Words do mean things, but apparently they only mean what you want them to… or else you just cannot bring yourself to believe them – lest they erase the caricature of Bell you have created.

127   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 14th, 2008 at 12:40 am

Rick,

I suggest it doesn’t matter to a sinner in hell if he is justified or not.

And sadly that is true. Yet it should mean much to those of us who know that the sinner is justified and has no need to go to hell. It should compel us to action in love as it did Paul.

iggy

128   Neil    
December 14th, 2008 at 12:43 am

You all are impressive in your emergent view of scripture, though. – PB

Errors in this comment:
1. – there is no “emergent view of Scripture” per se.
2. – no one who posts here has a low view of Scripture.

129   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 14th, 2008 at 12:43 am

If being justified cannot deliver a sinner from hell what good is it? They are not justified, they are CONDEMNED.

130   Neil    
December 14th, 2008 at 12:46 am
    Habits that persist:

1. Even when an emerging kinda guy (not emergent BTW) makes definitive statements – they are dismissed.

2. People are still confusing emerging and emergent after all this time.

3. If the right person says it, it’s agreeable, if the wrong person says it – well, it is still agreeable, but it’s not enough.

4. Clear words, when heard by those who oppose, are not clear any longer.

5. They demand proof, but do not provide it when asked (repeatedly).

    A new habit shown:

When proof is asked, and none can be given, continue parsing and redefing previous quotes…

Neil

131   Neil    
December 14th, 2008 at 12:48 am

My point in all this is not to benefit Bell… I just cannot stand sloppy logic, people denying truth, and people twisting one man’s words in an attempt to discredit him.

132   Neil    
December 14th, 2008 at 12:54 am

Iggy – your view is just parsing of words and meaningless in the life of an unregenerate sinner – Rick

Pretty much any theological debate fits this category.

133   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 14th, 2008 at 12:54 am

Rick,

Again, you miss what Rom 5:10 states as well as what Jesus stated… the Life is in the Son.

The Life is not in the Law.

The Life is not in the Cross.

For we died with Jesus on the Cross… we did not come to life… we receive Life from the risen Christ.

Romans 6 speaks of us dying with Jesus on the Cross… and then Paul explains that we live because Christ Jesus lives. You seem to hang it all on the Cross that brought our death through Christ and miss that we live by His Life.

To be reconciled… as in accounting one reconciles the books. Also if we are forgiven, the we must also be justified as there is no forgiveness without justification.

Justification is declaring one free of guilt. There is no way to have forgiveness without being free from the guilt of our sins.

I think the issue is many have not thought out just what justification mean.

iggy

134   Neil    
December 14th, 2008 at 12:57 am

Reconciliation is a PART of but not synonymous with Salvation.
Forgiveness is a PART of but not synonymous with Salvation.
Justification is synonymous with Salvation.
Forgiveness and reconciliation make Salvation POSSIBLE.
All are reconciled, all are forgiven,

I agree with John Hughs – up to the all are forgiven part… let me think about that one.

Neil

135   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 14th, 2008 at 12:58 am

Neil

When did Jesus die for the forgivness of our sins?

iggy

136   Neil    
December 14th, 2008 at 1:00 am

Iggy,

Then what is the role of the cross? What does it mean that Life is in the Son? While I agree that the resurrection is equally important I do not understand your point. How does one become saved?

Neil

137   Neil    
December 14th, 2008 at 1:01 am

When did Jesus die for the forgivness of our sins? – Iggy

I’m trying not to take this question as condescending?

138   Neil    
December 14th, 2008 at 1:03 am

OK – best guess… AD33.

139   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 14th, 2008 at 1:10 am

Neil,

Paul states in Romans 6 we died with Jesus on the Cross. and we live because he lives.

ROmans 5:10 states:

For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!

So in that verse we are not saved by Jesus death, but by His life.

Jesus stated in John 5:26

For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself.

1 john 5:11-12

11. And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

Again in John 5:39-40 Jesus stated:

39. You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40. yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

Jesus took our sin upon him in our place at the Cross. He took our eternal death on him at the Cross. In return Jesus redeemed us, reconciled us, brought forgiveness as we were then justified and freed of our sin. Yet one thing was missing. We were still going to die and not live eternally. When Jesus rose from the dead He was the first fruit of the Resurrection unto life. And the Life of God that dwelled in Jesus was imparted to us by the Holy Spirit.

We live because Jesus lives and not because He died.

iggy

140   Neil    
December 14th, 2008 at 1:13 am
    One thing that has gone undiscussed in this whole thing is Silva’s misuse of the Bell quotes. It is clear that Bell is not a Universalist… this is obvious – but that is only the illustration I employed.

    The real point of the post was to show an example of an ADM attack that can only be made if words mean only what the ADM says they mean. The ADM argument can only be sustained if the ADM is permitted to redefine what was said – hence the term “silvanizing”

141   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 14th, 2008 at 1:13 am

Neil,

The question is not condescending as if one does not realize that their sin was forgiven at the Cross… over 2000 years ago… all their sins were forgiven at that very moment. They are not forgiven at the time you believe, but at the Cross.

All your sins were in the future to Jesus as He was on the Cross so all your sins past, present and future are all already forgiven and in fact taken away.

Many do not realize this… it is an important thing to understand and you would not believe how many people do not.

iggy

142   Neil    
December 14th, 2008 at 1:17 am

We live because Jesus lives and not because He died. – Iggy

I think I agree with your point to a point, though I’m not sure all your Scriptures apply… anyway, I would say:

We live (spiritually) because Jesus died and now lives.

I’m not comfortable saying “…not because he died.”

143   Neil    
December 14th, 2008 at 1:18 am

OK Iggy, I understand why you asked it as you did.

144   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 14th, 2008 at 1:23 am

Neil,

If Jesus just died for our sins, we would just be forgiven dead men. Yet he rose from the grave to give us life. That is why I state over and over the importance of teaching the full gospel of Cross and resurrection as many stop at the Cross and never move on to Life.

If you can get hold of a book called the saving life of Christ by Maj Ian Thomas I highly recommend reading it. Also Classic Christianity by Bob George is a great read and a very easy read. Both these men helped me move from legalism to Grace and a deeper understanding of my faith.

iggy

145   Neil    
December 14th, 2008 at 1:25 am

Thanks Iggy, that helps…

Neil

146   Neil    
December 14th, 2008 at 1:27 am

Chris R.

This is how a conversation can take place on this site. I invite you to join me if you wish.

Neil

147   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 14th, 2008 at 6:37 am

“When did Jesus die for the forgivness of our sins?”

Thursady, April 10th, A.D. 31.

The provision was secured, but the application is not realized until each sinner has faith. Nobody is forgiven, or justified, or sanctified, or born again until each sinner “believes on the Lord Jesus Christ”.

This notion that the whole world is justified is goofy. He who has not the Son has not life, but the wrath of God abides upon him. If a sinner is without guilt, why the wrath? It is absurd.

148   peanutbutter    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
December 14th, 2008 at 8:13 am

What iggy does not seem to understand in his attempted exegesis in Romans is this simple fact: WHO Paul is writing to.

Whe he says ‘WE’ who is he speaking to?

Certaily not the cosmos….that is not the Greek word here.

Not to humankind, nor Jews and gentiles alike, for when he did that he used that word.

Iggy, who is he writing to?

Romans 1

1Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh 4 andwas declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his nameamong all the nations, 6including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ, 7To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints:

(O) Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Iggy, he was writing to the saints…Not to the dead ones, but to those who had repented and trusted in Jesus Christ.

Of course, I can just envision the parsing you will try and do with this.

149   peanutbutter    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
December 14th, 2008 at 8:17 am

Neil,

By your definition, Iggy is silvanizing Paul to say that all are justified, reconciled, redeemed, etc.

I think we need a new term: Iggyizing- def: Interprting scripture by eisegesis, making it seem like the Biblical authors were writing to a generic bunch even when being very specific. This requires a low view of scripture. Also called Holtzizing and Diazizing

150   Pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
December 14th, 2008 at 8:24 am

Again…1 John…who is John writing to?

1 John 1

1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— 2 the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— 3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4 And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.

Later, he calls his readers little children…These are believers…not generic people.

151   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 14th, 2008 at 8:33 am

PB-

That has little if anything to do with our eternal destiny. These passages are not to the exclusion of unbelievers. They assert the hope and fellowship that comes with being a believer at present.

152   Pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
December 14th, 2008 at 10:13 am

These passages are not to the exclusion of unbelievers

They are at the exclusion of unbelievers until they become believers, Chad. They must repent and trust. It does present, to thew unbelievers who hear or read, a hope of what they could be…but it is written to believers, explaining to them what has happened in their lives, and the present and eternal results of belief.

153   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 14th, 2008 at 10:38 am

Paul writes exclusively to believers (the church). Unbelievers cannot understand spiritual things without the Holy Spirit.

Most believers do not read the Scriptures, much less unbelievers.

154   Chris Rosebrough    http://www.extremetheology.com
December 14th, 2008 at 10:56 am

Neil,

I appreciate the invitation to come back and discuss things with you.

The reality is I’m too much of a lightning rod and some people are not capable of staying on subject because they feel like they have to settle scores with me… cough cough Bo Diaz cough.

155   Pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
December 14th, 2008 at 10:59 am

#154 LOL!

Dude, I will draw the fire for you…here you go…

Rob Bell is a heretic!!!!

Doug Pagitt is a universalist!!!

Hell is real!!!

Words Mean things!!

156   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 14th, 2008 at 11:08 am

Wow, PB, let’s see…

False, False, True, True*

*but apparently you don’t really believe this…

157   Pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
December 14th, 2008 at 11:12 am

#156

Its working, Chris R! Get a post in!!

158   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 14th, 2008 at 11:40 am

I have heard Pagitt say some really unbiblical things, and he doesn’t seem to have the balancing quotes that Bell has.

159   Neil    
December 14th, 2008 at 12:22 pm

I too have read some things by Pagitt that sounded rather universalists… so I would say in regards to:

Rob Bell is a heretic!!!!

Doug Pagitt is a universalist!!!

Hell is real!!!

Words Mean things!!

Wrong!

Maybe?

Correct? (although “Hell will be real” may be more acurate)

Correct? (though I don’t know why PB keeps saying this since he does not hold to it.)

160   Neil    
December 14th, 2008 at 12:25 pm

I appreciate the invitation to come back and discuss things with you. – Chris R

Understood. I think we pretty much resolved it though… you asked for the source/proof of Bell saying “only Jesus” and “only trust Jesus” and I provided it.

Case closed.

161   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 14th, 2008 at 12:49 pm

I have read some disturbing quotes from someone named Martin Luther that would leave me to believe he was a raging anti-semite, a man given to drink, a man who has an out of control temper, a man who uses many ad hominen attacks, a man who endorses cursing, and generally a man controlled by his carnal nature.

Oh well…old news. :cool:

PS – I have read some obituaries that seem to have a common denominator.

John Calvin

162   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 14th, 2008 at 12:50 pm

PB,

# 148
#150

You seem to pick and choose how you read scripture in a strange way to me.

1 John addresses two groups throughout the epistle. “Dear children” and “Dear friends”. If you read the passage you actually quoted John is addressing Gnostics as he did in his Gospel. So if your assertion is correct you are stating Gnostics are saved and true believers.

If you read the passage in Romans and look at context I am using and speaking of the verses they are about the Cross and what happened at the Cross. So, it really does not matter who be it believer or non believer as the Truth of the Cross does not change or hinge on what we believe but hangs on what Jesus accomplished on it. To say it was written to believers only means Paul was giving them more insight to what happened before they came to faith. Paul explains how their reconciliation, justification and forgiveness (one cannot be forgiveness without having been justified) came at the Cross and how New Life comes at the Resurrection. To me it is ludicrous to argue this as not the case as to do so cuts out the heart of Paul’s writings.

So yes context is important and I suggest you take a course in reading comprehension and biblical exegesis…

iggy

163   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 14th, 2008 at 3:11 pm

I am wondering when iggy is really going to ignore me.

Iggy, you are wrong. 1 John was to combat gnosticism. Romans, along with Pauls epistles (except for Titus and Timothy) were written to churches filled with saints.

Sorry, you are wrong.

164   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 14th, 2008 at 3:12 pm

Paul writes exclusively to believers (the church).

Really? Where do you get that idea? Are you saying that the church is comprised of only those who are wheat? No tares?

I know that when I preach before my congregation every Sunday they are not all believers.

Rom.1:7: To all God’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints.

Sounds like anyone and everyone. Unless you believe God loves only some.

165   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 14th, 2008 at 3:14 pm

zzzzzzzzz

166   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 14th, 2008 at 3:16 pm

The church is only filled with saints.

The tares are not part of the church.

167   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 14th, 2008 at 3:19 pm

Chad,

that is the assumption made by those who claim that all that attended the “churches” that Paul wrote were saved. Interestingly he did not address the point of what I wrote about… be them saved or not… the Cross and the finished works of Christ on the Cross have nothing to do with whether one is a believer or not. The Truth of the Cross is true whether one believes in it or not. It seems PB wants to deny the finished works of Jesus on the Cross. It also appears he is now contradicting himself as he agreed with me a few days ago on this very topic and now states I am wrong… double minded if you ask me. PB seems only to want to be right and it does not matter what truth he smears to be so.

Again, PB parses the bible and my words and comes out not giving an real answer. And as far as addressing PB, I will as long as he is civil here. But since he censors me on his blogs and them lies that I was not civil as I give my rebuttal and correct his lies, I am not letting him post on my blog. He lies about people enough without giving him my blog to as another forum to lie at.

iggy

168   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 14th, 2008 at 3:26 pm

PB,

The tares are not part of the church.

Now we are talking about two different “churches”. Yes, the Universal Church is filled only with true believers and are saints. The local churches that Paul is addressing did have tares in them or have you never read Galatians? Paul address the “church” to help them recognize who is really in the Church.

Again, you parse words at your convenience and still give no real answer. On top of that you create straw men to cover that you give no answer.

Truly, it seems truth means nothing to you and I see that your understanding of Scripture is very poor at best.

I am glad I no longer sit in the smorgasbord style church you seem to preach at. I see great harm in picking and choose what one sees as convenient to their own theology. No wonder fundamentalist churches are in such disarray as they are not teaching the Truth but only the truth as they see fitting their own understanding.

iggy

169   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 14th, 2008 at 3:36 pm

BTW…

PB last comment on my blog started out…

“Pretty gutless if you ask me…”

And that is precisely why I am not letting him post comments on my blog anymore.

iggy

170   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 14th, 2008 at 3:38 pm

PB-
Even if that is so it is a stretch to say that Paul’s letters are written “exclusively” to believers.

What do you make of Rom 1:7 where he is writing to those “called to be saints.” They aren’t saints….yet.

171   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 14th, 2008 at 4:10 pm

Chad,

Interestingly, Paul does not address a “church” but to “7. To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints” which as I think you stated, does not imply they are all saints at that point. Also, it is not addressed to a single “church” but to at least 5 churches that were in Rome. So again PB’s assertion that it was to the Universal Church of all Believers is not accurate. The word “called” also can mean “invited” or “appointed” or specifically “a saint”… so it has a broader meaning than PB is putting into it. Simply looking it up in a Strong’s Concordance will show that much. So Paul is writing to saints and to those invited to be saints that may not yet be saints. Often Paul used specific words that would have a broad meaning for the purpose of addressing many.

iggy

172   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 14th, 2008 at 4:47 pm

But the real question is since now PB insists that Romans is to only believers… is he a Universalist now?

LOL!

173   nc    
December 14th, 2008 at 5:45 pm

ai yi yi…

I just, unfortunately, read the rest of this thread.

I have a headache.

Btw,

Honestly…

If people keep saying things like “emergent mind” or “emergent view of scripture”…you have to know that that’s just silly…on the rare good day…and down right dumb on the rest.

really.
really.
just.
dumb.

174   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 14th, 2008 at 6:03 pm

170

Called to be saints are saints…because they are called…which fits the theology of foreknowledge and predestination in Romans.

175   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 14th, 2008 at 7:08 pm

Regardless of whether the book of Romans is only for “saints” or not… you never gave a proper answer to the actual question of the context I gave… About the Cross. So you see that the Cross is only for the saints which is the opposite you said the other day?

Again, the POINT I made was that regardless to whether one is a saint or not, the Truth of the finished works of Christ does not depend on what we believe. Paul would still be giving the “saints” the background from where they came and the mechanics of the Cross that saved them… again that was my point not to whom it was written.

Since you give no real answer to the actual context I assume you either cannot understand the actual conversation or you do and cannot honestly agree even though you did the other day.

iggy

176   Neil    
December 14th, 2008 at 7:24 pm

Honestly…

If people keep saying things like “emergent mind” or “emergent view of scripture”…you have to know that that’s just silly…on the rare good day…and down right dumb on the rest.

really.
really.
just.
dumb.

And I think it dumb, unChristlike, and even dangerous to call a brother in Christ a heretic (as PB did of Bell)… even in jest.

177   Bo Diaz    
December 14th, 2008 at 7:41 pm

Anyone want to bet on how familiar with Bell that PB actually is? How many of his books he’s read, how many sermons he’s actually heard? I’m betting its between few and none.

178   Joe    http://www.joemartino.name
December 14th, 2008 at 8:46 pm

You guys need to get the MP3 of today. Good stuff. Grace and Peace to all.

179   Neil    
December 14th, 2008 at 9:12 pm

The MP3 of what today?

180   John Hughes    
December 14th, 2008 at 9:16 pm

Iggy we agree on the life issue but not your universal view of justificastion. Your Comment 119 Romans 3 passage proof text regarding justification is book -ended by the words “faith” – “through faith in Jesus Christ” and “through faith in His blood”. The Bible confirms in several places that justification is by faith and not bestowed universally like reconcilation.

‘Romans 3:26-28 – for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

Reconciliation is a unilaterial action from God. This manward move on God’s part requires no action on the part of man (although man must eventually reconcile to God as God has reconciled to man as a part of the salvivic equasion). Justification, while made possible by Calvary, requires faith in Jesus and is not universal in scope as is reconciliation.

181   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 14th, 2008 at 9:44 pm

#179

I am sure it is of Bell”s sermon…

182   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 14th, 2008 at 9:50 pm

PB,

I am sure it is of Bell”s sermon…

So if Bell states twice something you consider “universalism” (which I am convinced you are confusing with unlimited atonement which you have stated you believe in) and 10 times clear concise statements… will you still refuse to listen to the sermon and change your mind… or is one condemned forever in your graceless world of religion?

iggy

183   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 14th, 2008 at 9:53 pm

I plan on downloading it and listening on my I-pod

184   Neil    
December 14th, 2008 at 10:02 pm

Well… so far we have definitive statements wherein he denies universalism, and statements provided by Pastorboy that probably refer to unlimited atonement (but even they make it clear he’s not a universalist).

185   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 14th, 2008 at 10:10 pm

Neil,

Just the fact Bell does not want people to go to hell, should be enough to say he is not a Universalist. Let alone that there have been clear statements saying Jesus is the only way of salvation.

Really it comes down to honesty. Are these critics honest or do they have another agenda? It seems that they have an agenda that is not of God as they use worldly ways to attack and lie about Godly men like Rob
Bell.

Instead of a real rebuttal and proof, they just call you names like “Bell idolater” even when I may have only listened to about 5 sermons and read outtakes from Bell’s books. But really the outtakes used as proof of his heresy seem to speak quite the opposite when one actually reads and understands what he wrote.

iggy

186   Joe    http://www.joemartino.name
December 14th, 2008 at 10:33 pm

#183 I will pray that God will open your heart and ears.

187   Common Sense Christian    
December 15th, 2008 at 11:27 am

Why did Paul say we preach Christ and Him CRUCIFIED if the Cross means NOTHING? Why does Paul link the DEATH of Christ as well as the resurrection to the Gospel (1 Cor 15)? I’m not bright – but if the Bible says it in clear terms, should we preach the CROSS as well as the Resurrection?

188   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 15th, 2008 at 11:59 am

Why did Paul say we preach Christ and Him CRUCIFIED if the Cross means NOTHING? Why does Paul link the DEATH of Christ as well as the resurrection to the Gospel (1 Cor 15)? I’m not bright – but if the Bible says it in clear terms, should we preach the CROSS as well as the Resurrection?

I’m not sure what you’re getting at with this comment. There is no resurrection without the cross, of course. So I don’t see how you could preach one without the other.

I actually think the bigger danger is preaching the cross without the resurrection. There are some who find it quite easy to believe the Christ died on a cross, but can’t bring themselves to believe the He actually experienced a bodily resurrection.

189   Bo Diaz    
December 15th, 2008 at 12:38 pm

Wow. Seriously? Do you really think that from that single verse that the call of the church is to preach the cross above and beyond the resurrection? Because it seems to me Phil is right on with this one.

Consider the symbolism of the early church meeting on Sunday morning in a largely Jewish population. If the resurrection doesn’t have primacy why didn’t the early church meet on Friday nights?

Or consider what Paul says is of first importance in 1 Cor 15, the Resurrection is what is emphasized with multiple witnesses citations of Jesus.

Jesus himself notes with the sign of Jonah that the resurrection is the sign that everything he has claimed about himself, including hte work done on the cross, is tied to the resurrection.

No matter what you name yourself, you don’t have much common sense if you think anyone here said the cross is of no importance. But the primacy is on the resurrection, without it Jesus isn’t anything but another crucified criminal.

190   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 12:45 pm

Somewhere in this thread I said I would read the Lectio Divina PDF on Mars Hill’s website. So I did, and found nothing even remotely unbiblical about it… not sure why or how it became an issue of any sort.

191   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 12:46 pm

The cross is crucial in concert with the resurrection.

It is on the Cross that Christ made atonement for our sins, justifying those who would place their trust in Him, so that the wrath of God would not remain on them.

The resurrection was the confirmation that God accepted this sacrifice and also affirmed who Christ was in truth.

Had Christ just died, it would be like many PoMos think; that He was just a great teacher and that the cross was all about teaching self-sacrifice.

192   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 12:47 pm

#190

Only the practice itself.

193   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 12:56 pm

Neil,

By your definition, Iggy is silvanizing Paul to say that all are justified, reconciled, redeemed, etc.

I think we need a new term: Iggyizing- def: Interprting scripture by eisegesis, making it seem like the Biblical authors were writing to a generic bunch even when being very specific. This requires a low view of scripture. Also called Holtzizing and Diazizing

There are two differences though…

1) people through the ages have disagreed about what Paul meant in certain passages… even Peter found him difficult to understand. Bell’s words against universalism are clear;

2) Iggy is interpreting Paul because he sees him as an authority, therefore, even if he eisegetes, he does so because he wants/needs Paul’s validation of his argument… In the original post (as well as Pastorboy’s quotes from Velvet Elvis) I show where plain simple language is twisted (i.e. silvanized) and once the meaning is changed, the writer/speaker can be attacked and falsely accused – the goals are different.

194   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 15th, 2008 at 12:57 pm

PB,

Yesterday you stated we were not justified at the Cross… now again today you state we are… Jello is easier to peg to the wall than your theology.

Double minded…

iggy :lol:

195   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 12:59 pm

The cross is crucial in concert with the resurrection.

It is on the Cross that Christ made atonement for our sins, justifying those who would place their trust in Him, so that the wrath of God would not remain on them.

The resurrection was the confirmation that God accepted this sacrifice and also affirmed who Christ was in truth.

Had Christ just died, it would be like many PoMos think; that He was just a great teacher and that the cross was all about teaching self-sacrifice.

I agree, except for the unnecessary swipe at postmodernism (you almost made it through an entire post without some kind of attack on others)… I’d say Jesus as a great teacher and illustration of self-sacrifice was the child of modernism… so any “PoMo’s” who hold this are only following in the footsteps first trod by “Mo’s.”

196   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 1:00 pm

I went to the Marshill site and found last week’s teaching, but not yesterday’s. Did I just not find it, or is it not up yet?

197   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 1:03 pm

Only the practice of [Lectio Divina] itself [is unbiblical]. – PB

Why?

198   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 15th, 2008 at 1:05 pm

Without the Latin name which identifies a Roman Catholic version, why is meditating in prayer and quietness while studying the Word wrong? What am I missing, since I have done that including candles and incense.

199   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 15th, 2008 at 1:07 pm

I agree, except for the unnecessary swipe at postmodernism (you almost made it through an entire post without some kind of attack on others)… I’d say Jesus as a great teacher and illustration of self-sacrifice was the child of modernism… so any “PoMo’s” who hold this are only following in the footsteps first trod by “Mo’s.”

Yeah, I was going to mention that too. It wasn’t the PoMo’s who gave us form criticism. It was people like Rudolf Bultmann who was entrenched in modernity who said that historical fact could be separated from Christian faith.

200   Bo Diaz    
December 15th, 2008 at 1:07 pm

Rick,
You nailed it exactly. Its the name that sets them off and nothing else.

Also, to reduce the resurrection to nothing more than a sign is at the least shortsighted, and easily leads into damnable heresy of a far greater sort than any the ADMs rail against.

201   Bo Diaz    
December 15th, 2008 at 1:09 pm

But no one gets upset over modernism anymore, and they didn’t really want to find out the answer to the question “if an ADM slanders and no one is around to hear it do they make a sound?”

202   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 1:10 pm

I agree Rick, remove the Latin and it’s a meditation technique… nothing more. Not really my style, but I wish it was.

Neil

203   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 1:14 pm

But no one gets upset over modernism anymore…

It is kind of funny to see the uproar over Post-modernity, as if Modernity was some kind of friend of Christianity. It does show a lack of historical understanding though.

Modernity had it’s benefits, of course… but so does Post-modernity. They are simply ways of thinking, cultural milieus, epistemological assumptions.

It’s not like either (or the preceding -ism for that matter) are inherently good or bad. Nor is it possible to think without some starting point.

204   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 15th, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Neil and PB,

At least I have a stable metanarrative in my theology I do not twist in the wind and say one thing one day and another the next….

Jello anyone?

I mean I am waiting for PB to explain who one can be forgiven and not be justified… One must be justified before they are forgiven. These are hand in hand… and are the keys to reconciliation. PB agreed we are reconciled at the Cross though not saved one day then the next argues against it.

Paul is clear we were reconciled “while we were still enemies” and not after we became saved. (Rom 5:10)

When we come to faith we come to Life as the Just shall live by faith. Yet, it seems PB dips into Pelagianism when he states we are only justified when WE come to faith. One can be justified yet not Just… for it is when we come to faith we receive Life and live Justly…

Again, one cannot be forgiven without having the debt of their sins removed (iow be justified.)

Also, notice that we WERE justified… it is past tense as Paul speaks of it in relation to the Cross. Again also whether we believe in Jesus or not does not negate the finished works of Christ Jesus on the Cross… it was all done “once for all” … Romans 6 10-11 clearly states Jesus died to sin on the Cross “once for all”. 2 Cor 5:21 states clearly that Jesus became sin for us…

21. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

In that not only did Jesus die for our sin… our sin died with Christ on the Cross.

Our sins were taken away by the Blood of the Lamb and at the Cross came the Way of Salvation as our sins were justified, our sins forgiven and we were reconciled. Then at the Resurrection the New Creation began with the Risen Christ which now imparts His Life to us. Salvation is all of God and none of us. The works of Christ were completed at the Cross ushering in the New Creation.

iggy

205   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 1:25 pm

In that not only did Jesus die for our sin… our sin died with Christ on the Cross.
Our sins were taken away by the Blood of the Lamb and at the Cross

Only if you mean our as Christians.

206   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 1:27 pm

Neil, et.al

Lectio Divina is not wrong because it is Latin, nor is it wrong to meditate and pray over scripture.

The idea that somehow by doing this we get the Spirit or insight…The Spirit is already there, if you have been born again. We do not need to manufacture a feeling of the Spirit’s presence.

207   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 1:30 pm

I guess what I am missing in all this is at what point it becomes efficacious to the individual. Sure, we can say that we were (past tense) justified at the cross, and that we live (present tense) because Jesus live.

Yet, somehow that justification in the past becomes efficacious to individuals in the future… and only to those who have (to use the PB approved words of Bell) put their trust in Jesus.

208   Common Sense Christian    
December 15th, 2008 at 1:34 pm

I’m not saying the resurrection is important. I have read 1 Cor 15:14 – I just wonder why the Cross is so woefully absent from the lips of folks like Bell, Pagitt, etc.

209   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 1:35 pm

The idea that somehow by doing this we get the Spirit or insight…The Spirit is already there, if you have been born again. We do not need to manufacture a feeling of the Spirit’s presence

There is no mention in the PDF about getting the Spirit, as if he is not there – so that is a straw man. And even if there was mention of the Spirit, there is a difference between being indwelt and filled – but since the PDF does not mention that – it’s moot.

Certainly you are not denying that we can encounter God through meditation on his Word – are you?

What in this document is prohibited by Scripture?

210   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 15th, 2008 at 1:35 pm

PB,

The idea that somehow by doing this we get the Spirit or insight…The Spirit is already there, if you have been born again. We do not need to manufacture a feeling of the Spirit’s presence.

Hmmm….

That is messed up…

When one practices Lectio Divina it is not “manufacturing” anything. It is acknowledging that the Holy Spirit lives in us and can reveal and teach us as we slow down to read and meditate on God’s Word.

That is the disconnect I see that those against it have. I see that the Spirit is here and those who see Lectio Divina as wrong do not want to trust turning themselves over to the Holy Spirit for a time of intimate prayer and reading…

It seems that there is a abhorrence to anything that brings intimacy with God by some…

So I guess it matters if you have a wrathful God you fear versus a loving God who desires you to draw near.

Fear keeps us from being perfected in Love… yet love drives out fear… to fear intimacy seems that one might fear they will be found out for who they really are and be punished…

Thank God He is not like that…

iggy

211   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 15th, 2008 at 1:40 pm

“We do not need to manufacture a feeling of the Spirit’s presence.”

John, your direction is wrong. I am not attempting to manufacture anything, I am attempting to block out this world to better hear the Spirit Himself. When I lived in New Jersey I would climb Garret Mountain and pray and take communion and experience the presence of God more profoundly, not because he wasn’t present with me in the hustle and bustle of my everyday life, but that escaping that hustle opened my ears to His voice.

212   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 1:42 pm

#210

Because my intimacy with God is permanent and continual, I serve a wrathful God? Huh?

Because I do not need to manufacture it through some set of rules? Huh?

Wherever I am, as a Christian, the Spirit is with me. He is constantly working on me, sanctifying me. When I read the scripture, the Spirit reveals my dark spots and works to make me more like Christ.

My intimacy with God is not a work I do, it is a reality.

213   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 1:43 pm

I’m not saying the resurrection is important. I have read 1 Cor 15:14 – I just wonder why the Cross is so woefully absent from the lips of folks like Bell, Pagitt, etc.

I won’t address this in Paggitt, but for Bell it’s clearly in his church’s theological statement – so he believes it.

As for it being “woefully absent from [his] lips” – I know people that are upset that every sermon preached does not end in an alter call (an invention of “Mo’s”)… just how much is enough? It’s really quite a weak argument to complain he does not preach on the topic you desire enough…

The video link in the other Bell post shoes his passion on preaching Christ.

214   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 1:44 pm

211
Amen Rick

And I have times like that also. But it is also a continual thing. We all need a sabbath, a retreat. But we do not need a ritual, as lined out on Mars Hills site, to be able to accomplish it.

215   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 15th, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Three hymns, some announcements, an offerring, and a message is the only structure God will visit. :roll:

216   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 15th, 2008 at 1:47 pm

I’m not saying the resurrection is important. I have read 1 Cor 15:14 – I just wonder why the Cross is so woefully absent from the lips of folks like Bell, Pagitt, etc.

I can comfortably say this is a lie. Bell has whole chapter about the cross in his new book, and even Doug Pagitt talks about the cross and resurrection a lot in his newest book. The only thing that seems “woefully absent” is a fair-minded reading by the constant critics.

217   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Wherever I am, as a Christian, the Spirit is with me. He is constantly working on me, sanctifying me. When I read the scripture, the Spirit reveals my dark spots and works to make me more like Christ.

My intimacy with God is not a work I do, it is a reality.

You are the one saying it is a work… you are the one saying it is manufacturing.

In this very comment you say “When I read the scripture…” the Lectio Divina is nothing more except an offering of a method to help people focus.

Have you never closed the door to quiet the world?
Have you never offered some tips to others on what helps you concentrate when you read the word.

AGAIN, you are silvanizing the Lectio Divina, changing it’s meaning and intent to you can proclaim it wrong.

I ask again, without inserting meaning that are not there (such a manufactured intimacy) what in that document is prohibited by Scripture.

Neil

218   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 1:51 pm

And I have times like that also. But it is also a continual thing. We all need a sabbath, a retreat. But we do not need a ritual, as lined out on Mars Hills site, to be able to accomplish it.

More imposing your own meanings on the document.

No where does it say is “needed” and no where does it say to do it as a “ritual”…

PB, you show an amazing tendency to ignore plain meaning and insert all sorts of things that are not there…

219   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 1:53 pm

PB, you show an amazing tendency to ignore plain meaning and insert all sorts of things that are not there…

Just following my hero Iggy

220   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 1:59 pm

Just following my hero Iggy

…in the meantime I’ll make another cup of coffee while I wait for your scriptural basis that the method of meditation offered in the Mars Hill PDF is unbiblical.

221   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 2:01 pm

Also, Pastorboy… if you are going to reject that document because it manufacturers intimacy you must, to be consistent, reject any and all instruction from any source on how to pray, study the Bible, or any other teaching that provides a method – for they too would be simply forced manufacturing…

222   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 15th, 2008 at 2:02 pm

I wonder why Christ went up to a mountain to pray, both to be tested and on the Mount of Transfiguration. It helps to get away. Some people use quietness to manufacture God’s presence, others use McArthur’s tapes. :cool:

223   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 2:13 pm

Again I remind us that the question of Bell is tangential to the original post… it is just an illustration of how one ADM had to change what was actual meant so it could be attacked.

224   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 15th, 2008 at 2:25 pm

PB,

Just following my hero Iggy

Oh please I back my theology by scripture… you seem to twist in the wind and make things up as you go! You blow one way one day and another the next… tossed to and fro by every wave of doctrine…

:lol:

iggy

225   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 2:25 pm

I wonder why Christ went up to a mountain to pray…It helps to get away.

And if Jesus manipulated his setting when he wanted to pray…

226   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 15th, 2008 at 2:32 pm

PB,

Because my intimacy with God is permanent and continual, I serve a wrathful God? Huh?

Because I do not need to manufacture it through some set of rules? Huh?

Wherever I am, as a Christian, the Spirit is with me. He is constantly working on me, sanctifying me. When I read the scripture, the Spirit reveals my dark spots and works to make me more like Christ.

My intimacy with God is not a work I do, it is a reality.

Again, I really cannot see that you ever read and understand what I wrote as you seem only to twist it into the opposite most of the time.

Some lack intimacy as fear of wrath keeps you from being able to truly enter in…

Again, though, you present a straw-man instead of giving an answer as to why as I stated:

When one practices Lectio Divina it is not “manufacturing” anything. It is acknowledging that the Holy Spirit lives in us and can reveal and teach us as we slow down to read and meditate on God’s Word.

How is that wrong and unbiblical.

You claim it is manufacturing the Holy Spirit and I stated it is not… I explain why it is not and you have yet to give an answer as to how it is… instead you go off on some tangent. My conjecture was only why I thought you might see it as wrong as some who fear God lack intimacy with God…

So how it is “manufactured”? You made an assertion without giving any backing and expect all to just believe you as you misrepresent the actual practice.

iggy

227   Joe    http://www.joemartino.name
December 15th, 2008 at 2:35 pm

I just wonder why the Cross is so woefully absent from the lips of folks like Bell

Really? I mean, truly? Evidently, being a “Common Sense” Christian has nothing to do with the ability to hear and comprehend. I mean, do you even listen to the sermons?

228   nc    
December 15th, 2008 at 2:47 pm

Lectio is not a set of rules.
It is not an artifice.

It’s just a method of intentional, deliberate and mindful reading of the Holy Scripture.

If it’s bad, then you better toss any “Read your Bible in a Year” methods.

Or what’s that popular method of reading the Psalms and Proverbs every day?

Whatever.

People criticize that which they do not understand…
As a regular practitioner of Lectio I can say that in almost 20 years I have never experienced/felt/thought, etc. anything that PB and the others describe with respect to the “evil” Lectio

again..

this is just dumb.

229   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 15th, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Since we have ventured into the topic of Lectio Divina, I found it interesting that I had practiced it for many yrs before I had heard of it. I had learned of “selah” which is the pause of reflection that is used in Psalms. I began to read the whole bible with these thoughtful pauses and let the Holy Spirit guide and teach me as I read. So to hear someone against this seems so strange. In fact I see it as anti biblical to be against thoughtful and purposeful interaction with Scripture. God’s word does not return void and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit one can be changed in incredible ways. I see much of the issue is that many approach the bible from a modernist way and read it to get what they want out of the bible. They miss that God’s ways are not our ways and place their agenda over Gods. This hinders the Holy Spirit in His work as he renews our minds.

So I am a bit flabbergasted over PB assertion… and more with his lack of substantive biblical backing to prove his point…

iggy

230   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 15th, 2008 at 2:52 pm

The thing that I don’t get is that most of the ADM people come from churches with very set liturgies that include congregational Scripture readings and such. What’s the difference between reading aloud in that setting verses repeating Scripture to yourself?

Honestly, I think that they should be more worried about the congregational readings. A lot those do tend to be mindless readings, in my experience.

231   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 15th, 2008 at 2:54 pm

Wondering what PB will cut and paste to prove his assertion….

232   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 2:56 pm

Just thought I would try it out.

I am meditating on the Lords prayer…and in its context….

the phrase I am meditating on…vain and repetitive

vain and repetitive..

vain and repetitive….

what is Jesus trying to teach me…vain and repetitive…

hmmm
hmmm
hmmm

vain and repetitive…..

233   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 15th, 2008 at 2:59 pm

PB,

S0unds like the Holy Spirit is talking something really personal to you…

and believe me it is a great lesson for anyone to learn…

Hope He leads you to what you need to grow in the Grace and Knowledge of Christ.

iggy

234   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 3:00 pm

As a regular practitioner of Lectio I can say that in almost 20 years I have never experienced/felt/thought, etc. anything that PB and the others describe with respect to the “evil” Lectio

Well, nc, this is obviously due to the fact that over a 20 year period you have become so thoroughly dupped that you cannot recognize evil even when you are reading it. :)

Honestly, I think that they should be more worried about the congregational readings. A lot those do tend to be mindless readings, in my experience.

Perhaps, Phil. But I would argue that any reading of the scriptures is better than no reading. They are not dead words on pages but the livened Word of God – a means of grace to us that are lost
(sorry, thought I would throw that nugget in there to further convolute Amy’s notion of how I view scripture or to bolster the status of the feminist liberal of whom I am much like).

235   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 15th, 2008 at 3:04 pm

vain and repetitive….

Hmmm…. I think the Lord is trying to tell you something, PB. Those words pretty much describe all your posts here…

Perhaps, Phil. But I would argue that any reading of the scriptures is better than no reading. They are not dead words on pages but the livened Word of God – a means of grace to us that are lost
(sorry, thought I would throw that nugget in there to further convolute Amy’s notion of how I view scripture or to bolster the status of the feminist liberal of whom I am much like).

I should clarify. I wasn’t saying they were useless or even that they shouldn’t be done. It’s just that they can become mindless, just like anything else. I agree that no reading of Scripture is truly worthless.

236   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 3:06 pm

I should clarify. I wasn’t saying they were useless or even that they shouldn’t be done. It’s just that they can become mindless, just like anything else.

Agreed.

It’s just that they can become mindless

Sort of like entering into a spiritual discipline without a contrite heart truly turned to God but only on the self and the desire to criticize. Sound familiar, PB?

237   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 15th, 2008 at 3:07 pm

I find it revealing that PB was trying to read the bible to show him about others… when he should be most concerned about his own growth… again the wrong application of Scripture and sadly it seems is what run rampant in most ADM/ODM readings.

iggy

238   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 3:12 pm

PB is his own self-fulfilling prophecy. You cannot convince anyone about these sorts of things if they are not humble nor willing to be challenged in new and fresh ways by God.

No matter what it is: Prayer, reading scripture, lectio divina, counted prayers, meditation, singing psalms, breathing, centering prayers, corporate worship, liturgical dance, liturgical prayers, raising one’s hands, etc, etc…. if you go into them with a negative attitude and convinced beforehand that you know better and that you cannot experience God in this way than guess what? You are right!

239   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 3:13 pm

hmmmmmm

vain and repetitive…

like the heathen…..

hmmmmmmm

I am being taught!

240   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 15th, 2008 at 3:16 pm

PB,

Seriously, if you even begin to grasp the depth of what you may be mocking… you would gain much personal growth.

iggy

241   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 3:20 pm

#238…

Awful judgmental Chad.

I am challenged by simple reading and study of the scripture. That is enough of a challenge to rightly divide the Word of truth. It is enough to apply and obey by the power of the Holy Spirit.

But the emerging types need all of this mumbo jumbo hocus pocus to feel closer to God. I feel close to God just by the study and application of His word!

vain repetition.

heathen…

hmmmmmmmmmm

242   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 3:25 pm

iggy,

who says I am mocking. You are judging me. Quit judging me.

vein….repetition…heathen….

hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

243   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 3:30 pm

But the emerging types need

It is not a matter of need, PB, it is a matter of getting to. We don’t “need” to do this to feel closer to God – we “get to” experience God in a variety of ways, in deeper, powerful, vibrant ways that are not constricted to your own vain, repetitive means.
No one is saying you have to participate. Just dont knock what you do not understand nor have ever honestly given a chance.

It is a peculiar christian who would quench the Spirit and mock other christian’s in their pursuit of growing closer to the God who is bigger than any of our attempts to glimpse him.

244   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 15th, 2008 at 3:43 pm

vain and repetitive

PB – I would suggest some actual study into the practices of the first-century pagans before trying to take a description of one of their practices (”vain and repetitive” chanting) and a modern practice within the church.

I think you’d find that [a] looks nothing at all like [b]…

245   Bo Diaz    
December 15th, 2008 at 3:44 pm

I don’t know what you’re doing PB, but I do know that I’ve never seen evidence that you’ve rightly divided scripture, or rightly applied or obeyed the power of the Spirit.

I feel close to God just by the study and application of His word!

Better be careful PB, that sounds awfully emotional and based on feeling. As we all know from the great high Priestess Ingrid emotions and feelings are the opposite of scripture.

246   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 15th, 2008 at 3:46 pm

You want to witness vain repitition? Go to an average evangelical service on Sunday morning.

Welcome. Music. Announcements. Offering. Song. Message. Invitation.

Question: At what point is God’s presence conjured up?

Answer: The Offering.

247   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 3:46 pm

Well Chad…

I get to read His Word.

I get to pray.

I get to meditate.

I get to be filled with the Spirit.

I don’t need the almost-ancient or somewhat-ancient institutional practices to be spiritual.

Just the Bible.
Just Jesus.
Just His Spirit.

vain….hmmmmmmm
repetitive hmmmmm

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

248   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 3:48 pm

# 246

Rick, we shook it up this week and added in Prayer!

249   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 15th, 2008 at 3:56 pm

Well Chad…

I get to read His Word.

I get to pray.

I get to meditate.

I get to be filled with the Spirit.

I don’t need the almost-ancient or somewhat-ancient institutional practices to be spiritual.

Just the Bible.
Just Jesus.
Just His Spirit.

Do you have musical instruments in your church. Or how about chairs or pews for that matter. What about a sound system? Do you give people a bulletin? For that matter, do you meet in a building? It seems you are acting as if you “need” a lot more than the “just the Bible, just Jesus, and just His Spirit”.

Even your strawmen are ashamed to be associated with you…

250   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 4:00 pm

lectio divina= music, building, sound system?

Talk about a non sequitor straw man!

vain….repetition….hmmmmmmmmm

251   Bo Diaz    
December 15th, 2008 at 4:05 pm

Talk about a non sequitor straw man!

Do you even know what you’re saying now? You remind me of a little kid walking around in daddy’s shoes. Cute in the privacy of the home, totally ineffective at actually getting any work done.

252   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 15th, 2008 at 4:09 pm

PB,

It only become obvious you hold the word of God in contempt as you mock it and what the Holy Spirit can teach you as you read what you read…

You are sad…

iggy

253   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 4:10 pm

Iggy,

quit judging me. Rob Bell said so!

254   Common Sense Christian    
December 15th, 2008 at 4:11 pm

Well charming, I’m now a liar. So much of the love of Jesus permeates this blog! I’m working off of what I’ve read, seen and heard – why not just say I am confused instead of labelling me a liar? I just desire to read the Bible and believe what it says as objective, rational, true (to quote Francis Schaffer), authoritative truth, which is incompatible with error.

Not very “PoMo” (whatever that means…) but at least I’m trying…

255   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 4:14 pm

Amen CSC….

you are not welcome here though! You have to do lectio divina, contemplative prayer, and study Karl Barth for theology. Just studying the scripture? How passe’

LOL!

256   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 15th, 2008 at 4:19 pm

Well charming, I’m now a liar. So much of the love of Jesus permeates this blog!

I believe that the statement was that “the Cross is so woefully absent from the lips of folks like Bell, Pagitt, etc.” is a lie that can be refuted pretty easily from both of these men’s most recent books and from listening to their sermons…

I’m working off of what I’ve read, seen and heard – why not just say I am confused instead of labelling me a liar?

It is very possible that you’re confused – I don’t know that anyone assigned motive to the untruth espoused…

257   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 15th, 2008 at 4:21 pm

Amen CSC….

you are not welcome here though! You have to do lectio divina, contemplative prayer, and study Karl Barth for theology. Just studying the scripture? How passe’

Apparently, then, PB, you’ve not been reading what the authors of this site have been writing. Just because we don’t condemn something (lecito divina) doesn’t mean that we believe that it is required or ‘better’ than other meditative practice. Rather, we just choose to use a normative principle to live by rather than a regulative principle.

258   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 15th, 2008 at 4:26 pm

Well charming, I’m now a liar. So much of the love of Jesus permeates this blog! I’m working off of what I’ve read, seen and heard – why not just say I am confused instead of labelling me a liar?

I never said you were a liar. I just said the statement you wrote was a lie. It’s true, though, if you post lies often enough, you will be seen as a liar…

Even if you haven’t seen or heard Bell or Pagitt talk about the cross, how can you be sure they haven’t? (and again, I can assure, they have) I haven’t heard or seen you denounce Communism, so you must be a Communist according to your logic.

259   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 4:27 pm

Sorry Chris

All the response has been that way, except for yours and neils.

Still, it seems that just reading scripture and prayer, at least by the people on this blog…is Passe’

260   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 15th, 2008 at 4:31 pm

“I haven’t heard or seen you denounce Communism”

They have some valid points.

261   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 4:46 pm

Still, it seems that just reading scripture and prayer, at least by the people on this blog…is Passe’

The funny thing is – the Lectio Divina as outlined in the PDF on Marshill.org is exactly that – just Scripture and prayer… Scripture and prayer.

262   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 4:49 pm

Amen CSC….

you are not welcome here though!…

All are welcome, even you and your refusal to a) take people at their word, b) to discern, c) admit your errors, and d) back up your ascertains with sources.

Neil

263   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 15th, 2008 at 4:51 pm

“I never said you were a liar.”

But I say you are. We ALL are. Some are better than others, though. :)

264   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 4:51 pm

I agree with you Pastorboy that prayers said in repetition with the hopes that it will please God is vain. This, of course, is not what is being described in the Lectio Divina.

That and it offends me that you mock the methods others choose to use to study the Word. What makes YOUR way the only way.

Neil

265   nc    
December 15th, 2008 at 4:53 pm

Question:

Is intentional, slow deliberate reading of THE BIBLE to ruminate on it while filled with a high-confidence that GOD SPEAKS THROUGH GOD’S WORD now vain repetition and high-minded intellectualism?

really?

I mean…

really?

266   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 4:54 pm

All the response has been that way, except for yours and neils.

Pastorboy, your comments that are in error are almost uncountable… seriously, I think you have a comprehension problem or you just post without thinking… who here has said the Lectio Divina is required?

267   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 15th, 2008 at 4:54 pm

“All are welcome, even you and your refusal to a) take people at their word, b) to discern, c) admit your errors, and d) back up your ascertains with sources.”

Neil I will gladly continue to exercize a, b, and d, and if “c” ever arises I will abide by that as well.

268   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 4:55 pm

vain

repetitive

heathen

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

269   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 15th, 2008 at 4:56 pm

“Is intentional, slow deliberate reading of THE BIBLE to ruminate on it while filled with a high-confidence that GOD SPEAKS THROUGH GOD’S WORD now vain repetition and high-minded intellectualism?”

It’s that type of papist rhetoric that demands a flaming stake!

270   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 4:56 pm

I don’t understand the

“Hmmmmm” reference in PB’s comments…

Neil

271   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 15th, 2008 at 4:58 pm

New Age humming. Try it – it connects the entire Force. :)

272   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 4:59 pm

It is no wonder Emergents like Obama…

These elitist requirements to be able to hear from God…sheesh…

Once sola scriptura disappears, will the new magisterium require this?

vain…repetition…heathen… Hmmmmmmmm

Maybe if I try the lotus position I can ruach better

273   nc    
December 15th, 2008 at 5:00 pm

Neil,

On another thread PB said people should do Lectio to relax…especially in “lotus position”…

so I’m assuming that he’s blending Lectio with some kind of Far East chanting thing…

That’s so weird to me.

274   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 15th, 2008 at 5:00 pm

I wondered when Obama would be mentioned. Ingrid suggests he is the hew messiah’s rising star. These people give us “Left Behinders” a bad name.

275   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 5:01 pm

Is intentional, slow deliberate reading of THE BIBLE to ruminate on it while filled with a high-confidence that GOD SPEAKS THROUGH GOD’S WORD now vain repetition and high-minded intellectualism?

Above I asked Pastorboy if he was against meditating on the Scriptures – which I am sure he is not… no response was given… just mockery – so maybe he is…

In fact, he has stopped engaging me all together… I guess mocking the worship of others is the new S*O*P…

What next – shall we mock how the Dominicans dance while they worship?

276   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 5:02 pm

#273

Go to Solomons porch Minneapolis any Sunday Morning…you will see the lotus, lectio, and contemplative prayer….

and lots of hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

277   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 5:04 pm

It is no wonder Emergents like Obama…

These elitist requirements to be able to hear from God…sheesh…

Once sola scriptura disappears, will the new magisterium require this?

vain…repetition…heathen… Hmmmmmmmm

Maybe if I try the lotus position I can ruach better

OK – I guess Pastorboy has just snapped since now he’s typing incoherently

Though the last line may explain the confusion… Pastorbiy, what you describing is Eastern Mysticism the goal of which is to empty the mind, the goal of the Lectio is to fill it.

I assume that clears it up for you?

278   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 5:04 pm

I am not against meditating on the scripture, or praying the scripture…I am not even against contemplation.

But the vain repetition of a random word or phrase of my choosing to gain spiritual insight? I just don’t see it.

Though, I do understand the words vain, repetitive…and heathen much better now, I am no more filled with the Spirit if I practice this than if I do not.

279   Joe    http://www.joemartino.name
December 15th, 2008 at 5:05 pm

OK, I know I’m late to this conversation but I missed some of the earlier diaglogue. Nothing proves Neil’s point in this OP better than this doozy:

Chris R. quotes Neil, who is quoting Rob. The quote says this:

Jesus is our only hope for bringing peace and reconciliation between God and humans.

Then we are told that quote doesn’t convince him. See, words mean what they say they mean, not what they mean. Seriously.

280   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 5:06 pm

The repetition of a word, phrase, or idea is common to eastern mysticism. It is a method of emptying the mind of all else!

WOW you finally made the connection!

I didn’t even have to spell it out like 20 times!!

281   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 5:08 pm

But the vain repetition of a random word or phrase of my choosing to gain spiritual insight? I just don’t see it.

Once again you are guilty of silvanizing – you have assumed it is vain and random.

“Vainity” comes not from the repetitive readng of something, it comes from the purpose.

282   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 5:10 pm

The repetition of a word, phrase, or idea is common to eastern mysticism. It is a method of emptying the mind of all else!

WOW you finally made the connection!

I didn’t even have to spell it out like 20 times!!

Yet what you missed is the purpose. Repetition for the purpose of emptying your mind is Eastern and to be avoided. Repeating something (which is different than repetition) for the purpose of observation is to fill the mind.

Therefore, you have proven the difference between Lectio Divina and the Hindu mantra.

Are you saying repetition is ontologically wrong based on it being used by Hindu’s?

283   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 15th, 2008 at 5:12 pm

I do believe in spooks. I do believe in spooks. I do, I do, I do believe in spooks.

Vain repitions.

284   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 5:20 pm

OK, let’s say I take Pastorboy seriously… I want to study men Bible yet make sure I am studying it in a proper way, and not participating somehow in Eastern Mysticism.

I read a passage and begin to ponder the meanings of the words, their verb tenses, the pronouns, promises, ect… at what point does this go from being meditation which is acceptable to contemplation which is not? How do I know?

I must avoid repetition since it is vain. How many times may I read a passage in one sitting before it becomes, not observation and study, but repetition?

I am serious John, this is not mockery… how do you distinguish between repeated reading and repetition that is vain?

285   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 15th, 2008 at 5:22 pm

PB

1. I really could care less what Rob Bell says… I do not follow him…
2. You are mocking the Lord’s Prayer
3. You are mocking the Holy Spirit
4. You are mocking your own growth in Christ.
5. You are ignorant and way beyond judgmental
6. You confuse discernment and judgmentalism
7. You are showing contempt for the faith you claim to have.

You need to grow up and stop mock God… God will not be mocked…

iggy

286   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 5:33 pm

For the sake of Pastorboy here are some excerpts from the Lectio Divina PDF that show it is not repetition for the purpose of emptying you mind – and therefore NOT Eastern Mysticism.

1. As you read, pay attention to what word or phrase or idea catches
your attention.
– pay attention to the text means focusing on what it says – filling your mind with the Word of God not emptying it.

2.What thoughts come to mind as you meditate on this word, phrase or idea? – again, not emptying… just the opposite.

3. As you try to concentrate, – this again requires a object on which you concentrate, which is God’s Word – more filling not emptying.

4. …don’t be disappointed if random thoughts enter your head. – the goal of the mantra is to push all thoughts from your head, here random thoughts are to be explored. Yet another way this is opposite of Eastern Meditation

5. Now begin to speak to God. – it is impossible to speak to someone with an empty mind…

6. Tell God what you have been thinking and feeling as you’ve listened and meditated…. – Here it is assumed you have been thinking, which is the opposite of emptying your mind. It also encourages prayer to God, which is a conversation, another action in opposition to Eastern Mysticism.

This is just a quick sampling of how the directions of this Lectio Divina are polar opposite to an Eastern mantra.

287   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 5:44 pm

Just to recap this thread we have shown:

1. Bell believes Jesus is the only way. (from his theological statement)
2. Bell believes you must trust Jesus to be saved. (from his theological statement)
3. Some agree with statements until they find out they are Bell’s words – then they disagree or say it is not enough.
4. Bell believes that there will be people in Hell. (from a Velvet Elvis excerpt provided by Pastorboy)
5. The Lectio Divina is simply a method of meditating on the Scriptures for the purpose of deeper knowledge – the very opposite a mind emptying mysticism. (see comment above)
6. No source has been given wherein Bell denies Hell.
7. No source has been given wherein Bell affirms universalism.
8. When backed into a corner – mock the way others worship God.

288   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 5:54 pm

vain….

repetition….

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

289   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 15th, 2008 at 5:55 pm

Sure, Neil, you think you’re so smart with your reasonable arguments and logical thinking to support your ideas. You emergents are all alike…

Can’t you see that once Ken Silva calls someone a heretic, they’re a heretic, goshdarnit! We don’t need to bring anything like proof into the conversation…

Oh, and by the way, Sola Scriptura!

290   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 5:56 pm

Bell’s definition of Hell:

The place where rich people go who do not care for the poor.

Bell’s definition of rich?

Anyone who has clean water and eats three squares a day.

Not that Bell does not believe in Hell, but is it the Biblical Hell?

vain…..

repetition……..

ruach….hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

291   nc    
December 15th, 2008 at 5:57 pm

Actually, PB, it’s kind of funny the way you keep posting that…

But why can’t you just admit that Lectio is not the same thing as “eastern” meditation, etc?

292   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 5:59 pm

NC…

nope. In Spirit and in truth. Awareness of context. these things are all important.

293   nc    
December 15th, 2008 at 5:59 pm

Actually, taking your word for it, PB…Bell’s definition of “rich” sounds pretty accurate considering the conditions most people live in on this planet.

As far as Hell goes…that sounds like a fair characterization considering the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man…Did he say that that is the “only” definition of hell?

294   nc    
December 15th, 2008 at 6:00 pm

Nope?

Nope, what?

Are you saying that there is a time and place where Lectio could be acceptable to you?

295   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 15th, 2008 at 6:05 pm

Well that’s it folks…

They’re onto us. The party’s over. Now that they’ve discovered that we’re all closet Buddhists and Hindus, our infiltration of youth groups will have to stop…

Hey, pass me some of that chana dal masala….

296   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 6:11 pm

Here is the quote:

BELL: The issue is not saving the poor—it’s saving us. When Jesus uses the word hell, He does not use the word with people who are not believers or not believing the right things. It is a warning to religious people that they are in danger of hell because of their indifference to the suffering of the world. So the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is not what heaven and hell are like. It’s a parable to rich people warning them that their apathy has them in danger. Heaven and hell are present realities that extend into the future.

Source

Indifference to suffering is not what sends people to Hell. It is not having your sins paid for that sends people to Hell. And Jesus’ sacrificial death is the only way to have your sins paid for.

297   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 6:11 pm

Awareness of context. these things are all important. – PB

This is an interesting statement. Just what context are we to be aware of?

Is the context Mars Hill… and therefore it is evil since anything they say is?

Is the context the the ancient church… and therefore it is evil since anything from the ancient church is?

Maybe the context is Scripture… no, that cannot be it since Scripture encourages meditation on the Word.

Maybe the context is the use of repetition… well, repetition in and of itself is neutral. The Bible does not condem repetition, it condemnd vain repetition.

Maybe Pastorbot is just stalling since he has not answered my serious questions from comment 284, nor can he refute my distinctions from comment 286.

298   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 6:12 pm

If Bell was not promoting eastern mysticism…why does he quote yoga masters in his message ‘breathe’?

ruach

299   nc    
December 15th, 2008 at 6:13 pm

oooooh…Chana Masala….one of my favorites. Ganesha be praised!

I’ll trade you some for your Aloo Gobi and Lamb Vindaloo.

hmmmmm…..

and, yes, I really meant that one….

;)

300   nc    
December 15th, 2008 at 6:15 pm

Contrary to your conspiracy theorist tinfoil mad hattery….

I don’t follow every sermon from Roshi-Guru Rob Bell, may he live forever in the bosom of Shiva.

So, even if he quotes a yoga master in Breathe, what does that have to do with Lectio?

Like I’ve said…I’ve practiced it for almost 20 years and I’ve yet to see, feel, experience, or connect it to all the things you’re laying at its feet….

seriously…

ruach.

301   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 6:16 pm

Neil…

pulling random words from a passage is not a good study method. Instead of pulling random words from a passage, it is far more valuable to study hermeneuticly the context, the history, the passage…not random words …like vain, repetition, and heathen…as I demonstrated. We need to study..to worship….in truth…Not random words or phrases.

302   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 15th, 2008 at 6:19 pm

I am going to listen to the concert for the Bangledesh and see what I feel/hear/smell. I believe the conspiracies of the Evil One are infinitely more subtle, more nuanced, and center more on hedonism, prayerlessness, self righteousness, and other less advertized deceptions.

303   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 6:27 pm

I am not sure what he means by heaven and hell being present realities extend into the future.

But he’s spot on when it comes to the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. In fact that whole chapter of Luke is a polemic on how the rich treat the poor.

While what you say about only Jesus’ sacrificial death paying the way is true (and we have statements from Bell agreeing with us) Jesus often made statements on wealth and poverty in relation to heaven; such as the rich young ruler, the camel and the needle to name just a couple.

Your right, indifference to suffering does not send one to hell, but it does show a lack of compassion and understanding of God that may be indicative of a lack of relationship with God… therefore the danger of hell is real – that was Jesus’ point, as well as Bell’s.

304   nc    
December 15th, 2008 at 6:28 pm

they aren’t random words, first off.

They’re words and phrases that, in faith, the Spirit of God draws you to within the context of the power of the Holy Scripture through which God speaks.

And nobody is advocating the leaving off of other forms of immersion in Holy Writ.

To jump there is dishonest and unfair.

And you know it.

305   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 6:29 pm

If Bell was not promoting eastern mysticism…why does he quote yoga masters in his message ‘breathe’? -PB

Maybe the yoga master said something correct. If I quote Donald Trump in a sermon does that mean I’m promoting materialism? If I quote Mussolini and I a facsist.

Maybe, just may, what the yoga master said was worth repeating.

306   nc    
December 15th, 2008 at 6:29 pm

oh…

and ruach

307   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 15th, 2008 at 6:31 pm

Everyone seems to ignoring the elephant in the room that is deceiving the church universal.

Halloween.

308   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 6:34 pm

pulling random words from a passage is not a good study method. Instead of pulling random words from a passage, it is far more valuable to study hermeneuticly the context, the history, the passage…not random words …like vain, repetition, and heathen…as I demonstrated. We need to study..to worship….in truth…Not random words or phrases.

Again you have shown your sloppiness when it comes to observation and application… sorry to be blunt, but my patience is running thin.

The instruction do not say choose a word randomly, it says you pick a passage randomly. BIG DIFFERENCE!

Furthermore, the instructions say to observe carefully the things in the passage… which would include everything you listen above.

Therefore, what you are opposing, the repetition of random words or phrases – I would oppose as well.

But this is not what the Lectio instructs, you have created a sloppy caricature.

309   nc    
December 15th, 2008 at 6:34 pm

At the end of the day, you can’t yammer on and on about “the Spirit” if you don’t have a pneumatology to begin with that addresses the continued speaking of God in the Scriptures.

310   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 15th, 2008 at 6:35 pm

OK…. Please PB… stop breathing… it is evil of you to keep doing it cuz Hindi’s and Buddhist and Mormons and pagans and… and… all breath… so stop… if you take another breath you are a heretic.

iggy

311   nc    
December 15th, 2008 at 6:35 pm

Caricature?

It’s not even close..

More like…

pure fabrication.

312   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 6:35 pm

Maybe Pastorbot is just stalling since he has not answered my serious questions from comment 284, nor can he refute my distinctions from comment 286.

313   nc    
December 15th, 2008 at 6:36 pm

dang, I forgot again…

ruach, everybody, ruach…

314   nc    
December 15th, 2008 at 6:36 pm

“pastorbot”…

how fitting.

ruach

315   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 15th, 2008 at 6:39 pm

And after 311 comments we come to the conclusion Bell is saved and preaches the Gospel and PB is a heretic that casts false accusations without any proof and breaths like Hindus and Buddhist so therefore PB is a heretic and bears false witness against others…. as he mocks the Holy Spirit in others and mocks God’s word and… and… man this list could go on… Where is Calvin with the stake and wood when we need him?

Nothing new here move on

iggy

316   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 6:40 pm

“pastorbot”…

how fitting.

It was a typo… and I was going to change it… but given his robotic comments and refusal to discern – I decided to leave it.

Nice catch.

317   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 6:40 pm

Neil..

sorry…just lectio divining…..hmmmmmmmm

It is hard to think about anything else. I will respond later. It is really hard to type in the lotus.

repetitive…

Vain…..

ruach

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

318   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 15th, 2008 at 6:46 pm

PB,

If only you had even a clue…

Ruach Elohim

iggy

319   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 6:51 pm

Pastorbot,

When you decide to engage in serious discussion you are more that welcome. And I will be ready. I will not respond to your ethnocentric mocking of brothers and sisters in Christ who differ from you.

It is obvious you have no intention of answering my serious question (284), nor have you anything to counter the disctinctions I have shown between Lectio Divina and Hindu mantra (286).

All you have are caricatures and the arrogance to think that your way is the only way that pleases God.

Neil

320   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 15th, 2008 at 7:00 pm

Actually, if PB can get in the Lotus position that is pretty good. I never have been able to do that… but I don’t know anyone who does that while practicing Lectio Divina… and really can’t see the connection PB is trying to make.

So.. Again PB… How is reading the scripture with thought and prayer while being lead by the Holy Spirit evil?

Again I see no answers; just mocking what you do not know and showing a total disregard for the Presence of God in others life.

Why do you hate God so much to mock him and to make fun of the Holy Spirit in others lives?

Again… you need serious prayer and possible a visit from Bob Larson to cast out that demon you have…

iggy

(Disclaimer: this comment in no way endorses or condones Bob Larson or his ministry. It was for illustrational purposes only. This is also copyrighted and cannot be reproduced as it has not reproductive organs to do so. Failure to follow PB and other ADM/ODM will lead one to peace and happiness in the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. Side effects of following PB’s theology can be confusion, delusion, and mockery of God, Showing ignorance upon ignorance, a love of wall covered jello and braying like a donkey. If you have any of these symptoms from following PB’s theology either repent or go to your proctologist and ask that your head be removed for your rectal cavity.)

321   nc    
December 15th, 2008 at 7:01 pm

Well, it’s nice to see the imams have some desire to make an attempt at humor.

Laugh away, ladies. Just do it under your burqas.

322   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 7:19 pm

Why do you hate God so much to mock him and to make fun of the Holy Spirit in others lives?

Do you seriously think he hates God? As repulsive as I find his ethnocentric arrogance, I think it is based in a misplaced devotion to his own culture – not a hate for God.

323   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 7:33 pm

#284

You discern it by the Holy Spirit. He allows you to worship in Spirit and in truth….not in vain repetition.

For the sake of Pastorboy here are some excerpts from the Lectio Divina PDF that show it is not repetition for the purpose of emptying you mind – and therefore NOT Eastern Mysticism.
1. As you read, pay attention to what word or phrase or idea catches
your attention. –

My attention? I prefer to be led by the Spirit and what is He saying. My flesh does not want to hear or read some things. I need to be guided by the Spirit.

2.What thoughts come to mind as you meditate on this word, phrase or idea?
Again, my mind is not yet fully redeemed; it is in the process of being transformed. I need to place myself on the alter, be a living sacrifice.
3. As you try to concentrate,
on what? I try to allow the Spirit to guide in truth as I study, meditate….focus…worship.
4. …don’t be disappointed if random thoughts enter your head. No, we are called to take every thought captive.
5. Now begin to speak to God. – it is impossible to speak to someone with an empty mind…
6. Tell God what you have been thinking and feeling as you’ve listened and meditated…. – Here it is assumed you have been thinking, which is the opposite of emptying your mind. It also encourages prayer to God, which is a conversation, another action in opposition to Eastern Mysticism.
This is just a quick sampling of how the directions of this Lectio Divina are polar opposite to an Eastern mantra.

324   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 7:34 pm

whoops pressed submit…not done…sorry

ruach

325   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 15th, 2008 at 7:34 pm

Neil

If someone mocks the word of God and the workings of the HOly Spirit in others as consistently as PB does, I cannot see that they love God… especially since the Scripture teaches:

1 John 2:9-11

9. Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. 10. Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him to make him stumble. 11. But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness; he does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded him.

I see no indication PB loves his brother… so as far as the scripture teaches of such a person, they are still in darkness…

I can only tell you what I see of PB’s words and actions as far as the Scripture teaches such people act. Can anyone show me one thing that proves PB is even saved?

iggy

326   Common Sense Christian    
December 15th, 2008 at 7:47 pm

I am aware of the Lectio Divina since my best friend does it and she is heavy into it. I prefer the classic means of discovering God – studying the Bible, doing what it says and praying. So far in my Christian walk, it’s done me good enough and still continues to do so.

327   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 7:53 pm

2.What thoughts come to mind as you meditate on this word, phrase or idea?

Again, my mind is not yet fully redeemed; it is in the process of being transformed. I need to place myself on the alter, be a living sacrifice.

3. As you try to concentrate,

on what? I try to allow the Spirit to guide in truth as I study, meditate….focus…worship.

4. …don’t be disappointed if random thoughts enter your head

. No, we are called to take every thought captive.

5. Now begin to speak to God.

I can speak to God in truth by repeating a random word, or by praying a passage. I can do so without being in a meditative state.

6. Tell God what you have been thinking and feeling as you’ve listened and meditated

…. So God does not know? Feelings matter? How about reflecting on what He has taught you as you study His Word with a proper hermeneutic, in context, not random phrases or words.

This is just a quick sampling of how the directions of this Lectio Divina are polar opposite similar to an Eastern mantra. The commentary hopefully will show us we should instead honor God by worshipping Him as we study His word and submit to it in obedience in spirit and in truth.

328   nc    
December 15th, 2008 at 8:01 pm

Yikes…so I guess all those Psalms and all those prophetic texts that describe feelings and are addressed to God were wrong?

Feelings matter? Yes. They’re part of who God made us as humans. But your raising the question reveals much.

Random words, etc….
as the guy who goes on and on about “context”, it seems the context here is to not be discouraged by distractions in your spiritual disciplines, but to continue on and plow through.

Now begin to speak to God…
Nobody and nothing says that these are rules to follow before you can ever speak to God.

I could address it all, but it just shows you’re just wanting to wrap your unfounded criticisms in sanctimonious garb. It sounds all “biblical”, but it just doesn’t hold water, PB.

329   nc    
December 15th, 2008 at 8:02 pm

Another thing…

“taking every thought captive” isn’t a biblical injunction against the human experience of occasional distraction. That passage is talking about human arguments against the reality and power of God.

330   nc    
December 15th, 2008 at 8:03 pm

oh yeah…

ruach.

331   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 8:09 pm

ruach backatcha NC

332   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 8:19 pm

My attention? I prefer to be led by the Spirit and what is He saying. My flesh does not want to hear or read some things. I need to be guided by the Spirit.

Trying to drive some kind of wedge between the Lectio Divina instruction to concentrate on the word and the flesh is weak at best – and not good theology.

I suppose when Prof. Howard Hendricks instructed me in the art and science of observation as the first step in a Bible study method he was advocating I use me flesh not the Spirit.

This objection can be dismissed for lack of credibility since its based a false dichotomy.

333   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 8:22 pm

3. As you try to concentrate,

on what? I try to allow the Spirit to guide in truth as I study, meditate….focus…worship. -PB

On the Word of God… boy, if you missed that I can understand why you find this so confusing. Focus… in another word “concentrate” thus you are validating the Lectio and invalidating your previous objection.

334   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
5. Now begin to speak to God.

I can speak to God in truth by repeating a random word, or by praying a passage. I can do so without being in a meditative state. – PB

Here you have fallen back to you caricature of the Lectio, not the Lectio itself. The instructions are not to repeat random words or develop a meditative state. Please stick to the actual instructions please.

335   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
6. Tell God what you have been thinking and feeling as you’ve listened and meditated

…. So God does not know? Feelings matter?

The first question will be dismissed – you know full well that’s not the point. And yes, feelings count? Seems you’ve drunk too deeply from the “Mo” well.

336   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 8:35 pm

You have failed to show how the Lectio Divina is inherently wrong.

You have failed to prove in any substantive manner that it is like the Hindu mantra.

You are obviously addressing a caricature that exists in your own mind. If you stick the the actual Lectio your argument crumbles… which explains why you must insert your own words and meanings.

337   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 15th, 2008 at 8:37 pm

Again PB denies that which God commands…

Joshua 1:8. Do not let this Book of the Law depart from your mouth; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful.

But PB does affirm the counsel of mockers as the Psalmist states of those like him in Psalms 1:1-2

Psalms 1:1. Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers. 2. But his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night.

God calls us to rejoice in following His statutes and meditate on His precepts and consider His ways… but PB denies this.

Psalms 119: 14-15 14. I rejoice in following your statutes as one rejoices in great riches. 15. I meditate on your precepts and consider your ways.

This is just a handful of what PB must now tear out of his bible to live his own version of the Christian faith.

Again, PB you pick and choose only what you want to believe and cut and paste your own version Christianity.

I really am beginning to believe you may never have come to a true saving faith for all the things you deny! And to deny the Holy Spirit to teach you explains why your theology is less sticky than jello nailed to the wall.

PB is tossed by every wave of doctrine and double minded as much as any cultist I have ever met.

Now, if PB’s conclusion about meditation is correct toss out the bible as it tells us to meditate on God’s word… so much for Sola Scriptura

iggy

338   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 8:41 pm

I am aware of the Lectio Divina since my best friend does it and she is heavy into it. I prefer the classic means of discovering God – studying the Bible, doing what it says and praying. So far in my Christian walk, it’s done me good enough and still continues to do so. – CMC

This is good, of course. The “classic” way is what I do as well. The Lectio as described at Mars Hill is nothing but a different approach to studying the Bible, doing what it says, and praying. Method is the only difference.

And it’s not like anyone is saying the Lectio is a better way, nor does even Bell advocate it as the only way… it is simply a different way.

339   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 8:44 pm

The problem, Neil, is that what can happen when you attempt to interpret God’s Word in any way that you feel as opposed to what is truth

Of course we are supposed to meditate on the scripture. IN TRUTH, not according to what we feel. Our hearts are desperately wicked.

I can see where the Lectio Divina leads when I read Phyllis Tickle, Doug Pagitt, and, yes, Rob Bell. Opinions about God based on feelings about the scripture they interpret and learn based on feelings.

340   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 8:45 pm

I am telling you…you should make Iggy a contributor. He is the picture of an ODM as you describe them!

341   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 8:48 pm

The problem, Neil, is that what can happen when you attempt to interpret God’s Word in any way that you feel as opposed to what is truth – Pastorboy

This would be true if that is what the Lectio taught… but it does not. NO WHERE does it raise feelings above thought. NO WHERE does it say or imply you can interpret God’s Word any way you feel.

342   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 8:51 pm

The thing is Pastorboy, I would agree with all your arguments if they applied, I agree in principle… but they do not apply to the Lectio. Show me a document that promotes what you describe and I’ll oppose it at your side. But the Lectio from Mars Hill is not what you say it is.

343   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 8:52 pm

Our hearts are desperately wicked

….yet indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

344   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 8:56 pm

You speak of interpretation and hermeneutics as if that were the only way of approaching the Bible. Have you never read it just for the pleasure of it? Must we always come to it as a textbook that needs interpreted? The Lectio never mentions interpretation – so you are imposing this on it.

Sure, there are times we study in the method you describe… but this not the only manner to interact with the Word.

345   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 8:58 pm

Ironically, I think your passion has clouded you vision… your zeal has led to sloppiness of thought. I encourage your to coral your enthusiasm and actually deal with the texts we are discussing with an honest eye.

346   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 8:59 pm

Question: “What is Lectio Divina?”

Answer: Lectio Divina is Latin for “divine reading,” “spiritual reading,” or “holy reading” and represents a method of prayer and scriptural reading intended to promote communion with God and to provide special spiritual insights. The principles of lectio divina were expressed around the year A.D. 220 and practiced by Catholic monks, especially the monastic rules of Sts. Pachomius, Augustine, Basil, and Benedict.

The practice of lectio divina is currently very popular among Catholics and gnostics, and is gaining acceptance as an integral part of the devotional practices of the Emerging Church. Pope Benedict XVI said in a 2005 speech, “I would like in particular to recall and recommend the ancient tradition of lectio divina: the diligent reading of Sacred Scripture accompanied by prayer brings about that intimate dialogue in which the person reading hears God who is speaking, and in praying, responds to him with trusting openness of heart.” Lectio is also said to be adaptable for people of other faiths in reading their scripture—whether that be the Bhagavad Gita, the Torah, or the Koran. Non-Christians may simply make suitable modifications of the method to accommodate secular traditions. Further, the four principles of lectio divina can also be adapted to the four Jungian psychological principles of sensing, thinking, intuiting, and feeling.

The actual practice of lectio divina begins with a time of relaxation, making oneself comfortable and clearing the mind of mundane thoughts and cares. Some lectio practitioners find it helpful to concentrate by beginning with deep, cleansing breaths and reciting a chosen phrase or word over and over to help free the mind. Then they begin with the four steps:

Lectio – Reading the Bible passage gently and slowly several times. The passage itself is not as important as the savoring of each portion of the reading, constantly listening for the “still, small voice” of a word or phrase that somehow speaks to the practitioner.

Meditatio – Reflecting on the text of the passage and thinking about how it applies to one’s own life. This is considered to be a very personal reading of the Scripture and very personal application.

Oratio – Responding to the passage by opening the heart to God. This is not primarily an intellectual exercise, but is thought to be more of the beginning of a conversation with God.

Contemplatio – Listening to God. This is a freeing of oneself from one’s own thoughts, both mundane and holy, and hearing God talk to us. Opening the mind, heart, and soul to the influence of God.

Naturally, the connection between Bible reading and prayer is one to be encouraged; they should always go together. However, the dangers inherent in this kind of practice, and its astonishing similarity to transcendental meditation and other dangerous rituals, should be carefully considered. It has the potential to become, and often does become, a pursuit of mystical experience where the goal is to empty and free the mind and empower oneself. The Christian, on the other hand, uses the Scriptures to pursue the knowledge of God, wisdom, and holiness through the objective meaning of the text with the aim of transforming the mind according to truth. God said His people are destroyed for lack of knowledge (Hosea 4:6), not for lack of mystical, personal encounters with Him.

Those who take this supernatural approach to the text can disconnect it from its context and natural meaning and use it in a subjective, individualistic, experiential, even name-it-and-claim-it way for which it was never intended. Here is where lectio and gnosticism dovetail into one. Christian gnosticism is the belief that one must have a “gnosis” (from Greek Gnosko, “to know”) or mystical, inner knowledge obtained only after one has been properly initiated. Only a few can possess this mystical knowledge, limiting the number of those “in the know.” Naturally, the idea of having inside information is very appealing and makes the “knower” feel important, special and unique in that he/she has a special experience with God that no one else has. The “knower” believes that the masses are not in possession of spiritual knowledge and only the truly “enlightened” can experience God. Thus, the reintroduction of contemplative, or centering, prayer—a meditative practice where the focus is on having a mystical experience with God—into the Church. Contemplative prayer is similar to the meditative exercises used in Eastern religions and New Age cults and has no basis whatsoever in the Bible, although the contemplative pray-ers do use the Bible as a starting point.

Further, the dangers inherent in opening our minds and listening for voices should be obvious. The contemplative pray-ers are so eager to hear something—anything—that they can lose the objectivity needed to discern between God’s voice, their own thoughts, and the infiltration of demons into their minds. Satan and his minions are always eager for inroads into the minds of the unsuspecting, and to open our minds in such ways is to invite disaster. We must never forget that Satan is ever on the prowl, seeking to devour our souls (1 Peter 5:8) and can appear as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14), whispering his deceptive lies into our open and willing minds.

Finally, the attack on the sufficiency of Scripture is a clear distinctive of lectio divina. Where the Bible claims to be all we need to live the Christian life (2 Timothy 3:16), lectio’s adherents deny that. Those who practice “conversational” prayers, seeking a special revelation from God, are asking Him to bypass what He has already revealed to mankind, as though He would now renege on all His promises concerning His eternal Word. Psalm 19:7-14 contains the definitive statement about the sufficiency of Scripture. It is “perfect, reviving the soul”; it is “right, rejoicing the heart”; it is “pure, enlightening the eyes”; it is “true” and “righteous altogether”; and it is “more desirable than gold.” If God meant all that He said in this psalm, there is no need for additional revelation, and to ask Him for one is to deny what He has already revealed.

The Old and New Testaments are words from God to be studied, meditated upon, prayed over, and memorized for the knowledge and objective meaning they contain and the authority from God they carry, and not for the mystical experience or feeling of personal power and inner peace they may stimulate. Sound knowledge comes first; then the lasting kind of experience and peace comes as a byproduct of knowing and communing with God rightly. As long as a person takes this view of the Bible and prayer, he/she is engaging in the same kind of meditation and prayer that Bible-believing followers of Christ have always commended.

HT Got Questions

347   Joe    http://www.joemartino.name
December 15th, 2008 at 9:00 pm

Common sense Christian

and yet it doesn’t give you the courage to sign your name when you are attacking men of God. I’m not sure your “christianity” can be found in the Bible

348   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 9:07 pm

OK, so you found someone who agrees with you – so what? In this they go beyond describing to editorializing – and GBA as well.

Just because some abuse the method does not make it wrong – the same is true of sex, alcohol, even discipline.

Just because other religions use the method does not make it wrong – the same is true of your preferred method.

349   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 9:09 pm

The Old and New Testaments are words from God to be studied, meditated upon, prayed over, and memorized for the knowledge and objective meaning they contain and the authority from God they carry, and not for the mystical experience or feeling of personal power and inner peace they may stimulate.

Really? We gain no personal peace from reading the Word? We gain no power over sin by meditating on Scripture? It is limited to objective knowledge?

How limiting.

How ethnocentric.

How “Modern.”

How unfortunate.

350   nc    
December 15th, 2008 at 9:16 pm

I like the “contemplative pray-ers” comment. We’re all just wanting an “experience”…

Yikes!

Even that critique posted is a bunch of garbage too.

What a scary, bankrupt version of Christianity…

no feelings, no whole person allowed, no personal application other than moralistic behaviorism, and on and on and on…

ick.

so much for “ruach”…

351   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 15th, 2008 at 9:16 pm

I’m telling you PB is not saved as the Holy Spirit leads us in truth as we read and meditate on the scripture… and PB denies this and twists the scripture to mean only what he wants it to me…

Instead of learning truth he denies it and then claims his own way is right… one cannot follow their own way and follow JEsus… but PB teaches and tells us to do just that.

His words mean nothing as he changes definitions right and left and waffles whichever way he “feels” instead of basing it on the truth of Scripture…

He has had about three different topics and each one has proven the original posts assertion of ADM/ODMs in that “when THEY use a word it means what WE choose it to mean, neither more nor less.”

and I am more and more convinced PB may not have a relationship with the Living Savior.

iggy

352   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 15th, 2008 at 9:18 pm

Of course this should say…

I’m telling you PB is not saved as the Holy Spirit leads us in truth as we read and meditate on the scripture… and PB denies this and twists the scripture to mean only what he wants it to mean…

353   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 9:20 pm

They (Got Questions) also recommend Truth War by MacArthur as further reading… enough said.

354   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 15th, 2008 at 9:21 pm

What is wrong in experiencing the Holy Spirit?

Good grief!

How some hate the Trinity… how they hate the One who leads us in all truth…

It is sad that some deny the One that seals our salvation.

How it must grieve Him so.

iggy

355   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 15th, 2008 at 9:21 pm

The Old and New Testaments are words from God to be studied, meditated upon, prayed over, and memorized for the knowledge and objective meaning they contain and the authority from God they carry, and not for the mystical experience or feeling of personal power and inner peace they may stimulate.

i.e., the Christian faith is stripped of all its spiritual and mystical underpinnings. I don’t know about you, but that paragraph sounds as about as exciting as watching grass grow.

God created our emotions, and He made us so our ultimate inner peace can be found in Him. No one says Scripture is like a magic spell or anything, but it’s not simply words on the page either.

And these are some people that get irritated because Rob Bell said he was rediscovering the “Bible as human product”? That piece the PB cited sounds like it has a very low view Scriptural authority to me.

356   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 9:24 pm

Iggy, I pretty sure this is unacceptable speculation on your part as far as this board is concerned. We don’t have a lot of rules, but claiming someone is not saved is one of them – or should be…

357   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 9:26 pm

And these are some people that get irritated because Rob Bell said he was rediscovering the “Bible as human product”? That piece the PB cited sounds like it has a very low view Scriptural authority to me.

It is certainly hemmed in on all sides by a sever devotion to Modernity.

358   nc    
December 15th, 2008 at 9:28 pm

iggy,

that’s not cool.

I love your passion, but dude….

take the man to task where he deserves it…and believe me he deserves it…but don’t go there…it makes you just like the other lurking imams who arrogate to themselves the role of the Holy Spirit.

Seriously.

You need to take that statement back and apologize.

359   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 15th, 2008 at 9:30 pm

The Old and New Testaments are words from God to be studied, meditated upon, prayed over, and memorized for the knowledge and objective meaning they contain and the authority from God they carry, and not for the mystical experience or feeling of personal power and inner peace they may stimulate.

Notice this is devoid of any personal intimacy in this statement? Also that it is steeped in modernism as True is and “object” or as Plato called it… nothing but an abstract concept? Truth is the Person of Jesus and I find this paragraph as alarming as if I read the book of Mormon! It takes the life out of the scripture which is a living book. It dehumanizes the scripture and takes away any true way to interact with it as a human…. It is like approaching a butterfly only as a scientist who takes it apart and labels it parts and misses all the beauty it had.

This is worse than post-modernism… it guts the life out of the Scriptures. Calvin even talked about the Mystic Union… Luther stated that some things must just be a mystery… yet PB calls us to be modernists and approach the bible like Mr. Spock.

iggy

360   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 15th, 2008 at 9:31 pm

BTW did anyone else notice that PB states we should not meditate, then states we can meditate? Again… to and fro and unstable in all his ways. Flip flop…

iggy

361   nc    
December 15th, 2008 at 9:34 pm

Isn’t it interesting the Chris R disappeared on this thread?

And they get all butt hurt when the dirty “emergents” are “provocative”….

yeeesh.

362   Common Sense Christian    
December 15th, 2008 at 9:39 pm

#347

I love your honesty. I get the feeling that a lot of others may well be thinking the same thing. I don’t blog neither am I a writer of any sort – just your average Christian. Do you really need to know my name to treat me with respect? I haven’t attacked anyone actually – I simply made such suggestions looking for some discussion.

Is that allowed anymore or when I visit this blog, I should toe the party line (whatever the party line is) and just nod in agreement?

363   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 9:48 pm

Is that allowed anymore or when I visit this blog, I should toe the party line (whatever the party line is) and just nod in agreement? CSC

It’s not an issue the part line… if you stick around you will find that we disagree with each other, argue with each other.

You will also find a lot of tolerance for opposing arguments – like Pastorboy has shown. You will also find we have a lot of tolerance for arguments that are thin, irrational, and sometimes silly – as Pastorboy has also illustrated.

As well, at times things get a little testy… that is mostly due to the anonymous nature of blogging. As you can see, when it gets out of hand we step in – but we do not censor.

If you think think someone stepped over the line – call ‘em on it.

364   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 9:59 pm

I don’t think personal attacks are fair.

I think we have been having a great discussion, and I get called unsaved. Its not right.

I am very passionate about my intimate relationship with Christ. Because I find that intimacy in deep study and in meditation in truth, I am called a non-believer?

Well, like I said, Iggy is a perfect picture of what you all display ODM’s to be…You become what you hate.

365   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 15th, 2008 at 10:02 pm

Why does someone, from either “camp”, have to pull the “you are not saved” card. Regardless of your disagreements with John, he is a passionate witness for Christ and every bit as flawed as any of us. That type of attack mirrors the very things we say we despise in others.

Thou that condemns others for claiming YOU are not saved, dost thou also do the same? (Frueh paraphrase of Romans)

366   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 10:06 pm

…and I get called unsaved. Its not right.

You are correct Pastorboy.

367   Neil    
December 15th, 2008 at 10:07 pm

I am very passionate about my intimate relationship with Christ.

I think you should allow others to find this same intimacy in methods other than those that worked for you.

368   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 10:11 pm

and every bit as flawed as any of us

thanks Rick (I think)

LOL! :)

369   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 15th, 2008 at 10:28 pm

PB,

The trouble is PB, I don’t hate… Those that are my”supposed” enemies declared that themselves while have never stated that they are anything less than my brother and sisters in Christ.

Now if you are referring to you lack of substantive arguments and flip flopping… all I can do is read you very own words and make a decision as to whether you may or may not even be a true believer.

If you are, then it is a very immature one that is stunted by the bad theology that holds you in bondage.

I do not hate you PB, I just hate the hate you spread and the divisiveness you love.

I never stated you were NOT saved, only that I do not see by your words and actions that you are. I see you deny the truth of the bible right and left and make up definitions to fit what you see is right in your own eyes. You do not give charity to anyone who you see in your own eyes as wrong. I have pity on you and pray for you daily.

In all this I see you as one who is double minded which is often the case in those who hold error in their theology. You tell us all meditation is wrong, then tell us that meditation is part of studying the bible… then espouse a non biblical non relational idea of how to read the divine and living word of God. You seek to control the Holy Spirit in how He may teach you and in that quench the Spirit and reduce Him to be what you can only understand and remove revelation.

Now, I have had many I have talked to in the Occult and into the New Age. If what was being taught was that we can take a verse out of context, then state that it means such and such… as in the case that “All men are like grass,” and then state that proves reincarnation… or that “John the Baptist was the reincarnation of Elijah as Jesus said John the Baptist was Elijah” then say it came to them as they came in touch with the “Christ Self” I would agree with you that is not right at all. If Lecto Divina was about “emptying oneself to let whatever come and indwell you” as my father in law used to state was truth, then I would agree that is wrong. But since that has nothing to do with Lecto Divina… you are simply wrong in your assessment of it. You add to it Hinduism which is not and was never there.

The Word of God is Divine and Living. If one is lead by the Holy Spirit reading the Scripture in a thoughtful way drinking deeply in the truths as the Spirit leads, then it can be powerful. It is not about manipulating or controlling the Spirit but submitting to Him to let Him teach you in purity and truth. You espouse modernism that guts the Spirit and turns the bible into a science book or a rule book and then you misuse it to attack others that do not see things just as you see them… and in fact often you are so far off in your modern views that you quench the Holy Spirit and live only how you see fit and by what is right in your own eyes.

iggy

370   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 15th, 2008 at 10:36 pm

“I never stated you were NOT saved, only that I do not see by your words and actions that you are.”

Then words mean nothing.

371   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 15th, 2008 at 10:36 pm

I apologize as when I stated that PB is “not saved” I was out of line… yet again it is not that I see him as “not saved” rather I see by his words and deeds that he seems to not be saved. His actions are more of one that of a mocker and not of one that believes in the Truth of the Word of God.

He mocked the scripture and denied many basic tenets of the Christian faith in this thread alone.

372   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 15th, 2008 at 10:38 pm

Rick,

Then words mean nothing.

At least to PB they don’t… I just apologized above. Will you absolve me of my sin or should I go to Jesus instead?

iggy :wink:

373   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 15th, 2008 at 10:40 pm

Thank you, Iggy. That is Christianity at its core.

BTW – Father Frueh absolves you as soon as you deposit a monetary proof of repentance. :cool:

374   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 15th, 2008 at 10:44 pm

Father Frueh,

It is in the mail… with a bit of extra so I can have 3 free sins…

iggy

375   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 11:03 pm

They (Got Questions) also recommend Truth War by MacArthur as further reading… enough said.

yikes.
I saw it at B&N last year and flipped through the intro. As soon as I read Mac say that Jesus Christ and Scripture are one and the same I put it down.

376   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 11:07 pm

Christ and His word are very closely associated. Thats what In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

377   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 15th, 2008 at 11:08 pm

Chad…

The bible actually states that Jesus how we get life and the scripture is to lead us to Jesus… so Jesus is greater than the scripture.

John 5:39. You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40. yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

JM teaches the same lie as the Pharisees did which Jesus corrected in the verse quoted above. All the Truth of the Bible hinges on Jesus. For Jesus is the Source of all Truth and is Truth Personified.

I know you know that, but some here are still under bondage of bad theology and refuse to see the lies they are taught and hold. I pray they can see this as a sliver of truth that will penetrate the lies that blind them.

iggy

378   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 15th, 2008 at 11:12 pm

PB,

You are confusing the written word with the Living Word being Christ Jesus. It is only through the Living Word the Written word has life…. but one cannot have life from the written word… that comes only from the Living Word being Jesus.

The written word is dependant on Jesus as JEsus is dependent on the Father. To a sense they are “equal” but only the same way that Jesus and the Father are equal yet Jesus is in submission to the Father.

One is greater… yet they are still equal… and it is not taught that way by many in your camp… They simply state the Bible is equal with Jesus…

As I quoted though Jesus stated the purpose of Scripture and it relationship with Him.

iggy

379   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 11:13 pm

Christ and His word are very closely associated. Thats what In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

PB, that just doesn’t make any sense. You should know better. The “logos” John speaks of has nothing to do with scripture.

Jesus didn’t come preaching scripture. He came proclaiming the Gospel.
To say Jesus and Scritpure are more or less the same thing borders on blasphemy at worst and is idolatry at best. Either way its a lose-lose.

380   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 11:15 pm

Whatever.

ruach

381   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 15th, 2008 at 11:17 pm

PB,
when John used “logos” He was not speaking of scripture at all. In fact that is another Greek word altogether. He was talking of the Greek concept of the Gnostic teaching of “logos” being “the ultimate source of all creation that holds all things together”… Also the concept of Logos in Greek thought was that of a conversation… so in effect John was saying that the Conversation started with God in the beginning (when God said, “let there be…” ) was Jesus… for through Jesus all things were created.

If you understand that the “Let there be…” is in fact Jesus, then you begin to grasp what John was saying. But to say John meant the scripture, you are missing the meaning of the passage completely.

iggy

382   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 15th, 2008 at 11:18 pm

PB,

and that is what I mean when I question as to your being a true believer… when truth is spoken you say…

Whatever.

It seems so insincere and shows a truly unteachable spirit.

iggy

383   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 15th, 2008 at 11:24 pm

It’s cool, Iggy. That’s just PB. He puts the Peanut Butter in my Bologna Sandwich.

I have had enough of the tit for tat for one day.
Good night, friends.

peace

384   nc    
December 16th, 2008 at 12:16 am

Yikes…

Anyone who says that John 1 is talking about the written text is sorely mistaken.

On the other hand, I hope PB sees the significance of how several people here have called Iggy on the things he was saying about him.

So much for “the emergent mind”…

ruach.

385   Joe    http://joemartino.name
December 16th, 2008 at 12:47 am

CommonSenseChristian,
If you are going to name other people’s names at least have the courtesy to write your own name. To me, anonymous blogging/commenting is the most cowardly of acts. IMO

386   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 16th, 2008 at 12:59 am

Joe,

Personally I ignore those who do not sign their name… or at least give a link to their own site.

iggy

387   Eugene Roberts    http://eugeneroberts.wordpress.com
December 16th, 2008 at 3:25 am

I can see where the Lectio Divina leads when I read Phyllis Tickle, Doug Pagitt, and, yes, Rob Bell.

Pastorboy, have you really read Phyllis Tickle, Doug Pagitt or Rob Bell or just what other say they say? I find your comments about what Rob Bell writes and says and what Lectio Divina is about very ignorant. Perhaps you should do your own study of LD and not copy and paste what other say it is. Just a suggestion that might help that other commenters take you seriously.

388   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 16th, 2008 at 5:45 am

We all know that Jesus is a divine Person, separate from ink on paper. However there is a sense in which the written word is spirit and provides nurishment through the Spirit.

Let us worship the Savior in spirit and in truth, and let us reverence the written Word which is a miracle.

389   Common Sense Christian    
December 16th, 2008 at 7:44 am

Amen Mr. Frueh! The written Word is important for without it, we wouldn’t even know there was a Jesus who shed His blood for our sins and rose again to give us new life! Praise God for His living Word, the Bible and the Christ it presents to us in all His glory!

390   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 16th, 2008 at 8:41 am

However there is a sense in which the written word is spirit and provides nurishment through the Spirit.

Rick, I agree with the latter part of this statement but not the first.

There is nothing innately “spirit” like about the words on the page. It is, as you say, ink on paper. It is the Holy Spirit (again, a being separate from the ink on paper) who illumines the words and confirms them as truth in our hearts and minds.

Not trying to be nit-picky, but I think we need to be careful about what we say lest we go making the Bible into the 4th person of the, um, Quadrinity.

391   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 16th, 2008 at 8:58 am

We do not worship the Scriptures, however we reverence them. These words were inspired by the Holy Spirit on the front end, and interpreted on the back end to our hearts. Jesus said “My Words are spirit, and these written words in the original are a message from heaven.

392   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 16th, 2008 at 9:05 am

Additionally, although they contain the personalities of the human instruments, they are perfecty in the original. Any perceived “errors” must be veiewed as perceived or historical innacuracies by humans accurately scribed by the Holy Spirit.

An example of an accurate record of an inaccuracies is found in Acts 7, where Stephen in verse 4 states that Abram left Haran AFTER his father died, when a study of Genesis reveals he left before his father died. But the Holy Spirit recorded Stephen’s words perfectly even though they were inaccurate.

Praise God for His Word which is the agent by which e believe and are saved, grow in grace, and grow in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior!

393   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 16th, 2008 at 9:11 am

Rick,
Again, not trying to be too nit-picky, but if Jesus saying that “My words are spirit” is the evidence proving that scripture is “spirit” than wouldn’t that make only the red-letters “spirit”? It seems as though Jesus has just excluded 99% of scripture from being “spirit.”

and these written words in the original are a message from heaven.

Maybe. Problem is we don’t have the original documents. We have what we have. I think it is dangerous to say that the orginals are “a message from heaven” in a direct, unencumberd sense, but now we are left with something less than that – as if it is less than perfect as is. To give such high precedence to the “original” diminishes the value and beauty of the Bible we got.

394   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 16th, 2008 at 9:16 am

Chad – if you are going to discount faith that God has given His Word, then your points are germaine. The Scriptures are more than just information and are a journey of faith. I happen to believe that in all practicality we have copies of the originals with .05% of non-essentials in question.

The beauty part is irrelevant, the value part is substantive.

395   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 16th, 2008 at 9:18 am

If we do not consider the originals, (copies) then any goofball can write his “version” and claim it is what God has said. It is why we took Greek and Hebrew in college, and why at the very least every serious Bible student should have a Strong’s Concordance.

396   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 16th, 2008 at 9:23 am

Chad – if you are going to discount faith that God has given His Word, then your points are germaine. The Scriptures are more than just information and are a journey of faith. I happen to believe that in all practicality we have copies of the originals with .05% of non-essentials in question.

The beauty part is irrelevant, the value part is substantive.

Regardless of how close they are to the originals, I still think that a lot of Christians treat Scripture too much like they fell straight from heaven. I’m not saying people think they’re “too inspired”or anything, but I think people do forget how they were authored.

For example, even when we have a saying of Jesus recorded, say in Luke, the saying is recorded in Greek, while Jesus was most likely speaking Aramaic. Also, most likely, Luke is writing from the collective memory available to Him of things people heard Jesus say again and again. I think sometimes we try to hard to think the Gospels are some sort of script.

397   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 16th, 2008 at 9:28 am

Chad – if you are going to discount faith that God has given His Word, then your points are germaine. The Scriptures are more than just information and are a journey of faith. I happen to believe that in all practicality we have copies of the originals with .05% of non-essentials in question.

Well, that is certainly a nice theory and could very well be true. However, I am not placing my faith in an over-and-under game that is dependent upon just how many precentage points difference the present version is to a version that we do not have.

Scripture does not save us. Scripture points us to the one who does save us. Scripture need not be some book that dropped out of heaven in order for it to fulfill that purpose. It need not be inerrant or perfect or infallible in order to fulfill that purpose. Why? Because it is not what or who saves us.

398   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 16th, 2008 at 9:30 am

Phil – all the earthly particulars including different authors, intellects, writing styles, sources, perspectives, and any mechanisms that seem unweildy in a miraculous endeavor only enhance and elevate the miraculous nature of the written Scriptures.

I will admit we are always faced with the challenge of receiving these Scriptures as supremely authoritative while refraining from manipulating them, worshiping them, abusing them, and turning them into icons rather than living words of God’s majestic redemptive truths.

399   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 16th, 2008 at 9:33 am

Agreed, Phil.

If we do not consider the originals, (copies) then any goofball can write his “version” and claim it is what God has said.

Well, they could, but the community that gathers around these stories and has so for thousands of years would point out that that is not correct.

400   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 16th, 2008 at 9:35 am

“It need not be inerrant or perfect or infallible in order to fulfill that purpose. ”

I agree, however we must be careful since when the moorings are loosed the ship can easily drift into the rocks. The Holy Spirit makes application of these Words to the hearts of men, and indeed, my knowledge of spiritual things upon my conversion was painfully incomplete and probably fraught with errors.

What I most disagree with is the notion that the Scriptures are an overall narrative with little or no specific doctrinal refinement.

401   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 16th, 2008 at 9:37 am

One of the better books I have read about scripture in the past few years is Peter Enns’ Incarnation and Inspiration. He attempts to navigate a middle ground between the seeming impasse of conservative and liberal thought about scripture. It got him fired from Westminster, but he would probably say it was worth it.

402   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 16th, 2008 at 9:41 am

I have more charity for a non-innerrant yet authoritative view of Scripture than most “conservatives”, but I cannot abide the story view which eviscerates the particular truths expounded by Paul and others. It is an important issue, and in the coming days it will be proven to be THE issue. There can be no arbitor of truth without the Word.

403   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 16th, 2008 at 9:42 am

What I most disagree with is the notion that the Scriptures are an overall narrative with little or no specific doctrinal refinement.

I’m not sure what you mean by that, really. I guess you could say that in the NT the Gospels are narrative with little thought given to specific systematic theology, and that Paul’s letters are clarifying doctrine in some way. But I think the one thing to remember is that the first Christians saw themselves as Jews, so it’s not as if they felt a need to make doctrine up from whole cloth.

Even in Paul’s letters, he’s writing against the backdrop of the OT, and he assumes that his audience has some sort level of familiarity with the Jewish scriptures. So I don’t think we can just say the Gospels tell the story, Paul tells what it means.

404   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 16th, 2008 at 9:47 am

Phil – your outlay refers only to earthly particulars and avoids the miraculous essence that overcame all those things you mentioned as well as others. The authors were willing and unsuspecting conduits of the Spirit.

As for the narrative, there are some in the “emergent” and “liberal” camps who take the Scriptures as an overall narrative of God dealings with man but rejects any notion that the words are also specific doctrinal illuminations that are divine guides of faith and life.

For instance, some say that the gay question changes with the passing of time, the enlightenment of society, and the collective wisdom of the majority.

405   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 16th, 2008 at 9:48 am

I have more charity for a non-innerrant yet authoritative view of Scripture than most “conservatives”

Cool.

There can be no arbitor of truth without the Word.

I am not sure what you mean by this statement, though. The “Word” is not scripture, as I think we all agree.

I am not sure why you would think that a narrative view of scripture undermines “truth” or implies there is no “Word.”

406   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 16th, 2008 at 9:51 am

Sometimes it is obvious that people from different theological cultures have certain idioms that render communication as incomplete and have subset perspectives that do not overlap.

407   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 16th, 2008 at 9:55 am

Sometimes it is obvious that people from different theological cultures have certain idioms that render communication as incomplete and have subset perspectives that do not overlap.

As beautiful an articulation of our problem reading ancient texts written 2000+ years ago if I ever heard one.

408   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 16th, 2008 at 10:11 am

If we do not consider the originals, (copies) then any goofball can write his “version” and claim it is what God has said. It is why we took Greek and Hebrew in college, and why at the very least every serious Bible student should have a Strong’s Concordance.

Sorta like the Message and the Voice.

409   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 16th, 2008 at 10:13 am

I, as you know, was referring to people of this generation. Reading texts written 2000 years ago transcend culture and are absolute in every generation.

What a miracle of trans-generation communication processed to the church, individually and collectively, by their Author, the Holy Spirit. After all the linguistic study, the biographies of their human scribes, the hebraic templates, and all the rest of the earthly particulars, we have the glorious Word of the Living God given and preserved to us forever.

I choose to remain a theological simpleton since it must be obvious I neither have the desire nor the intellectual capacity to understand the complexities of dissecting the formulative processes of the Scriptures so as to become palatable in every aspect to my human understanding.

410   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 16th, 2008 at 10:15 am

Sorta like the Message and the Voice.

No, PB, it is nothing like that.

90% of the times I read your stuff I am reminded of the old adage: Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Now, cut and paste your favorite verse that says I shouldn’t have called you a “fool.”

411   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 16th, 2008 at 10:19 am

I, as you know, was referring to people of this generation.

Yes, I know. And if such obstacles can exist between we who are of the same generation and even the same culture and language, imagine the complexities that exist in reading the writings of a dead mystic 5000 years ago in a nomadic, ancient world.

412   Neil    
December 16th, 2008 at 10:20 am

Sometimes it is obvious that people from different theological cultures have certain idioms that render communication as incomplete and have subset perspectives that do not overlap. – Rick

When I first read this I thought you were pontificatng on Pastorboy… until I read the comments leading up to it…

413   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 16th, 2008 at 10:22 am

Chad,

To be called a fool by you is an honor. Your ‘higher’ education has blinded you to the simple truth and beauty of the scripture. I prefer like the ancients to just have the knowledge of the original language with the Bible and the Holy Spirit to guide me into all truth.

This is much more valuable than a six figure theological education. All you are purchasing are blinders!

414   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 16th, 2008 at 10:33 am

PB-
I am glad you feel so honored.

Your ‘higher’ education has blinded you to the simple truth and beauty of the scripture

I would LOVE to see your proof of this “fool” proof assertion.

This is much more valuable than a six figure theological education. All you are purchasing are blinders!

Blinders enable me to “keep my eyes on the prize” and not be dissuaded by Cracker Jack Box theologians such as yourself.

415   Bo Diaz    
December 16th, 2008 at 10:33 am

PB,

I prefer like the ancients to just have the knowledge of the original language with the Bible and the Holy Spirit to guide me into all truth.

Considering you’ve reviled the theology of the ancients on many occasions I doubt this is true at all, especially since you’ve been so terribly wrong so often, and your application of simple commands given in how to act towards others, especially brothers and sisters in the faith and the lack of the fruit of the Spirit is so apparent.

416   Bo Diaz    
December 16th, 2008 at 10:37 am

Blinders enable me to “keep my eyes on the prize” and not be dissuaded by Cracker Jack Box theologians such as yourself.

This is another illustration about why contextualization is important. Someone coming from a culture where they actually interacted with horses would know that having blinders on is a good thing because blinders enable the horse to obey his master.

Considering that Jesus was speaking in a mostly agricultural audience and using agricultural imagery, the lack of contextualization has negatively impacted the theology of those who think its good enough to only have a Bible and not understand the mindset of the people writing and hearing scripture as it unfolded.

417   Neil    
December 16th, 2008 at 10:40 am

I think we have been having a great discussion,… – Pastorboy

It was civil… I’m not so sure it was great.

I was frustrated at your consistent habit of inserting your own meanings into the words of others. How you inserted the Hindu “Ohmmm” into the Lectio Divina… How you inserted “vain” into repeating the words of God… I was frustrated that you have drunk so deeply from the nectar of Modernity that you have reduced the Word to a book to be studied, studied in a manner you approve and no other… that you have reduced God to a being uninterested in our feelings… I was frustrated when you switched “passages of Scripture” to “word” so it would fit your caricature of the Lectio Divina… how you have yet to answer my questions from comment 284… I was frustrated that you mocked the prayers of others by asking “So, God does not know…”

Most significantly I was insulted and repulsed by your condescending mockery of those who choose to worship using the method described – you implied they were employing Hindu mind-emptying techniques which is just not true.

Take care Pastorboy how you choose to deride you brothers and sisters in Christ.

Yes it was civil, not so sure it was great.

418   Neil    
December 16th, 2008 at 10:43 am

I prefer like the ancients to just have the knowledge of the original language with the Bible and the Holy Spirit to guide me into all truth.

I find statements such as this, from any source, to be laughable… have you never read a commentary, have you never consulted a dictionary, have you never look at a map… have you never read a book on theology… or a devotional by another?

Have you REALLY limited yourself to JUST the Bible, the Holy Spirit, and you?

419   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 16th, 2008 at 10:45 am

For example, even when we have a saying of Jesus recorded, say in Luke, the saying is recorded in Greek, while Jesus was most likely speaking Aramaic.

Phil – there’s a growing body of scholarship that suggests that Hebrew was the primary language used in teaching and religious study during the first century, and Greek was the common tongue of the marketplace (much like English today). The Dead Sea scrolls and other texts suggest that the synoptic gospels were originally sourced in Hebrew, and that the Greek is a word-for-word translation (rather than a meaning-for-meaning translation) from the Hebrew. Aramaic is structurally similar to Hebrew, but poorer (fewer words), and I tend to agree with the evidence (textual and via higher criticism) that Hebrew was favored over it. [You might want to check out Bivins & Blizzard's "Difficult Words of Jesus" for the nitty-gritty details...]

Sorta like the Message and the Voice.

PB – I remember in grade school there was a kid (I’ll call him “Junior”, since that’s what we all called him, though I don’t think it was his name) who was in our class, but he wasn’t always ‘there’. Every once in awhile, the teacher would be going over a subject and answering students’ questions, and suddenly Junior would blurt out from the back of the room “The lunch lady took one of my sandwiches yesterday!” (or something equally inane). The class would laugh, the train of thought would be lost for a bit, and everyone in earshot would be just a little bit dumber as a result of the exchange.*

That is how you’re functioning in many of the ongoing conversations at the moment…

_______________

I, as you know, was referring to people of this generation. Reading texts written 2000 years ago transcend culture and are absolute in every generation.

I agree, Rick – where I often cringe is where we supply a 21st century context to a first century communication, often remaining ignorant (sometimes purposely, like Chris P) of the original context and original meaning…
____________________
* It sorta reminds me of this exchange between the Principal and Billy in Billy Madison – “Mr. Madison, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”

420   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 16th, 2008 at 10:56 am

It sorta reminds me of this exchange between the Principal and Billy in Billy Madison – “Mr. Madison, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”

I giggled like a school girl for a good 45 seconds while recalling that.

421   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 16th, 2008 at 11:36 am

Phil – there’s a growing body of scholarship that suggests that Hebrew was the primary language used in teaching and religious study during the first century, and Greek was the common tongue of the marketplace (much like English today). The Dead Sea scrolls and other texts suggest that the synoptic gospels were originally sourced in Hebrew, and that the Greek is a word-for-word translation (rather than a meaning-for-meaning translation) from the Hebrew. Aramaic is structurally similar to Hebrew, but poorer (fewer words), and I tend to agree with the evidence (textual and via higher criticism) that Hebrew was favored over it. [You might want to check out Bivins & Blizzard's "Difficult Words of Jesus" for the nitty-gritty details...]

I can’t say I’m an expert, but this almost exactly opposite of what Ben Witherington claims. He claims that you actually probably more likely to hear Greek spoken in Jerusalem than Hebrew (or Aramaic). Of course there were some Jews that didn’t know Greek,The format of the Gospels follows very closely to that of other Greek biographies and histographies, and the Septuagint had become a “standard” version” of Scripture for many Jews.

As far the Dead Sea scrolls and “Q”, I agree with you that there is evidence to suggest a Hebrew source for a lot of the Gospel material. I just don’t think the original authors themselves wrote them in Hebrew.

422   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 16th, 2008 at 12:25 pm

A personal word:

Being a history major, and also being a WW II enthusiast, let me recommend the new movie Valkyrie which is a true story. It will be my first movie in 4 years. I have read extensively on this assassination attempt and look forward to the interpretation.

OK, resume with the Dead Sea scolls.

423   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 16th, 2008 at 12:27 pm

Tsk, tsk, Rick. Supporting the theater. I don’t see how a man like you who considers himself a pastor can set foot in that devil’s den… ;-)

424   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 16th, 2008 at 12:35 pm

For those of you who have been following the universalism discussions you have heard me reference Willimon and Barth often.

I just posted a synopsis of the second chapter of his book Who Will be Saved? if you are interested.

The Eros of God

425   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 16th, 2008 at 12:51 pm

He claims that you actually probably more likely to hear Greek spoken in Jerusalem than Hebrew (or Aramaic). Of course there were some Jews that didn’t know Greek,The format of the Gospels follows very closely to that of other Greek biographies and histographies, and the Septuagint had become a “standard” version” of Scripture for many Jews.

Ah, then I wasn’t very clear – I would agree with BWIII – Jerusalem was fairly secular (the home of the Sadducee party and the seat of power for the Herodians) and cosmopolitan, so Greek would be prevalent as a language spoken. However, the more “orthodox” Jewish (in the ancient sense, not the modern one) areas were north in and around Galilee, where Hebrew was likely much more prevalent. In either place, though, there is support that religious debate took part primarily in Hebrew (so that the multiple-meanings of words could be brought to play).

In terms of Greek, think of modern Germany – if you go to Berlin, most anyone can (and will) speak English to you, and much of day-to-day conversation happens in English. However, if you go to the smaller towns, like Hameln, day-to-day conversation happens in German, and the accent is much thicker when speaking in English…

In terms of Hebrew, think of the Vatican of a few centuries back, where most religious conversation occurred in Latin, which was the same language as their primary translation.

Not perfect analogies, but you should get the gist…

426   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 16th, 2008 at 12:56 pm

Tsk, tsk, Rick. Supporting the theater. I don’t see how a man like you who considers himself a pastor can set foot in that devil’s den…

Don’t tell anyone, but I heard that Rick’s sister was a thespian and his son is a homo-sapien!

Seriously, though, I’m looking forward to seeing Valkyrie, despite Mr. Cruise :)

427   nc    
December 16th, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Neil,

all the tactics you described above and you still call this “civil”.

You have an infinite reserve of hope, my friend.

:)

428   Common Sense Christian    
December 16th, 2008 at 1:31 pm

Again I’m no genius but if the Bible is not inerrant, how do we determine what is true and what is not true in it? I could quote a verse that is an abject lie, then we cannot say that the Bible is God’s Word, since God cannot lie…

429   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 16th, 2008 at 1:35 pm

Again I’m no genius but if the Bible is not inerrant, how do we determine what is true and what is not true in it?

You don’t. It’s all true.

430   Neil    
December 16th, 2008 at 2:11 pm

Neil,

all the tactics you described above and you still call this “civil”.

You have an infinite reserve of hope, my friend.

The tactics, stubbornness, ethnocentrism on Pastorboy’s part were infuriating… but the exchanges were civil in that we never got person… – that’s what I meant.

431   Neil    
December 16th, 2008 at 2:16 pm

You have an infinite reserve of hope, my friend. – nc

Here is my assumption, Pastorboy is no fool, he is not an idiot, he certainly can understand what is written… it’s just that he is, what I have called, sloppy at times – he obviously comments before he has thought through what he is saying. Furthermore, he routinely assumes he knows what someone else means (uncharitably) and then inserts the words that he thinks they really meant…

Now, all that is extremely frustrating, but you are correct – I have hope the he might, if he took the time, if he read Bell objectively, come to the same conclusions as us.

432   Neil    
December 16th, 2008 at 2:18 pm

Again I’m no genius but if the Bible is not inerrant, how do we determine what is true and what is not true in it? I could quote a verse that is an abject lie, then we cannot say that the Bible is God’s Word, since God cannot lie…

I think all who have posting rights here hold to inerrancy. I think most of the comments do as well.

433   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 16th, 2008 at 3:13 pm

Please pray that the rapture doesn’t occur while I am in the theatre, I do not want to be Left Behind!

434   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
December 16th, 2008 at 3:19 pm

I think all who have posting rights here hold to inerrancy. I think most of the comments do as well.

I think that’s probably right, although inerrancy is one of those words that is illustrates the point of your original post pretty well. A lot of the time, it means whatever the person who said it wants it to mean i.e., does believing the Genesis flood may have been local rather than global mean you don’t believe the Bible is inerrant? I know people who say that.

435   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 16th, 2008 at 3:54 pm

Rick,
Earlier I think I asked what you have read by Barth and what you take such strong issue with. I am still interested.

I have just posted a review of a sermon Barth gave titled “ALL!” from Rom.11:32. It is a great introduction to Barth if any are interested.

http://chadholtz.wordpress.com/2008/12/16/all/

436   Brett S    
December 16th, 2008 at 4:00 pm

Again I’m no genius but if the Bible is not inerrant, how do we determine what is true and what is not true in it?

Common Sense,

I’m no genius either. It’s a good thing that grace is operative through the theological virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity (Love); and not knowledge, understanding, and intelligence. I have never found where the bible teaches that everything that’s true is written in the bible. I find peace in a verse that suggests a plausible answer to your question.

“thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” 1 Tim 3:15 – KJV

437   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
December 16th, 2008 at 4:01 pm

I think I am going to Barth all over the place

438   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 16th, 2008 at 4:01 pm

“I think I am going to Barth all over the place”

LOL

439   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 16th, 2008 at 4:05 pm

I think I am going to Barth all over the place

Just make sure you do it in the John.

440   Common Sense Christian    
December 16th, 2008 at 4:54 pm

S0 Brett, the Church determines what is true?

441   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
December 16th, 2008 at 4:58 pm

S0 Brett, the Church determines what is true?

hehehe
*wonders if CSC knows who he is asking this to*

CSC, in a sense, the answer to your question is “yes.”

442   Brett S    
December 16th, 2008 at 5:41 pm

S0 Brett, the Church determines what is true?

That’s my simplest interpretation of that text. Of course Jesus Christ is the fullness of truth, and truth can be found outside of the church as well.

I have faith that Christ created a church to guide imperfect people like me to truth. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

ps – sorry for breaking out the King Jimmy version. It always makes me feel like wearing tights and speaking very loudly :)

443   Neil    
December 16th, 2008 at 6:18 pm

I have never found where the bible teaches that everything that’s true is written in the bible. – Brett

Is this what you meant to write? Or did you mean “I have never found where the bible teaches that everything that’s written in the bible is true?

Obvious not everything that is true is written in the Bible. Lots of true things are not in the Bible.

Neil

444   Neil    
December 16th, 2008 at 6:20 pm

I have faith that Christ created a church to guide imperfect people like me to truth. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

That’s why I would prefer to say the church discovers truth, defend it, promotes it – not sure we determine it.

Hair-splitting, I admit.

Kinda like the canon. The church did not create or determine as mush as discovered and decided.

Neil

445   Brett S    
December 16th, 2008 at 6:37 pm

Hi Neil,

I wrote what I meant. I do believe that everything in the bible is true, and most of the books depict actual historical events. All of those books are true; even the parts I don’t understand.

Obvious not everything that is true is written in the Bible

Obvious to me and you, but I’ve tried to have a discussion with some people for whom every topic comes down to: “show it to me in the bible, or I won’t believe it”.

446   Common Sense Christian    
December 16th, 2008 at 6:49 pm

I’m no genius as I am fond of saying but doesn’t the Bible say that it is the Spirit that affirms what is true in regards to spiritual things:

Joh 16:13 NLT When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not be presenting his own ideas; he will be telling you what he has heard. He will tell you about the future.</blockquote.

Is HE the ultimate determiner of what is true in the Bible since He inspired it? Sure we may come to conclusions, but isn’t HE the one who leads us to those conclusions, just as He led the Biblical writers:

2Ti 3:16-17 NLT All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It straightens us out and teaches us to do what is right. (17) It is God’s way of preparing us in every way, fully equipped for every good thing God wants us to do.

2Pe 1:16-21 NLT For we were not making up clever stories when we told you about the power of our Lord Jesus Christ and his coming again. We have seen his majestic splendor with our own eyes. (17) And he received honor and glory from God the Father when God’s glorious, majestic voice called down from heaven, “This is my beloved Son; I am fully pleased with him.” (18) We ourselves heard the voice when we were there with him on the holy mountain. (19) Because of that, we have even greater confidence in the message proclaimed by the prophets. Pay close attention to what they wrote, for their words are like a light shining in a dark place–until the day Christ appears and his brilliant light shines in your hearts. (20) Above all, you must understand that no prophecy in Scripture ever came from the prophets themselves (21) or because they wanted to prophesy. It was the Holy Spirit who moved the prophets to speak from God.

447   Common Sense Christian    
December 16th, 2008 at 6:50 pm

…and I just noticed that I didn’t close the quotation tag properly. Need to work on that LOL

448   Neil    
December 16th, 2008 at 6:56 pm

Common Sense Christian,

I don’t think it’s an either or proposition… clearly the Spirit leads people into truth, and the church is/should be a collection of Spirit led people, therefore I’d say these are accumulative.

Neil

449   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 16th, 2008 at 6:56 pm

Even within that church they have taught and now teach different things. I prefer to be led by the Spirit personally, which is waht God requires.

450   Common Sense Christian    
December 17th, 2008 at 4:29 am

What happens when this community comes up with something antithetical to Scripture? Was the Spirit leading them then?

451   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
December 17th, 2008 at 6:26 am

No, the Spirit always lead in accord with the Scriptures He wrote.

452   Chris    
December 17th, 2008 at 6:52 am

Sorta like the Message and the Voice.

Eugene Peterson or Pastorboy…hmmmm…(sorry that was kinda lectico divina) …. who’s biblical scholarship would I trust?…man tough call.

453   Neil    
December 17th, 2008 at 11:10 am

What happens when this community comes up with something antithetical to Scripture? Was the Spirit leading them then?

I think they you have an example of someone thinking they are being led when they are not.

I’m not thinking so much of churches as I am “the Church.” I am thoroughly convinced that the Church is God’s primary mechanism for all he is doing on the earth… whether that is the expansion of the Kingdom, the reconciliation of people unto himself, or the preservation and advancement of truth.

Neil

454   Brett S    
December 17th, 2008 at 11:22 am

What happens when this community comes up with something antithetical to Scripture? Was the Spirit leading them then?

By antithetical to Scripture, I’m assuming you mean things like:
drinking wine is evil,
female pastors are O.K.,
2 men can marry each other,
and it’s OK. for women to take ortho tri-cyclen pills and kill babies.

Genesis probably comes 1st in the bible for a good reason. The Spirit is always leading, but we humans have a tendency to screw things up pretty badly (original sin and all). Good thing we have a Saviour, right!

455   Common Sense Christian    
December 17th, 2008 at 12:13 pm

Drinking wine isn’t evil, though I would take issue with those other three…

What are your thoughts on those four things?

456   Brett S    
December 17th, 2008 at 1:09 pm

Common Sense,

You don’t know some of the stupid ideas I’ve had in life, so please take my thoughts with a grain of salt :)

I think all 4 of those things are wrong, and should be labeled as (right or wrong). But ask 4 different Christians about them and you may get 5 different answers.
(And that’s before Pastor Silva or Rob Bell get a chance to pontificate on it)

And good luck finding the morality of birth control pills clearly defined in the bible.

457   nc    
December 17th, 2008 at 1:15 pm

yeah,

Eugene Peterson, that ignoramus who even does all his personal devotional study in the original languages…

458   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 18th, 2008 at 2:13 pm

Phil – FYI – Here’s one of the articles I was looking for that deals with the “Hebrew vs. Aramaic” issue. Also, see here.