Is there an audio of it? I have satellite internet and videos are a no go with that…

we can call him a weirdo, but if we name Ingrid’s shrill, shrieking rage-fest “ministry” a, well, shrill shrieking rage-fest then it’s “online rape”.

leave the man alone. he’s dead. Crotch grabbing and being weird aren’t crimes and certainly didn’t nail Jesus to a cross.

I think MJ’s death, along with other deaths in recent weeks is an illustration that no matter how powerful, rich, talented, etc. a person is, we all must face death.

My friends in LA are at the Funeral handing out tracts and engaging mourners in conversation. May many people be saved as a result of their ministry.

I hope MJ, FF, EMC, BM, and SMC all repented and placed faith in Christ before they died. If they did or did not, God is still glorified.

Was MJ an elect? BTW, you did not address Ingrid’s rant and post mortum piling on.

John – sometimes you make sense, and some of your observations have validity. However if you are supportive of Ingrid’s brand of Christianity we serve different Gods.

Did any one actually listen to Keller’s sermon?

One cannot possibly avoid a discussion about Jackson… it turns up every where!

Christians who would find Keller’s theology abrasive need to get a thicker skin.

Some thoughts regarding this idol worship…. the church will talk frequently about bringing down strongholds. Yet, rarely does the church admit to having idols. Keller speaks of preaching to open people’s eyes to their idols as key to the changing of hearts, the church body, and then communities, and culture. So is a stonghold different than an idol? or is an idol just another stronghold? is the idol the result of a stronghold? Is one just an idea and the other the object selected to worship? is a stronghold “out there”…and an idol personal?
His explanation of the consequences of a life that worhips personal idols such as spouse, children, family, and money in regard to family dynamics is extremely unsettling! He brings the worldview/belief system and their consequences down to a personal level.
The end result of demolishing strongholds and the result of demythologizing idols is the same….chaos.
Maybe a discussion about Michael Jackson and idols in one post isn’t as far off as I originally thought..

Did any one actually listen to Keller’s sermon?

Yes, I did.

Christians who would find Keller’s theology abrasive need to get a thicker skin.

I think that Jerry’s point is that Keller is an unabashed Calvinist who, from time to time, does a better job preaching Calvin than Jesus…

Personally, I have no problems with Calvinists who hold loosely enough onto the ’system’ to allow non-Calvinists an equal place in the kingdom. In the blogosphere, such a creature is rather rare, though we’re lucky enough to have a couple on staff here…

Ingrid does have a point though about celebrity worship. I do not believe God meant for people to be famous, though it’s inevitable.

I grew up around Christians who mocked MJ ruthlessly, though I’m not sure why. I got sick of the jokes years ago. It was so obvious that he needed the Lord desperately. I prayed for him a few times through the years, along with others. He’s in the Lord’s hands now.

I hope it’s a huge lesson for Christians to treat non-believers (celebrities or not) with nothing but compassion. Don’t mock celebrities. Don’t bash people you don’t agree with. All God calls us to do is pray for them and witness to them.

When a 2 year old is molested – God is still glorified.

You keep using that phrase “God is glorified”, I do not think you know what it means. If God considers the death of his saints “precious”, I assume God is grieved by the death of a lost sinner.

That is unless God, in order to show the emmense expansive of his love and grace, decided to save only a diminutive, puny, and minute handful of sinners and then bask in the glory of damning the overwhelming majority of the human race who He could have offered redemption but did not.

Wow, what a God!!!

I apologize, I kinda believe some of the Biblical narratives. BTW, when Hitler was murdering 6 million Jews, and God could have stopped it and did not, I guess that would make Him complicit?

Unless you don’t believe the narrative concerning the holocaust.

If God is not glorified with the molestation of a 2 year old than why did God murder children in these narratives you claim to believe?

I’m not going to get into the molestation (not sure where in the world that is coming from and it doesn’t make any sense to me).

But, to try and draw a parallel between that and biblical accounts is a poor argument.

Chad, you say you “believe all of them”.

Did God rain down fire on Sodom and Gomorrah?

Did He open the ground and swallow up Korah, Dathan and Abiram, plus all the princes of renown?

Did He give Saul instruction to destroy the Moabites completely?

God creates the earth; creates the child; creates the child molester; and watches the molestation take place. And He did it all knowing what would happen. So even if you believe the entire Old Testament was metaphorical, that still doesn’t get you out of the hole.

Does knowing there is a possibility something would happen mean that God is culpable? Even you take the view that God knew as a certainty what would happen, that doesn’t mean He was responsible. I’d say the gift of a truly free will to creatures means that those creatures have to have the ability for great good as well as great evil. I don’t believe that God is any more responsible for evil in the world any more than I believe a serial killer’s parents are responsible for their son’s killings. And even that’s not the best analogy, because in some cases there may be links in learned behavior that you could trace back to the parents.

The OT writers likely believed in a universe that resembled a war zone rather than God being a supreme puppet master. Yahweh was at war with the forces of evil, not the author of them.

Phil – the words “culpable” and “responsible” etc. reflect the difficulty in exact applications of human understandings.

No, it’s not a matter of “denying” the OT narratives or suggesting that God is different. They are one in the same.

The very fact that Jesus says he does what he sees the Father do and the fact that you cannot paint a picture of Jesus killing a child suggests that perhaps your understanding of the OT narratives is wrong.

It’s you that is creating a Marcion-like God. God of the OT kills babies but not Jesus. Marcion determined they were two different gods. You don’t want to make that mistake so you hold them in some sort of paradox that makes no sense. Scripture as well as tradition teach us that Jesus (not the OT narratives) are the purest image and expression of the heart and will of God the Father. So you are misinterpreting the OT when you don’t begin with Jesus.

Phil, that has a lot to do with it.

This line of inquiry began, though, with The Fire and the assumption that at the heart of the character of God is violence – violence to even God’s own son. People point to the OT as their justification for PSA. Rarely do they look at Jesus.

What Walter Wink calls the “myth of redemptive violence” runs rampant in America and churches alike. Violence, however, is antithetical to the kingdom of God. This is true whether we are reading OT narratives or the lens through which we look at Calvary.

Paul, I would allow Jesus to answer:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.”

Paul,
Why don’t you answer your own question?
How about you do what Rick is unwilling to do and paint me a picture of Jesus killing or ordering the killing of babies. Can you?
Then, take Jesus’ own words:

You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you

and mix that with your belief that Jesus is God in the flesh, and God does not change, and that Jesus is the fullest expression of God.

Now, feel free to answer your question without creating two very different gods.

(get ready for some bob-and-weave guys).

also, at any time feel free to stop being an ass.

I love how introducing Jesus into the picture is labeled as “bob and weave.”

That’s ok. You can just avoid the issue if you want. Yeah, some things are easy to anticipate.

God is glorified, but God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked.

When someone dies and goes to a very real hell (Sorry Chad; people actually do go to Hell) God is glorified because they did not measure up to His standard of righteousness and holiness and they face an eternal wrath that is poured out of them.

When someone dies, and because they have been born again through repentance and faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, God gets the glory, because the wrath that He poured out on His Son and the power displayed in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead did its work in the salvation, sanctification, and glorification of a soul. (Sorry Chad; this is for those who have been chosen; thus responding to the invitation of God because they recognize his voice)

And no, I cannot paint a picture of Jesus murdering a child; but he did allow it to happen multiple times in scripture and in the holocaust, and the inquisition, and today (with full support by your president) millions of babies are being murdered around the world. Does he do it? Nope- sinful man does it. Does He allow it to happen? Yes! He is sovereign, omnipresent, and Omnipotent. He could stop it, but he doesn’t.

I serve a powerful God. This god that does not have sovereignty or foreknowledge that Greg Boyd, Phil, and Chad serve is a false god.

Rick, contrary to your opinion of me, I do accept “literal Biblical authority.” However, with that comes a respect towards the sort of genre being read. You do the same and yet you may not be comfortable doing so. For instance, I take Revelation “literally” while I do not think Jesus is a literal lamb that goes baaaa.

I accept the NT gospels stories as being historical in the sense that they go to great pains to illustrate how Jesus, not Moses (or anyone else) is the truest expression of God – he is the God/Man.

What I find disturbing about your comments (and PB’s or Paul’s) is that total lack of any Christocentric theology. You are, IMO, starting from the wrong foundation. Your silence when it comes to interpreting the OT through the lens of Jesus is deafening, and speaks volumes.

If the account of the mount of transfiguration is literal, Moses was there with Jesus, the same Moses who said God told him to write the law that provided the death sentence for rebelluous children.

I would just note that there is no record in Jewish history of this ‘death sentence’ ever being used by a parent against a rebellious child…

Perhaps there is something in the Law that we don’t understand/apply. Kind of like seeing “eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth” as legitimizing revenge rather than what its actual effect was, which was in de-escalating the cycle of revenge.

Phil’s comments on progressive revelation are apropos to this particular line of discussion…

Paul,

You remind me of how I used to feel towards my OT professor in undergrad. He said and taught some things which at the time seemed so crazy while also saying how committed he was to making Scripture the ultimate source of truth in his life and how much he believed in the inspiration of it. I also knew how much he loved Jesus because I actually knew him. It took some time, but I eventually realized that he wasn’t the devil spouting out nonsense because he doesn’t care about the Bible bur rather, the devil was my closed mind and idolatry of my own interpretations and dogmas.

You can demonize me all you wish and excuse yourself from wrestling with difficult issues by just paining me as someone who doesn’t hold the Bible very highly. I really don’t care. But at least acknowledge that you are not interacting with me honestly, nor engaging what I actually write.

You can demonize me all you wish

I’m hardly demonizing you Chad. A little dramatic I think.

But at least acknowledge that you are not interacting with me honestly, nor engaging what I actually write.

How am I not engaging with you honestly? I asked you a question in #25 which you have yet to answer. You claim to put so much store by the OT, yet refuse to answer the question.

And then you cry foul when someone points out your inconsistency (which both I and Rick did). Again, very dramatic Chad.

Chad,

We have to look at the full picture and the complete biblical revelation. God does not change but whereas we were under the Law in the Old Covenant with frequent examples of the wrath and judgment of God (e.g., the flood, Israel in the wilderness, etc, and where children are executed (not murdered BTW.) we are currently under the Covenant of Grace as exemplified by the Lamb of God who:

A BATTERED REED HE WILL NOT BREAK OFF, AND A SMOLDERING WICK HE WILL NOT PUT OUT, UNTIL HE LEADS JUSTICE TO VICTORY. (Matthew 12:20)

However a time of judgment will come again where the Lamb of God will assume the role of the Lion of Judah in which much of mankind (along with children) will again be killed by God.

Rev 19:11-15 – And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in)righteousness He judges and wages war. His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself. He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty.

God is the ONLY being who can judge and subsequently punish in absolute righteousness.

And I heard the altar saying, “Yes, O Lord God, the Almighty, true and righteous are Your judgments.”Revelation 16:7

We, as finite humans have a limited capability to be able to completely reconcile God’s love and justice, and sometimes I don’t understand, but the Biblical record demonstrates both the love and justice of God.

I believe it was God’s anointing that helped Samson kill more than other men. No one should paint God as a vengeful ogre, however we cannot remove those revelations that are unpleasant to the “Green Peace” mindset.

Interesting that Rick is so willing to make theological judgments about Samson’s narrative, but is unwilling to do the same with Acts.

Chris – You deny that the law precribed the death penalty for certain cases, and that Jesus’ teachings mean that those commandments were to be broken back then? Did not God command Joshua to kill everyone in Ai? Regardless of certain events, do you deny God ever killed anyone or commanded some to do the same?

“And the Spirit of the Lord came upon him (Samson) and he went down to Ashkelon and slew 30 men…”

Chris – are you aligned with Chad’s interpretation of the Old Testament narratives including rejecting that God ever visited death on certain people?? Was the Passover event just a parable?

BTW Bo, let me again reiterate my position. I do not deny that theology is gained from the entire body of Scripture, what I have stated is that church doctrine specifically concerning practice and soteriology is gleaned foundationally from the epistles.

“Where is Jesus in your reading of the OT narratives? (in fact, where is Jesus in your reading of Paul?)”

Where is Jesus in anything you write? I am refraining from writing what I actually feel about your theology and your “style” of thread interaction. To ask me where is Jesus in my reading of Paul is highly offensive and is a prime example of your adolescent method of sweeping generalities when it concerns the views of others.

But hey, that is a pastor’s heart.

Jerry – Who said anything about emulating Samson??? I said it proves God has in the past killed people. Your statement is not material to the issue.

Chad – Feel free to limit your interaction with anyone else but me. Your disrespect for anything not in agreement with your perspective is…well…hogwash.

You are no gentleman and have precious little Christian etiquite.

Jerry – Has God ever killed someone??

That is the ONLY issue I was dealing with.

“Your hero Paul”

Again, a demeaning swipe at something I believe and have been willing to defend without using such verbiage against you. Paul is not my “hero”, Jesus is my Lord.

Is the power of Christianity so shallow that believers cannot even engage serious and passionate conversations without these types of degenerating comments? What does that say about Christ?

Rick, still sticking to your M.O., I see.

God forbid anyone actually take you to task on the Chirst-less lens through which you interpret the whole of Scripture or the ways you dissect the Bible to suit your own ends, pitting epistles against narrative or most importantly Yahweh against Jesus.

And all of this so that a demented theology of God beating the shit out of his Son with a “smile” on his face just so that he can be appeased can be upheld.

thanks, Jerry, but I realize I push a bit too hard.

You would think I’d be used to their tactics by now but it is still upsetting. I ask questions not because I wish to “bob and weave”(Paul) but because it is how I teach. Now, you guys may say, “we don’t want to be taught.” Fine. Don’t listen to me. But when it comes to sharing my heart and mind on these matters it will not do to just puke it out on a blog. It requires some thoughtful dialog and that is best accomplished through questions. If you don’t have the answers that is one thing. But to refuse to engage in them and then insist they I don’t care about the Bible or other such nonsense is counter-productive.

Chris – You deny that the law precribed the death penalty for certain cases, and that Jesus’ teachings mean that those commandments were to be broken back then? Did not God command Joshua to kill everyone in Ai? Regardless of certain events, do you deny God ever killed anyone or commanded some to do the same?

I don’t deny that the law prescribed the death penalty for certain cases – though I do point out that many of the instances it is done so to bring about repentance, not death. The Jewish legal system, as followed by Moses, required that an injured party (not the state/church) bring up an argument, and that the argument would be adjudicated with the prescriptions from the Torah as the maximum penalty. In some cases (such as with disobedient children), the threat was real that death could result from a parent bringing his child before the judge – but the actual intent of the Law was to prevent it from ever getting there in the first place.

You completely misunderstand the purpose of the Torah if you see it as analogous to US Criminal Code (where the laws are set forth by the state and are adjudicated as a function of state).

“And the Spirit of the Lord came upon him (Samson) and he went down to Ashkelon and slew 30 men…”

“and the Spirit of the Lord came upon…” is an indication of talent/ability/power given to an individual – a common Hebraism, since all talents and abilities come from the Spirit of the Lord.

The choice to slay the men in Ashkelon was Sampson’s, not God’s.

I do not go as far as Chad, though I think he is much more on the right track in this matter than some others in this conversation.

I do believe that God commanded the clearing out of Israel of the pagan nations – including women and children – not because he required violence, but because of the limitations of his people and their (demonstrated) inability to avoid adopting other gods. This limitation had been done away with by the time Jesus arrived on the scene, as predicted by Daniel. The problem with seeing God as different in the OT and the NT is that we assume that it was God that changed, rather than the people. This is the heart of gradual revelation.

I do think that God killed those responsible for the golden calf – and that He purposely saved an equal number on Pentecost, the day set aside for remembering the giving of the Torah.

Even so, trying to prove that God killed someone in the OT, thus PSA is the only possible explanation for Jesus’ sacrifice, is ludicrous.

“Even so, trying to prove that God killed someone in the OT, thus PSA is the only possible explanation for Jesus’ sacrifice, is ludicrous.”

I never one time addressed the PSA issue, it was brought up by someone else. My only issue was that God has shown violence at times. That is ALL I was suggesting.

Wasn’t this Jesus?

Is 63: 1 Who is this coming from Edom,
from Bozrah, with his garments stained crimson?
Who is this, robed in splendor,
striding forward in the greatness of his strength?
“It is I, speaking in righteousness,
mighty to save.”

2 Why are your garments red,
like those of one treading the winepress?

3 “I have trodden the winepress alone;
from the nations no one was with me.
I trampled them in my anger
and trod them down in my wrath;
their blood spattered my garments,
and I stained all my clothing.

4 For the day of vengeance was in my heart,
and the year of my redemption has come.

5 I looked, but there was no one to help,
I was appalled that no one gave support;
so my own arm worked salvation for me,
and my own wrath sustained me.

6 I trampled the nations in my anger;
in my wrath I made them drunk
and poured their blood on the ground.”

Watch out for another bob-and-weave…

I got as far as comment 40 and see that Chad had yet to answer the questions from comment 25. Sure, he answered them with a Jesus quote… but he never answered them.

I’ll keep reading, but the questions remain.

I’ll keep reading, but the questions remain.

Neil, honestly, thanks for pointing this out.

He can’t afford to answer because it might fly in the face of the God he’s created for himself.

We all acknowledge that once, Christ appeared on earth in apparent weakness, to pour out his precious blood as an atonement for our sins; but he will in due time appear in the greatness of his strength, and it will be a time of destruction and judgment for many.

Sometimes I’m baffled here. I mean, Chad makes some of the most outlandish claims and it almost goes unattested (ie: garbage like the Song of Solomon was the primary book the NT church preached from).

Chad: Now, you guys may say, “we don’t want to be taught.” Fine. Don’t listen to me.

I mean – what an absolutely cocky statement. You got it Chad – only the teachable will pay heed to you. What a laugh.

…that Jesus would not kill…

That he did not seems unquestionable… not so much that he would/will not.

I do not deny that theology is gained from the entire body of Scripture, what I have stated is that church doctrine specifically concerning practice and soteriology is gleaned foundationally from the epistles.

Then we don’t need the majority of the Bible.

…then nearly repeated…

Neil – You seem to have the word of knowledge.

I originally wanted to bring a fuller perspective about the interactions that God has had with the human race. While it is infinitely true that Jesus is God and that God “in these last times has spoken to us through His Son”, it cannot be denied that God has committed acts of violence, albeit we realize completely righteously.

In this thread I have never argued for or against PSA. And even though all of you disagree with my Pauline perspective, I also know that all Scripture is good for teaching and theology. And when you find yourself defending God as sometimes violent, it seems as if you are happy with that or magnifying that. I was not.

If you recall, I took offense to John’s “God is glorified” quip as it pertains to the death of a lost person.

And in another stunning example of what transpires in this Emerald Blog City, this is idolatry, hatred, self righteousness, and the antithesis of the gospel message.

Read that post twice. It deserves a post that apologizes for such a spirit of Athaliah. I can almost see some Phelpsesque language and tone there.

Chad,

You have not addressed the fact that Jesus will personally kill millions at some point in the future.

I have explained this by addressing we are currently in a covenant of grace which has a definite timetable. How do you explain it?

Also, Jesus’ teaching on peace, love of enemies, etc. applies to people. This is qualified by that we are to reserve vengance to God, the righteous judge. “Vengance is mine [God's] I will repay” is as much a New Testament concept as it is an Old Testament one. In this age of Grace **we** are not to take vengance or repay evil for evil, but leave it up to God who **will** some day do so.

God is patient and desiring that none should perish, but at the same time unrepentant people are “storing up” God’s wrath. At God’s own timing this wrath will be revealed and Jesus will have a direct hand in it.

as for Paul’s questions in 25 I addressed them in #80.

John, as for #99, I think you misunderstand Jesus and Judgment.

Since Israel confessed a single God, it followed that death, as well as life, peace, as well as war, all came from God. The question Israel faced was: How could God not be involved in something?

I agree- kinda close to saying God invented evil, but that’s another issue.

The issue for Israel was HOW God was involved in death and warfare. Old Testament accepts warfare as a part of life. Even so, Israel did worry about the reality of the integration of warfare and God.

Again, I agree. Particularly when much of their wars were directed by God.

If God fought, it was not through wading in the conflict- God fights by withdrawing God’s hand. Already we see in the literature a distancing of God from the actual battle. God “fights” through proxy. There is “fire” or “hail” or even other people that do the fighting.

This sounds rather naive and self-contradictory. First God only fights by withdrawal (a statement I’ve never seen is Scripture) then God send fire and hail. Which is it? Here we start being way too speculative.

The Old Testament also distances Israel from warfare by…Harem- captured booty must be destroyed- keeps Israel’s motives in check…This is a revolutionary concept in the ethos of war in ancient times.

OK, this sounds biblical, though it does not really address God’s actual activity. It only addresses his limiting the result of man’s fallen nature.

Retrospective statements of Israel’s faith where later ideas have found expression in a historicized form. Much of the OT was written in exile – they are ways for a minority, not-so-special people to recall their destiny as God’s chosen and how God has delivered them in the past so long as they remain faithful.

blah blah blah, Ginger… sorry if the Far Side reference is overly vague. I have no idea what all this means – are you saying they rewrote their history? That it is not accurate?

New Testament provides us with a way that the warlike actions of the Old Testament can function as scripture.

Militaristic images of the old referring to spiritual realities (Ephesians 6:10-17)

FAIL – the warlike actions of the Old Testament ARE scripture, they are not free to be reinterpreted and/or allegorized.

The question remains unanswered though… did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah?

And what would your point be? How does this impact the discussion about Tim Keller and idolatry?

Jerry,

it does not – of course – have anything to do with Keller. And I apologize for my role in hi-jacking the thread… I was just hoping to get a straight answer from Chad.

Chad,

I understand you believe you have answered the question – but you have not. You have posted quotes from Jesus, you have posted thoughts on Israel and war. But you have not answered the question as to whether or not God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.

The question remains unanswered though… did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah?

Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe people have a tendency to attribute to God things that aren’t really God.

No maybe about it – people do have the tendency to attribute things to God that are not really God. BUT, when God’s word attributes them – that’s another story.

How can you say you have a high view of the Scriptures and deny their historical accuracy?

One of the problems you “violent God” people have is reconciling the God of the OT with Jesus Christ. Furthermore, you have a problem with present day theodicy. If God is a war-like God and is pleased to wipe out his enemies (and the enemies of the people of God) than why are you not disciples of Falwell or Robertson? Were you guys saying along with Falwell that Katrina was God’s judgment on homosexuals and drunkenness? If not, why?

Does God actively kill people today? Or, is God in opposition to death and violence and killing and is God’s way one of peace. Does God’s kingdom come by violence or does it come through a slaughtered Lamb? If you answer the latter, than has God changed? Has God decided to bring about his kingdom in a different way after he satisfied his thirst for blood in the OT?

You see, you have all sorts of problems when you don’t begin with Christ. Either God is schizophrenic and has completely reversed course as well as the way God operates within the world OR, YOU have greatly misunderstood an ancient document written in a genre and in a world we can only vaguely understand.

How can you say you have a high view of the Scriptures and deny their historical accuracy?

Because the Bible is not a history book, Neil. Nor is it a science book. It’s a theology book.

Do you adhere to a literal 6 day creation? Wait, don’t answer that. I don’t want to know.

I, for one, have no problem taking the God of the Old Testament and his occasional acts of violence and reconciling them with Jesus Christ.

Then answer my questions.

I do not believe in the 24 hour creation day.

I do not believe in the 24 hour creation day.

Jerk!

First I reject your simplistic dichotomy between a purely passivised Jesus and a war-like God.

Why? On what grounds? How did Jesus bring about the kingdom of God? Through violence? Did Jesus ever instruct anyone to bring about what they desire through military means or war or killing? How does that stack up against the narratives you think are “history” in the OT describing God as war-like?
Sorry, Neil. Just dismissing something as a “dichotomy” isn’t an answer. I thought you said you had no problem reconciling the two.

I was revolted by Falwell’s comments; because a) he was not a prophet, and therefore had no place ascribing anything to God, b) he was illogical, if God wanted to judge a city for homosexuality, send an earthquake to San
Fransisco.

lol. This is why you reject the message? Because YOU decided that you don’t like the messenger and that he isn’t a prophet? And because a place was destroyed that you call “illogical”? But God’s ways are not our ways, Neil. I’m sure God had good reason to destroy New Orleans. As well as Indonesia. I’m sure the fire that struck the house in Raleigh the other week killing a family was from God. The people that lived there were probably idolaters.

In fact, I believe the woman who drowns her kids in the pool and says God told her to do it. Why should I not believe her, Neil? Has God changed? Does God not operate like God used to? How come?

Sometimes I wonder why I even bother posting here.

Jerry, you seem overly agitated – what’s up?

Chad,

You seem to post in haste – or have a problem with accuracy (as reflected three times in recent comments).

No, because I believe the canon to be closed. It’s not an issue of me deciding.

Who cares? So because the canon is closed God is now silent? God no longer acts? He just decided to take a vacation beginning around, what should we say, 100AD? Or did he wait until the actual council convened and came to a consensus about which books to keep or reject?

Are you really suggesting that God doesn’t work anymore like God did the first few thousands years of recorded history?

Honestly, this whole thing started when someone said God kills babies.

It seems several of you agree (Neil, PB, Rick, John H, Paul C).

What do I as a pastor say to the man or woman who claims God told her to kill his or her kids? The kids were evil, they say – they are going to grow up and be anti-christs.

What grounds do I have to say that God does NOT act in such a way nor would God ever command you to do such a thing?

If they read your comments here, what might they think?

Shall I take that as a refusal to answer the question?

See, it’s not as easily reconciled as you claim it is.

What do I as a pastor say to the man or woman who claims God told her to kill his or her kids? The kids were evil, they say – they are going to grow up and be anti-christs.

Why do you have to say anything? I’d ask how God told them? But seriously, this is an interesting hypothetical, but hypothetical are not how we (or at least I) discern my theology. I’ve had too many people tell me “God wants me to be happy, therefore…”

But again, If the historicity of Bible cannot be trusted when it says “God did this and that…” it cannot be trusted when it says “Jesus says ‘Love your enemies’” or even “…and on the third day they went to the tomb and…”

Phil,
Thanks. Those are good points (and I like what Boyd does with this).

That post is not as clear as it should be. The points grow off of each other. They are not meant to be taken on their own but are progressions of thought to consider as we consider the passages in the OT that deal with war. It’s a conversation, not an answer.

Sorry that isn’t more clear.

Why do you have to say anything? I’d ask how God told them? But seriously, this is an interesting hypothetical, but hypothetical are not how we (or at least I) discern my theology. I’ve had too many people tell me “God wants me to be happy, therefore…”

Not a hypothetical, Neil. It happens.
And why should I say something? Because to say nothing is irresponsible.

Neil, your ideas sound all nice in an ivory tower sort of way but on the ground they are meaningless. You claim that you have no problem reconciling the war-like God of the OT with Jesus and yet when confronted with a real-life situation like a mother claiming God told her to kill her kids, you all of a sudden want to be silent. Why?

God commands the death of children and orders people to carry it out. Who are you to say the mother is lieing?

Neil, your ideas sound all nice in an ivory tower sort of way but on the ground they are meaningless. You claim that you have no problem reconciling the war-like God of the OT with Jesus and yet…

Again, I must protest and point out your lack of accuracy when quoting me. I did not say I had no problems, I said I have no problems that are only solved by your interpretation (which I believe is a reworking to solve your problems) of the Old Testament.

But again, If the historicity of Bible cannot be trusted when it says “God did this and that…” it cannot be trusted when it says “Jesus says ‘Love your enemies’” or even “…and on the third day they went to the tomb and…”

Both are historical references.

Chad: Does God kill today?

Please wait one moment while I check with Ananias and Sapphira . . . ummmm why yes it seems He does.

Actually, the narrative in Acts 5 never explicitly attributes the death of Ananias and Sapphira to God. It simply says they fell down and died.

Jerry,

That is the first sermon/biblical exposition I have heard from Tim Keller. How is he received or treated by the ADM’s?

It would be interesting to see their response to the blogosphere references.

Assuming his thesis that everyone has idols is correct, I guess I need to search mine out – though I have a pretty good idea where to start.

I think this should be required listening for anyone who discuses theology here.

Being hypothetical and happening are not opposites. And sometime not saying anything, sometimes not having the answer is the best course.

Translation: My theology is pointless in the real world. I really can’t reconcile Jesus with the God of the OT.

Being hypothetical and happening are not opposites. And sometime not saying anything, sometimes not having the answer is the best course.

Translation: My theology is pointless in the real world. I really can’t reconcile Jesus with the God of the OT.

Since Neil thinks silence is the best way to go when a mother approaches him with visions of God telling her to kill her kids,

Since you choose to continue in your method of condescension – I have decided not to waste my time trying to have a reasoned discussion with you.

When you choose to answer my questions, when you choose to quote me accurately, when you choose discuss an issue without the hyperbole and the assuredness. I am willing.

Pity we could not wrestle with our differences.

Once again, If the historicity of Bible cannot be trusted when it says “God did this and that…” it cannot be trusted when it says “Jesus says ‘Love your enemies’” or even “…and on the third day they went to the tomb and…”

Both are historical references.

You are the one whining, Neil.

So you deny being condescending, reductionist, and inaccurate in quoting me?

I have no problems that are only solved by your interpretation (which I believe is a reworking to solve your problems) of the Old Testament.

I would like you to address my question on why we should trust the historicity of the resurrection, and even the veracity of the words of Jesus, if, as you say, the Bible is not a historical book.

Sorry Chad, I have addressed your questions and you refuse to address mine. Discussion is a two-way street. You say “your interpretation of Scriptures” and “What you think Scriptures mean…” – as if you do not have your own interpretations.

I would rather be between a rock and a hard place, than try and redefine the rock into putty… that said, I cannot admit what you ask me to since you have incorrectly defined what I believe.

I would like you to address my question on why we should trust the historicity of the resurrection, and even the veracity of the words of Jesus, if, as you say, the Bible is not a historical book.

Neil, where have you answered my question? You keep evading it, talking about closed canons and keeping silent. How is that an answer?

If you really don’t know what you would say, then why? Why is this such a problem for you to answer?

You keep evading it, talking about closed canons and keeping silent. How is that an answer?

cf 133, 136, 154… This is not evasion, it is simply you not liking the answer… the reference to the closed canon was in reference to your question about Falwell and Katrina.

Why must your responses be so condescending?

Speaking of evasion… why should I trust – oh, never mind.

I would like you to address my question on why we should trust the historicity of the resurrection, and even the veracity of the words of Jesus, if, as you say, the Bible is not a historical book

The reason I was not answering your question is because it would become self-evident if you would actually play along and discuss the reasons you are having problems with my real life scenario.

But I’ll play along.

There are a couple reasons I know the words of Jesus are true and that he lives. I could simply sing to you one of my favorite songs, “He Lives” and tell you that I know this to be true because he lives within my heart.

I could also say that our lives are made up of stories. There is a story that you and I are living into that we affirm is true and authoritative because it is performed in our lives. Scripture is “true” because it is constantly recreating a new world through words. These words, however, have authority insofar as we, the church, live into them.

The story of Jesus transformed my life. The story of Jesus exploded my world and gave me new eyes to see by. Jesus is the lens through which I choose to see the world.

I also realize that without Jesus we can make some wild assumptions about God. One of the reasons I know the OT to be a faithful, inspired text is because Israel does not hide her mistakes. They are the only nation in ancient history whose scribes didn’t turn their histories into nationalistic adulations. They laid themselves bare for the world to see. Yet they also stuttered. They knew the name YWHW, a name without vowel points. They were learning what it meant to be a people of God and this learning was painful. Jesus put the vowel points on God’s name. It is only Jesus who got it right where Israel stuttered.

That is probably a longer answer than you were looking for. It’s a shame much of that couldn’t have developed in the course of a conversation.

So Neil, is the story you center your life around the story of the slaughtered lamb who is the Prince of Peace or do you base your life on an interpretation of events in Israel’s life that would suggest God’s Kingdom comes through violence and bloodshed?

My guess is your story is one of Jesus. And I would guess it is the story you would tell the woman who thinks she is being commanded by God to kill her kids. Now, does this mean God has changed or could it possibly mean that the way you interpret the stories of Scripture might be mistaken?

Is the grave still not empty even if Israel projected upon God the violence they thought was necessary to usher in God’s promises? Is it possible that one reason God left heaven and put on flesh was to show us what God has been trying to say from the very beginning?

chad,

hmmm… asking to be treated with the respect due between brothers in christ is whining?

while I am willing to discuss the issues and the weaknesses I see in your interpretations… I see no point in allowing you to continue with your unloving and arrogant attitude.

when you are willing to converse like brothers, I will…

Neil brings up an interesting nuance. An idol is something that is a likeness of something, or something that should not be worshiped but is. Let us look at it with that understanding.

Anything, therefore, that is not God (Jesus) is an idol if it is worshiped. That could be a person, a thing, an animal, or even an idea. And worship is the act of showing homage or uncommon deference to one or more of those things.

Many people from all evangelical persuasions view the preacher as an idol. I used to view Jack Hyles as such back in the 80s. How can we tell if we hold things or people as an idol? Most likely the symptoms are some of these:

* Do we defend that person or idea always?
* Does any criticism evoke an emotional response?
* Can we honesty see any fault in that person/idea?
* Does that person or idea consume our thoughts?

And in a very fine nuance, we can treat truth as an idol and worship truth rather than the One who that truth points to.

#171 – Excellent points, Rick – something I do struggle with on a number of fronts.

Or she’s demonically possessed. But to even bring something like this into the conversation is, again, very infantile. What’s worse is to suggest that anyone would condone this type of action or behavior.

So Abram was demonically possessed?

Naturally, extremes in either case are not called for.

Nice – 100+ comments later he comes to his senses (or is unaware that he was the one arguing an extreme).

My aim here is to push from one position in order to show that there are different ways to think about violence as it is portrayed in the OT that do not include the default “literal” interpretation that many seem to abide by.

Translation: “I lost the debate in the face of undeniable and overwhelming fact, but don’t have the integrity to admit it, so I now revert to Plan B. All along I was trying to communicate this point.”

The case of the woman called to kill her kids is a valid scenario and one that often provokes different responses depending on how a person views Scripture and the character of God at God’s core.

Sorry, but this is plain idiocy.

I think we take ourselves way too serious in commenting and receiving criticism on our views. When we find our egos connected with our reasoning we need to take what Tim Keller says to heart. Our arguments become our idols…

Reverting to condescension shuts down any chance for real conversation. In this thread Rick, Paul C. and Chad have been guilty of this. I think (hope) that you do not mean to come over as condescending but when reading through this thread your comments toward each other and Chad to Neil comes over that way. Chad, I don’t think Neil was whining and I think you owe him an apology.

To “gut” the OT of literal meaning as it applies to Jehovah being violent at times is to remove any common resource and make all truth open to private interpretation. We have a variety of interpretations from people who take it all literal, can you imagine the confusion if the entire Bible was a “this is what this really means” book?

Neil was more cordial with you than anyone else here, yet you still mock and lambaste him when he brings up glaring inconsistencies in your reasoning. – Paul C.

For example: the argument is made that God cannot change, therefore he must always act in the same manner. This is, or course, is a false premise.

God does not change. But he may, and does, when he chooses, to change his manner of dealing with people.

Just like a father changes how he deals with a toddler, or a teen, or an adult child. He does not change- but his manners do.

So, God extends mercy to people by not striking them dead when they deserve it… and every once in a while, as we see in Scripture, he chooses to withhold that mercy and make an example out of someone… justifiably.

I don’t think he lost the debate as mush as he just refused to engage w/o condescension and arrogance

Yes, he did do that Neil, but he also was arguing a point that is completely baseless – then got into fits when questioned about it or dodged simple questions.

Finally, he was able to admit to Chris L that “Naturally, extremes in either case” (all-violent God vs non-violent God) were wrong – as if this was his argument all along. I love that usage of the word “Naturally”!

To me, this isn’t even the issue (ie: God using violence at times), but rather how someone who claims to take the Bible seriously in theory and apparently is training to be a pastor, actually reduces it to a parable in reality. It is as dishonest as it disheartening.

If it was a matter of misunderstanding, then no one here would have gotten as passionate as we did, but the fact that he was clearly wrong, then proceeded to evade simple questions only to conclude we weren’t open to his “teaching” led to quite a decline.

saying that large parts of the O.T. are just Israel’s erroneous view of history guts the reliability of the Gospel accounts.

And that’s where a discussion like this ultimately went. A wolf in sheep’s clothing would argue no different.

That’s why I thought it important to call him out on SoS being THE most preached from book in the NT church. Really? Completely baseless, but he stated it “matter-of-factly” to slip it under the radar.

So, again, this is a much bigger issue than debating whether God did or didn’t implement violence, as became clear.

And what we have witnessed is a hermeneutic based on a false, or at least unprovable, premise; that since God does not change ontologically, he does not change behaviorally.

This is undefendable at best, most likely plain false given the biblical accounts.

I know that most Old Testament theologians agree that evidence suggest that large parts of the historical writings of the OT were written down during the Babylonian exile. Sometimes we have this idea that Moses or Joshua kept a diary in which they recorded what happened each day. Much of what happened was probably passed down orally and finally written down during the exile. Now if this is true the scribes who wrote it down would probably put more emphasis on certain parts of history because of the current views of the time. We know from Nehemiah, Ezra and the prophets that the view of the time was that God allowed the exile because Israel was disobedient to the law and if they would obey the law that God would come to their rescue and restore them to their former glory (or even greater glory). So these writers would probably give emphasis to history that would support this view. That doesn’t make the OT version of history erroneous; it just puts it in a context.

saying that large parts of the O.T. are just Israel’s erroneous view of history guts the reliability of the Gospel accounts.

This is a very modernistic conclusion. If we take the historical writings in the Bible to be the same as we write down history in a scientific manner we are going to get into trouble. Many people have high lighted historical inconsistencies in the Biblical text and some have used this to discredit the Bible. The OT is an ancient text written by an ancient culture very different from our modern science worshiping culture (there is my link to the OP ). I believe the reason why history was written down in the OT was not to give an exact account of everything that happened, like we would do for say WWII, but rather to record God’s relationship with His people and His people’s relationship (and failures) with Him. The OT is inspired not because it is historically correct but because of a real, almighty God who chose to have a relationship with His creation and the stories of the OT testify to that. This is why we can believe the OT testimony of God not because it is historically accurate.

Much of what happened was probably passed down orally and finally written down during the exile. Now if this is true the scribes who wrote it down would probably put more emphasis on certain parts of history because of the current views of the time.

And even if this were true, it does not mean they were not directed by God to record his actions accurately.

The OT is inspired not because it is historically correct but because of a real, almighty God who chose to have a relationship with His creation and the stories of the OT testify to that.

I agree. But, because it is inspired by God we can trust its historicity as well… particularly when it describes the actions of God

Neil, you made some good points here for me to think about. I have to attend to some ministry stuff now and will interact with what you said a bit later today.

Neil – you make some excellent points here. And Eugene’s willingness to more deeply consider what you’re saying is good to see.

190 was an excellent comment – it is best to let the scripture speak for itself rather than new revelations or OT theologians, many of whom do not even have faith in God at all.

I remember, just after being saved, that I was so excited my university offered a course of the “historical Jesus”. Long story short: the entire goal of the professor (who is extremely well-regarded) was to dismantle Christ’s deity and refute the truthfulness of the gospels (similar to comment 189). And the class was made up of people who “used to” believe in God but had since been “enlightened” to the fallacy of religion. Probably one of the hardest challenges to my faith in the beginning.

“Preach the word!”

I too am one who believes some divine violence in the future.

Of course this will be the case. Who is arguing against this???

I would argue against it to some extent.

If we’re talking about Jesus coming and wiping out all sinners at some point, I tend to not see that laid out in Scripture. I do see that there will be a time when those who don’t know God will be left on their own to face the consequences of their sin. But I don’t see God coming and punishing them. I’ve often wondered how people can square away that Jesus died for all sinners, but at some point He says “enough is enough” and kills them. I just think it goes back to us not understanding the depth of God’s love for us.

I actually think that the image of God as a vengeful authoritarian does a lot of damage to the Christian message, actually. I know in my own life, it’s taken me quite a long time to get over the whole “fear factor” thing that God is kind of looking for me to screw up so He can jump out and say “aha! – I knew I’d catch you sooner or later!”. That may just be idiosyncratic to my upbringing, but I suspect it affect quite a number of people. It’s been a relatively recent thing that I’ve been able to trust God’s unconditional love for me.

Phil, I notice that your upbringing has had a lot to do with how you presently see scripture. It sounds like you’re coming from an extreme where fear played a major role.

But that shouldn’t shy you away from what the scriptures say:

Hebrews 12: At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, “Once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.”27The words “once more” indicate the removing of what can be shaken—that is, created things—so that what cannot be shaken may remain.

28Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, 29for our “God is a consuming fire.”

Or how would interpret this?

1 Who is this coming from Edom,
from Bozrah, with his garments stained crimson?
Who is this, robed in splendor,
striding forward in the greatness of his strength?
“It is I, speaking in righteousness,
mighty to save.”

2 Why are your garments red,
like those of one treading the winepress?

3 “I have trodden the winepress alone;
from the nations no one was with me.
I trampled them in my anger
and trod them down in my wrath;
their blood spattered my garments,
and I stained all my clothing.

4 For the day of vengeance was in my heart,
and the year of my redemption has come.

5 I looked, but there was no one to help,
I was appalled that no one gave support;
so my own arm worked salvation for me,
and my own wrath sustained me.

6 I trampled the nations in my anger;
in my wrath I made them drunk
and poured their blood on the ground.”

Or

Rev 16: Then I heard a loud voice from the temple saying to the seven angels, “Go, pour out the seven bowls of God’s wrath on the earth.”

Or how about Hosea 11: “I will not come in wrath again. I will not execute my anger upon you.”

Paul,
It seems as far as the passage in Isaiah and Revelation go, we have been down this road before. I see the bulk of those books as containing prophecy that has been fulfilled or is in the process of being fulfilled, i.e., it is ongoing. We are in the age to come with the consummation of it still to happen.

As far the passage in Hebrews, I see that in a similar way as I see Paul warnings to the church in Corinthians. Invest in things that are eternal and trust that God will keep them. They alone are what will survive the fire of judgment. Whether the fire could be considered violent may debatable, but even so, it’s a different sort of violence than Jesus coming and wiping everyone out.

I’m pretty much resolved to the fact that you and I are just not going to see eye to eye on many of things, and I’m OK with that.

Phil, I agree with your interpretation of Rev and Hebrews.

One thing that can’t be stressed enough (especially as Revelation is concerned) is that these are words written to Christians. They are written to the church. Revelation is a beautiful letter of encouragement and reassurance and worship liturgy to enable a minority, persecuted church to be filled with hope that they are indeed on the right course. It is to warn them of certain death if they dabble in the empire. The question of the day was, “So what if I offer just a little bit of offering or incense to the temple gods and godeesses right outside our church doors? I mean, come on. What harm can come of just blending in a little bit?” Whereas Paul takes a more liberal approach to accommodating the culture, John has none of it.

The “wrath” poured out is to show that evil will be judged and defeated and to warn the church of the consequences of getting caught up in it.

RE: “wrath”

Paul C – (With my apologies for going back to the original text, since you prefer sticking to the English w/o viewing the text it was translated from…) Where you are quoting “wrath”, the word used is also synonymous with “indignation”, and is considered to be an extension of justice (not anger), and would not be considered a violent/angry action, but rather a natural consequence (as Phil notes).

Chad – the “wrath” you quote (from the Hebrew) is also translated as “fierceness” and is a derivative of anger (not justice).

This is another case (such as with love, which has 5 Greek words and 3 Hebrew words, which all have different meanings/nuances) where proof-texting can be misleading…

I think (and I’ve not done the full word-study, but rather spot-checked the most commonly used prooftexts) that both the “angry violent God who hates sinners” and the “anti-violent God who wouldn’t destroy anybody” both spring from such mis-application of “wrath” – mistaking the difference between a root of anger and a root of justice.

The word “vengeance” in II Thess. 1 means to punish according to justice. Even if you refine the word “wrath”, the verses in Thess. are explicit in warning of a coming event in which Jesus takes vengeance.

It is not pleasant, but it must be acknowledged. Should part of a preacher’s portfolio include warning people directly about neglecting their souls?

The word “vengeance” in II Thess. 1 means to punish according to justice. Even if you refine the word “wrath”, the verses in Thess. are explicit in warning of a coming event in which Jesus takes vengeance.

It is not pleasant, but it must be acknowledged. Should part of a preacher’s portfolio include warning people directly about neglecting their souls?

I also think regarding 2 Thessalonians, we have to take into account the specific body that Paul was writing to. The church in Thessalonica was facing significant persecution, and it seems to have worsened between the time of the writing of the first and second letters. It doesn’t seem like a stretch to read that passage as Paul saying, “hang in there! God hasn’t forsaken you, and He will deal with those who are persecuting you.” In other words, it’s less of a warning to the sinful and more of an encouragement to the faithful.

I don’t agree with you. I mean, Is 63 simply hasn’t been fulfilled as yet. That is Jesus and it is referencing “the day of the Lord” – the end times. But what about this?

2 Pet 3: But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

He then continues:

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare. (OR “burned up”)

11Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming.

Phil – Even if it is as you say, that still reveals a violent vengeance on someone. That is my point, and although it is uncomfortable to have to defend God’s justice, it still is true. I do not suggest that violence and justice are the main features of God’s charachter, but they are part of it.

I think the issue is not so much the violence itself, but rather what motivates the violence. I think this is an instance where we cannot escape humanizing God in some respects. The problem is for the most we cannot think of someone committing a violent act apart from hatred. The closest thing I can think of where we could is the act of a parent punishing a child. But even then, there are many parents who have crossed the line.

Everything that God does is based in love. It is not as if he is 75% love/25% wrath. So if there is a violent aspect of judgment, that judgment is based in love. It’s simply a hard concept to wrap our heads around.

Now you are doing the EXACT same thing that Neil gently rebuked Eugene for. I would not take that liberty with the scriptures. Paul is being very specific.

What? So paraphrasing Scripture is “taking liberty”. If we don’t take a step back and look at the main ideas and themes portrayed in the books of Scripture, we will miss the forest for the trees. Which is exactly the error I think many of the teachers I grew up around made.

If we don’t know what Scripture was saying to the people it was originally written to, we for sure aren’t going to know what it’s saying to us.

219: Phil, you basically said that 2 Thess was just Paul’s way of encouraging the people. But is MUCH deeper than that. It is prophetic and he is telling the people what will happen. It also coincides nicely with Revelation.

You didn’t paraphrase, you basically gutted what Paul was saying. Yes, he was encouraging and warning them BUT he was being very specific as to what would happen and that Jesus would eventually prevail.

FWIW – this Sunday’s sermon topic at my church is on II Thess 2. I have no idea whatsoever what will be said on the topic, so I’m sure it will be interesting…

Keep in mind the one who comes to Judge in the end is the slaughtered Lamb – the one who has blood on his robe that is not our blood but his own.

Chad – again, I refer you to Isaiah 63 which is also paralleled with Rev 19:

And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

I’m not sure why we’re trying to argue that the God of love is also a God of justice. He will execute judgment and it will not be a pretty sight. But it will also usher in the Kingdom of God upon the earth – forever.

“But it will not be the “wrathful/chaotic” picture painted so often that – to Chad’s point – paints a schizophrenic picture of God.”

That is not the entirety of “Chad’s point”. His theology suggests a final event in which all will be in the presence of Christ with eternal redemption. That may also paint a schizophrenic picture of God.

“But it will not be the “wrathful/chaotic” picture painted so often that – to Chad’s point – paints a schizophrenic picture of God.”

How is this Chad’s point??? No one has been trying to paint a schizo picture of God. If anything, Chad’s view has been completely distorted (again, amazing that this is not picked up on). In his argument: “God NEVER acted in violence.”

Of course, He did. Now those who acknowledge the plain facts are painted as hammering their swords against their shields and baying for blood. Classic.

Chad – again, I refer you to Isaiah 63 which is also paralleled with Rev 19:

John, throughout Rev., uses and adapts OT imagery. If you read Rev. 19 you will note that the battle has not even begun. Yet Jesus is dipped in blood. It is his own blood, the same blood that we are told about in the beginning chapters (see 4-5).

As for the winepress, note the proceeding verse – judgment comes not from a literal sword but from the “word of God.” Just as the world began through words, so too will the world be brought to rights through words.

#231: I don’t believe Jesus will be wielding a sword in a wild frenzy. Yes, the sword is God’s word. The point is that people will be killed, hence the “winepress” reference and also the picture painted in Is 63.

Is the man in Is 63 Jesus, Chad?

Even though the epistles are written to believers/church, some of those truths are to be shared to the world. I would think that the warnings in II Thess. would find some place in preaching from time to time.

They may be encouragement to the church, but they are warnings to the lost.

No, that isn’t really the point. John isn’t trying to paint a picture of God who kills our enemies. He is painting a picture to Christians that they are dealing with serious stuff. Who we call Lord and how we live has serious consequences.

I agree with this. To say that “people will be killed” is the point is to miss the point. The point of apocalyptic literature isn’t that people will be killed or something horrible is going to happen. The point is that Israel (in the OT) or the Church (in the NT) is going to be vindicated and that God is going to be faithful to His promises. The authors of Scripture were less worried about evil as an abstraction, in the sense of “why do bad things happen to good people”, and more concerned about God being faithful to His covenant.

If Israel or the Church was suffering all this stuff, was God being faithful? The biblical authors are again and again reminding the Elect that, “yes, He is. Be patient and persevere, and you will see that God is faithful to His promises.”

237 – Amen.

For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.

3For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

You should really read some accounts of what happened when the temple was destroyed in 70AD. It was, as you say, not pretty. To the average Jew, the destruction of the temple would have been much worse than 9/11 and Pearl Harbor combined. It would have been nearly unthinkable, because this time Yahweh did not pull through for them, and as far they were concerned, He had abandoned them. It was really a watershed moment in history for the Jews.

I emphasize that is not John’s point in his writings, but mine for the purpose of this argument

How does this make any sense? So you admit that John’s point is NOT that people will be killed. Yet you want to make it your point? Why should we care what your point is?

was Isaiah 63 referring to Jesus?

Maybe. But probably not. Does it matter?

If Thess. II is comforting the persecuted believers by revealing thaat Jesus will take vengeance upon them, how does that square with Jesus’ admonition to forgive our enemies and do not return evil for evil?

Good question. Perhaps our understanding of “vengeance” is misplaced? If God commands that we pray for and even love our enemies might that not be some small insight into the way God operates as God? Does God just give us commands to live by which God need not follow?

God will act justly, this we can be sure of. But it will be out of love.

I guess this whole discussion kind of brings up something that I’ve wondered about before.

It seems to me that as Christians something that should a noted difference in our life is grace, and grace, by simplest definition, is not getting what we deserve. I often wonder why so many of us are so concerned about others getting what they deserve.

I’m not saying there’s no place to talk of divine judgment, but far too often I’ve heard Christians talk about with that little bit of glee in their voice. It seems to me our greatest expectation should be that God’s grace be revealed to as many as possible. Yes, we can rest assured that He is a God of justice, but I’m willing to let the details of that up to Him.

I would be happy to. But this is referring to the “day of the Lord” which throughout the OT and NT refers to the FINAL DAY when Messiah returns to establish His kingdom by destroying the kingdoms of this world.

Why does the “final day” have to be a literal period of one-day? It seems that to the Jews living at the time, the destruction of the temple sure fits the description of the “final day”. I believe that the “day of the Lord” is best looked at as not a single day, but rather a progression of events. Certainly when Jesus was saying the Kingdom of God was at hand, near, and something that those who were listening to Him could find then, He wasn’t lying. And His Kingdom does not come by force. It didn’t when He walked the earth, and it won’t in the future.

I would say that we have been living in the “age to come” ever since Jesus first came to earth. It has not been completely revealed, but at some point it will.

Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven”? It is a prayer that God’s kingdom is a future thing

Huh? Where do you get this idea?

This is a prayer that God’s kingdom be a NOW thing. That the in-breaking of God’s sovereign rule happen even today, on earth, just as it is in heaven.

Jesus said, “The Kingdom of God is at hand” not because it is one day coming in its entirety (which it will) but because he was there in their midst.

…and we are suggesting God’s kingdom has come in all its fullness?

Rick,
I don’t think anyone is suggested the kingdom has come in all its fullness.
I believe that the kingdom is here and now every time God’s will is done in me and through me.
It’s an aroma of the coming fulfillment of the kingdom which creates a hunger to see it manifest perfectly when Christ personally returns.

Rick,
I agree that it is a coming event.
Where I disagree is with this statement:

This kingdom will be ushered in by the King of this kingdom…

Jesus, the King of this kingdom, has ushered it in already.

Rick,
We live in the “already/not yet.” Jesus is the first-fruits of the fullness of the Kingdom. Never did I say (nor would I say) that we live in the “fullness” of God’s Kingdom. Yet it is here. Much of the world does not yet acknowledge this fact. Yet they one day will.

Perhaps God’s kingdom is here!

While I realize you are saying this perhaps with a wry smile, the reasons you suggest for why perhaps God’s kingdom is here are not really the reasons. Regardless of the way things look around us, the message of Scripture is that Jesus is Lord, his Kingdom has penetrated space and time, and that all things have been reconciled to God. As for “elevating our role,” I’d say we (the church) has done a terrible disservice by not elevating our role enough. Paul calls us to be ministers of reconciliation in the world in light of what God has done through Christ. He even has the gall to call us “co-workers” with God. I’d say we have a huge role. We don’t live into it enough.

Even our role is Him.

Nathanael – I have reserved my most caustic and virulent verbiage for just an occasion as this. Please make peace with God because the barrage of invectives I will soon send your way will not only render you speechless, it will leave you with no recourse but to end the misery you call your life.

Other than that, peace.

We live in the “already/not yet.”

Ah yes, this is my favorite scripture.

Your poison quill has been tolerated for too long.

You’re joking right Nathanael? Seriously.

Regarding the kingdom, if you believe:

1. Jesus possibly physically returned in AD70 (Chris L)
2. that Rev has fulfilled
3. that Jesus has been coming for 2000 years

THEN, all of your theorizing makes sense.

The reality though, is that right now this earth is in the throes of sin:

The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21that[i] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

22We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

Only when Jesus returns will the curse be lifted and the King will reign physically.

I’m honestly surprised that the whole “already/not yet” thing is getting this much opposition. I’ve pretty always assumed it was standard Christian thought. It’s really one thing that even theologians from widely different schools of thought would agree on.

I’m honestly surprised that the whole “already/not yet” thing is getting this much opposition. I’ve pretty always assumed it was standard Christian thought. It’s really one thing that even theologians from widely different schools of thought would agree on.

ditto.

Neil -

I am sorry for my attitude towards you in some of the previous posts the other day.

If I get some more time today between getting ready for Sunday I’ll respond to some of the items above.

peace.

Thank you Chad!

I too hold to the already/not yet regarding the Kingdom. Which means I can argue with Paul C. against Chad… then with Chad against Paul C. in the same thread.

…“Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven”? It is a prayer that God’s kingdom is a future thing.

I believe this is a present tense prayer. It may be a prayer for his return and final setting of the Kingdom. But it is also a prayer that his kingdom will come in even great measure in the lives of believers – currently.

“But it will not be the “wrathful/chaotic” picture painted so often that – to Chad’s point – paints a schizophrenic picture of God.”

How is this Chad’s point???

I’m not saying that you’ve necessarily painted a “wrathful/chaotic” picture of God – but that this IS a picture that often gets painted in fundamentalist/Calvinist circles (like last year when they had conniption fits over Rob Bell’s “The gods aren’t angry” tour; or when they make statements that PSA is the only viable ‘Christian’ view of atonement)…

Hey guys. Driving right now, but thought I should respond as I sit at the border in line.

I don’t disagree there is a tension regarding the kingdom, and that, like a mustard seed, it will spread.

But there is a physical establishment coming. That’s what the disciples asked before Jesus ascended. “Will you at this time establish the kingdom?”

He didn’t say, “its already here.”

He told them otherwise because He knew what they meant.

I am referring to this same kingdom, and think His prayer also reflects this hope.

Re 274

I can agree with such statements when I know from whence they come. Say, when N. T. Wright talks of our kingdom theology effecting our politics… because he has a strong Christology and an evangelical-like belief in the need for repentance and salvation.

Not knowing Reddish, knowing Duke, hearing you speak about the O. T. – I hope you can understand if I am not so quick to call this brilliant.

If it’s true, it’s true. Doesn’t matter the source.

I agree. My point was not how “true” it is based on the source, my point was how it’s applied, or what it actual means.

For example, someone could make a statement like “God is on the side of love.” Now, depending on what you mean, this could be true… or it might not be.

So it’s not the source to which I refer… it’s the meaning.

Me thinks you might have just been wanting to get a dig in about Duke or myself. How much do you know about either?

Chad, that is not the case, I’m sorry if it came across that way.

I was not dismissing the statement, nor rejecting it nased on the source. But, based on the source (you, and the assumption Redding was assigned or recommended in a Duke Course) I am initially suspicious. I don’t mean this to be “guilt by association,” I mean it to be “caution due to association.”

To pray for the Parousia (presence of God) is to pray for a world of compassion, nonviolence, love, joy and justice…to pray such prayers is a political act on our part, for in so praying we align ourselves against all systems, institutions, people, and worldviews that are opposed to the kingdom of God.

These phrases for example.

On the surface they sound fine. But is Redding meaning that we should support gay marriage as a justice/campassion issue?

When he says “kingdom of God” is he referring to God’s reign that would oppose the killing of unborn humans?

He calls the prayer a political act – which I agree it is… I hope he also (and primarily) sees it as a personally spiritual act.

Neil,
Can you explain to me how it is your don’t sound like an overly-paranoid ODM?

I mean, the only thing different is the names. Replace the names Michael Gorman, Mitchell Reddish and Duke Divinity with Rob Bell, Brian McLaren and Emergent Church and bingo – you have yourself a post on Ken Silva’s site.

I didn’t say you sound like Silva. I said this could be a post on his site.

Why so evasive? It seems every time I ask you to explain something or ask you some questions that you don’t want to answer you resort to this. I don’t get it.

I point out that you are sounding rather paranoid. Am I not aloud to make such an observation? I also point out the obvious – change the names and this sounds like an argument ODM’s would have. I’m sorry if you don’t like it when I point out things about your comments that seem odd. Feel free to further explain yourself rather than hiding behind a “well, if you don’t see it then I’m not explaining” argument.

And for the 3rd time, what do you know about Duke?

And Neil, yeah, you are sounding like Ken and every other ODM when you make an argument of guilt (or if you rather call it, suspicion) by association. Our big beef with Ken et.al. is they play the GBA game and much more about people they obviously know little if anything about. PB for instance is always making judgment calls about Rob Bell when it is obvious he’s never heard any of his sermons or really took time to listen to him.

So since you wish to play the GBA or SBA (suspicion by assoc) game, I would love to know how much you know about Duke, myself or Michael Gorman. What reason do you have to be cautious when the statement in question (#274) is obviously true by your own admission?

Why so evasive? It seems every time I ask you to explain something or ask you some questions that you don’t want to answer you resort to this. I don’t get it.

Not evasive – I just did not answer… refusal is different than evasion. I explained what I meant and did not address the other. Evasion is a different tactic and I DO NOT evade.

Every time? – I addressed your questions above.

You continue to have a problem with accuracy. I have had enough of this for now.

Here is a example from your side. I asked you repeatedly if you are young. You refused to answer. Did I accuse you of being evasive? No, because you were not being evasive – you were refusing to answer.

See the difference?

Neil,
I didn’t answer the age question because it is baseless and has no bearing on this or any discussion. I’m not asking how old you are now simply because you are acting like a child.

Now, if you are true to your MO, you will declare I am being condescending towards you and refuse to engage me any longer. Why? All because I have questioned you sincerely.

And you have yet to share with us what you know of Duke to make you so cautious. Or Michael Gorman.

Chad,

I am sorry I have offended you so. Obviously the issue regarding Duke has become a great distraction and your hostility has once again taken over – first you deny you said I sound like Ken, then you say I sound like Ken, you call me childish, eyou accuse me of being evasive…

I have answered your questions all – except the one regarding Duke.

I have not been evasive on any.

And you are correct, I do not see any point in continuing this when caution is tantamount to guilt and you are unwilling to treat me civil.

Good night, Neil. Your games are so very tiring.

Ouch. Caught in misinformation.

#304 – This is what passes for an apology in some circles.

I made it a couple of chapters into Velvet Elvis (heresy)

No heresy.

#307..

Sorry Neil, if you do not see it. I did. Very clearly. Many others do. And if you didn’t see it then, Just listen to this last PPP in Grand Rapids. Lots of Heresy there. TONS.

Your games are so very tiring.

What games, Chad?

I answered your questions all – save one.
I explained why my cautions.
I explained the difference between caution and guilt… well, OK – I didn’t explain the difference, I assumed it was understood – I was careful to say it was caution not dismissive guilt.
I apologized for offending you.

What games, Chad?

I tried, oh I tried to read Bell with an open mind. I got stoned with all his word drugs

It’s comments like this that I find absolutely mind-boggling.

Pastorboy,

I wish we could have a real dialogue – I truly do. But… well… I don’t know… your comments, your view of the faith, your logic… they (at the risk of being redundant) boggle the mind.

I should probably just give up.

313
I think Bell speaks in a psycadelic language that boggles the mind. I know, you will just say I am far to literal, to modern-minded to get it. But it borders on heresy if it is not. It certainly should not be reading for those who desire to find out about biblical, historical Christianity. It should be read with an open Bible readily available by even the most seasoned theological mind.

For all the post modern philosophers out there, I am sure it makes perfect sense.

I think Bell speaks in a psycadelic(sic) language that boggles the mind.

Just judging from your interactions on the blogosphere (and even your literacy demonstrated in this thread), I would humbly suggest that perhaps the “boggling” of the mind is not the fault of Bell in your case.

While I don’t claim to be a genius, I usually track with exactly what Bell is saying, and I have always appreciated that he doesn’t lapse into “Christianese”, and that he doesn’t speak to the lowest common denominator in the room – instead, choosing to speak to people as if they have some level of intelligence.

I made it a couple of chapters into Velvet Elvis (heresy) and a little into sexgod (worse heresy) before I tossed them both aside as ludicris. (sic)

Heresy?

To quote the immortal Inigo Montoya, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

In fact, I’m pretty sure you have no clue what it means. Just from this snippet it is rather evident – of Bell’s three books, Sex God was by far the least controversial, and (other than fringe kooks who have a problem with the concept of man being created in the image of God) I’m unaware of anyone complaining of “heresy” in it (by any definition).

But that’s just a single example of your ludicrous invectives and baseless slander of Bell…

Neil gets at this rather succinctly:

I think you cannot read Bell will any benefit of the doubt. Past discussion have proven that he is guilty from the start and you just look for things to fault – sometimes real, often fabricated, but never gracious.

Shees you guys have a lot to say. My internet connection at home is not working so I only have access from the office where I can’t spend much time on the internet.

Niel, I’ll will get back to you on comments #190-194 asap. Please don’t think I ran away

Neil-
I really have no idea why you get so bent out of shape when I ask some honest questions.

I was not trying to insult you in any way. I was curious (and said as much) about why you were being so cautious and asking an honest question about how that seems to mirror the methods of ODM’s. That is an honest observation on my part, one you are welcome to refute. ODM’s are suspicious of anything that comes from sources they tend to know little about. Thus the reason I asked you what you know about Duke or Michael Gorman or Mitchell Reddish. You have not answered any of those questions (just like the ODM’s tend to do).

I really wish you could have a conversation without getting your feelings hurt so easily and walking away, trying to make me look like the bad guy for asking questions.

John,
I said this yesterday, but feel the need to repeat it.
You are pulling one message out of the context of Shane Hipps body of work, including his session on Monday. In view of his larger body of work, and because his teaching did not violate scripture, your reaction to his unfolding how our physical being is directly tied to our spiritual being is overblown.

Chris L.,

I came in this morning planning on responding to Pastorboy with the Indigo Montoya quote regarding heresy.

Pastorboy,

Heresy is denying the deity and ternality of Jesus – like Arianism.

Heresy is denying the Trinity or humanity of Jesus like Dynamic Monarchism or Patripassionism.

Heresy is deny the atonement – not just questioning one theory of its mechanism.

You may disagree with Bell. But to call his books heresy is to misuse the word.

“Heresy is denying the Trinity or humanity of Jesus like Dynamic Monarchism or Patripassionism.”

I do not consider the Trinity a salvation deal breaker. (Paul C. denies the Trinity. Also, I question whether Jesus had a human nature.

Discuss.

Discuss.

With the exception of baptismal regeneration references and “descended into Hell” I think the Apostles and Nicene Creeds are pretty foundational.

Cast aside Bell for a second, because you all are blinded or enthralled by him and cannot see his clear departures from the scriptures and doctrine to have a reasonable discussion. – PB

The irony of some comments make me laugh out loud.

you said I am evasive

Which you are. I have asked you numerous times to explain what your knowledge is of the people and institutions you are suspicious and cautious of. You have ignored all attempts to talk rationally about this.

Exactly. I did not evade the question. I just did not answer it.

Do you believe Paul is saved since he denies the deity (or personhood) of the Holy Spirit. And since I view the human nature of Christ as “the jury’s still out”?

I would not say you are not saved if you deny these things. I answered as if you as if you asked “Do you believe Paul is not saved…” – since that narrows the question to one I can answer.

you said I sound like Ken Silva

In this instance you do. I’ve given you plenty of opportunity to show otherwise.

cf. 330

Chad – for the record, though I strongly disagree with your theology, especially the universal view, I believe you to be a brother in Christ.

A little slippery and a little prickley sometimes, but a brother nonetheless.

I asked you 3 times about your age. You chose not to answer because it is irrelevant. I honored you refusal and never said you were evading.

Apples and oranges. My age IS irrelevant to the discussion. You could very well have called me evasive for not answering you. At which point I would have told you I am ignoring you because it’s irrelevant to the discussion.

You claim you are suspicious of Duke or teachers who work there. Therefore, my question, “What do you know of Duke?” is very relevant.

Neil,
If PB said he is cautious and suspicious of Rob Bell you would ask him what he knows about Rob Bell that makes him so suspicious, would you not? And what would you say of PB if he continued to avoid answering you? What conclusions might you draw?

Do you see now why I point out the similarities between you and an ODM in this instance?

I am very suspicious of the teachers at Duke even though I know nothing about them.