Chris Rosebrough, on his podcast Fighting for the Faith, examines a sermon by Mike Bickle of the International House of Prayer in Kansas City (IHOP-KC). It begins after the break midway through at the one-hour, six-minute mark. Chris reviews Bickle's abuse of scripture and general strange teachings. The link to the individual podcast is below:
Fighting for the Faith: Bill Johnson Mangles God's Word Even More
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
The "You're a Man" Fallacy
In abortion argumentation, a common attack against critics who are male is, "You're a man, you can't get pregnant, so you don't have a right to talk about it." Let's take a moment just to review why this argument simply doesn't work.
1) It's an ad hominem, plain and simple.
An ad hominem is often believed to just be an insult (like "You're stupid!"), but actually the Latin phrase itself means against the man. It refers to an argument that attacks a personal trait of someone giving the argument, rather than the argument itself. In this case, the response is not to the argument the man is making, merely the fact he is a man. It is therefore, at its very nature, a fallacious argument.
Let me put it this way: suppose I had a physical, and the female doctor inspecting me told me that it seemed I had testicular cancer, and that I should get treated or I might lose them. Would it make any sense to tell her, "Don't tell me what to do! You're a woman, you don't know what it's like to have testicles!" Of course not. I'm not responding to her arguments or any of her points - I'm just stating that she's a woman, as if that ends all discussion or completely negates what she just said.
2) It's inconsistent with other argumentation.
If a white person said, "I think the Jim Crow laws were wrong," would anyone stand up and say, "You can't comment! You're white!" Probably not. Likewise, one has to wonder if in a scenario a man supported abortion, how many pro-abortion people would jump up and say, "You can't say you support abortion! You're a man!" Probably none. Yet if you're going to make a kind of argumentation about one subject, you have to be consistent across the board.
The presents a good reason why this form of ad hominem is so fallacious: a moral or ethical question is not bound by the personal traits of the person giving it. A person does not have to be Jewish to say the Holocaust was wrong. A person does not have to be black to say the Jim Crow laws were wrong. A person does not have to have to be a kid to know child abuse is wrong. A person does not have to have lived under a dictator to know tyranny is wrong. Likewise, a person does not have to be a woman to say abortion is wrong.
3) It's not carried to its logical conclusion.
Let's say, for the sake of argumentation, that a man can't comment on abortion because he's a man and can never be pregnant. Who, then, can? If we say those who can get pregnant (ie., women), let's take that a step further. A woman who has never been pregnant could not comment, because she has not shared in all the emotional and physical experiences that come with that, therefore women who have never been pregnant cannot comment. Furthermore, a woman who was pregnant and had an abortion did not experience childbirth and all the positives and negatives that went with it, therefore she cannot give a valid opinion based on experiences. Even then, one would have to go through child rearing, raising a child through infancy, the teenage years, and through college to see if any one can go through that. Therefore, the only people who can ever comment on abortion are women who have had actual pregnancies, given birth to children and then raised those children through adulthood. That would not only take out a good chunk of pro-life advocates, but a good number of pro-abortion advocates as well. Sadly, I don't think many pro-abortion advocates would follow this logic quite this far.
1) It's an ad hominem, plain and simple.
An ad hominem is often believed to just be an insult (like "You're stupid!"), but actually the Latin phrase itself means against the man. It refers to an argument that attacks a personal trait of someone giving the argument, rather than the argument itself. In this case, the response is not to the argument the man is making, merely the fact he is a man. It is therefore, at its very nature, a fallacious argument.
Let me put it this way: suppose I had a physical, and the female doctor inspecting me told me that it seemed I had testicular cancer, and that I should get treated or I might lose them. Would it make any sense to tell her, "Don't tell me what to do! You're a woman, you don't know what it's like to have testicles!" Of course not. I'm not responding to her arguments or any of her points - I'm just stating that she's a woman, as if that ends all discussion or completely negates what she just said.
2) It's inconsistent with other argumentation.
If a white person said, "I think the Jim Crow laws were wrong," would anyone stand up and say, "You can't comment! You're white!" Probably not. Likewise, one has to wonder if in a scenario a man supported abortion, how many pro-abortion people would jump up and say, "You can't say you support abortion! You're a man!" Probably none. Yet if you're going to make a kind of argumentation about one subject, you have to be consistent across the board.
The presents a good reason why this form of ad hominem is so fallacious: a moral or ethical question is not bound by the personal traits of the person giving it. A person does not have to be Jewish to say the Holocaust was wrong. A person does not have to be black to say the Jim Crow laws were wrong. A person does not have to have to be a kid to know child abuse is wrong. A person does not have to have lived under a dictator to know tyranny is wrong. Likewise, a person does not have to be a woman to say abortion is wrong.
3) It's not carried to its logical conclusion.
Let's say, for the sake of argumentation, that a man can't comment on abortion because he's a man and can never be pregnant. Who, then, can? If we say those who can get pregnant (ie., women), let's take that a step further. A woman who has never been pregnant could not comment, because she has not shared in all the emotional and physical experiences that come with that, therefore women who have never been pregnant cannot comment. Furthermore, a woman who was pregnant and had an abortion did not experience childbirth and all the positives and negatives that went with it, therefore she cannot give a valid opinion based on experiences. Even then, one would have to go through child rearing, raising a child through infancy, the teenage years, and through college to see if any one can go through that. Therefore, the only people who can ever comment on abortion are women who have had actual pregnancies, given birth to children and then raised those children through adulthood. That would not only take out a good chunk of pro-life advocates, but a good number of pro-abortion advocates as well. Sadly, I don't think many pro-abortion advocates would follow this logic quite this far.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
The Day After
A good Lord's Day to all my readers. As you may well be aware, today is May 22, and clearly the rapture expected by Harold Camping and his followers did not happen on May 21.
One thing that shocked me was just how prolific the knowledge of this became. Obviously it was covered by local and national news, and when something goes viral on the internet it can't be stopped. Perhaps what surprised me the most was how often I saw it on Facebook, and from friends I never even considered all that religious. Every other status or post was about the May 21 prediction and the end of the world. Most of it - nay, the vast majority of it - was done in jest. Even Christian friends of mine were making cracks at it. People joked about being raptured, others joked about meeting God, others just made general statements about how nothing had happened.
I've been thinking on this for some time, and I've begun to realize that this is a lot more serious than many of us realize. While I have been making jokes about it myself, in the past week I've tried to make an effort not to post anything publicly that would be mocking it or treating it as a joke. Because let's face it...it's not a joke. I don't mean by this that it's true or has any merit, but rather that this is not from a TV show or movie, but a real belief held by real people. Harold Camping is a real false teacher who has real followers who sincerely believe that they were to be raptured up on May 21. His followers have made radical life decisions (sold cars, quit jobs, etc.) over this. Many even considered suicide for fear that they wouldn't escape the judgment that would occur. This is hardly something to truly laugh about.
I am certainly not implying nothing should be said of Harold Camping ever again. I am not implying we take the attitude of "no harm, no foul." If anything, true believers should go on the attack in the weeks to follow, making sure that Camping cannot get out of this like he did the 1994 prediction. We should expose his teachings in the hopes of preventing anyone else being deceived. We need to also be on the lookout for movements or beliefs that may come from this folly, or may try to imitate this in order to receive money or followers.
However, the joking and humor directed at the false prediction cannot help but be noticed to have been general mockery now of future judgment. The biggest fear I have is that this will be used by the devil to make people laugh at the very notion of future judgment, and thus never seek their only Savior. Why look for He who can rescue you if you don't need rescuing?
Christ never spoke of what time He would return - but He always spoke in such language that we should expect it to be now. "Be on the alert then," He told the disciples, "for you do not know the day nor the hour" (Matt 25:13). Therefore we "must be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will" (Matt 24:44). Our Lord likewise said: "Behold, I stand at the door and knock" (Rev 3:20). This can all come in either one of two ways: 1) by Christ's literal return, upon which all men will be judged; 2) by our death, in which the Lord, for His purpose, cuts off our life and we wait for judgment. All men will be judged for what they do in their life, in which they reap what will be sown. Judas had every chance to repent up to the moment he placed the noose around his neck. Herod had every chance to repent right up to the minute he declared to all that he was like a god. Yet they did nothing of the sort, and now they are awaiting judgment when the Lamb of God will, for them, become the Lion of Judah.
If you were a victim of Harold Camping's false teachings, let me assure you that this was not what Christ truly taught. Camping was a false teacher, and the false nature of his prophesy has proven true. However, I assure you that this is not the end all. We are not saved by the teachings of Camping - we are saved by Christ, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and is our Mediator to the Father. Through faith in Him we are reconciled to God by His cross, and the wall of hostility is torn down. Christ has never gone back on His word, He never abandons His people, and what He says are true words. I invite you to take this chance to come to know the true Christ, who will not endow you with a secret knowledge of when He will come back, but will endow you with life eternal, so that you may become sons through adoption.
If you weren't a victim of Harold Camping, but have yet to confess Christ, I likewise invite you to come to know the truth. Harold Camping was not a Christian, and his teachings were far removed from anything that could resemble orthodox Christianity. That Christ did not come on May 21 does not mean He will never return. Error does not imply the lack of truth. Christ could come at any moment, and when He does, there will be a reckoning. Everyone will be held accountable for their sins. Anyone whose sins have not been blotted over by the blood of the Lamb will be judged righteously for their deeds. All men are guilty of their sins, and all are without excuse. However, what we could not do God did, by sending His Son to live the perfect life and offer Himself as the perfect sacrifice for the atonement of our sins. In Him we have life, and He gives it abundantly. I invite you to ponder this in your hearts, and I pray that the Spirit will drive you to do further research, and to seek after He who does not lie, but is the very incarnation of Truth.
God bless.
One thing that shocked me was just how prolific the knowledge of this became. Obviously it was covered by local and national news, and when something goes viral on the internet it can't be stopped. Perhaps what surprised me the most was how often I saw it on Facebook, and from friends I never even considered all that religious. Every other status or post was about the May 21 prediction and the end of the world. Most of it - nay, the vast majority of it - was done in jest. Even Christian friends of mine were making cracks at it. People joked about being raptured, others joked about meeting God, others just made general statements about how nothing had happened.
I've been thinking on this for some time, and I've begun to realize that this is a lot more serious than many of us realize. While I have been making jokes about it myself, in the past week I've tried to make an effort not to post anything publicly that would be mocking it or treating it as a joke. Because let's face it...it's not a joke. I don't mean by this that it's true or has any merit, but rather that this is not from a TV show or movie, but a real belief held by real people. Harold Camping is a real false teacher who has real followers who sincerely believe that they were to be raptured up on May 21. His followers have made radical life decisions (sold cars, quit jobs, etc.) over this. Many even considered suicide for fear that they wouldn't escape the judgment that would occur. This is hardly something to truly laugh about.
I am certainly not implying nothing should be said of Harold Camping ever again. I am not implying we take the attitude of "no harm, no foul." If anything, true believers should go on the attack in the weeks to follow, making sure that Camping cannot get out of this like he did the 1994 prediction. We should expose his teachings in the hopes of preventing anyone else being deceived. We need to also be on the lookout for movements or beliefs that may come from this folly, or may try to imitate this in order to receive money or followers.
However, the joking and humor directed at the false prediction cannot help but be noticed to have been general mockery now of future judgment. The biggest fear I have is that this will be used by the devil to make people laugh at the very notion of future judgment, and thus never seek their only Savior. Why look for He who can rescue you if you don't need rescuing?
Christ never spoke of what time He would return - but He always spoke in such language that we should expect it to be now. "Be on the alert then," He told the disciples, "for you do not know the day nor the hour" (Matt 25:13). Therefore we "must be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will" (Matt 24:44). Our Lord likewise said: "Behold, I stand at the door and knock" (Rev 3:20). This can all come in either one of two ways: 1) by Christ's literal return, upon which all men will be judged; 2) by our death, in which the Lord, for His purpose, cuts off our life and we wait for judgment. All men will be judged for what they do in their life, in which they reap what will be sown. Judas had every chance to repent up to the moment he placed the noose around his neck. Herod had every chance to repent right up to the minute he declared to all that he was like a god. Yet they did nothing of the sort, and now they are awaiting judgment when the Lamb of God will, for them, become the Lion of Judah.
If you were a victim of Harold Camping's false teachings, let me assure you that this was not what Christ truly taught. Camping was a false teacher, and the false nature of his prophesy has proven true. However, I assure you that this is not the end all. We are not saved by the teachings of Camping - we are saved by Christ, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and is our Mediator to the Father. Through faith in Him we are reconciled to God by His cross, and the wall of hostility is torn down. Christ has never gone back on His word, He never abandons His people, and what He says are true words. I invite you to take this chance to come to know the true Christ, who will not endow you with a secret knowledge of when He will come back, but will endow you with life eternal, so that you may become sons through adoption.
If you weren't a victim of Harold Camping, but have yet to confess Christ, I likewise invite you to come to know the truth. Harold Camping was not a Christian, and his teachings were far removed from anything that could resemble orthodox Christianity. That Christ did not come on May 21 does not mean He will never return. Error does not imply the lack of truth. Christ could come at any moment, and when He does, there will be a reckoning. Everyone will be held accountable for their sins. Anyone whose sins have not been blotted over by the blood of the Lamb will be judged righteously for their deeds. All men are guilty of their sins, and all are without excuse. However, what we could not do God did, by sending His Son to live the perfect life and offer Himself as the perfect sacrifice for the atonement of our sins. In Him we have life, and He gives it abundantly. I invite you to ponder this in your hearts, and I pray that the Spirit will drive you to do further research, and to seek after He who does not lie, but is the very incarnation of Truth.
God bless.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Meditations on Edwards
It's always humbling to see that someone who lived nearly 260 years before you was writing on the same things you were meditating on. That's how I felt after spending sometime on a post regarding postmodern religious thinking, and at the same time started studying Jonathan Edwards's discourse Men Naturally Are God's Enemies (source). It's amazing how things never really change over time in regards to the hearts of men and the fallen concept of God.
Regarding the worship of idols other than God:
Regarding the worship of idols other than God:
Man will necessarily have something that he respects as his god. If man do not give his highest respect to the God that made him, there will be something else that has the possession of it. Men will either worship the true God, or some idol: it is impossible it should be otherwise: something will have the heart of man. And that which a man gives his heart to, may be called his god: and therefore when man by the fall extinguished all love to the true God, he set up the creature in his room. For having lost his esteem and love of the true God, and set up other gods in his room, and in opposition to him; and God still demanding their worship, and opposing them; enmity necessarily follows.Regarding man's hatred of God's Law:
The strictness of God’s law is a principal cause of man’s enmity against God. If God were one that did not so much hate sin; if he would allow them in the gratification of their lusts in some degree, and his threatenings were not so awful against all criminal indulgence; if his threatenings were not so absolute; if his displeasure could be appeased by a few tears, a little reformation, or the like; they would not be so great enemies, nor hate him so much as they do. But God shows himself to be an implacable enemy to their idols, and has threatened everlasting wrath, infinite calamity, for all that they do in the service of their lusts; and this makes them irreconcilable enemies to him.Regarding unbelievers who do not see themselves as literal enemies of God:
Natural men do not generally conceive themselves to be so bad; they have not this notion of themselves, that they are enemies to God. And therefore when they hear such doctrine as this taught them, they stand ready to make objections. Some may be ready to say, “I do not know, I am not sensible, that I hate God, and have a mortal enmity against him. I feel no such thing in myself, and if I have such enmity, why do not I feel it? If I am a mortal enemy, why should not I know it better than any body else? How can others see what is in my heart better than I myself? If I hate one of my fellow-creatures, I can feel it inwardly working.” To such an objection I would answer,Regarding the supposedly "religious" who believe they are not God's enemies.
If you do but observe yourself, and search your own heart, unless you are strangely blinded, you may be sensible of those things, wherein enmity does fundamentally consist. Particularly, you may be sensible that you have at least had a low and contemptible estimation of God; and that, in your esteem, you set the trifles and vanities of this world far above him; so as to regard the enjoyment of these things far before the enjoyment of God, and to value these things better than his love.—And you may be sensible that you despise the authority of God, and value his commands and his honour but very little. Or if by some means you have blinded yourself, so as to think you do regard them now, doubtless you can look back and see that you have not regarded them.
That much of that seeming respect which natural men show to God, is owing to their education. They have been taught from their infancy that they ought to show great respect to God. They have been taught to use respectful language, when speaking about God, and to behave with solemnity, when attending on those exercises of religion, wherein they have to do with him. From their childhood, they have seen that this is the manner of others, when they pray to God, to use reverential expressions, and a reverential behaviour before him.And again:
Those who are brought up in places where they have, commonly from their infancy, heard men take the name of God in vain, and swear and curse, and blaspheme; they learn to do the same; and it becomes habitual to them. And it is the same way, and no other, that you have learned to behave respectfully towards God: not that you have any more respect to God than they; but they have been brought up one way, and you another. In some parts of the world, men are brought up in the worship of idols of silver, and gold, and wood, and stone, made in the shape of men and beast. “They say of them, Let the men that sacrifice, kiss the calf.” Hos. xiii. 2. In some parts of the world, they are brought up to worship serpents, and are taught from their infancy to show great respect to them. And in some places, they are brought up in worshipping the devil, who appears to them in a bodily shape; and to behave with a show of great reverence and honour towards him. And what respect you show to God has no better foundation; it comes the same way, and is worth no more.
That show of respect which you make is forced. You come to God, and make a great show of respect to him, and use very respectful terms, with a reverential tone and manner of speaking; and your countenance is grave and solemn: you put on an humble aspect; and use humble, respectful postures, out of fear. You are afraid that God will execute his wrath upon you, and so you feign a great deal of respect, that he may not be angry with you. “Through the greatness of thy power shall thine enemies submit themselves unto thee.” Psal. lxvi. 3. In the original it is, shall thine enemies lie to thee. It is rendered therefore in the margin, shall yield feigned obedience to thee. All that you do in religion is forced and feigned. Through the greatness of God’s power, you yield feigned obedience. You are in God’s power, and he is able to destroy you; and so you feign a great deal of respect to him, that he might not destroy you. As one might do towards an enemy that had taken him captive, though he at the same time would gladly make his escape, if he could, by taking away the life of him who had taken him captive.
The affections of natural men often arise from wrong notions they have of God. They conceive of God after the manner they do of men, as though he were a being liable to be wrought upon in his affections. They conceive of him as one whose heart could be drawn, whose affections can be overcome, by what he sees in them. They conceive of him as being taken with them, and their performances; and this works on their affections; and thus one tear draws another, and their affections increase by reflection. And oftentimes they conceive of God as one” that loves them, and is a friend to them: and such a mistake may work much on their affections. But such affections that arise towards God, as they conceit him to be, is no argument that they have not the same implacable hatred towards God, considered as he really is. There is no concluding that men are not enemies, because they are affected and shed tears in their prayers, and the like. Saul was very much affected when David expostulated with him about pursuing after him, and seeking to kill him. David’s words wrought exceedingly upon Saul’s affections. “And it came to pass when David had made an end of speaking these words unto Saul, that Saul said, Is this thy voice, my son David? and Saul lift up his voice and wept.” 1 Sam. xxiv. 16. chap. xxvi. 1,. &c. He was so affected that he wept aloud, and called David his son, though he was but just before seeking his life. But this affection of Saul was no argument that he did not still continue in his enmity against David. He was David’s mortal enemy before, and sought his life; and so he did afterwards, it was but a pang: his enmity was not mortified or done away. The next news we hear of Saul is, that he was pursuing David, and seeking his life again.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Todd Friel, Evangelism and Lady Gaga
Todd Friel presents an interesting scenario:
I wanted to bang my head on a hard surface over the way the street preacher was speaking to Lady Gaga. Referring to her as "darling," going on about her "pervert ways" and "homo stuff," his general sarcasm...I'm sure the video edited out a lot of what he said, but just that little bit was embarrassing enough. As I said in another post about this kind of open air evangelism, how careful we have to be lest we invent the scenario where "the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you" (Rom 2:24).
As Todd Friel says in the video, context is everything. Judgment with no Law is simply empty Judgment. This is why so many universalists such as Rob Bell get away with their theology: they attack concepts of Judgment because there is an absence of Law. In proper self examination, Law presents to us the knowledge of our sin - as Paul wrote: "I would not have come to know sin except through the Law" (Rom 7:7). From this knowledge of sin from Law comes out acknowledgement of the righteousness of God's Judgment on mankind - as David wrote: "Against you, you only, have I sinned, and done what is evil in your sight, so that you are justified when you speak and blameless when you judge" (Psalm 51:4). It is then that the mercy of God's Grace is realized upon us - as Paul again wrote: "Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies" (Rom 8:33).
Our goal should be sharing the mercy of Christ upon the sinner. Yes, that does mean identifying a person as a sinner, but that should not be the end of our efforts. If it is, then we are no better than the Pharisees.
"Let's say you're doing open air preaching...and up comes Lady Gaga!"
I wanted to bang my head on a hard surface over the way the street preacher was speaking to Lady Gaga. Referring to her as "darling," going on about her "pervert ways" and "homo stuff," his general sarcasm...I'm sure the video edited out a lot of what he said, but just that little bit was embarrassing enough. As I said in another post about this kind of open air evangelism, how careful we have to be lest we invent the scenario where "the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you" (Rom 2:24).
As Todd Friel says in the video, context is everything. Judgment with no Law is simply empty Judgment. This is why so many universalists such as Rob Bell get away with their theology: they attack concepts of Judgment because there is an absence of Law. In proper self examination, Law presents to us the knowledge of our sin - as Paul wrote: "I would not have come to know sin except through the Law" (Rom 7:7). From this knowledge of sin from Law comes out acknowledgement of the righteousness of God's Judgment on mankind - as David wrote: "Against you, you only, have I sinned, and done what is evil in your sight, so that you are justified when you speak and blameless when you judge" (Psalm 51:4). It is then that the mercy of God's Grace is realized upon us - as Paul again wrote: "Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies" (Rom 8:33).
Our goal should be sharing the mercy of Christ upon the sinner. Yes, that does mean identifying a person as a sinner, but that should not be the end of our efforts. If it is, then we are no better than the Pharisees.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Some of the worst arguments against the Bible
The following is just a meditation on things I've heard in the past few months. I'd been joking over them with some friends, and thought it worth sharing.
Yes, people have actually used this argument. It's fallacious for a few reasons:
For one, the Bible itself is not necessarily an old book, but a collection of old books, some older than others.
For another, the very idea that the accuracy of a book is negated by its age is quite obviously fallacious. Should an astronomer be banned from ever quoting the works of Isaac Newton because they're old books? Should a literature major be banned from quoting the works of Chekhov because they are all old books?
Furthermore, if what a book teaches is negated for being old, then how old would a book have to be in order to be considered irrelevant? Fifty years? A hundred years? A thousand years? A million years? At what point can we consistently say a book is no longer relevant based solely on the fact it's "old"? Is this something which can truly be measured by age? Again, this argumentation is clearly fallacious.
Yes, sadly, I have also had this thrown at me as a reason to reject the teachings of the Bible.
Let's ponder on just how fallacious this thinking is: does the state of death of an author negate everything he has ever written? Should we throw out the teachings of Galileo, Isaac Newton, or Albert Einstein solely on the fact that the men themselves are dead? Let me put it this way: if a local meteorologist reports that Monday's high was in the 70's, then the next day he passes away...does that make it untrue that Monday's high was in the 70's? Does a fact automatically become untrue simply because the person who stated it has died? Of course not. Again, obviously fallacious.
This is actually a common argument by some against the Bible: either that it was written by men, or that it was written by fallible men. Unfortunately for them, most Christians are already aware of this. Read the book of Jeremiah and see why Jeremiah was known as the "weeping prophet." Read the psalms and tell me the psalmist wasn't like any other person who's ever lived.
The fact is, it is not the men themselves that make the words of scripture infallible - it is the source of their words and teachings, which is the Lord our God.
I think these people need to study the difference between translation and manuscript history. A translation is merely taking a text and rewriting it into another language, whereas transcription is the copying of a text for use.
Let me put it this way: John 1:1 reads in the original language:
If someone wishes to argue manuscript history and how the various books of the Bible have been copied by scribes down throughout history, that is one thing. If they want to say we shouldn't believe the Bible because of so many translations...well, that thinking is fallacious to begin with.
"It's an old book!"
Yes, people have actually used this argument. It's fallacious for a few reasons:
For one, the Bible itself is not necessarily an old book, but a collection of old books, some older than others.
For another, the very idea that the accuracy of a book is negated by its age is quite obviously fallacious. Should an astronomer be banned from ever quoting the works of Isaac Newton because they're old books? Should a literature major be banned from quoting the works of Chekhov because they are all old books?
Furthermore, if what a book teaches is negated for being old, then how old would a book have to be in order to be considered irrelevant? Fifty years? A hundred years? A thousand years? A million years? At what point can we consistently say a book is no longer relevant based solely on the fact it's "old"? Is this something which can truly be measured by age? Again, this argumentation is clearly fallacious.
"It's written by dead men!"
Yes, sadly, I have also had this thrown at me as a reason to reject the teachings of the Bible.
Let's ponder on just how fallacious this thinking is: does the state of death of an author negate everything he has ever written? Should we throw out the teachings of Galileo, Isaac Newton, or Albert Einstein solely on the fact that the men themselves are dead? Let me put it this way: if a local meteorologist reports that Monday's high was in the 70's, then the next day he passes away...does that make it untrue that Monday's high was in the 70's? Does a fact automatically become untrue simply because the person who stated it has died? Of course not. Again, obviously fallacious.
"It was written by fallible men!"
This is actually a common argument by some against the Bible: either that it was written by men, or that it was written by fallible men. Unfortunately for them, most Christians are already aware of this. Read the book of Jeremiah and see why Jeremiah was known as the "weeping prophet." Read the psalms and tell me the psalmist wasn't like any other person who's ever lived.
The fact is, it is not the men themselves that make the words of scripture infallible - it is the source of their words and teachings, which is the Lord our God.
"It's been translated so many times! It has to have error!"
I think these people need to study the difference between translation and manuscript history. A translation is merely taking a text and rewriting it into another language, whereas transcription is the copying of a text for use.
Let me put it this way: John 1:1 reads in the original language:
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.It has been translated in various ways in the English, but in all ways (save for the Jehovah's Witness's NWT) it means the same thing. It has likewise been translated every which way in every which language, but still maintains the same meaning. Even if it were mistranslated or the original context had to be explained to someone, the original language would be the same. To put it another way, if I wrote the sentence "I went shopping," the original context and wording of that sentence would remain the same no matter how many times it was translated.
If someone wishes to argue manuscript history and how the various books of the Bible have been copied by scribes down throughout history, that is one thing. If they want to say we shouldn't believe the Bible because of so many translations...well, that thinking is fallacious to begin with.
Friday, May 13, 2011
A Simple Review of "The Cross and the Switchblade" (Film)
Some time ago, David Wilkerson died in a car accident in Texas. A movie about his early efforts to begin a ministry aimed towards inner-city youth is the 1970 film The Cross and the Switchblade, with Pat Boone playing the role of Wilkerson. It is based off the famous 1963 book by the same name and written by Wilkerson himself, recounting his trips to New York City and his efforts to reach the youth there. The film doesn't give much back story to Wilkerson's own life, and leaves out some details in the book that build up to his being there. Aside from the fact that his character states that he's a pastor from a small church in Pennsylvania and has a pregnant wife, you don't know much outside of what you see of him. The only motive provided for his being in New York City is explained as a sense that God was calling Him there.
This is perhaps one of the only major flaws of the film that I wish had been more greatly fleshed out. The book goes into great detail on the many reasons Wilkerson decided to leave Pennsylvania and go to New York, as well as his background in a long line of Pentecostal preachers. It's almost worth reading the book simply to have all this background information handy before watching the film. In fact, if the book is used at all in regards to Wilkerson's life and ministry, it might be best used as an introduction (especially since only half of the book is covered in the movie).
The opening of the film has the producer saying that, although the events may seem unreal, they did indeed happen. You realize how important this message might have been as you see Wilkerson go to work. Almost ten minutes into the movie this white man in a nice suit is taken to a New York City slum where he looks the leaders of two rival gangs (one Hispanic, one black) and says, "God loves you." It's surreal. To explain this further, imagine if a character from The Office walked right onto the set of West Side Story and started telling the Jets and Sharks about God. Although this isn't exactly how it happened (the first thirty minutes of the movie, which takes place within 48 hours, are a conglomeration of events that happened over the span of a few weeks in the book), it does capture how soon Wilkerson went to work, and how readily he was able to meet with gang members and leaders alike.
Let me take a brief moment to be honest about something here: I am not a huge fan of "Christian movies." By "Christian movies" I don't necessarily mean any movie about anything Christian (ie., Peter and Paul or Passion of the Christ). What I mean is a movie geared entirely towards a Christian audience. When this happens (as it did with the "blaxpoitation" films of the 1970's) the filmmakers often tend to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and as a result cliches and tired stories abound. One noticeable example is the "born again moment": a series of montages in which a character thinks about their life, showing angst and confusion in their face with slow Christian music playing in the background.
The Cross and the Switchblade avoids much of this because, instead of following a list of cliches, it instead moves to be a character drama. Part of what makes this work is the script, which focuses most of its attention on the individual members of the Mau Mau gang, in particular Nicky Cruz. Part of this is also the acting talent of the individual actors.
Nicky is played by Erik Estrada, and I have to say that his performance completely surprised me. It's not that I've ever thought Estrada was necessarily a bad actor, I just never realized he could be a great actor. Yet the way he performs the resentful nature of Nicky's sinful state towards the love shown by Wilkerson left no doubt in me that behind the cult status actor was some serious talent.
It might be safe to say that, next to Wilkerson himself, Nicky is the main character of the film. Unlike most "Christian movies" with the climactic born-again moment, Nicky's born-again moment is the entire film itself. The start of these happenings is in one of the earliest moments in the film, with the supposedly word-for-word recreation of the second encounter between Wilkerson and Nicky. When Wilkerson offers Nicky his hand, Nicky spits into it and threatens to kill Wilkerson if he ever sees him again. The Pennsylvanian pastor coolly replies:
One of the most appealing and strongest aspects of Richard Burton's character in The Robe is that he spends much of the movie resisting that strange grace given to him by God, until finally, in the end, he realizes there is no way to run away from such grace. Indeed, Wilkerson himself tells Nicky at one point in the film, "Someday you're gonna stop running, Nicky - and when you do, I'll be there waiting." While there is a point at the end of the film where Nicky "gets it," it is not a long, drawn-out moment but rather a "clicking" where Nicky finally realizes that the love of Christ is what will help heal his life of hurt.
Another fine performance is Jackie Giroux as Rosa, a heroine addict who prostitutes herself for money. I was a bit disappointed to find out (courtesy IMDB) that after this film she fell into obscurity with a chain of Z-grade movies. Her performance here reminded me a bit of Ellen Greene's performance as the distraught Audrey in the 1986 Little Shop of Horrors. Except, of course, whereas that was played for laughs, this is entirely drama. Next to Nicky's story, a good part of the film focuses on Rosa's desperation for heroine, as well as her struggles to overcome it under the watch of Wilkerson's friends, her eventual recovery and near relapse. The character of Rosa herself is actually based off the person of Maria in the original book, who really did walk to where Wilkerson was staying and threaten to kill herself.
If you're wondering about a gospel presentation, you shouldn't let the notable absence of any detailed exposition early on worry you. I was personally worried when it seemed like all we were hearing was "God loves you" ad nauseum. Even Wilkerson himself seems to be a somewhat passive character; if you're expecting him to be an urban John Wesley for much of the film, you might be disappointed. As I said, much of the film focuses on the gang, and Wilkerson becomes something of an enigma. You don't see what Wilkerson is doing so much as you hear what kind of affect he's having on the other characters - whether this was intentional or not, I'm not sure.
Where things really come through is in the last 16-minutes of the film, at the climactic youth rally. With both the black and Hispanic gangs in his presence and no police protection, Wilkerson stands up on the stage and, Bible in hand, presents the love and sacrifice of Christ, and offers forgiveness of sins through faith. "I don't preach religion," he says, "I preach about a Man." The gangs are to never trust in their own flesh again, but "in the flesh sacrificed for you by Jesus." He gets heckled during the sermon, asking how he can expect the gang members to love their enemies when they've been defaced by or even lost family to them. Wilkerson returns to the cross - in all things, he returns to the cross. This was the climax of the film, and for certain it does not disappoint.
Let me give a warning: I would probably suggest Christian parents and pastors review the film before showing it to their children or congregation. There are some swear words throughout the movie (not incessantly, but they're there, and are mostly the "h-word" and "d-word"). There are at least one or two uses of the "n-word". There is also some drug use: you see Rosa purchase heroine and then (though from behind) stick the needle in her arm; a character in one scene smokes a marijuana joint; in another scene, Rosa shows Wilkerson the needle marks in the veins of her arms; there's also the withdrawal scenes with Rosa (they're not too bad, but I know some parents may not want their children to see such behavior). There's also some violence (mostly involving two scenes of rumbling between the gangs) that, although it gets no more violent than people fallen over and getting hit on the head by sticks, does involve the sight of blood and gashing wounds afterward. It's tame by today's standards, but again, I thought I would give parents and pastors alike a fair warning.
There are, of course, some plot elements they added in for suspense and tension which never happened in real life (Rosa being told to kill Wilkerson for heroine; the supposed rumble to take place at the rally, etc.). However, this does not detract from what is a surprisingly strong film about a strong, faithful man of God. In the end, I was pleasantly surprised by The Cross and the Switchblade, and felt it inspiring me the rest of the day. I would definitely say it is worth at least a one time viewing.
This is perhaps one of the only major flaws of the film that I wish had been more greatly fleshed out. The book goes into great detail on the many reasons Wilkerson decided to leave Pennsylvania and go to New York, as well as his background in a long line of Pentecostal preachers. It's almost worth reading the book simply to have all this background information handy before watching the film. In fact, if the book is used at all in regards to Wilkerson's life and ministry, it might be best used as an introduction (especially since only half of the book is covered in the movie).
The opening of the film has the producer saying that, although the events may seem unreal, they did indeed happen. You realize how important this message might have been as you see Wilkerson go to work. Almost ten minutes into the movie this white man in a nice suit is taken to a New York City slum where he looks the leaders of two rival gangs (one Hispanic, one black) and says, "God loves you." It's surreal. To explain this further, imagine if a character from The Office walked right onto the set of West Side Story and started telling the Jets and Sharks about God. Although this isn't exactly how it happened (the first thirty minutes of the movie, which takes place within 48 hours, are a conglomeration of events that happened over the span of a few weeks in the book), it does capture how soon Wilkerson went to work, and how readily he was able to meet with gang members and leaders alike.
Let me take a brief moment to be honest about something here: I am not a huge fan of "Christian movies." By "Christian movies" I don't necessarily mean any movie about anything Christian (ie., Peter and Paul or Passion of the Christ). What I mean is a movie geared entirely towards a Christian audience. When this happens (as it did with the "blaxpoitation" films of the 1970's) the filmmakers often tend to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and as a result cliches and tired stories abound. One noticeable example is the "born again moment": a series of montages in which a character thinks about their life, showing angst and confusion in their face with slow Christian music playing in the background.
The Cross and the Switchblade avoids much of this because, instead of following a list of cliches, it instead moves to be a character drama. Part of what makes this work is the script, which focuses most of its attention on the individual members of the Mau Mau gang, in particular Nicky Cruz. Part of this is also the acting talent of the individual actors.
Nicky is played by Erik Estrada, and I have to say that his performance completely surprised me. It's not that I've ever thought Estrada was necessarily a bad actor, I just never realized he could be a great actor. Yet the way he performs the resentful nature of Nicky's sinful state towards the love shown by Wilkerson left no doubt in me that behind the cult status actor was some serious talent.
It might be safe to say that, next to Wilkerson himself, Nicky is the main character of the film. Unlike most "Christian movies" with the climactic born-again moment, Nicky's born-again moment is the entire film itself. The start of these happenings is in one of the earliest moments in the film, with the supposedly word-for-word recreation of the second encounter between Wilkerson and Nicky. When Wilkerson offers Nicky his hand, Nicky spits into it and threatens to kill Wilkerson if he ever sees him again. The Pennsylvanian pastor coolly replies:
"Yeah, you can do that. You can cut me up into a thousand pieces and lay 'em on the street...and every piece will still love you."After watching the film, I went and watched a brief documentary on the real life Nicky Cruz. His back story is one of growing up in Puerto Rico with abusive parents who dabbled in the occult and regularly beat him without mercy. He knew nothing but hate and violence his entire life (Wilkerson records in the book that he would laugh at the sight of blood). When Wilkerson said the previously quoted words to Nicky, it was the first encounter with selfless love that he had ever experienced. God used those words to eat away at the hate and violence that had built up over the years. Estrada captures this well in the scenes afterward, as the gang leader who can kill without blinking an eye suddenly finds an inner torment growing within him.
One of the most appealing and strongest aspects of Richard Burton's character in The Robe is that he spends much of the movie resisting that strange grace given to him by God, until finally, in the end, he realizes there is no way to run away from such grace. Indeed, Wilkerson himself tells Nicky at one point in the film, "Someday you're gonna stop running, Nicky - and when you do, I'll be there waiting." While there is a point at the end of the film where Nicky "gets it," it is not a long, drawn-out moment but rather a "clicking" where Nicky finally realizes that the love of Christ is what will help heal his life of hurt.
Another fine performance is Jackie Giroux as Rosa, a heroine addict who prostitutes herself for money. I was a bit disappointed to find out (courtesy IMDB) that after this film she fell into obscurity with a chain of Z-grade movies. Her performance here reminded me a bit of Ellen Greene's performance as the distraught Audrey in the 1986 Little Shop of Horrors. Except, of course, whereas that was played for laughs, this is entirely drama. Next to Nicky's story, a good part of the film focuses on Rosa's desperation for heroine, as well as her struggles to overcome it under the watch of Wilkerson's friends, her eventual recovery and near relapse. The character of Rosa herself is actually based off the person of Maria in the original book, who really did walk to where Wilkerson was staying and threaten to kill herself.
If you're wondering about a gospel presentation, you shouldn't let the notable absence of any detailed exposition early on worry you. I was personally worried when it seemed like all we were hearing was "God loves you" ad nauseum. Even Wilkerson himself seems to be a somewhat passive character; if you're expecting him to be an urban John Wesley for much of the film, you might be disappointed. As I said, much of the film focuses on the gang, and Wilkerson becomes something of an enigma. You don't see what Wilkerson is doing so much as you hear what kind of affect he's having on the other characters - whether this was intentional or not, I'm not sure.
Where things really come through is in the last 16-minutes of the film, at the climactic youth rally. With both the black and Hispanic gangs in his presence and no police protection, Wilkerson stands up on the stage and, Bible in hand, presents the love and sacrifice of Christ, and offers forgiveness of sins through faith. "I don't preach religion," he says, "I preach about a Man." The gangs are to never trust in their own flesh again, but "in the flesh sacrificed for you by Jesus." He gets heckled during the sermon, asking how he can expect the gang members to love their enemies when they've been defaced by or even lost family to them. Wilkerson returns to the cross - in all things, he returns to the cross. This was the climax of the film, and for certain it does not disappoint.
Let me give a warning: I would probably suggest Christian parents and pastors review the film before showing it to their children or congregation. There are some swear words throughout the movie (not incessantly, but they're there, and are mostly the "h-word" and "d-word"). There are at least one or two uses of the "n-word". There is also some drug use: you see Rosa purchase heroine and then (though from behind) stick the needle in her arm; a character in one scene smokes a marijuana joint; in another scene, Rosa shows Wilkerson the needle marks in the veins of her arms; there's also the withdrawal scenes with Rosa (they're not too bad, but I know some parents may not want their children to see such behavior). There's also some violence (mostly involving two scenes of rumbling between the gangs) that, although it gets no more violent than people fallen over and getting hit on the head by sticks, does involve the sight of blood and gashing wounds afterward. It's tame by today's standards, but again, I thought I would give parents and pastors alike a fair warning.
There are, of course, some plot elements they added in for suspense and tension which never happened in real life (Rosa being told to kill Wilkerson for heroine; the supposed rumble to take place at the rally, etc.). However, this does not detract from what is a surprisingly strong film about a strong, faithful man of God. In the end, I was pleasantly surprised by The Cross and the Switchblade, and felt it inspiring me the rest of the day. I would definitely say it is worth at least a one time viewing.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Of God and Government
The separation of church and state is a perpetual discussion in modern western democracy that can often lead to heated arguments. On the one hand, someone always drops the Spanish Inquisition card, while, on the other hand, many will point to the persecution of various religions by communist and socialist governments.
In regards to religion itself, there can be a fine weakness in seeking government support in toto for your faith: your are at the whim and mercy of the government itself. The emperors of Rome throughout the fourth century meddled in the affairs of the church, both for good and bad. This might lead to an interesting the Arians sought their power from governmental support, and so when the empire eventually came to side completely with the Nicene faith, the Arians completely lost power. By contrast, the Nicene faith based itself on the grounds of scripture disregarding the opinion of the government, and so it could survive the tides of emperors who were oppositional, neutral, or supportive. God's word is eternal; political powers are not. Yet even ignoring the actions of individual Christians in regards to government involvement, I think a deeper question here is one that is not often addressed: God's involvement within the actions of a government system.
First, it should be established that God has, in the past, plainly stated that He was the one truly in control of the affairs of state. When the Assyrian king was looking at his massive, expansive empire and saying, "By the power of my hand and by my wisdom I did this" (Isa 10:13), God replied:
An even greater example is found in Paul's epistle to the Romans, where he speaks of Pharaoh being raised up by God:
This leads us to discuss how God interacts with governments in our modern day and age. Over the past few days, I've heard some rather peculiar things in regards to this, and, living in a democracy, they are very relevant: 1) God only involves himself within a democracy if people pray for the results; 2) God did not bring any president to power because the previously mentioned passages in the Bible are referring to hereditary kings and not elected officials.
Responding to the latter first, this is a blatant example of begging the question. Nowhere does God say that He only has power over a government if there is a hereditary monarchy in place. The only reason hereditary monarchies are focused on in the Old Testament and partially in the New is because no real democracies were interacting with the land and people at that time. Likewise, it was never emphasized that the kings were used solely because they belonged to a hereditary form of government - God emphasized that it was their power He was raising and utilizing, not their monarchical structure.
Might I propose that this, logically speaking, also means man found a way to usurp God's will and purpose? Since representative democracies, republics, etc., are all man-made forms of government, reason follows that we are now arguing that man found a form of government which God's will and purpose cannot touch. Man, in essence, found a loophole in the system, in which governments can act contrary to God's final purpose.
Moving to the first part second, nowhere is it shown that God is limited by the collective decisions of individuals. To understand this, let's review one of the biggest "elections" in the New Testament:
The point of all this is to present that, regardless of governmental decisions, God is still in control. Whether the president whom we want to be elected is elected or not, God is not thwarted. This also means, whether we like the president or not, he is there by God's will and purpose. We will not know how he fits there until perhaps decades after his terms are over, but nonetheless this is a theological truth we cannot deny.
In all things - whether we discover the truth sooner or later - soli Deo gloria.
In regards to religion itself, there can be a fine weakness in seeking government support in toto for your faith: your are at the whim and mercy of the government itself. The emperors of Rome throughout the fourth century meddled in the affairs of the church, both for good and bad. This might lead to an interesting the Arians sought their power from governmental support, and so when the empire eventually came to side completely with the Nicene faith, the Arians completely lost power. By contrast, the Nicene faith based itself on the grounds of scripture disregarding the opinion of the government, and so it could survive the tides of emperors who were oppositional, neutral, or supportive. God's word is eternal; political powers are not. Yet even ignoring the actions of individual Christians in regards to government involvement, I think a deeper question here is one that is not often addressed: God's involvement within the actions of a government system.
First, it should be established that God has, in the past, plainly stated that He was the one truly in control of the affairs of state. When the Assyrian king was looking at his massive, expansive empire and saying, "By the power of my hand and by my wisdom I did this" (Isa 10:13), God replied:
Is the axe to boast itself over the one who chops with it? Is the saw to exalt itself over the one who wields it? That would be like a club wielding those who lift it, or like a rod lifting him who is not wood. [Isa 10:15]When Sennacherib besieged Jerusalem and was boasting to the Jews of what he had done with his empire, and all the successes he had won against nations bigger than Judah, God replied through the prophet Isaiah:
"'Have you not heard? Long ago I did it; from ancient times I planned it. Now I have brought it to pass, that you should turn fortified cities into ruinous heaps.'" [2 Kings 19:25]God's point in both these passages is clear: though the leaders boasted that it was they who had done these great things, it was actually God who was in control the entire time. On the one hand, the king was simply the axe which God wielded to exercise His judgment; on the other hand, the king only had so much success during his reign because God had long ago planned that it should occur. In neither scenario was God merely reacting to what the kings had done, nor was God utilizing earthly means outside of His control to His own personal ends.
An even greater example is found in Paul's epistle to the Romans, where he speaks of Pharaoh being raised up by God:
For the scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth." [Rom 9:17; ref. Exo 9:16]Let me expel a common straw man right off the bat: this does not mean that God controls political leaders like puppets or robots that He controls with a remote control. Pharaoh, the kings, etc., had as much control as they believed they had. However, God's will and purpose was sovereign over their individual wills and purposes. The kings of Assyria, for certain, all believed that they were really the ones in charge of their own destinies and empires, but in actuality God had complete, sovereign control over their fate. Their growth in power was merely part of God's purpose for His will.
This leads us to discuss how God interacts with governments in our modern day and age. Over the past few days, I've heard some rather peculiar things in regards to this, and, living in a democracy, they are very relevant: 1) God only involves himself within a democracy if people pray for the results; 2) God did not bring any president to power because the previously mentioned passages in the Bible are referring to hereditary kings and not elected officials.
Responding to the latter first, this is a blatant example of begging the question. Nowhere does God say that He only has power over a government if there is a hereditary monarchy in place. The only reason hereditary monarchies are focused on in the Old Testament and partially in the New is because no real democracies were interacting with the land and people at that time. Likewise, it was never emphasized that the kings were used solely because they belonged to a hereditary form of government - God emphasized that it was their power He was raising and utilizing, not their monarchical structure.
Might I propose that this, logically speaking, also means man found a way to usurp God's will and purpose? Since representative democracies, republics, etc., are all man-made forms of government, reason follows that we are now arguing that man found a form of government which God's will and purpose cannot touch. Man, in essence, found a loophole in the system, in which governments can act contrary to God's final purpose.
Moving to the first part second, nowhere is it shown that God is limited by the collective decisions of individuals. To understand this, let's review one of the biggest "elections" in the New Testament:
Pilate said to them, "Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?" They all said, "Crucify Him!" [Matt 27:22]Pilate held one of the biggest referendums in history: should Jesus be crucified? The resounding answer from the population: yes. Was this something God could not control? On the contrary - God had already predestined this to occur.
For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur. [Acts 4:27-28]Even in the willful decision of the Jewish population, Christ was in control. The election, in fact, was part of God's purpose. The Jews did not pray before "electing" to crucify Christ, yet their decision still fulfilled His purpose (the crucifixion, resurrection, etc.). To the disciples and many others, things were not going the way they had hoped. Everything seemed lost. Yet, to put it colloquially, it was, for God, "all part of the plan." Even in the lowest moment of man's treatment of God, God was nowhere near thwarted, and the will of those who crucified Christ was still subservient to the ultimate will of God. Even in the case of elections, referendums, or general public decisions, God is as much in control as He is in the general decisions of hereditary monarchies.
The point of all this is to present that, regardless of governmental decisions, God is still in control. Whether the president whom we want to be elected is elected or not, God is not thwarted. This also means, whether we like the president or not, he is there by God's will and purpose. We will not know how he fits there until perhaps decades after his terms are over, but nonetheless this is a theological truth we cannot deny.
In all things - whether we discover the truth sooner or later - soli Deo gloria.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Scriptural Examinations of Inclusivist Proof Texts
Before we begin, it might be best to present some definitions of what we're talking about. Inclusivism might be differentiated from universalism in the sense that whereas universalism teaches that everyone will be saved outside of faith in Christ, inclusivism teaches that at least some might be saved outside of faith in Christ. Admittedly, I have, in the past, been confused over the difference between the two, but recently have come to a better clarification between them (with a special H/T to Kevin over at Wesleyan Arminian).
All the same, I cannot say that I could ever consider myself an inclusivist because of the testimony of scripture in this regard. However, I thought, for the sake of discussion, it would be worth touching on some of the passages popularly used to support inclusivism.
This is a popular one to be cited by inclusivists. The argument is that while the slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready (the inference being unrighteous Christians) will get many lashings, the slave who did not know his master's will and was not ready (the inference being righteous non-Christians) will receive but a few.
I personally cannot comprehend why this is used to support inclusivism. Those who argue that the second servant received fewer lashes than the first seem to forget one important thing: both servants still got lashes. They were both punished. To say that one received a few lashes doesn't had the fact he was still lashed. Christ even says that he "committed deeds worthy of a flogging." To say that because one servant received less lashings means there is no eternal punishment for some people is like Rob Bell's argument regarding Capernaum and Sodom.
The belief here is that this passage is saying that the Son is not here to judge the world, but so that the world might be saved through Him. However, those who might say this opens the door for inclusivism forget what follows:
The idea of using these verses is that Jesus says "If you were blind, you would have no guilt" - hence it is perceived by some that those who are spiritually blind are excused.
The problem is that this is placing the emphasis on the wrong syllable. These verses come on the tail end of the story of the man born blind, who was healed by Christ, interrogated by the Pharisees, and eventually kicked out. Christ had just stated: "For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind" (v. 39). The Pharisees, who had condemned the man born blind, hear this and ask if they are also blind. Christ states, "If you were blind, you would have no guilt" - meaning the specific guilt of rejecting him as they were - but "now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains." That last part is important - the Pharisees claimed that they were the true followers of their day, and therefore they claimed that they had spiritual sight. On the contrary, they were spiritually blind, and so their claims of sight made them guilty. Their guilt was in claiming to know God and yet rejecting Christ as Messiah and Lord (as unbelieving Jews today do), hence proving that they were, in fact, blind. Note too that, in Christ's own words, this blindness is a sign of judgment: the Pharisees claimed to be able to see, and yet were made blind by God; the man born blind was believed by the Pharisees to be blind (both literally and spiritually), and yet Christ made him see (both literally and spiritually), showing he had the mercy and favor of God.
The verses are not saying that a person is exempt simply for being spiritually blind. The apostle Paul makes it clear that everyone has some inner feeling of the truth about God, and hence are left inexcusable for idolatry, false worship, or sin (cf. Rom 1:18-23).
I've already touched on this passage in greater detail on my post regarding John 6:44, but will touch on it briefly here. There are, logically, three ways to interpret this passage:
1) The literal evangelical approach: Christ refers to "draw" as in drawing all men to be Christians in this lifetime. Many atheists and non-Christians interpret it this way in an attempt to show a contradiction in the New Testament. Their argument is that Christ is a failed savior since it's obvious that not all men have been drawn to Him, and millions upon millions have died in unbelief.
2) The universalist approach: Christ means He will literally draw all men to Him in salvation, so that all men literally will be saved on the day of judgment.
3) The ethnic approach: Christ refers to "all men" in regards to both Jews and Gentiles. This was (as I mentioned in my John 6:44 post) the opinion even of many past synergistic theologians (John Wesley, Adam Clarke) as well as Eastern Fathers (John Chrysostom, Theophylact). More importantly, it comes from the original scripture reading, where Christ is approached by a group of Gentiles desiring to see Christ (v. 20-21) - in the end, Christ never sees them (v. 36). This was because the time of the Gentiles had not yet come. It would be after the resurrection that the gospel would be preached to all nations (Matt 28:19), and then would Christ truly draw all men - not just Jews, but Gentiles as well - to Himself.
This is another popular passive for inclusivists. However, saying this teaches inclusivism is problematic with what is said:
...God is not one to show partiality... - The immediate context is in regards to Jews and Gentiles, not personal faith. Peter is saying that God shows no partiality between ethnic groups. Keep in mind this is said in the context of Paul learning of the faith given to Cornelius (v. 3-5), and the vision Peter had regarding the "unclean" animals (v. 9-16). At the time of Christ, many Jews of that time held such a poor opinion of Gentiles that many refused to even pass through their towns or neighborhoods, let alone interact with them. Peter's realization here is that God shows no partiality between a Jew or a Gentile.
...the man who fears Him... - What is the true context of "fearing God"? Is it fearing a vague concept known as "God"? On the contrary, it means - within the context scripture defines it - fearing the one true God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The ancient Israelites were told, "You shall fear the LORD your God; you shall serve Him and cling to Him, and you shall swear by His name" (Deut 10:20), and again, "You shall follow the LORD your God and fear Him..." (Deut 13:4). It was Him and Him alone that they should fear; they were explicitly told "you shall not fear other gods...but the LORD your God you shall fear" (2 Ki 17:37, 39). As religious as a devout Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Shintoist may be, they are not fearing the God whom Peter is referring to here.
...and does what is right... - Many will leap to those part and declare: "Aha! 'Does what is right'! This means a good non-believer will probably be saved!" The problem, however, is that this is said alongside with "the man who fears Him." It is not merely "doing what is right" that will win salvation - that is a drum beat many times throughout scripture. It is faith in God which saves, and the works stem from that faith and show its sincerity.
In fact, the inclusivist use of this passage is contradicted by the fact that immediately after this, Peter peaches the gospel to the Gentiles present. Speaking of Christ, Peter says: "Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins" (v. 43). Salvation is of those who fear the one true God and believe in His Son.
Let's look at the full context:
The implication to many here is that this passage is teaching two different standards for how a person will be judged in the afterlife: those who have "sinned without the Law" will be judged without the Law (again, the ignorance clause of inclusivism), whereas those who "have sinned under the Law" will be "judged by the Law."
We have already established that Romans 1 dealt mainly with the pagan mindset of the world. Romans 2 deals with the Jewish believers who assumed that, because they had the Law, they were superior over the Gentiles. Hence Pauls stern warning: "Do you suppose, O man - you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself - that you will escape the judgment of God?" (Rom 2:3; ESV) This eventually leads to the passage involving the verse in question:
This is not about inclusivism, but making it clear that all will be held accountable for their deeds. This will lead to Paul's famous conclusion that "both Jews and Greeks are all under sin" (Rom 3:9).
This is yet another popular passage to cite for many inclusivists. I'd already touched on this in my review of Rob Bell's book Love Wins (where it was used to support universalism), but I'll touch on it again here.
Paul likewise says that there is "one God, and one mediator" between God and men, "the man Christ Jesus," (v. 5), who "gave Himself as a ransom for all," this being "the testimony given at the proper time" (v. 6). "For this," Paul says, he was "appointed a teacher to the Gentiles in faith and truth" (v. 7). When Paul says "ransom for all," does this mean unbelievers as well? No - for this, Paul says, he was appointed to preach to the Gentiles. As was seen in John 12:32, "all" refers here to both Jews and Gentiles of any profession.
In summary, this passage is inclusivist in the sense that any person - prince or pauper, Jew or Gentile - can be saved by God...but it doesn't mean that those who die in unbelief will not perish in their unbelief.
Ignoring any arguments for particular or general atonement, what is the scriptural basis for the receiving the forgiveness of sins? As we saw with John 3:17, it is saving faith in Christ. It is through this alone that a person is saved. "To the one who does not work," the apostle Paul wrote, "but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness" (Rom 4:5).
John Owen once gave this dilemma: if Christ died for all sins of everyone, why aren't all men forgiven; if because of unbelief, are not those sins covered by the cross as well? Many have responded to this by saying that it is scripturally taught that saving faith in Christ is what forgives us our sins, hence our sins are only forgiven at the coming to faith. However, if we open the door for inclusivism, and say that a person is justified despite unbelief, then that is thrown out the window, and John Owen's point still stands. If God can forgive unbelief for subjective reasons (ignorance, being a "righteous heathen", etc.) because He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, then, following this to its logical conclusion, why aren't all people saved? This kind of argumentation makes inclusivism the camel's nose for universalism.
Let's review the wording in this passage as we did with the passage from Acts.
...a great multitude which no one could count... - This is merely in reference to the large number of believers. We don't know the number or how many there will be, though God surely knows. This does not mean they believed to other faiths which denied Christ's divinity.
...from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues... - This is inclusive language, though not towards faith. Rather, it is to ethnic heritage, racial distinction and nationality. There will be all kinds of people before the throne of God: Europeans, Africans, Asians, Indians, Arabs, etc. There is nothing here to suggest religious or spiritual inclusivism.
All the same, I cannot say that I could ever consider myself an inclusivist because of the testimony of scripture in this regard. However, I thought, for the sake of discussion, it would be worth touching on some of the passages popularly used to support inclusivism.
"And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more." [Luke 12:47-48]
This is a popular one to be cited by inclusivists. The argument is that while the slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready (the inference being unrighteous Christians) will get many lashings, the slave who did not know his master's will and was not ready (the inference being righteous non-Christians) will receive but a few.
I personally cannot comprehend why this is used to support inclusivism. Those who argue that the second servant received fewer lashes than the first seem to forget one important thing: both servants still got lashes. They were both punished. To say that one received a few lashes doesn't had the fact he was still lashed. Christ even says that he "committed deeds worthy of a flogging." To say that because one servant received less lashings means there is no eternal punishment for some people is like Rob Bell's argument regarding Capernaum and Sodom.
"For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him." [John 3:17]
The belief here is that this passage is saying that the Son is not here to judge the world, but so that the world might be saved through Him. However, those who might say this opens the door for inclusivism forget what follows:
He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. [John 3:18]When Christ says "God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world," that does not mean there isn't any kind of judgment taking place. The Son does not have to judge - we are all already under condemnation. No one goes to hell because they don't believe in Jesus - they go to hell for the righteous judgment of their sins. It is Christ who saves us from that hell.
Some of the Pharisees near him heard these things, and said to him, "Are we also blind?" Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains." [John 9:40-41]
The idea of using these verses is that Jesus says "If you were blind, you would have no guilt" - hence it is perceived by some that those who are spiritually blind are excused.
The problem is that this is placing the emphasis on the wrong syllable. These verses come on the tail end of the story of the man born blind, who was healed by Christ, interrogated by the Pharisees, and eventually kicked out. Christ had just stated: "For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind" (v. 39). The Pharisees, who had condemned the man born blind, hear this and ask if they are also blind. Christ states, "If you were blind, you would have no guilt" - meaning the specific guilt of rejecting him as they were - but "now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains." That last part is important - the Pharisees claimed that they were the true followers of their day, and therefore they claimed that they had spiritual sight. On the contrary, they were spiritually blind, and so their claims of sight made them guilty. Their guilt was in claiming to know God and yet rejecting Christ as Messiah and Lord (as unbelieving Jews today do), hence proving that they were, in fact, blind. Note too that, in Christ's own words, this blindness is a sign of judgment: the Pharisees claimed to be able to see, and yet were made blind by God; the man born blind was believed by the Pharisees to be blind (both literally and spiritually), and yet Christ made him see (both literally and spiritually), showing he had the mercy and favor of God.
The verses are not saying that a person is exempt simply for being spiritually blind. The apostle Paul makes it clear that everyone has some inner feeling of the truth about God, and hence are left inexcusable for idolatry, false worship, or sin (cf. Rom 1:18-23).
"And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself." [John 12:32]
I've already touched on this passage in greater detail on my post regarding John 6:44, but will touch on it briefly here. There are, logically, three ways to interpret this passage:
1) The literal evangelical approach: Christ refers to "draw" as in drawing all men to be Christians in this lifetime. Many atheists and non-Christians interpret it this way in an attempt to show a contradiction in the New Testament. Their argument is that Christ is a failed savior since it's obvious that not all men have been drawn to Him, and millions upon millions have died in unbelief.
2) The universalist approach: Christ means He will literally draw all men to Him in salvation, so that all men literally will be saved on the day of judgment.
3) The ethnic approach: Christ refers to "all men" in regards to both Jews and Gentiles. This was (as I mentioned in my John 6:44 post) the opinion even of many past synergistic theologians (John Wesley, Adam Clarke) as well as Eastern Fathers (John Chrysostom, Theophylact). More importantly, it comes from the original scripture reading, where Christ is approached by a group of Gentiles desiring to see Christ (v. 20-21) - in the end, Christ never sees them (v. 36). This was because the time of the Gentiles had not yet come. It would be after the resurrection that the gospel would be preached to all nations (Matt 28:19), and then would Christ truly draw all men - not just Jews, but Gentiles as well - to Himself.
Opening his mouth, Peter said: "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him." [Acts 10:34-35]
This is another popular passive for inclusivists. However, saying this teaches inclusivism is problematic with what is said:
...God is not one to show partiality... - The immediate context is in regards to Jews and Gentiles, not personal faith. Peter is saying that God shows no partiality between ethnic groups. Keep in mind this is said in the context of Paul learning of the faith given to Cornelius (v. 3-5), and the vision Peter had regarding the "unclean" animals (v. 9-16). At the time of Christ, many Jews of that time held such a poor opinion of Gentiles that many refused to even pass through their towns or neighborhoods, let alone interact with them. Peter's realization here is that God shows no partiality between a Jew or a Gentile.
...the man who fears Him... - What is the true context of "fearing God"? Is it fearing a vague concept known as "God"? On the contrary, it means - within the context scripture defines it - fearing the one true God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The ancient Israelites were told, "You shall fear the LORD your God; you shall serve Him and cling to Him, and you shall swear by His name" (Deut 10:20), and again, "You shall follow the LORD your God and fear Him..." (Deut 13:4). It was Him and Him alone that they should fear; they were explicitly told "you shall not fear other gods...but the LORD your God you shall fear" (2 Ki 17:37, 39). As religious as a devout Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Shintoist may be, they are not fearing the God whom Peter is referring to here.
...and does what is right... - Many will leap to those part and declare: "Aha! 'Does what is right'! This means a good non-believer will probably be saved!" The problem, however, is that this is said alongside with "the man who fears Him." It is not merely "doing what is right" that will win salvation - that is a drum beat many times throughout scripture. It is faith in God which saves, and the works stem from that faith and show its sincerity.
In fact, the inclusivist use of this passage is contradicted by the fact that immediately after this, Peter peaches the gospel to the Gentiles present. Speaking of Christ, Peter says: "Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins" (v. 43). Salvation is of those who fear the one true God and believe in His Son.
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. [Romans 1:20]
Let's look at the full context:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. [Romans 1:18-21]Paul is beginning his attack against the pagan mindset of the world, which will lead into his condemnation of the hypocrisy of devout Jews in chapter two, and eventually the condemnation of everyone in the opening of the third chapter. Paul is not saying, "People see God in everything, so they'll be saved," he's saying, "It's obvious creation has a creator, yet they choose to worship creation instead." This is a statement of condemnation, not inclusivism.
For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law [Romans 2:12]
The implication to many here is that this passage is teaching two different standards for how a person will be judged in the afterlife: those who have "sinned without the Law" will be judged without the Law (again, the ignorance clause of inclusivism), whereas those who "have sinned under the Law" will be "judged by the Law."
We have already established that Romans 1 dealt mainly with the pagan mindset of the world. Romans 2 deals with the Jewish believers who assumed that, because they had the Law, they were superior over the Gentiles. Hence Pauls stern warning: "Do you suppose, O man - you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself - that you will escape the judgment of God?" (Rom 2:3; ESV) This eventually leads to the passage involving the verse in question:
There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God. For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. [Rom 2:9-13]Paul's point is not that unbelievers will be held to a different standard - Paul's point here (and in the verses that follow) is that those who live by the Law will be judged by the Law, and those who are outside the Law will perish (note that they are not saved - they perish) without the Law. No one will have an excuse. The Gentile unbelievers from Romans 1 will not be able to say, "Well we didn't know the Law!", and the Jewish hypocrites of Romans 2 will not be able to say, "But we're the Jews! The Law belongs to us, so we should get a free pass!"
This is not about inclusivism, but making it clear that all will be held accountable for their deeds. This will lead to Paul's famous conclusion that "both Jews and Greeks are all under sin" (Rom 3:9).
[God] desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. [1 Timothy 2:4]
First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time. For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying) as a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension. [1 Tim 2:1-8]Paul urges that Timothy lead his congregation in "entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings" on behalf of all men (v. 1), specifying "kings and all who are in authority" (v. 2). This, Paul says, is "good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior" (v. 3), who "desires all men to be saved" and "come to a knowledge of the truth" (v. 4). That is, all kinds of men, even those who are kings and those in authority. Christians at that time were living under pagan and unbelieving authorities (as most still do today), and the temptation might be not to pray for them in thanksgiving or petition. Paul's contention is that God desires even such men as these to be saved.
Paul likewise says that there is "one God, and one mediator" between God and men, "the man Christ Jesus," (v. 5), who "gave Himself as a ransom for all," this being "the testimony given at the proper time" (v. 6). "For this," Paul says, he was "appointed a teacher to the Gentiles in faith and truth" (v. 7). When Paul says "ransom for all," does this mean unbelievers as well? No - for this, Paul says, he was appointed to preach to the Gentiles. As was seen in John 12:32, "all" refers here to both Jews and Gentiles of any profession.
In summary, this passage is inclusivist in the sense that any person - prince or pauper, Jew or Gentile - can be saved by God...but it doesn't mean that those who die in unbelief will not perish in their unbelief.
And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. [1 John 2:2]
Ignoring any arguments for particular or general atonement, what is the scriptural basis for the receiving the forgiveness of sins? As we saw with John 3:17, it is saving faith in Christ. It is through this alone that a person is saved. "To the one who does not work," the apostle Paul wrote, "but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness" (Rom 4:5).
John Owen once gave this dilemma: if Christ died for all sins of everyone, why aren't all men forgiven; if because of unbelief, are not those sins covered by the cross as well? Many have responded to this by saying that it is scripturally taught that saving faith in Christ is what forgives us our sins, hence our sins are only forgiven at the coming to faith. However, if we open the door for inclusivism, and say that a person is justified despite unbelief, then that is thrown out the window, and John Owen's point still stands. If God can forgive unbelief for subjective reasons (ignorance, being a "righteous heathen", etc.) because He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, then, following this to its logical conclusion, why aren't all people saved? This kind of argumentation makes inclusivism the camel's nose for universalism.
After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands [Revelation 7:9]
Let's review the wording in this passage as we did with the passage from Acts.
...a great multitude which no one could count... - This is merely in reference to the large number of believers. We don't know the number or how many there will be, though God surely knows. This does not mean they believed to other faiths which denied Christ's divinity.
...from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues... - This is inclusive language, though not towards faith. Rather, it is to ethnic heritage, racial distinction and nationality. There will be all kinds of people before the throne of God: Europeans, Africans, Asians, Indians, Arabs, etc. There is nothing here to suggest religious or spiritual inclusivism.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Martin Luther and Rob Bell
One of the most infamous quotations by Rob Bell, in his book Love Wins, is from Martin Luther regarding his supposed teaching of an after-death repentance.
Below is a video featuring Todd Friel discussing the quote and Rob Bell's use of it in greater detail (H/T to Hell's Bell).
And then there are others who can live with two destinations, two realities after death, but insist that there must be some kind of "second chance" for those who don't believe in Jesus in this lifetime. In a letter Martin Luther, one of the leaders of the Protestant Reformation, wrote to Hans von Rechenberg in 1522 about the possibility that people could turn to God after death, asking: "Who would doubt God's ability to do that?"As Bell does throughout the book, he doesn't cite the exact source to the quote, so that people can cross reference for themselves. However, many people familiar with Luther's works did some research into the exact quote and what it was actually saying. What is the full context of the quote from the letter?
Again, a good question. [pg. 106]
It would be quite a different question whether God can impart faith to some in the hour of death or after death so that these people could be saved through faith. Who would doubt God's ability to do that? No one, however, can prove that He does do this. It is impossible for anyone to be saved without faith. [emphasis mine]Again and again I am further convinced that Rob Bell is not deceived - he is actively deceiving. As I showed in my review of his book, Rob Bell cannot possibly be "accidentally" taking things out of context. How can he "accidentally" have thought that Luther taught universalism when Luther clearly taught otherwise as shown by the following sentence! This isn't just being stubborn in your opinion...this is willingly distorting facts and just flat-out lying to prove your point.
Below is a video featuring Todd Friel discussing the quote and Rob Bell's use of it in greater detail (H/T to Hell's Bell).
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Athanasius versus the Arians
This is an excerpt from Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church Vol. III, and deals with the differences between Athanasius and those who supported him with the Arians.
Arianism was a religious political war against the spirit of the Christian revelation by the spirit of the world, which, after having persecuted the church three hundred years from without, sought under the Christian name to reduce her by degrading Christ to the category of the temporal and the created, and Christianity to the level of natural religion. It substituted for a truly divine Redeemer, a created demigod, an elevated Hercules. Arianism proceeded from human reason, Athanasianism from divine revelation; and each used the other source of knowledge as a subordinate and tributary factor. The former was deistic and rationalistic, the latter theistic and supernaturalistic, in spirit and effect. The one made reasonableness, the other agreement with Scripture, the criterion of truth...
In close connection with this stood another distinction. Arianism associated itself with the secular political power and the court party; it represented the imperio-papal principle, and the time of its prevalence under Constantius was an uninterrupted season of the most arbitrary and violent encroachments of the state upon the rights of the church. Athanasius, on the contrary, who was so often deposed by the emperor, and who uttered himself so boldly respecting Constantius, is the personal representative not only of orthodoxy, but also of the independence of the church with reference to the secular power...
While Arianism bent to the changing politics of the court party, and fell into diverse schools and sects the moment it lost the imperial support, the Nicene faith, like its great champion Athanasius, remained under all outward changes of fortune true to itself, and made its mighty advance only by legitimate growth outward from within. Athanasius makes no distinction at all between the various shades of Arians and Semi-Arians, but throws them all into the same category of enemies of the catholic faith. [source]
Friday, April 29, 2011
New Client Comment
Nothing new here to say. I'm trying out a new comment client, so feel free to let me know how it is.
Special H/T to "bossmanham" over at Thinking God's Thoughts for introducing it to me.
Special H/T to "bossmanham" over at Thinking God's Thoughts for introducing it to me.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Early Muslim Heresies
A common tactic for Muslims holding discussion over the early Christian church is to bring up the many heresies that existed around that time. Arianism, Gnosticism, Marcionism, Modalism...they're all brought in as if they're all equally "Christian," especially if, such as the case of Docetism, they hold beliefs similar to Islam.
However, was the history of Islam free from such early heresies? Ignoring the Sunni/Shia split (although it could be just as relevant) or the existence of Ahmadi Muslims, was there an isolated consistent stream of belief from Mohammad to today? In fact, there existed heresies even within the first few centuries of Islam's existence, as we will soon see.
My point in this post is not to present a kind of tu quoque fallacy, as if to argue, "Well you had early heresies, so we can have early heresies too!" Rather, it is a call for consistency: would the discerning Muslim be willing to hold the early Muslim heresies by the same standard they hold the early Christian heresies? It is simply an attempt to create more progressive and open discussion.
However, was the history of Islam free from such early heresies? Ignoring the Sunni/Shia split (although it could be just as relevant) or the existence of Ahmadi Muslims, was there an isolated consistent stream of belief from Mohammad to today? In fact, there existed heresies even within the first few centuries of Islam's existence, as we will soon see.
My point in this post is not to present a kind of tu quoque fallacy, as if to argue, "Well you had early heresies, so we can have early heresies too!" Rather, it is a call for consistency: would the discerning Muslim be willing to hold the early Muslim heresies by the same standard they hold the early Christian heresies? It is simply an attempt to create more progressive and open discussion.
Ghulat (the extremists) and Ghuluww (extremism): those sects which hold either the opinion that any particular person is God or that any person is a prophet after Muhammad, are called by this title. Certain other doctrines such as tanasukh (transmigration of souls), hulul (descent of God or the Spirit of God into a person) and tashbih (anthropomorphism with respect to God) are also usually ascribed to these groups. [pg. 45]Momen, Moojan. An Introduction to Shi'i Islam. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1985. Print.
Ulyaniyya or 'Alya'iyya...who appear to have been active around AD 800 and are also called adh-Dhammiya (the blamers) because they stated that 'Ali was God with Muhammad as his Apostle and that Muhammad was to be blamed in that he was sent to call the people to 'Ali but called them to himself. Others of this group assigned divinity to both Muhammad and 'Ali. [pg. 46]
Muhammadiyya or Mimiyya. This sect are a counterpart to the 'Ulaniyya and stressed the divinity of Muhammad. [ibid]
Karibiyya...They considered that Ibn al-Hanafiyya [a descendant of 'Ali] had not died but was concealed on Mount Rawda...and would return to fill the earth with justice. Because they believed that prior to the return of the Imam, the drawing of swords was forbidden, they fought with sticks...Two of the most famous of Arab poets belonged to this sect, Sayyid al-Himyari and Kuthayyir. [pg. 47]
The Janahiyya...In 127/744 'Abdu'llah ibn Mu'awiya rose in revolt against the last Umayyad Caliph. 'Abdu'llah was... accused of holding a number of extreme opinions: the incarnation of God in a succession of Prophets and Imams...some of his followers asserted that he had not died but was concealed in the mountains of Isfahan and would appear again. [pg. 51]
The Mansuriyya or Kisfiyya...followers of Abu Mansur al-'Ijli...The name Kisfiyya arose because Abu Mansur believed himself to be the piece (kisf) of heaven falling down which is mentioned in Qur'an (52:44). He maintained that the first thing created by God was Jesus and then after him 'Ali. He held to an allegorical interpretation of the Qur'an which among other things meant that those things forbidden in the Qur'an were nothing but allegory for the names of certain evil men. Thus his followers are accused of all manner of immorality and sin. [pg. 52]
The Khattabiyya. [Founded by] Abu 'l-Khattab Muhammad ibn Abu Zaynab al-Asadi al-Ajda'...Central to Abu'l-Khattab's doctrines appears to have been an allegorical interpretation to the Qur'an. His followers also believed that they would not die but would be lifted up to heaven. They are accused of having disregarded all religious observances and regarded everything as lawful. [pg. 52-53]
Bazighiyya. The followers of Bazigh ibn Musa, the weaver, who followed Abu'l-Khattab's doctrines and claimed that a man who had reached perfection should not be said to have died and that the best of his followers were superior to the angels. [pg. 53]
Mu'ammariyya. The followers of Mu'ammar ibn Khaytham, the corn dealer, who claimed prophethood...and asserted that the present world would never come to an end but that both paradise and hell were to be experienced here. [ibid]
Ghurabiyya. The followers of this group...are said to have held that since Muhammad and 'Ali were as indistinguishable from each other as one raven (ghurab) is from another, when the angel Gabriel was sent with the divine revelation from God for 'Ali, he gave it by mistake to Muhammad. [ibid]
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
John Wesley vs. The Bull
Ah, the joys of open air preaching...
I rode once more to Pensford at the earnest request of serious people. The place where they desired me to preach was a little green spot near the town. But I had no sooner begun than a great company of rabble, hired (as we afterwards found) for that purpose, came furiously upon us, bringing a bull, which they had been baiting, and now strove to drive in among the people. But the beast was wiser than his drivers and continually ran either on one side of us or the other, while we quietly sang praise to God and prayed for about an hour. The poor wretches, finding themselves disappointed, at length seized upon the bull, now weak and tired after having been so long torn and beaten both by dogs and men; and, by main strength, partly dragged, and partly thrust, him in among the people.
When they had forced their way to the little table on which I stood, they strove several times to throw it down by thrusting the helpless beast against it, who, of himself, stirred no more than a log of wood. I once or twice put aside his head with my hand that the blood might not drop upon my clothes; intending to go on as soon as the hurry should be over. But the table falling down, some of our friends caught me in their arms, and carried me right away on their shoulders; while the rabble wreaked their vengeance on the table, which they tore bit from bit. We went a little way off, where I finished my discourse without any noise or interruption. [from his journal; March 10, 1742]
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Christ is Risen!
The following is from a Charles Spurgeon sermon.
One more doctrine we learn, and with that we will conclude—the doctrine of the resurrection. Jesus rose, and as the Lord our Saviour rose, so all his followers must rise. Die I must—this body must be a carnival for worms; it must be eaten by those tiny cannibals; peradventure it shall be scattered from one portion of the earth to another; the constituent particles of this my frame will enter into plants, from plants pass into animals, and thus be carried into far distant realms; but, at the blast of the archangel's trumpet, every separate atom of my body shall find its fellow; like the bones lying in the valley of vision, though separated from one another, the moment God shall speak, the bone will creep to its bone; then the flesh shall come upon it; the four winds of heaven shall blow, and the breath shall return. So let me die, let beasts devour me, let fire turn this body into gas and vapor, all its particles shall yet again be restored; this very self-same, actual body shall start up from its grave, glorified and made like Christ's body, yet still the same body, for God hath said it. Christ's same body rose; so shall mine. O my soul, dost thou now dread to die? Thou wilt lose thy partner body a little while, but thou wilt be married again in heaven; soul and body shall again be united before the throne of God. The grave—what is it? It is the bath in which the Christian puts the clothes of his body to have them washed and cleansed. Death—what is it? It is the waiting-room where we robe ourselves for immortality; it is the place where the body, like Esther, bathes itself in spices that it may be fit for the embrace of its Lord. [source]
Friday, April 22, 2011
"The Day That Christ Died"
The following is from Jonathan Edwards's notes on the Bible, and deals specifically with Matthew 27:51.
"And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom." This was the veil that hindered our access to the throne of grace, or the mercy-seat in the holy of holies.
That hiding of the mercy-seat, and hindering of our access to the mercy-seat, figured a twofold hinderance of access to God.
1. The hinderance by which all men are kept off while they remain under the first covenant of works; they are hindered by their guilt, God’s law and justice.
2. That hinderance of free access that was under the first testament while the church was in a legal state, and in its minority, and under carnal, ordinances, so that access was rare and difficult, only allowed to the high priest, and that but once a year: so that the veil signifies two things, viz. 1. The sin of man, both guilt and corruption of heart; which both in diverse respects are a veil to hide the mercy-seat, and hinder our access. Both these were typified by the flesh of Christ. The sin of God’s people, or elect church, was typified by Christ’s flesh; for sin is called flesh in Scripture, and the elect church is Christ mystical; so that Christ, in taking flesh upon him, took their sin upon him: he became sin for us, and when his flesh was crucified, when his human nature died, then this veil was removed, for that abolished the sin of the elect church. So likewise Christ in the flesh, in his infirm, weak state, signified the church, or Christ mystical, in its Old-Testament minority, when it was in its weak, infirm, and carnal state, under carnal ordinances, under the elements of the world; and those carnal ordinances, and carnal dispensations, that Christ mystical was under, was as it were the flesh of Christ. When Christ died, then there was an end to those types and shadows, because they were then all fulfilled.
Christ’s human nature was a temple; it was the antitype of the temple; and his flesh, or the infirmity of his human nature, was the veil that hid the glory of God, or the divinity that dwells in him, and was in his person. So that the veil of the temple, in the third place, typified the literal flesh of Christ, that had veiled his glory; which it ceased to do when his state of humiliation was at an end. Christ himself, our great High Priest, entered into the holy of holies through the veil of his own flesh. That day that Christ died, was the great day of atonement, typified by the day of atonement of old, when the high priest entered into the holy of holies. Christ, as God man, could enter into heaven no other way than by rending this veil. Christ offered his sacrifice in the outward court, in this world, and then in the conclusion of it rent the veil, that his blood might be sprinkled within the veil. [source]
Monday, April 18, 2011
490 Years Ago...
On April 18, 1521, Martin Luther delivered his famous speech regarding his books and teachings, delivered at the Diet of Worms before the Holy Roman Emperor. When asked to respond plainly, Luther replied:
"Since your majesty and your lordships desire a simple reply, I will answer - without horns and without teeth. Unless I am convicted by scripture and by plain reason - I do not accept the authority of popes and councils for they have frequently erred and contradicted themselves - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand. I can do no other, God help me. Amen."
Sunday, April 17, 2011
A Simple Review of "Love Wins"
Introduction
In the end, I decided to go out and purchase it. I recognized that, even if I could ignore the book, others would not. During my brief tenure at a Kansas City seminary, I had encountered a great deal of theology sourced to Liberal Christianity and the whole Emergent Church movement. It cannot be ignored that this theology is making inroads in certain circles, and that many have begun to take it seriously.
This post was therefore not only written for the benefit of others, but the benefit of myself as well. We need to be prepared to respond to differing theological opinions in two ways: 1) understanding what that position is and grasp the fullness of its view; 2) being able to confront that position from a biblical, scriptural perspective. It is all too common, when confronted by a position we disagree with, to respond internally with emotion, and then argue in like manner.
Initial Impressions
One thing I should immediately note is that Rob Bell does not write like most people do - that is, he does not write in full paragraphs with consistent indents, sentence structures, etc. James White had said the book was written like a Twitter account, and that's a fairly accurate portrayal: while paragraphs do exist throughout the book, many times Rob Bell will write a series of short sentences with every individual sentence given a line of its own. Some longer sentences are broken up on individual lines as if structured like a poem. Sometimes a series of words will be put in a list that takes up half the page. Keep this in mind whenever I quote from the book itself and it looks like I'm having html issues with Blogger.
Truth be told, this made the book slightly annoying. I've generally found that there are three types of people: those who speak well and write well; those who are poor speakers but good writers; and those who are good speakers but poor writers. Rob Bell seems to fit in the latter group. His writing is obviously supposed to be modeled after his speaking style, but just as that didn't work for Hitler in Mein Kampf (and no, I am not comparing Rob Bell to Hitler) it doesn't work for Rob Bell in Love Wins.
Another annoying habit I noticed, almost right off the bat, was that Rob Bell rarely cites his sources or scripture quotations. An early example is on page 7, where Bell quotes Renee Altson's book Stumbling Toward Faith, but doesn't tell you at all where in the book he gets the quote. An even bigger example comes much later:
In the third century the church fathers Clement of Alexandria and Origen affirmed God's reconciliation with all people.Ignoring for the fact that he cites two men identified as heretics (Clement and Origen), as well as two men who are not considered heretics but identified to have held erroneous beliefs (Gregory of Nyssa and Eusebius), note how he doesn't cite one single source for where he got these quotes or affirmation of their agreement. He pretty much throws it in and says, "Just take my word for it! They agreed with me!" One almost gets the feeling that Rob Bell doesn't want you to cross-reference his sources.
In the fourth century, Gregory of Nyssa and Eusebius believed this as well.
In their day, Jerome claimed that "most people," Basil said the "mass of men," and Augustine acknowledged that "very many" believed in the ultimate reconciliation of all people to God. [pg. 107-108]
I had heard from previous reviews before that he tended to did this, but there is nothing like reading the book yourself and taking note of it. He will either drop a Bible quote and never tell you where he got it, or he will simply give you the book and chapter number without the specific verse (for example: Revelation, chap. 20). Initially I started writing in the exact citation whenever I encountered these situations...but this actually became so tedious that I eventually gave up and tried to discern which ones may have been taken out of context or not. As you might gather from this, Love Wins has no scripture index either (and I really didn't have the patience to do what James White did for Chosen But Free and make my own). Again, it almost comes across as if Rob Bell doesn't want you to cross-reference his quotations.
Ironically, the biggest first impression happened as soon as I began the book. That is, I immediately knew what I was getting into on the very first page of the preface. It was there that I encountered this:
First, I believe that Jesus's story is first and foremost about the love of God for every single one of us. It is a stunning, beautiful, expansive love, and it is for everybody, everywhere.I couldn't believe it. I hadn't even reached the official part of the book yet, and already I had seen gross eisegesis. Rob Bell quotes the first six words of John 3:16, but he seems to forget everything that comes after it: "...that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." What is translated as "whoever believes" is actually a longer Greek prepositional phrase: πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων. It literally translates as "all those believing," signifying that this eternal life is conditional only on belief in Christ. This is followed two verses later with: "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" (John 3:18). In using only one third of a verse, Bell attempts to portray a God who loves literally everyone unconditionally, yet completely leaves out everything that follows, in which his argument is entirely contradicted.
That's the story.
"For God so loved the world. . ."
That's why Jesus came.
That's his message.
That's where the life is found. [pg. v]
Keep in mind, once again, this was at the start of the preface...the first page of the book. This was a sign of things to come.
Appealing to Emotion and Straw Men Ad Nauseum
Reading the book, you realize that Rob Bell seems to endlessly repeat two logical fallacies: appeal to emotion and straw man. This is mostly in response to critics or those who hold an opinion contrary to the one Bell upholds. When dealing with such a contrary opinion, Bell will do either one of two things: 1) present a scenario where that opinion does oh-so-terrible things to people, leading one to conclude that the belief itself must be oh-so-terrible as well; 2) present a belief that is a misrepresentation of the true, orthodox Christian opinion, and attack that instead of the real argument.
One example of appealing to emotion, early on in the book:
Several years ago I heard a woman tell about the funeral of her daughter's friend, a high-school student who was killed in a car accident. Her daughter was asked by a Christian if the young man who had died was a Christian. She said that he told people he was an atheist. This person then said to her, "So there's no hope then."Another example:
No hope?
Is that the Christian message?
"No hope"?
Is that what Jesus offers the world? [pg. 3]
And then there are those whose lessons about heaven consist primarily of who will be there and who won't be there. And so there's a woman sitting in a church service with tears streaming down her face, as she imagines being reunited with her sister who was killed in a car accident seventeen years ago. The woman sitting next to her, however, is realizing that if what the pastor is saying about heaven is true, she will be separated from her mother and father, brothers and sisters, cousins, aunts, uncles, and friends forever, with no chance of any reunion, ever. She in that very same moment has tears steaming down her face too, but they are tears of a different kind. [pg. 25]Of course, the idea of a loved one going to hell is unsettling for anyone. We don't want to think that our mother, father, sister, brother, cousin, aunt, uncle, best friend or even wife or husband will go to hell. That's a perfectly normal sentiment. However, it is another thing to realize how horrible that feels, and then base a judgment on that emotion alone. "That sounds terrible, so it must not be true," is the general train of thought. Yet this makes as much sense as saying, "The death penalty sounds horrible, so it must not be true," and ignoring the fact that some have indeed been sentenced to suffer the death penalty.
Note very quickly something in the second quotation: "if what the pastor is saying..." This is very common throughout much of the initial part of the book, where Rob Bell is laying the foundation to what he's responding. It's always what "a pastor" or "some people" say - never what the Bible says. This is a bit similar to Doug Pagitt's use of "Platonic" in his book A Christianity Worth Believing. It's mainly to assure the reader that the opponents of the writer's opinion have no arguments from scripture or counter-exegesis.
The scriptural arguments of Rob Bell's opponents are never really considered, only a misrepresentation of what they believe. Or, as atheists often do, Bell takes the worst argumentation from the opposing side and chooses instead to respond to that, ignoring the more valid, thought out arguments. Oftentimes, he simply tries to confuse the matter by citing various passages that have nothing to do with one another (let alone conversion/salvation) and present it as if the orthodox position is difficult to understand. For example, after citing various passages that Rob Bell claims portray various modes of salvation, he states:
So is it not only that a person has to respond, pray, accept, believe, trust, confess, and do - but also that someone else has to act, teach, travel, organize, fund-raise, and build so that the person can know what to respond, pray, accept, believe, trust, confess, and do? [pg. 10]This is continued throughout the book. Rob Bell will grab this and that, throw it together as if it all has the same context, then say something similar to, "Oh my, scripture is just so confusing," misleading the reader to assume that certain teachings of scripture are not as clear as they might think they are. One might call this "scriptural acrobatics," but this isn't so much "scriptural acrobatics" as it might be "scriptural meatloaf."
This is all very important to note because Rob Bell's arguments are truly not scriptural by any means. The claim by the inside flap that his presentation is "biblical" is a gross misnomer. Rob Bell is no student of the Charles Hodge school of induction from scripture; rather, Rob Bell presents early on a concept of "what is mean and evil" and "what is better and good," and tries to find relevant passages to what fit into his theology. This will become more apparent as the review progresses on.
Redefining "Heaven" and "Hell"
Rob Bell begins his exposition on what "heaven" and "hell" exactly are in a chapter properly entitled Here is the New There. He puts forward that heaven is actually the present time, and is what we make of it. It is all about what we do here.
In Matthew 20 the mother of two of Jesus's disciples says to Jesus, "Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and other at your left in your kingdom." She doesn't want bigger mansions or larger piles of gold for them, because static images of wealth and prosperity were not what filled people's heads when they thought of heaven in her day. She understood heaven to be about partnering with God to make a new and better world, one with increasingly complex and expansive expressions of dimensions of shalom, creativity, beauty, and design. [pg. 47]Rob Bell makes reference to Matthew 20:21, with the request by the mother of James and John, the sons of Zebedee. The immediate problem Bell has is whereas he says "She got it right!" Christ would say "She got it wrong." When she asks this, Christ's first response is, "You do not know what you are asking." He follows this with the question to James and John: "Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?" (Matt 20:22). The cup was the crucifixion He would endure, followed by the pain and suffering that would come in being a believer in Christ. James and John did think Christ's kingdom was an entirely earthly kingdom...but that was an incorrect notion.
Despite this, Rob Bell continues to argue that "heaven" is what we make of the world here and now.
The more you become a person of peace and justice and worship and generosity, the more actively you participate now in ordering and working to bring about God's kind of world, the more ready you will be to assume an even greater role in the age to come. [pg. 40]And likewise:
So when people ask, "What will we do in heaven?" one possible answer is to simply ask: "What do you love to do now that will go on in the world to come?" [pg. 47]And another, clarifying his position:
To summarize, then, sometimes when Jesus used the word "heaven," he was simply referring to God, using the word as a substitute for the name of God.Rob Bell continually reads the idea of heaven as a reshaping of our social and personal atmosphere, "participating" with God on the earth.
Second, sometimes when Jesus spoke of heaven, he was referring to the future coming together of heaven and earth in what he and his contemporaries called life in the age to come.
And then third - and this is where things get really, really interesting - when Jesus talked about heaven, he was talking about our present eternal, intense, real experiences of joy, peace, and love in this life, this side of death and the age to come. Heaven for Jesus wasn't just "someday"; it was a present reality. Jesus blurs the lines, inviting the rich man, and us, into the merging of heaven and earth, the future and present, here and now.
To say it again, eternal life is less about a kind of time that starts when we die, and more about a quality and vitality of life lived now in connection to God. [pg. 58-59]
But when Jesus talks with the rich man, he has one thing in mind: he wants the man to experience the life of heaven, eternal life, "aionian" life, now. For that man, his wealth was in the way; for others its worry or stress or pride or envy - the list goes on. We know that list. [pg. 62]Perhaps the most mind-boggingly eisegetical moment in the redefinition of heaven - and one that shows the inherent flaws in his argument - is when Rob Bell talks about the wise thief on the cross.
Jesus is hanging on the cross between two insurgents when one of them says to him, "Remember me when you come into your kingdom."The way Rob Bell writes that the thief wanted "to be a part" of what "God is doing...through Jesus," you'd almost forget that just on the previous page Rob Bell had mentioned that the two were hanging by nails on a cross, being executed in a gruesome fashion. Can you imagine what God could possibly be doing (socially speaking) by nailing a person to the cross? Try to imagine the rationale behind this: you have giant nails through your wrists and feet, you're half-naked on a cross, foreign soldiers are mocking you, your own people jeering you, pain is seething through every inch of your body...would your immediate thought through all this be, "Oh wow, Jesus! I can totally see how God is really doing something through You on this earth, and I wanna be part of it!" Probably not.
Notice that the man doesn't ask to go to heaven. He doesn't ask for his sins to be forgiven. He doesn't invite Jesus into his heart. He doesn't announce that he now believes.
He simply asks to be remembered by Jesus in the age to come.
He wants to be part of it. Of course.
Jesus assures him that he'll be with him in paradise. . .
that day. The man hadn't asked about today; he had asked about that day. He believes that God is doing something new through Jesus and he wants to be a part of it, whenever it is. [pg. 54-55]
Matthew records that, initially, even the wise thief was mocking Christ (Matt 27:44), but as the events of the crucifixion went on and the time of death drew near, it is then that the incident recorded in Luke 23:39-43 occurred. What other context could the thief be thinking but the afterlife? Keep in mind that the other thief, whom the wise thief rebukes, had demanded Christ free Himself and then them. If the wise thief is seeking to be part of "what God is doing" and that means making the world a better place, why doesn't he likewise demand that Jesus set him free so that he can go give money to the poor or start homeless shelters? Instead, the thief asks for one thing: that Christ remember him when He comes into His kingdom. The time of death was here, but the wise thief understood that there was something beyond death, and he sought it from the one Man who could supply it: Jesus Christ. To turn this into a silly example of a social gospel is to not only mock the faith of the thief, but, more importantly, the saving faith of Christ.
Turning now to hell, it probably won't surprise anyone that - just as he taught heaven is more of a present-day condition than a latter day state of judgment - Bell likewise teaches that hell is merely what we make of it on earth. After recalling a visit to Rwanda in 2002 and seeing the survivors of the genocide, baring missing limbs that had been hacked off, Bell states:
Do I believe in a literal hell?He states a page later:
Of course.
Those aren't metaphorical missing arms and legs. [pg. 71]
God gives us what we want, and if that's hell, we can have it.To Bell, Christ's descriptions of hell are merely "a volatile mixture of images, pictures, and metaphors that describe the very real experiences and consequences of rejecting our God-given goodness and humanity" (pg. 73). Talking about a woman going through a nasty divorce, Bell says: "In that moment Jesus's warnings don't seem that over-the-top or drastic; they seem perfectly spot-on" (ibid).
We have that kind of freedom, that kind of choice. We are that free.
We can use machetes if we want to. [pg. 72]
Here I should quickly note something for those of my readers who may have experienced a harsh life, or have family and friends who have gone through a traumatic experience: I am in no way, shape or form attempting to demean your emotions or feelings regarding what you went through. The people Bell mentions surely went through a kind of "living hell." The problem is that Bell takes the experience of a bad life event and then confuses that for the literal hell. That is the danger in his theology. The belief in a literal hell came first, followed by the phrase "living hell" to give an idea of the pain behind an experience; Bell wants to try to tell us that it was the other way around.
One problem that Rob Bell doesn't seem to realize is that most of those "metaphors" he refers to involve the actions of angels. For example, Matthew 13:41-42 describes the Son of Man sending His angels to gather the stumbling blocks of the kingdom and casting them into the furnace of fire, where there is "weeping and gnashing of teeth." Are angels therefore causing the pain and suffering Bell identifies? Were there angels wandering around Rwanda hacking off limbs? Did an angel convince the woman's husband to divorce her? Keep in mind these are angels of the Lord, not fallen angels, and all I'm asking for here is consistency. Rob Bell's explanation that descriptions of hell are metaphors simply doesn't follow through when looked at logically.
Of course, you can't get away from the passages that clearly speak of an afterlife event or condition. Many readers have probably been thinking, "How would Rob Bell handle the parable of the rich man and Lazarus?" Well, believe it or not...he turns that into a social gospel too.
Notice that the story ends with a reference to the resurrection, something that was going to happen very soon with Jesus himself. This is crucial for understanding the story, because the story is about Jesus's listeners at that moment. The story, for them, moves from then to now. Whatever the meaning was for Jesus's first listeners, it was directly related to what he was doing right there in their midst. [pg. 75]I couldn't help but recall the 1960's Batman series with Adam West, where the Riddler was always coming up with some very vague puzzle that Batman somehow knew how to solve in a roundabout way ("'Sea'? Sea...ah! C, for Catwoman!"). Similarly, Bell takes the tale of the rich man and Lazarus, takes the word "resurrection," loosely connects it to Jesus's own resurrection (which it wasn't about - it regarded possible warnings from the afterlife akin to Mary K. Baxter), then somehow makes it seem as if this is all about what Jesus is doing in their midst. In other words, Rob Bell skirts having to deal with a passage clearly talking about the afterlife and judgment by utilizing a not-so-subtle red herring.
From here, Bell turns the story into one giant "social revolution" metaphor. "The chasm is the rich man's heart," Bell says, because "he's still clinging to the old hierarchy. He still thinks he's better" (ibid). Bell goes on to say:
The gospel Jesus spreads in the book of Luke has as one of its main themes that Jesus brings a social revolution, in which the previous systems and hierarchies of clean and unclean, sinner and saved, and up and down don't mean what they used to. God is doing a new work through Jesus, calling all people to human solidarity. Everybody is a brother, a sister. Equals, children of the God who shows no favoritism. [pg. 75-76]Keep in mind this is what Rob Bell thinks the parable of the rich man and Lazarus means. He states that the parable is telling Christ's listeners "to rethink how they viewed the world, because there would be serious consequences for ignoring the Lazaruses outside their gates" (pg. 76). Before you think the mention of "serious consequences" means Bell is teaching a kind of hell as punishment, read what he writes a few pages later on the same subject:
What we see in Jesus's story about the rich man and Lazarus is an affirmation that there are all kinds of hells, because there are all kinds of ways to resist and reject all that is good and true and beautiful and human now, in this life, and so we can only assume we can do the same in the next. [pg. 79]According to Rob Bell, then, the entire point of the rich man and Lazarus was that we should give to poor people or we make this world hell. The rich man was merely in "one kind of hell," which we all find ourselves in, depending on who we are or what we experience.
If you think the strange connection between the rich man and Lazarus parable with a social revolution is as crazy as it gets, you should see how Rob Bell treats the parable of the prodigal son:
What the father does is retell the older brother's story. Just as he did with the younger brother. The question, then, is the same question that confronted the younger brother - will he trust his version of his story or his father's version of the story?If you're thinking, "You gotta be kidding me, he thinks the parable of the prodigal son is relevant to the topic of the existence of heaven and hell?", you guessed rightly. Again finding a slim connection between a parable and a non-related point, Rob Bell will spend several pages going on about how the relationship between heaven and hell is like the prodigal son and his family. It's as if he seems to forget that the parable was aimed at the self-righteous Pharisees and scribes who disliked Christ seeking repentance from sinners (Luke 15:2), meaning the whole point of the parable was God's acceptance of repentant hearts. It has nothing to do with heaven and hell.
Who will he trust?
What will he believe?
The difference between the two stories is,
after all,
the difference between heaven . . . and hell. [pg. 168-169]
With all this talk of metaphorical hells, most people have probably been thinking, "Wait, doesn't Christ always say that hell is an eternal punishment? Isn't it eternal then?" Actually, Bell has a response to that. While referring to the parable of the final judgment in Matthew 25, Bell makes this case:
The goats are sent, in the Greek language, to an aion of kolazo. Aion, we know, has several meanings. One is "age" or "period of time"; another refers to intensity of experience. The word kolazo is a term from horticulture. It refers to the pruning and trimming of the branches of a plant so it can flourish. [pg. 91]Bell argues that "Jesus isn't talking about forever as we think of forever" (pg. 92). The implication here is that what we translate as "eternal punishment" Christ actually means as "temporary pruning," so that eventually the goats will join the sheep. Bell earlier states that "there's always the assurance that it won't be this way forever" (pg. 86). Here is the problem with that interpretation - and it's a great problem for anyone questioning the definition of "eternal" in the New Testament:
"These will go away into eternal punishment [κόλασιν αἰώνιον], but the righteous into eternal life [ζωὴν αἰώνιον]." [Matt 25:46]The goats are going into an aion of kolazo, whereas the sheep are going into an aion of zoe. According to Bell's own logic and definition of aion, the life of the sheep is therefore only temporary. What then happens with this aion of zoe ends? Do the sheep and goats trade places? Are the sheep sent into refinement? If that's the case, why did they need to go into life in the first place? Let's be consistent here (if you review Bell's use of aion with eternal life on pages 58-59, you'll see he isn't). The fact is, kolazo (actually κόλασις) means "chastisement, punishment" and "torment" (source) - Christ is not talking about any kind of refinement here.
Even more mind-bogging is the way Rob Bell seems to completely miss the point of Christ's warning to various Jewish cities, which Bell uses in his interpretation that there's hope for people in the afterlife.
In Matthew 10 [actually Matt 11:23-24], he warns the people living in Capernaum, "It will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for you."I literally could not believe this. Did Rob Bell just completely miss the point Christ was trying to make? When Christ says "it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you," He's not saying that Sodom and Gomorrah have been forgiven, or that there was hope for Sodom and Gomorrah after death...He's conveying that it will be worse for those who reject Him, the Incarnate Word. How can you seriously miss that?
More bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah?
He tells highly committed, pious, religious people that it will be better for Sodom and Gomorrah than them on judgment day?
There's still hope? [pg. 84]
Rob Bell's response to eternal punishment is ultimately an emotional one:
Have billions of people been created only to spend eternity in conscious punishment and torment, suffering infinitely for the finite sins they committed in the few years they spent on earth? [pg. 102]May I pose a question in response to Rob Bell's logic here: does it really matter how long it took to commit a crime to judge the severity of a crime? Suppose a man murdered his daughter, was arrested and brought to trial, but the judge said, "Well, it only took you a second to commit the murder, so I'll just put you in jail for a few minutes." We would call such things injustice. In the same manner, it is not a matter of how long a person sinned or lived a sinful life - it is the crime committed, and against whom. The sum of all sins are equal, and transgressing one of God's commands is the same as transgressing them all (cf. Jam 2:10). There is likewise not a righteous person who has ever lived, Jew or Gentile (Rom 3:9-10). As someone once said, there will be nobody in hell who won't deserve to be there, and only one Person in heaven who will deserve to be there.
To summarize all this, how does Rob Bell define heaven and hell?
- To Rob Bell, heaven is: "that realm where things are as God intends them to be" (pg. 42).
- To Rob Bell, hell is: "the massive, society-wide collapse and chaos that comes when we fail to live in God's world God's way" (pg. 93).
The Afterlife - So...What Is It?
With the line distorted between then and now, one wonders: does Rob Bell teach any kind of afterlife? Well, in a way, yes. The immediate follow-up question might then be, "Is it true that Rob Bell is a universalist?" To put it briefly, yes. In his section specifically dealing with God's judgment and the afterlife, Rob Bell begins his argumentation with:
I point out these parallel claims:Yes, that's right - Rob Bell pulled the 1 Timothy 2:4 card.
that God is mighty, powerful, and "in control"
and that billions of people will spend forever apart from this God, who is their creator,
even though it's written in the Bible that
"God wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2).
So does God get what God wants? [pg. 97]
Now, most Arminians or Synergists (at least those who try to be biblically consistent) recognize that even if God "wants all people to be saved," that isn't what's going to happen. Yet 1 Timothy 2:4 becomes the battle cry for Rob Bell's universalism, asking the reader: "Will all people be saved, or will God not get what God wants?" (pg. 98) Therefore, it might appropriate here to quickly analyze 1 Timothy 2:4 (hopefully avoiding any Synergist/Monergist debate that might spring up):
First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time. For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying) as a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension. [1 Tim 2:1-8]Let's note first the context: to pray for all kinds of men, including those who are kings or in authority. All Christians, at this time, were living under pagan authorities, yet Paul commands that they pray even for these men, since God desires that even men such as they would come to repentance. It is not man who saves, of course, but God who saves - we are not to forget that. Man is likewise not to forget that even the worst of us (as Paul himself experienced) could be saved by our Lord.
Note also verse 7: "for this," Paul says, "I was appointed a preacher and an apostle...as a teacher of the Gentiles." What does Paul mean when he says "all men"? Does he mean literally all men everywhere will soon be believers in heaven? Not at all. This would contradict Paul's point in his epistle to the Romans that while God makes "one vessel for honorable use," He likewise from the same lump creates "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" (Rom 9:21-22). The other problem is that the word Rob Bell translates as "wants" (θέλω in the original Greek) is likewise translated as "desires" (such as in the ESV and NASB), and refers to an implication or wish rather than an edict (that is, something set in stone). Some examples of its use as a wish or implication include Luke 8:20, Luke 23:8, 1 Corinthians 7:7 and 1 Corinthians 14:5. All in all, the apostle Paul is trying to tell Timothy that we should pray for everyone because there is no limit or restriction on what type of person God will save. He is not telling Timothy that God wants literally everybody in the whole world to be saved.
Returning to the topic, Rob Bell beats his mantra of "God has to get what God wants!", going to a discussion regarding the end times and final judgment. This leads to a rather humorous moment that shows Rob Bell's lack of understanding of scripture:
Could God say to someone truly humbled, broken, and desperate for reconciliation, "Sorry, too late"? Many have refused to accept the scenario in which somebody is pounding on the door, apologizing, repenting, and asking God to be let in, only to hear God say through the keyhole: "Door's locked. Sorry. If you had been here earlier, I could have done something. But now, it's too late." [pg. 108]When I first read this, I realized this scenario sounded familiar...then I realized that this is what Christ says will happen!
"Then the kingdom of heaven will be comparable to ten virgins, who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. Five of them were foolish, and five were prudent. For when the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them, but the prudent took oil in flasks along with their lamps. Now while the bridegroom was delaying, they all got drowsy and began to sleep. But at midnight there was a shout, 'Behold, the bridegroom! Come out to meet him.' Then all those virgins rose and trimmed their lamps. The foolish said to the prudent, 'Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.' But the prudent answered, 'No, there will not be enough for us and you too; go instead to the dealers and buy some for yourselves.' And while they were going away to make the purchase, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the wedding feast; and the door was shut. Later the other virgins also came, saying, 'Lord, lord, open up for us.' But he answered, 'Truly I say to you, I do not know you.' Be on the alert then, for you do not know the day nor the hour. [Matthew 25:1-13]Rob Bell tells us, "Gosh, it would be so mean to think God would shut the door and not let in people who were sorry, even telling them it was too late!" Yet Christ tells us that's exactly what it will be like. This is exactly why Christ is continually warning His followers to always be ready - because you don't know when the Master will come and the door be locked. Once it's locked, there's no chance of getting in. Yes, Mr. Bell, that's it. Christ Himself says so. In fact, Christ doesn't even say, "I'm sorry, it's too late," He simply says, "I don't know you."
This brings us to Rob Bell's infamous treatment of the last two chapters of Revelation and the final judgment. He notes first the absence of any kind of sin, and the barring of people who have committed such sin...and then a stunning fact regarding the gates of the New Jerusalem:
Second, we read in these last chapters of revelation that the gates of that city in that new world will "never shut." That's a small detail, and it's important we don't get too hung up on details and specific images because it's possible to treat something so literally that it becomes less true in the process. But gates, gates are for keeping people in and keeping people out. If the gates are never shut, then people are free to come and go.The implication here is that a person, seeing the glory of the better world, drops all the "major" sins they cling to and enter heaven. This is how Rob Bell introduces universal reconciliation, although in the end he leaves it up for question:
Can God bring proper, lasting justice, banishing certain actions - and the people who do them - from the new creation while at the same time allowing and waiting and hoping for the possibility of the reconciliation of those very same people? Keeping the gates, in essence, open? Will everyone eventually be reconciled to God or will there be those who cling to their version of their story, insisting upon their right to be their own little god ruling their own little miserable kingdom? [pg. 115]
Those are questions, or more accurately, those are tensions we are leave to free fully intact. We don't need to resolve them or answer them because we can't, and so we simply respect them, creating space for the freedom that love requires. [ibid]This is how Rob Bell gets around being labeled a universalist. The problem is a hopeful universalist is still a universalist, and Bell has completely misused text to get to this absurd "maybe." The fact is there are no tensions present, because Bell has in fact forgotten a rather important part about those open gates:
In the daytime (for there will be no night there) its gates will never be closed; and they will bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it; and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life. [Revelation 21:25-27; emphasis mine]Note the part in bold: the only people who can go through those gates are those in the book of life. What already happened to those whose names were not written in the book of life? They were thrown into the lake of fire (Rev 20:15), where it is said their part in this new world will be (Rev 21:8). This completely debunks Rob Bell's notion that the gates are open to let anyone in the lake of fire in. And before anyone tries to say, "Oh, well, they can be written in later!", keep in mind that these names were written in the book of life "from the foundation of the world" (Rev 13:8). The judgment has come. They are in their place. The gates are open only for those who deserve to be there.
Might I now propose a philosophical problem with Rob Bell's eschatology? If in the end even the hardest of hearts are melted and everyone embraces God (because sending people to hell would be so gosh darn mean)...then why do anything good in this life? Why should I join Jesus's "social revolution" when Jesus will be letting me into the New Jerusalem any way? Rob Bell might argue, "Oh! But that sinning still has to be overcome in the next life!" True, but he believes that we mature in the afterlife, and that I'll be so wowed by the party going on in heaven that I'll be willing to abandon hell altogether.
The love of God will melt every wild heart, and even the most "depraved sinners" will eventually give up their resistance and turn to God. [pg. 107]Why then should I be good when I'll eventually be able to overcome my bad? Why fear afterlife punishment when it's only to convince me how good I should be? Why be a Schindler when you can be a Himmler and still have a chance to change your mind afterward? What's so bad about the Rwanda murderers who defaced the people Rob Bell met when eventually both groups will be together in heaven? I know nothing bad is going to happen to me no matter how evil or cruel I am, because, after all, it would be mean of God to punish me.
Rob Bell argues that the idea of an afterlife with punishment makes this life senseless. What he seems to fail to realize is that, following his own logic through to its conclusion, making an afterlife with no punishment likewise makes this life senseless.
Jesus the Universalist
Similar to the treatment of Christ in The Shack, Rob Bell would have us believe that Jesus Christ taught universalism. Quoting Paul's reference to Moses hitting the rock in Exodus (1 Cor 10:4), Bell explains how Jesus is nowhere in that passage, yet Paul finds Him there. He states this is because "Paul finds Jesus everywhere" (pg. 144). Rob Bell's ultimate point is that if Paul found Jesus in a rock, why can't we find Jesus in Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.
Might I stop for a moment? What had Paul said a few verses later? "Do not be idolaters, as some of them were" (1 Cor 10:7). He says several verses even further: "Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry" (1 Cor 10:14) - no, not idolatry as in a silly metaphor that Rob Bell uses in regards to our personal sins, but actual, pagan idolatry. Paul likewise states, "You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons" (1 Cor 10:21). Paul's point in this tenth chapter is that they should seek after God and avoid the past errors of the Old Testament Jews, one of which was going after other gods. Rob Bell is grabbing a text and saying, "Oh look! Paul found Jesus in a rock, which means we can find Jesus in the Tibetan Book of the Dead!" No, Mr. Bell - Paul found an early Messianic foreshadow which He used to highlight that we have only one Rock, and that we should not seek after anything other than this Rock. It is simply amazing what a little review of context can do to a theological belief.
In continuing his argument that Jesus believes He is saving literally everyone, Rob Bell turns to the famous Good Shepherd chapter:
As Jesus says in John 10, "I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen." [pg. 152]Yet here (John 10:16) Christ is talking about the Gentiles, who will be brought into the new covenant after the crucifixion (the point of John 12:32, which Rob Bell, like he did with 1 Timothy 2:4, also misrepresents as being universalism on page 151). In the exact same chapter, Christ tells the Jewish leaders, "You do not believe because you are not part of my flock" (John 10:26; ESV), and that it is for His sheep that He gives eternal life so that they never perish (John 10:28). Therefore, Christ clearly differentiates those who are not His sheep and those who are, and that there are benefits for one and disaster for the other. Again, simply astounding how much can be done to a theological belief when a little context is reviewed.
Some of my readers might be thinking, "Wait a minute, how would Rob Bell handle John 14:6? That's as exclusivist as they come." Well, Rob Bell does handle John 14:6, but how he handles it is simply evidence that someone can read a clear teaching of scripture and still see only what they want to see.
John remembers Jesus saying, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (chap. 14).Reading this, certain words come to mind, as spoken by a certain reptile in the Garden of Eden: "Did God really say...?" In a similar fashion, Rob Bell takes a passage that clearly repudiates his entire argument and says, "Well, did God really say He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and no one can come to the Father except through the Son...?"
This is as wide and expansive a claim as a person can make.
What he doesn't say is how, or when, or in what manner the mechanism functions that gets people to God through him. He doesn't even state that those coming to the Father through him will even know that they are coming exclusively through him. He simply claims that whatever God is doing in the world to know and redeem and love and restore the world is happening through him. [pg. 154]
To Rob Bell, Jesus is not the way, the truth, or the life, He is simply a vague "life source of the universe" (pg. 156) that supplies help to everyone, which "in many traditions...is understood to be impersonal" (pg. 145). If you want to know how serious Rob Bell takes this subject, he even compares Jesus to the Force in Star Wars (ibid). To those who argue that this makes the cross - and indeed, Christ Himself - completely irrelevant, Bell assures them that this is "absolutely, unequivocally, unalterably not true," as Jesus "is as narrow as himself and as wide as the universe" (pg. 155). To be perfectly frank, that comment makes little sense, as if Rob Bell believes a "beautiful contradiction" is better than a Divine Truth. Given what we've seen already, it probably shouldn't surprise us that consistency isn't a serious standard at this point.
The Willful Mishandling of Scripture
Obviously we've already seen some examples of how Rob Bell plays games either with the original language and certain passages of scripture. There were a few unique examples, however, in which I couldn't help but notice that Rob Bell had to have been willingly distorting the original meaning.One example is found in Rob Bell's handling of the encounter between Christ and the rich young ruler. Read this following quote very carefully, and see if you can spot the mishandling:
Jesus then tells him, "Go, sell your possessions, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven," which causes the man to walk away sad, "because he had great wealth." [pg. 29]Did you catch it? What did Rob Bell leave out? Let's see the original verse in its entirety:
Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." [Matthew 19:21]Rob Bell left out Christ's final command: "come, follow Me." That was the climax of the command - that was where everything hinged upon.
This becomes even more apparent a few pages on:
When the wealthy man walks away from Jesus, Jesus turns to his disciples and says to them, "No one who has left home or wife or brothers or sisters or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God will fail to receive many times as much in this age, and in the age to come eternal life" (Luke 18). [pg. 31]Did you note that he again ignored something? Rob Bell quotes Luke 18:29-30...but he completely left out verses 24 to 28, which is what Jesus actually said when He turned to his disciples. Verses 26 and 27 are especially important: the disciples lament "Then who can be saved?" and Christ responds "The things that are impossible with people are possible with God." Rob Bell will say elsewhere that the rich young ruler's problem was he couldn't "trust God to liberate him from his greed" (pg. 41), but that wasn't at all why he had to trust in God - he had to trust in God for his salvation. Anyone who reads the fullness of the rich young ruler's story understands that.
Yet another example, taken from the section dealing with heaven:
(By the way, when the writer John in the book of Revelation gets a current glimpse of the heavens, one detail he mentions about crowns is that people are taking them off [chap. 4]. Apparently, in the unvarnished presence of the divine a lot of things we consider significant turn out to be, much like wearing a crown, quite absurd). [pg. 44]He's referring to Revelation 4:10, but completely misquotes it: the "twenty-four elders" (whom he fails to identify) are not simply "taking them off," but rather it is written that they "will cast their crowns before the throne." Who is on the throne? The most high God. It is likewise written that they will say: "Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created" (Rev 4:11). The crowns were a sign of glory given to them by God, but the elders recognize that even their own glory cannot be attributed to anyone other than God, and hence by casting their crowns before the thrown they are returning that glory given to them that is owed to God. The point of this passage is Soli Deo Gloria, not class warfare.
Another, even bigger example, is seen in the section attempting to prove universal reconciliation from scripture:
This God's anger, in Psalm 30, "lasts only a moment, but his favor lasts a lifetime." [pg. 101]He's referring to Psalm 30:5. Let's back up a verse to see the entire context of what the psalmist is talking about.
Sing praise to the LORD, you His godly ones, and give thanks to His holy name. For His anger is but for a moment, His favor is for a lifetime; weeping may last for the night, but a shout of joy comes in the morning. [Psalm 30:4-5; emphasis mine]The psalm is a psalm of praise, and is directed towards God's "godly ones" (the ESV translates it as "saints"). Yes, God's favor lasts a lifetime, but this is in reference to His people, not everyone in the whole world.
Granted, when I see someone misuse a text, I don't immediately jump to the conclusion that they're doing so on purpose. I try to assume one of four things: 1) they're going from memory, and have just forgotten how it originally went; 2) they honestly just simply don't understand what the text is saying; 3) they're going from a second-hand source, and haven't double checked what the original text said; 4) they're doing it on purpose, knowing they're mishandling the text. The mistakes Rob Bell continues to make could only lead me to conclude that he was doing the fourth error. Perhaps the biggest proof of this is seen in his treatment of Ezekiel 16:55. After speaking about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Bell writes:
But this isn't the last we read of Sodom and Gomorrah.Let's review the original context. First, Ezekiel 16 is God speaking through Ezekiel to Jerusalem regarding her idolatry and disobedience before God. God likewise makes reference both to Sodom and...Samaria. No, not Gomorrah, but Samaria. Gomorrah is nowhere mentioned in this chapter. God is making reference to contemporary locations committing contemporary transgressions. The full reading of the passage Rob Bell cites is:
The prophet Ezekiel had a series of visions in which God shows him what's coming, including the promise that God will "restore the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters" and they will "return to what they were before" (chap. 16).
Restore the fortunes of Sodom?
The story isn't over for Sodom and Gomorrah.
What appeared to be a final, forever, smoldering, smoking verdict regarding their destiny . . . wasn't?
What appeared to be over, isn't.
Ezekiel says that where there was destruction there will be restoration. [pg. 83-84]
Your sisters, Sodom with her daughters and Samaria with her daughters, will return to their former state, and you with your daughters will also return to your former state. [Eze 16:55]God is not speaking about the Sodom and Gomorrah that was destroyed - He is talking about a contemporary Sodom along with Samaria and Jerusalem, and saying he will restore their nationhood. This has nothing to do with restoration in the afterlife.
We can't say Rob Bell is going from memory, because he's speaking from a book and has had plenty of time to proof text before going to publication. We can't say Rob Bell simply misunderstands the passage because the context is abundantly clear. We can't say Rob Bell is guilty of using a second-hand source, because his argument is contradicted by the very text he quotes. There is only one option left for us to conclude: Rob Bell has mishandled scripture, and has done so knowingly.
If you still have doubts, here is but one final example.
Jesus meets and redeems us in all the ways we have it together and in all the ways we don't, in all the times we proudly display for the world our goodness, greatness, and rightness, and in all the ways we fall flat on our faces.Did that sound familiar at the end? That's because he's referring to Christ's words in Matthew's gospel...except he's completely ripped them from their context. Let's see what Christ originally said:
It's only when you lose your life that you can find it, Jesus says. [pg. 190]
"And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." [Matt 10:38-39]Christ is talking about martyrdom and personal sacrifice in His name. This isn't a squishy kind of "well sometimes you have to lose to win," this is Christ saying, "You have to be willing even to stare death in the eye and refuse to renounce My name, because it is in My name alone that you have life." Of course, to Rob Bell this is completely inconsequential, because to Rob Bell's theology Jesus Christ is not a name worthy to die for, it is a vague concept of goodness that one doesn't need to die over.
Questionable Theology
A wise man once said, "Some theology is taught, and some theology is caught." While reading through this book, there were a few moments where I couldn't help but think something deeper was lying under the surface, and I've decided to record a few of those instances.
Most curious is Rob Bell's questionable stance regarding the existence of the devil. Making reference to 1 Timothy 1:20, where Paul speaks of handing Hymenaeus and Alexander over to Satan, Bell puts Satan in quotation marks and begins his discussion with "whoever and whatever he means by that word Satan..." (pg. 89). The very next page Bell puts both Satan and sinful nature in quotation marks, as if not only Satan is simply a metaphor, but so is our sinful nature. He even goes on to say that turning someone over to Satan simply means "to allow them to live with the full consequences of their choices" (pg. 90). Bell appears to have the same opinion of Swedeborginists, who uphold that Satan and demons are simply metaphors for evil, and not literal spiritual entities. In this regard, Islam has a lot more in common with Christianity than Rob Bell's supposedly "Christian" theology does. I would encourage anyone who thinks Satan and the demons are simply metaphors to carefully read the tale of the man possessed by Legion (Mark 5:1-20). Ask yourselves: what jumped from the demoniac into the herd of swine? It certainly wasn't a metaphor.
Perhaps the biggest hint at an underlying problem was Rob Bell's understanding of scripture. As we've seen, Rob Bell quotes scripture throughout the book, but he often mishandles it or completely distorts it. A big question in such a situation: what does scripture mean for such a person? What does scripture mean to Rob Bell? To him, scripture is...a nice story. For example, he refers to the first few chapters of Genesis as a "poem" (pg. 44), as if it is simply a poem and not the literal story of creation. He does this again later on, twice, on page 133, and yet again on page 145. Throughout the book he refers to parables and gospel accounts alike as "stories," and theological beliefs as "stories."
In this vein, he often talks of the conflict between bad stories, good stories, or better stories. One big example of this in the book:
Second, it's important that we be honest about the fact that some stories are better than others. Telling a story in which billions of people spend forever somewhere in the universe trapped in a black hole of endless torment and misery with no way out isn't a very good story. Telling a story about a God who inflicts unrelenting punishment on people because they didn't do or say or believe the correct things in a brief window of time called life isn't a very good story. [pg. 110]The problem is most Christians recognize the Bible as a historical account as well as theological. What Paul writes was what Paul wrote, what Christ says is what Christ said, etc. It doesn't matter what we think would make a "better" story, the fact is this is the story given to us.
I could take the story of the Battle of Pearl Harbor and make it so that, shortly before reaching the harbor itself, the Japanese planes are given the order to cancel the attack. They immediately turn around, preventing the death of 3000 American servicemen and the future deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans and Japanese. That would be a much better story than what unfolded that day. However...that's not how the story of the Battle of Pearl Harbor went. Whether or not we think another route would make a "better story," the fact remains that what happened happened. Likewise, what Christ and His apostles said were said, and what they taught were taught. Whether we like what they said or not, we have to repeat it.
Christ warned us that those who would be ashamed of His words, He would be ashamed of them when He comes in His glory (Luke 9:26). We don't need a "better story." What we need is the story given to us by Christ, which is found in Holy Writ. I will gladly take that over any "better story" the human mind can concoct.
Conclusion
I'll just come out and say it: Rob Bell is a heretic.
A cruel term? Perhaps to some, but it has meaning, and while I'm all for overlooking theological differences between brothers and sisters, Bell's differences are so grand that he invents a new religion. His version of Christianity is about as close to the Bible's definition of it as Gnosticism was for the apostle John, Arianism for Athanasius, Monothelitism for Maximos the Confessor, and medieval Roman Catholicism for Martin Luther.
I don't take any personal joy in calling anyone a heretic or any teachings heresy, but we need to call a spade a spade. After reading this and seeing the gross errors in citing scripture or exegeting passages, I have to come to the conclusion that Rob Bell's not misled...he's actively misleading. I recognize that God sends such men as Rob Bell to essentially wave the winnowing fork in the church and separate the wheat from the chaff (cf. 2 The 2:11-12). All the same, I feel only pity for those who would read this book and not cross-reference the scripture or review Bell's logic in a critical manner.
Should the book be read at all? If you want to see how Rob Bell's mind works and what his teachings really are, then I would suggest you do so. As I said at the beginning of this post, this kind of teaching - fallacious as it is - is infesting many parts of the church and so-called Christian academia. Whether we want to close our eyes and ears and pretend the Emergent movement does not exist...it exists. Just as whether or not Rob Bell wants to pretend a real hell of punishment doesn't exist...it exists.
What do I think of the book? It comes close to being the most heretical book I've ever read (just getting up near The Shack). There was barely a passage used in context in the entire book, and if Rob Bell did cite or quote a passage in context, it was most likely by accident. Furthermore, whereas Rob Bell promises early on that "this isn't just a book of questions," but "a book of responses to these questions" (pg. 19), it seems that he never intended to give precise responses. Vague answers like, "There's heaven now, somewhere else. There's heaven here, sometime else" (pg. 62) abound throughout the entire book. It might sound nice when said softly in a NOOMA video, but when read from a book where you can analyze it and ponder what it means, it just comes out sounding silly.
Rob Bell would like us to think that what he believes is valid Christian theology and therefore we should be open to discussion, not criticism.
We can be honest about the warped nature of the human heart, the freedom that love requires, and the destructive choices people make, and still envision God's love to be bigger, stronger, and more compelling than all of that put together. To shun, censor, or ostracize someone for holding this belief is to fail to extend grace to each other in a discussion that has had plenty of room for varied perspective for hundreds of years now. [pg. 111]The fact is, we've seen in this book what his idea of discussion is. He neither respects the opposing side nor attempts to understand where they are coming from. In the end he even subtly suggests those who hold an orthodox view of heaven and hell are "brain-washed."
As we experience this love, there is a temptation at times to become hostile to our earlier understandings, feeling embarrassed that we were so "simple" or "naive," or "brainwashed" or whatever terms arise when we haven't come to terms with our own story. [pg. 194]Yet as we've seen, Rob Bell treats the words of men with the same dignity he treats the word of God. If he indeed held the word of God with any respect, he might have noticed how Paul's epistle to the Galatians was written entirely to respond to a grave heresy, and that Paul gave the grave warning that, should any one attempt to teach another gospel than that given to the people, let them be anathema (Gal 1:8-9). Paul understood that Christ was the truth, the way, and the life, and there was salvation under no other name. This wasn't a topic for discussion - this was the gospel he had been given, and the gospel for which he would die. Any one who would deprive us of that gospel is only a wolf attempting to lead us astray.
And Mr. Bell...may you be anathema.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)