I agree with you insofar as “we” have too many theological debates. I would say the Church has become too religious. Did Jesus come to start a religion? Hardly. He came to make a way to the Father. That is the Gospel that you can take to any nation, tongue, tribe, and language. The Good News is Jesus. RE Rob Bell, I was struck by how little his main points are referenced to what Jesus said, or to the scriptures. For example, his ideal of community. Jesus spoke of family. Family is the framework, not community. This matters: God is our Father, not our community activity director. Family is essential; community is optional. Where did this community idea come from? Pop logic and culture. Not good. Or his whole point about interpretation in Movement 2. Rob says, “the Bible HAS to be interpreted” and “it is not possible to simply do what the Bible says.” (page 46). WAIT a minute! I can imagine if I told my son to clean up his room, and he called his friend and said, “Hey, let’s meet at the skate park tomorrow and discuss what my dad told me to do – what did he really mean by “clean up my room”? What’s the “room” thing all about? And what does “clean” mean, anyway?” That’s some very dangerous thinking that sounds good, but is highly untruthful and disobedient. Jesus’ paradigm is family, and that he and his Father gave us commands to move us to maturity – to love, not to philosophize about and have interpretation parties over. Jesus clearly says “if you love me, you’ll do what I say.” And his Father says, “This is my beloved son – listen to him.”

He uses:
Science-Lee Strobal is cited as well as several phyicists
Reason/logic
Mostly the Biblical story of Creation/Adam and Eve
His own story
Illustrations of other people’s stories.

It doesn’t matter if God can’t be proven say Scientifically, that was just one Spring…removed, we’re still bouncing… Because God is holistic in his nature and in our lives/world!

just my take
thanks,
justin

Which leads me to believe that it is possible that perhaps Mr. Bell doesn’t have faith in God. But rather, faith in science and faith in reason.
As do so many of his advocates.

Wow…

It always amazes me that two people can read the same thing and come away with two diametrically opposed conclusions. The way I read VE, Bell is saying this is what a lot of Christians are doing. He’s saying that Christians want their faith to be validated by scientific study to such a point that if something is “scientifically” disproven, their whole faith system falls apart. He’s actually saying that our faith isn’t grounded on science and reason, but rather the person of Jesus Christ.

Let me say it one more time it is the BIBLE

Not
Rob Bell
and others

Without faith it is impossible to please God — faith in error leads to separation from God in an eternity in hell. However, faith in God and his truth leads to knowing God and an eternity in heaven.

Our faith is predicated upon God’s revelation of himself to us — it is not a leap in the dark. He has revealed himself and we can know Him.

It just so happens that He has chosen to reveal very clearly in the Gospel of Luke that Mary was found with child before she and Jospeh ever experienced sexual intercourse. I am not trying to prove my faith — I am trying to defend it.

Rob’s point is clear — if the virgin birth were false, it would be no big deal for his faith. Is that kind of faith based upon what God has said? Or is it based on some sort of human construction of who God is?

that is, to me, the beautiful difference between believing in God and believing in science. science, as someone said earlier, is only as believable as the weakest argument against it. we should believing in Christ, not because we have hard cold evidence, but because we have faith.

I believe the men and women of the OT were looking ahead to Christ. “whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed” Romans 3:25 I would say that, before Christ came, God did not reveal in full how that would look. God is not constrained to time as we are, and before the foundations of the earth chose some unto salvation. I would say that there are Jews on earth now, who will not spend eternity with God, because they have rejected their Messiah. I think you actually make my point Michael – there are those who now fully reject a gospel and suffer eternal consequences for it, while others (ie. those in the OT), who did not know the truth as fully, will be in glory with God… I do believe that there are babies who die as babies, and spend eternity with God – although they never accepted Jesus as the only way to God. I also believe that those who willfully reject His Godship are in danger of hell… does that clarify? I do not think it a contradiction.

Better to have little knowledge?? That removes the element of the Holy Spirit working in man. It is God who saves, and God will not lead His elect to unbelief.

“If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.” 1 Corinthians 15:19 I would say that, while one day in God’s courts is worth a thousand elsewhere, the life of a believer (ought to be) is one of denial, one of hating this world, of giving up the things of this earth, of denying self, of suffering persecution…. You’ve stumped me a little here. I will have to think on this. I am not sure even the apostle Paul, according to this passage, would say that his suffering in this life would have been worth it, if not for eternity? But maybe my understanding is weak….

Read my latest blogs… I am so very with you on God’s glory being of utmost importance!

I think I am going to have to spend my afternoon painting my family room, and contemplating the concept of what issues are salvific. I thought it was easier to distinguish before, but you’ve got me thinking….

We can all have our opinions on how the modern church is going about balancing orthopraxy and orthodoxy…but I am quite certain the Catholic Church had the same concerns with the Protestant movement during the Reformation. Unchecked, those concerns turned into the bloodiest time in the history of the church. We can also look at Tozer’s statement through our own lenses. Were Christian ethics applied during the Reformation? Or did imperfect, ignoble thoughts about God lead men to burn each other alive over doctrine?

And again, I ask the question (which I am amazed gets ignored and passed over more that any other question I have ever asked)? If doctrine is foundational to eternal salvation…how do you explain Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses…NONE who could have possibly held to the doctrines we are pointing to today as essential to Christianity?

…and why is there a difference between a person who is still growing in their understanding of a particular doctrine and someone who is willfully neglecting/turning aside from a doctrine. Either it is essential or it is not. There is no middle ground (and I know once again that raises the serious question…is truth important? I believe it is but for far different reasons than salvation). Are you saying it is safer to stay in a state of no or little understanding? What happens if that person who is still growing in their understanding if they are suddenly hit by a car and killed? And lets suppose they hadn’t fully embraced the diety of Christ? See the problem? Now aren’t we beginning to sound like the emerging Church?

I think Tozer is right…when we begin to place ourselves and what we believe in a more important position than God…we missed the point. Imperfect, ignoble thoughts about God have turned us into doctrine loving, people hating creatures. And that is idolatry. We have focused on OUR salvation (loosely translated doctrine) when the point was never OUR salvation, but the glorification of God the Father (Phillipians 2). WOULD YOU WORSHIP AND GLORIFY GOD, IF YOU WEREN’T GOING TO BE SAVED? I don’t believe Abraham was found righteous because he had some ideas about God right and that those right ideas would get him to heaven. I believe he worshiped God because he was in awe, fear and love with a Holy God. And he was found righteous in God’s eyes.

I think that the fruits in the gospel, and the fruit of the spirit are not neccessarily the same thing? I have always assumed (maybe incorrectly?) that the fruit in the passage you quoted is sort of the all encompassing part of man that he reveals to others… I am cheating a little here and am using my Bible notes but some false teacher’s fruits are: controversies (1 Tim. 1:3), divisions (1 Tim. 6:3,4), destruction of faith (2 Tim. 2:18), and self-destruction by heresy (2 Pet. 2:1)… I think “only time will tell” with some of the fruits that are growing out of the emerging church. An amazing look at what is happening though, is to scroll through Clearly’s blogs, and check out the link to a quiz: http://www.alittleleaven.com/2007/08/time-for-a-pop-.html
People’s answers on there show how much truth we are missing out, when we join the Beatles in singing “all you need is love”….

But I think you hit the nail on the head. The balance between orthopraxy and orthodoxy must be maintained….. I just think the modern church is going about it all wrong. Clearly told me to go read Knowledge of the Holy by Tozer. I am half way through, and amazed at how life altering a book can be that really is not about man at all. Same goes for God’s Passion for His Glory…. I think that the real key, as Tozer says is to focus on God. “It is impossible to keep our moral practices sound and our inward attitudes right while our idea of God is erroneous or inadequate…. I believe there is scarcely an error in doctrine or a failure in applying Christian ethics that cannot be traced finally to imperfect and ignoble thoughts about God.”

Clearly, you would say then that there is a difference between someone who is still growing in their understanding of a particular doctrine, and someone who has willfully neglected/turned aside from a doctrine (Ie. denies that Christ is God?) That clarifies things – and I agree (for what that is worth : )