However, what I get from Rob Bell’s argument is that no one is out there taking scripture as it is. If there were, then we’d be greeting each other with holy kisses, and women’s heads would be covered, and we would meet everyday in our homes and go to the synagogues on Saturdays, and other such stuff.

The reality is that we bring our biases to bear when we read it. We interpret it … or we allow others to interpret it for us.

What does it mean? What did it mean for them then, and what does it mean for us now?

If it means different things now than it did then, could it mean different things later than it does now?

Should we keep revisiting our own scripture-reading biases?

Rob’s answer appears to be yes. And I tend to agree with him.

I have been listening to Rob Bell for nearly 2 years now and have added just about everything he has to offer to our growing library of spiritual/religious materials.

Having said that, I have found that many of those initial feelings many seem to have about Rob (judgements) come from a gut-visceral understanding of him rather than a study of his body of works.

Although I feel no need to defend a man who is pursuing God in his own right (John 21: 21-22 says: When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?” Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.”). That he is seeking out his Lord is a wonderful thing. Romans 14 would seem a fitting chapter to re-read here.

My point is this… I enjoy Rob Bell’s teachings. I enjoy others as well. What I find most important however is this:

I am more concerned about living out my orthodoxy (i.e. orthopraxy), than defending it. Christ did not defend himself with words… he proclaimed the truth by His actions. He loved unconditionally…

Because Christ loves me (with all my faults), I am called to love others (with their faults). Not out of fear or repentence, but rather because I am humbled by Christ and willingly choose to follow Him.

John 14:6-7 says, Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

To me, I understand it to read that those who want to know God and be in relationship with Him must humble themselves and posture their hearts with love. Only with love in one’s heart can one truly enter relationship with anyone or anything. For me, only when I love (as Christ loved) do I find myself in relationship with my God.

In conclusion, my orthodoxy calls me to Love God with all my strength, heart, mind and soul and to love my neighbors as myself.

Because Christ loves me so perfectly, forgives me so often, and reminds me of His grace so undeniably… I want to follow Him and treat my neighbor the same. The gifts my Lord gives me, I lovingly offer to my neighbor… the saved and unsaved… the self-righteous and the humble… my enemy and my friend.

PS: If Rob were trying to get me to trust in myself rather than in scripture, I would question that. Instead, he regularly invites me to look at scripture again as if to say… “Romy, are you sure you understand everything… or is there more to the story?” In which case, my closed mind is reopened and faith overtakes understanding.

Mathew 7:7 says, Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.

So again, I ask and seek and knock. It is through this humble conversation with my Lord that I find myself “IN” relationship with Him… dwelling within the Kingdom here and now.

I find it interesting how easily they both picked up that something was not right. This has caused us as a family to dig deeper into scripture and to become more aware of what we really do believe, so that we can answer people and show them the deception that is coming to the church.

VT said long ago that the theology which Evangelicals subscribe to could not weather the storm approaching. This will no doubt certainly upset Ev’s to hear, but facts are facts. Back of everything is epistemology, and the Ev’s have either A) not given it sufficient thought, or B) settled for a secular epistemology to undergird their faith. It’s said how people – in their philosophical ignorance – write that man off. We people of God tend to kill our prophets don’t we?

Bell’s mystical nonsense is an outgrowth of dialectical theology… which is an outgrowth of the Church building the temple with Kant instead of with Christ.

I mourn for my brothers, but I’m ready for the fight. I’m a redeemed sinner, and there is no bottomless noumenal ocean through which God must speak to reach us on our phenomenal island.
God does not compete with possibility. His voice is clear… and literal.

“Riding to the sound of the enemies guns.”
(I love that… just picked it up.)
N.M. Owen

The Lord be praised, I’m glad to be of service.

And Todd,

“Never been influenced by neo-orthodoxy, sometimes I just think.”

Whatever “Christian” writers e.g. Rob Bell that you have read/been reading have influenced your thought via the neo-orthodoxy etc. they have injested.

So whether you personally are aware of it or not is irrelevant to the fact that the view of Scripture you suggest is at best neo-orthodox.

Ken, I really don’t appreciate being boxed in as category-x. You’d be better off dealing with people, rather than categorizing people under some idea and writing that idea off. Never been influenced by neo-orthodoxy, sometimes I just think.

Dave, the reference frame is different, you’re right. I suppose we should leave it at that. I appreciate that you’re civil; I encourage you to continue with that spirit. I do think you should reconsider the process of critiquing. People will defend Bell, but you offer more in the dialog/debate if you’re honest about your methods. Critiquing a book, before you’ve finished makes it look like you’ve gone in and read the book with some sort of motive — an open-mind at the beginning is very important for critiquing. And post-script I’m no Bell-adherent, was only looking for a discussion. It was good to chat.

Oh and as far as my method of critique goes, for some people it won’t matter how wrong Bell’s teachings are and it won’t matter how clearly I measure them against Scripture, they will still defend him…no matter how I go about critiquing.

“I’d be careful with saying things like “as fas as I know every Greek manuscript reads, συμεων πετρος.” Most manuscripts are not complete and Greek New Testaments are constantly being revised…”

Could you provide me with an example of a manuscript of any Petrine literature which (if containing the beginning of the book) leaves out the name Simon Peter? My point is this: If the author under inspiration of the Holy Spirit says that he is Peter, then he is Peter. God is not about causing confusion. If he were representing a school of thought, he would say I am of Peter (similar to the whole 1 Corinthians thing). Our views of inspiration and innerancy are quite different…we start at the Scripture with a different reference frame.

Ken, your comments are always encouraging to me. Thanks!

“The authority is not so much in the words, as the authority is in God–it’s the meaning behind the words that is authoritative.”

When Todd writes this he shows the influence of neo-orthodoxy and Karl Barth which teaches that the Scriptures become the Word of God as the Holy Spirit illuminates the reader.

The way Dr. Walter Martin summed up Barth is helpful: “The Bible is a mailbox where we receive messages from Heaven.” This is backward, the Scripture IS the Message from Heaven though as Christians we are still illuminated by God the Holy Spirit.

F.F. Bruce did not reject Peter as the author of 2 Peter, and as far as I know, neither did Metzger completely rule it out.

Frankly Origen, who was a lot closer to the issue than either of those two guys, only acknowledged some questions others had raised concerning authorship. Since he didn’t even bother trying to refute those speculations it says to me that he didn’t think it worthy of his time.

And Dave, you say of Rob Bell’s musings: “it’s theological liberalism in a new cover. I stand with the fundamentalists of old.”

Let me commend you in the Lord my wise young brother because this is exactly what it is.

Authorship may not be so important though — this is where Authority is important. The text is authoritative, because it gets its Authority from God. (As said earlier.)

I’d be careful with saying things like “as fas as I know every Greek manuscript reads, συμεων πετρος.” Most manuscripts are not complete and Greek New Testaments are constantly being revised (that is considering all the new manuscripts we have — remember that they all aren’t identical), but also the idea of titles was different then that is now (another thing Metzger handles).

On the side: Didn’t realize you were doing this, but criticizing a book chapter by chapter before you’re finished with the whole book may not be the best method. You might want to get the whole picture first, then criticize away.

You are right. We disagree on authorship issues. As far as I know every Greek manuscript reads, συμεων πετρος . Therefore, I have no reason to question the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter.

Bruce and Metzger are fine scholars (and I have read Bruce’s commentaries and a little of Metzger, but not enough to discuss), but regardless of their scholarship, I cannot believe that pseudonymity would have been accepted by any Christian audience since as a general rule, honesty is a Christian virtue.

I would side with conservative scholarship and be more in line with this article.

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=707

As far as I’m concerned our discussion is only confirming my problems with Bell’s chapter — it’s theological liberalism in a new cover. I stand with the fundamentalists of old.

Have you done much reading/research on the Development of the New Testament Canon? This might put things in a different light for you. F.F. Bruce’s “Canon of Scripture” is highly regarded, as well as, Bruce Metzger’s “The Canon of the New Testament.”

I’m not placing God in opposition to the Word; at least, that’s not my intention. I don’t disagree with the Scriptures being a “Divine Product” — though I think I picture it differently.

In saying, ‘the authority is not so much in the words, as the authority is in God — it’s the meaning behind the words that is authoritative’ I don’t mean to say that the words aren’t authoritative, but rather that they get their authority from something else. True we can’t know Who this Authority is without Revelation; however, if I were not a Christian, I would not accept the Revelation as authoritative first. I would accept Jesus Christ as the Authority, because of this acceptance, I would then accept the Word as Authoritative.

I am saying that “the king’s laws aren’t authoritative, unless the king is.” (Which if you water down, I suppose it is “like saying that a king’s laws aren’t the authority, the king is.”) The only reason that law can be authoritative is if an actual person stands behind them, that has the Right to enforce them, which also means this person has the right to forgive the enforcement of the law. We are to live by the Spirit not by the Letter.

You said, “The authority is not so much in the words, as the authority is in God–it’s the meaning behind the words that is authoritative. ”

I don’t understand the distinction. 2 Timothy 3:16 clearly teaches that God breathed out the Scriptures. They are a divine product! God chose to communicate via words — words which convey meaning. The whole argument comes back to this — it seems like you are placing God in opposition to the Word. Nobody disagrees that God is the authority — however, we can’t know who this authority is apart from revelation. Revelation has to be authoritative. That’s like saying that a king’s laws aren’t the authority, the King is!

The point of specific revelation is primarily relational — it’s so humans can understand who God is. Creation teaches that God is, but it is insufficient in bringing about a spiritual relationship. I think Mullins is missing it — we were given the Scriptures so that we don’t have to guess about who God is. Is God greater than can be expressed by words? Yes. Is God sovereign enough to give us the exact knowledge, description of God that we need in order to know him properly? I think so.

My point is not to prove that I’m right about everything. For instance I can honestly admit that my soteriology has holes and I have little clue what I believe on church polity. Furthermore, I will never be able to grasp how God can be sovereign and man can still have choice. I’m not trying to be the one that is right on everything. However, we do have the Scriptures so that we can prove when others are clearly mistaken (just read the pastoral epistles). I feel that Rob and Wright are missing it — thus, my response.