NT Wright on Hell

Dan Phillips has an excellent post this morning on NT Wright and his view of hell and eternal judgment.

For several years now, many in the Emerging Church have been looking to Bishop Wright to draw up some trickery for their Emerging-play-book.

Some of Wrights comments about hell sound eerily similar to some of Rob Bell’s. See here and here. Is Coach Wright calling the plays in from the sidelines?

Christ and Empire: A Different Perspective from Fuller Seminary

Kevin DeYoung, a pastor and one of the authors of Why We’re Not Emergent, highlights a book (on his new blog) entitled Christ and Caesar: The Gospel and the Roman Empire in the Writings of Paul and Luke.

Ironically, the author is a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary (where Rob Bell earned his M-Div), but takes a different view than Rob Bell and N.T. Wright on this important issue. DeYoung cites Seyoon Kim, 

Thus, there is no anti-imperial intent to be ascertained in the Pauline Epistles. All attempts to interpret them as containing such an intent, as shown above, are imposing an anti-imperial reading on the epistles based merely on superficial parallelism of terms between Paul’s gospel preaching and the Roman imperial ideology, while the texts themselves clearly use those terms to express other concerns. 

More Apostasy From Emerging/Emergent

In 2003, Steve Chalke wrote:

God affirms the original goodness of humankind

In 2004, Brian McLaren created his own tulip theology, the “T” representing “Triune Love,” as opposed to “Total Depravity.” One’s view of Calvinism is really not the issue here; in his Generous Orthodoxy he created a new Tulip because he believes that the evangelical church is overemphasizing sin and judgment. What world is he living in?

In 2005, Rob Bell weighed in with:

God has an incredibly high view of people. God believes that people are capable of amazing things.

When I first read the above works, I believed that these men were denying serious doctrines of the faith. My detractors argued that those within Emerging/Emergent were somehow rephrasing biblical terms in order to reach a generation that isn’t accustomed to theological jargon. If you missed it then, get it now: the apostasy is becoming much more explicit and “in your face.” And this is only the beginning.

Just this week, Tony Jones has announced that he does not believe in original sin. He writes,

Since then [college years], I’ve become more uncomfortable with the notion that people are inherently bad, prideful, etc. I don’t deny the reality of sin. But I do doubt that human beings are depraved from birth.

So, without quoting the Bible, what do you think? Are human beings predisposed to good or evil?

I don’t know which bothers me more – that he doubts we are born sinful or that he doesn’t want people to answer using the Bible. I think the latter problem explains the former. If you reject the Bible as the only authority, then of course it’s irrelevant to such a discussion! 

If anyone wondered what Jones meant by “original sin,” he actually defines it for us in a later post; he writes,

Original sin is a Christian doctrine that says that everyone is born sinful. This means that they are born with a built-in urge to do bad things and to disobey God.

Original sin is not just this inherited spiritual disease or defect in human nature; it’s also the ‘condemnation’ that goes with that fault.

I’ll stand with Jeremiah that the heart is both deceitful and desperately wicked…

Rob Bell at the Seeds of Compassion Event

Thanks to Chris at A Little Leaven for making these videos available for viewing. Ken Silva also has the transcripts available on his page via Rick Freuh. Thanks guys for both your perspectives and for doing some leg-work here.

This is the best blog post I have ever read…

Tim Challies writes the best paragraph on Emerging/Emergent that I have ever read.

Kudos, Tim.

Allow me to add to Tim’s “you may be emergent if” list.

1. You love Jesus but hate what Paul has done with his teachings.

2. You pray the rosary even if you aren’t a Catholic.

3. You listen to Bruce Springsteen to receive sacramental grace.

4. You have a coexist bumper sticker on your fuel efficient, foreign vehicle.

5. You use phrases like “platonic dualism” with your church members. Actually, you don’t believe in church membership; you just choose to live in covenant community.

This Just In: Child Abuser on the Run

Breaking news out of Newberry Springs, CA:

As of 4 PM, police are still seeking yet another father suspected of child abuse; the unidentified suspect is currently fleeing from authorities. He was last seen on I-15 heading toward Barstow in a white Ford Bronco. The son, however, has yet to be formally identified, but early reports indicate that this morning, some men on retreat found the son alone, starving in the desert. Investigators say that the 33 year old hadn’t eaten anything for 40 days.

Stay with newscasters here at SeeingClearly for more information on this story.

**This post is a satirical parody only**

Emerging Soteriology on WOTM Radio

So yesterday, I read this over at Christian Research Network and noticed that Doug Pagitt had been on the Way of the Master Radio program. To make a long story short, I sent Todd Friel a paper I recently wrote on emerging/emergent soteriology. He read my email and used some of the content on the last 10 minutes or so of the program. If you are interested, you can listen here.

Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, Spencer Burke: More on hell and universalism

Anyone who operates under the law of non-contradiction recognizes that a given proposition cannot be true while its corresponding and opposite proposition is true as well. Postmodern soteriology is at least toying with this line. Many in the ECM are attempting to flirt with universalism while upholding a doctrine of hell. Rob Bell, for instance, writes in Velvet Elvis,

Emerging/Emergent Quiz…

Here’s the game. Read the following quotes and give yourself a score on how many you disagree with (you are not saying you disagree with me, but rather with the quotes in question).  

1. “The Bible is one f______ scary book.” – Tony Jones, national coordinator of the Emergent Villiage (www.tonyj.net). I encourage you to comment on Tony’s new blog and let him know what you think of his statement.

2. Steve Chalke and Brian McLaren have both suggested that the subsitutionary view of Christ’s atonement is like “cosmic child abuse.”

3. Rob Bell in Velvet Elvis, “I have been told that I need to believe in Jesus. Which is a good thing. But what I am learning is that Jesus believes in me.”

4. Steve Chalke in the Lost Message of Jesus: “God affirms the orginal goodness of mankind.”

5. Rob Bell in Velvet Elvis, “God has an incredibly high view of people.”

6. “The problem, I think, at least in the Christian tradition, is that grace always seems to have no meaning apart from sin. The two concepts are always linked. Its not that I think sin is a myth or that everyone is perfect; it’s just that I believe linking grace to sin detracts from its beauty and intensity.” Spencer Burke, Heretics Guide to Eternity. Hmm, that’s an interesting position in light of Titus 3:3-4, 1 Corinthians 6:10-11. and 1 Timothy 1:13-14.

7. “Because in the kingdom of God, fun and play are important things…because in the kingdom of God, dignity and pride are also important things.” Brian McLaren, The Secret Message of Jesus.

8. “Moses was what we might call a revolutionary political leader and liberator, a cross perhaps between George Washington and Nelson Mandela.” So, in light of Hebrews, Jesus is not a better mediator than Moses; rather, He is a better revolutionary – a better cross between Washington and Mandela?

9. “. . We are already in unless we want to be out. This is the real scandal of Jesus. His message eradicated the need for religion. It may come as a surprise, but Jesus has never been in the religion business. He’s in the business of grace, and grace tells us there is nothing we need to do to find relationship with the divine. The relationship is already there; we only need to nurture it. Of course, growing up, I had a much different concept of grace. I grew up in an environment where grace was described as ‘unmerited favor.’ The only problem was that getting this ‘unmerited favor’ still required doing something – namely, ‘asking Jesus in your heart’ or praying a prayer.” Spencer Burke, A Heretics Guide to Eternity.

10. Steve Chalke suggests that the following from a children’s VBS is not the gospel:

(1) God created me. (2) I am a sinner. (3) Jesus came to die for me. (4) Until I accept him as Lord and Savior I cannot receive the abundant life God has for me.

He then presents what he believes is the gospel:

(1) Jesus explained that God loves them unconditionally. (2) God longs for them to be part of his plan for creation. (3) Jesus teaches that no-one can keep them from this destiny except their own decision. (4) Jesus’ death and his resurrection form the dead prove that he was telling the truth so we can trust him.

How many did you disagree with out of 10? Here’s the scale; call me harsh if you must:

0-3/10: I’d bet my money that you are emergent/emerging. If you don’t like the label and consequently won’t fess up to it, you’re proving my point.

4-5/10: I’d call you a soft evangelical with very little biblical/theological discernment.

6-8/10: You probably like to think of yourself as balanced. After all, Jesus was balanced right?

9/10: You are a fundamentalist or a conservative evangelical, but you thought I was unfair with one of the quotes above. I can deal with that.

10/10: Congratulations; you agree with me. What does that make you?  

The emerging church and their pseudobasileia

***Apologies are in order for the following:

1) This was written as a part of a research paper, so it reads like a paper, not a blog post.

2) I may or may not respond to comments on this one, but feel free to leave them.

 

The ECM is largely driven by their understanding of the biblical concept of kingdom. They accuse evangelicals of ignoring or explaining away passage of Scripture which  deal with the kingdom; so, to them, the message of Jesus and the Bible is not about personal salvation, but about the kingdom. Steve Chalke writes, “It [kingdom] advances with faith: when people believe it is true, it becomes true. And it advances with reconciling, forgiving love: when people love strangers and enemies, the kingdom gains ground.”[1] The kingdom, then, is established by the efforts of humans and is possible in this age. Actually, Chalke even takes it further, “…what has been known as impossible is now becoming actual.”[2] McLaren writes,

 

            What if Jesus’ secret message reveals a secret plan?  What if he didn’t come to start a new religion ­– but rather came to start a political, social, religious, artistic, economic, intellectual, and spiritual revolution that would give birth to a new world?”[3]

 

Chalke echoes, “…the core of Jesus’ life-transforming, though often deeply misunderstood, message is this: The Kingdom, the in-breaking shalom of God, is available now to everyone through me.”[4] The content of the above quotes demonstrates the heart of much of the ECM; unfortunately, this understanding of kingdom is missing only one key element, regeneration. Did Jesus come to start a revolution that would change the world or did he come to offer men life?  Even if the first advent of Christ was about establishing a new world, would this new world not include individual salvation?

Brian McLaren and his “choose your own adventure hermeneutic”

Speaking of the OT Prophets, “They spoke of a day when lions would lie down with lambs (an image not of literal biological upheaval but of social transformation – so that the violent, lionlike people with power would no longer oppress the vulnerable ones: the poor, elderly, orphans, and widows). They described a time when swords and spears would be melted down and recast as farm implements, when nations would not “learn war anymore.” The Secret Message of Jesus.

What markers or indications in the text allow Brian to redefine lion and lamb? Why are lion and lamb not literal, but swords and spears are literal? I’m really starting to see the importance of our consistent, literal hermeneutic.

If lion does not equal lion and if lamb does not equal lamb, then don’t the swords then represent the people who oppress others within their own families (swords are hand-to-hand only), and then the spears represent the people who oppress others in other societies and families (spears can be thrown a distance)? So the message is that these oppressors are going to be made into farm implements, or people who work God’s kingdom farm, i.e. fix the problem of world hunger!

Scot McKnight, interview…part 1

Last week, my fiance and I blew into Chicago for some fun at Shedd Aquarium. They have an amazingly beautiful facility and some nice fish too, which is a plus when you’re talking aquariums. The purpose of the trip, however, was a priviledged interview on emerging/emergent soteriology with Dr. Scot McKnight of the Northpark University.

Dr. McKnight is the author of the Jesus Creed Blog, widely read by all those connected to and involved in emerging intercourse — as well as by those of us fundamentalists, who lurk in the darkness behind all the comments. Scot has also written a new book entitled A Community Called Atonement.

As Emiley and I entered his office, I had no doubts we were in the right place. In emerging style, his office sported a well-used coffee maker in the corner, rosary beads on the wall, as well as an almost life-sized poster of the Beatles.

Rob Bell and Karl Barth’s Neo-orthodox Soteriology

Let’s play a little game of comparison. Many of you are quite familiar with the following quote by Rob Bell, pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church and author of Velvet Elvis.

“Let’s take this further. As one writer puts it, “While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” While we were unable to do anything about our condition, while we were helpless, while we were unaware of just how bad the situtation was, Christ died. And when Jesus died on the cross he died for everybody. Everybody. Everywhere. Every tribe, every nation, every tongue, every people group. Jesus said that when he was lifted up, he would draw all people to himself. All people. Everywhere. Everybody’s sins on the cross with Jesus. So this reality, this forgiveness, this reconciliation, is true for everybody. Paul insisted that when Jesus died on the cross, he was reconciling “all things, in heaven and on earth to God.” This reality then isn’t something that we make true about ourselves by doing something. It is already true. Our choice is to live in this new reality or cling to a reality of our own making.“

As I read the following from one of Karl Barth’s volumes on reconciliation, I was shocked that Rob didn’t even take the time to footnote Barth.

Barth writes concerning the reconiliation passage of 2 Corinthians 5 (page 76 of Volume IX, Church Dogmatics),

The conversion of the world to God has thereofre taken place in Christ with the making of this exchange. There, then, in Christ, the weakness and godlesness and sin and enmity of the world are shown to be a lie and objectively removed once and for all. And there, too, in Christ, the peace of the world with God, the turning of man to Him, his friendship with Him, is shown to be the truth and objectively confirmed once and for all. That is the history which Paul has to narrate. And such it is the history of God with Himself, as he has already said in v. 18. But now it is also the history of God with the world, as we are told in v. 19. And notice that in this respect too (and the two cannot be separated) it has taken place once and for all, the history of a decision which has been taken and which cannot be reversed or superseded. That is how He was in Christ – we might say with Jn. 3:16 that is how He loved the world – and it is the fact, and it is so, it is in force, and must and will be, whether there are few or many who know the fact, and whatever attitude the world may take to it. The world is God’s. Whatever else we may have to say about it (e.g. that it perishes) we must also remember that it is God’s – not merely because it is His creature, not merely because God has sworn to be faithful to man, but because God has kept His oath, because He has taken the world from a false position in relation to Himself, becuase He has put it in that place which belongs to it in relationship with Himself. The reconciliation of the world with God has taken place in Christ. And because it has taken place, and taken place in Christ, we cannot go back on it. The sphere behind it has, in a sense, become hollow and empty, a sphere which we cannot enter. The old has passed away, everything has become new. The new is conversion to God. In v. 18 Paul said that this had happened to him personally in Christ. In v. 19, and as the basis of the former verse, he says that it has happened to the world in Christ. It was a definitive and self-contained event.

As one of my professors, Dr. Saxon pointed out to me recently, Barth believed that monergism was only monergism if God actually had already reconciled the entire world unto himself. My question is what then would the purpose of faith be? Isn’t faith how salvation is received?

Barth and Bell confuse the availability of salvation to all men with the objective reality of the salvation of all men — there is a huge difference. Salvation is available to all, but not true already for all.

If man is already reconciled to God, then why does Paul command the Corinthian readers to be reconciled to God? Aren’t they already reconciled? Instead, shouldn’t he have commanded them to live their lives in this new reality?

The greek καταλλαγητε (be reconciled) is an imperative — a command — Paul is telling them to be reconciled to God. Verse 19 teaches that the ministry of Christ was not a ministry of condemnation (Jn. 3:17), but rather, God was acting through Christ to reconcile man to Himself. If man wants to remain a hostile enemy, he will (and without God’s further working in his life, he will). However, the Christians are now the ones who speak for God — we are the ambassadors who bring the demands of our King. What are His demands? Simple: be reconciled to God. Reconciliation to God can only occur by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, as revealed in the Scripture alone — this was made possible to all when God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself _ on the cross.

Barth, however, manages to mess the gospel up further,

Against this understanding of the statement we cannot appeal to v. 20 of the same passage, in which Paul singles out as the content of his activity in the ‘ministry of reconciliation’ the entreaty: ‘Be ye reconciled to God.’ This does not refer to an extension of the atonement in the form of something whcih man himself can decide. We recall this in Jn. 3:16 there is a corresponding mention of faith in the Son gifted, or offered up by God. The Pauline concept of faith is perhaps too narrow to permit us to equate the ‘Be ye reconciled to God’ with a call for faith. But it does point us in this direction. We can put it generally this way. It is a request for the openness, the attention and the obedience which are needed to acknowledge that what has happened in Christ has really happened, to enter the only sphere which is now left to man, that of the new, that of the conversion to God which has already taken place in Christ.

It is evident that Rob’s soteriology has been highly influenced by Neo-orthodoxy. When are so-called “conservative evangelicals” and fundamentalists, for that matter, going to stop showing his films and passing out his books? It seems that a current trend in Christianity is that nobody will separate over anything unless the gospel is being compromised. If that’s your position, fine. However, now that the gospel is at stake — and brothers and sisters, it is! — where are the strong Christian leaders who will, like the fundamentalists of old, stand without compromise for the doctrines of the Scripture?

TVG and emergent blogs…

So last night, I was watching a movie with my fiance and all of the sudden a curse word came flying through the speaker — another actor cursed at me. The TVG wasn’t filtering the curse words. I already put up with so much cursing anytime I venture outside the walls of my abode (which is separate from my fiance’s, to avoid any confusion); thus, it absolutely urks me to be cursed at in a context where I am trying to relax and watch a movie in a private, Christian residence.  

Then, in an instant, my mind wandered to my own inconsistency in practice. I read emergent/emerging blogs all the time. I read emergent/emerging facebook notes all the time. I actually encounter more cursing via my online interaction with emergent/emerging than I do in all the movies I have seen in the last fiscal year.

For example, just yesterday, I read Tony Jones’ blog. He can’t even talk about a children’s movie without using an expletive.

Critique: Rob Bell…Velvet Elvis (Movement 6)

Again, it is not my purpose to go on an anathamatizing rampage or type angry words — but in this case, a “John 2″ type of anger would be completely warranted. At times, my disagreements with Rob have been simply methodological. However, in this case, my issues with Rob are purely theological; the gospel is at stake. Movement 6 reveals the heart of Rob’s soteriology.

It is dark. It is scary. It is wrong.