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?

Rob or Paul? Twitter and the Gospel

If Paul could tweet the gospel, I’m positive it would look something like this: 

…Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures…

Rob Bell’s tweet, on the other hand, would look like this (so he says in this Christianity Today article): 

I would say that history is headed somewhere. The thousands of little ways in which you are tempted to believe that hope might actually be a legitimate response to the insanity of the world actually can be trusted. And the Christian story is that a tomb is empty, and a movement has actually begun that has been present in a sense all along in creation. And all those times when your cynicism was at odds with an impulse within you that said that this little thing might be about something bigger—those tiny little slivers may in fact be connected to something really, really big.

HT: Denny Burk

“Jesus” by Marcus Borg: A Book Review (Chapters 2-3)

Today we will be looking at chapters 2-3 of Marcus Borg’s book Jesus.

Honestly, I am really beginning to grow tired of reviewing this book. Rob Bell cites him so unashamedly that I figured that his ideas would be covertly dangerous, not explicitly so. Was I ever wrong…

When Borg uses the word ”mainstream,” we would do well to substitute the words “theologically liberal.”  

“Jesus” by Marcus Borg: A Book Review (Chapter 1)

Today, we will look at chapter 1 (“Jesus Today”) of Marcus Borg’s book, Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary.

Borg begins by explaining that our culture is “Christ-haunted” and “Christ-forgetting.” He, then, points to the observation that Christians are divided over the origin of the universe, over the Iraq war, over gay marriage, and over economic/social policy.

He then moves to the different ways that the “story of Jesus” is told in the United States. However, before getting to the different ways of viewing Jesus in our culture, he first takes some shots at  Sola Scriptura and inerrancy.

He writes,

Christians find the decisive revelation of God and life with God in Jesus, just as the Jews find the decisive revelation of God in the Torah and Muslims find the decisive revelation of God in the Qur’an.

Take note that the correlation made above is intended to be parallel. Just as the Muslims find God’s revelation in the Qur’an, so Christians find the revelation of God in Jesus.

Anticipating my frustration, he continues,

Of course, Christians also speak of the Bible as the revelation of God, indeed the ‘Word of God.’ Yet orthodox Christian theology from ancient times has affirmed that the decisive revelation of God is Jesus. The Bible is ‘the Word’ become words; Jesus is ‘the Word’ become flesh, God’s revelation in a human life. Thus Jesus is more decisive than the Bible.

Honestly, I think he’s both begging the question as well as presenting a false-dichotomy between the revelation of Jesus and the Bible (cf. John 1:14; Luke 1:2; 2 Peter 1:16; 1 John 1).

He continues and actually begins to self-destruct,

Importantly, Jesus is not the revelation of ‘all’ of God, but of what can be seen of God in a human life. Some of God’s traditional attributes or qualities cannot be seen in a human life…a human being cannot be all-powerful and still be human. So also omniscience: what could it mean to say that a human is ‘omniscient’ and that Jesus in particular was? That he would ‘know everything’ – including, for example, the theory of relativity or the capital of Oregon.

So Borg holds that Jesus is the decisive revelation of God (even “more decisive than the Bible”), but yet he admits that a human body cannot display omnipotence or omniscience, characteristics he knows to be true concerning God. Where did he get this conception of God if not from the Jesus? Beyond that, where did he find out that Jesus is a person?  I’ll spell it for you: B-I-B-L-E. It’s the Scriptures that reveal these things so plainly about God; one cannot know the Father or Jesus in any significant way apart from the Bible.

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.

Rob Bell and Marcus Borg…

Ken Sliva wrote this excellent piece this week.

In his book Velvet Elvis, Rob cites Borg at least twice in a positive fashion…if you are a Christian, this should trouble you!

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**

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?

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?

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.

Critique: Rob Bell…Velvet Elvis (movements 4-5)

Movements 4 and 5 left me feeling both sick and outraged. Did Rob say some good things? Absolutely. However, amidst some good thoughts, Rob mixes in some more man-centered refuse — yet again, he describes a god who has faith in mankind (to see my previous discussions on this issue, click here).

Rob writes (page 134),

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

P.S. Velvet Elvis (movement 3)

—MUSIC— 

Rob writes,

It is possible for music to be labeled Christian and be terrible music.

When I first read that phrase, I agreed — that is, until I read what came next.

He continues,

It could lack creativity and inspiration. The lyrics could be recycled cliches. That “Christian” band could actually be giving Jesus a bad name because they aren’t a great band.

Critique: Rob Bell…Velvet Elvis (movement 3)

Rob warns the readers,

“Do that to this book. Don’t swallow it uncritically. Think about it. Wrestle with it. Just because I’m a Christian and I’m trying to articulate a Christian worldview, doesn’t mean I’ve got it nailed.”

However, I think Rob really did nail the following:

“Just because it is a Christian book by a Christian author and it was purchased in a Christian bookstore doesn’t mean it’s all true or good or beautiful.”

Ironically, I couldn’t agree more! However, in Rob’s eyes it would be just as probable for me to find a good Christian book in a Hindu bookstore than in a Christian one — to Rob, being a Christian is all about embracing truth wherever we find it.