I just got this . . .I heard Good Morning America is going to have Rob Bell on the show today to talk about a new book he's got coming out discussing the fact that hell isn't what we've been taught . . .it's already creating a huge stir in the religious groups . . .exciting times we live in . . .Pray for Rob in support of what he's doing . . .truly a mouthpiece of God's purpose and intent for this generation.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/controversial-book-debunk-concept-hell/story?id=13070964
(Gary requested a specific thread be started on this topic. Since we had this one going, I just re-named it to the above).
I was talking with Gary the other day, and he said the book coming out by Rob Bell, Love Wins, is of the same name as Gary's/TM's new sister site, lovewins.us. He said the book is going to create quite a stir in orthodoxy, cause quite a shaking up.
I saw on another site's discussion forum that is orthodox Christian (ET) where they're already discussing it; their take is "in the last days there will be a great falling away..giving heed to doctrines of demons" ..i.e., regarding what they describe as "the universalist slant".
So let me get this straight. As long as you believe in hell, you're OK? I thought it was "call on the name of the Lord Jesus", not "believe in/call on hell, and you are saved".
Well, looks like it's going to be interesting.
Blogosphere erupts over Rob Bell's book
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IDLVf8Lres
I've already gotten into some discussion on facebook when a friend posted a blurb about the book, including a guy I've never met having a long back and forth through private messages, trying to convince me of my doctrine of demons.
I shared UR with some close friends, and they were definitely skeptical, we had a little back and forth. The next time I saw him he told me that our church was going to address UR, around when Love Wins comes out. I already shared UR with our head pastor 2 months ago via email, but haven't received a response from him on it. Please pray that God would move in His heart also. Our church is very influential, in SouthEast Michigan, and has spawned a movement called E.A.C.H.,( Everyone A Chance to Hear), that is drawn 200 churches across denominational lines, and across cultural lines which is a big deal in Detroit. The purpose is to reach everyone in southeast michigan with the gospel. I just pray that it will be the TRUE Victorious Gospel. I know a lot of people on here aren't big on "churches", but this could be the starting point of the restoration of Restoration.
Interestingly Rob Bell's church is in Michigan too. Michigan looks like a hand, the Hand of God??
Hi redhot. I'm one that's "not too big" on institutionalized religion, but when God starts the full revolution of everything beginning to come back to Himself, I believe we're not going to recognize most "churches" as we now know them. For the earth will be filled With the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, As the waters cover the sea. Habakkuk 2:14.
I don't know much about this book or about what Bell believes. I hope he's a solid believer in the blood and work of Jesus the Messiah. I'm kind of excited. Could this be the beginning of something big?
Finally, someone willing to step out in the public and expose hell for what it is. Oh how I wish more would do this. I know though that it is all in the hands of God and he will move people when he chooses, not when I desire them to. I think this is exciting though. :happyclap: I don't know what else Rob Bell believes but if he believes in the salvation of all that is a major plus in my book.
CHB
from www.patheos.com
Christian universalism is a bit different: Christian universalism denies pluralism and balder forms of universalism by contending that all can or will be saved, but only through the saving work of Jesus Christ. While many who advocate this fail to recognize that those in other religions simply don't believe such a thing, and in fact may say they don't want to be saved through Christ, the Christian universalist confidently trots out the idea that whether they know it or not, God saves through Jesus Christ. But the big point here is that all can and will be saved through Christ.
Evangelical universalism is newer on the block and argues that God saves exclusively through Christ and that those who deny Christ, or who have not heard of Christ, or who have rejected God's natural revelation to them, will be judged and will experience hell. In other words, these folks believe in hell – though they believe "less" (or as they might say "more") than the traditionalist. But they believe hell is not eternal but instead temporary and once one has experienced judgment for one's sins one will have, by the grace of God and through the merits of Christ, the opportunity to respond to the gospel – and this news is so good and God's offer so gracious that eventually hell will be emptied and all will find redemption in Christ to enjoy God's salvation forever.
Then there's the traditional view: those who reject Christ, and some believe God's mercy will be wide enough to include those who have never heard of Christ but have responded to the light they have comprehended (inclusivism) – and there's latitude here for variations of several sorts, will be judged on the basis of that light. For traditionalists and some inclusivists their number is few so that billions who have not responded to Christ will suffer eternal and conscious separation from God. Some inclusivists would contend that many, if not most, humans will be finally saved.
The pressing issue today is both to comprehend the absolute seriousness of the Christian claim, to realize that the ground has shifted in that many who are associated with evangelicalism simply don't believe the traditional view and have embraced some kind of universalism, and we need also to understand the options so we can all, one more time, go back to the Bible, to our church traditions, and study all over again – as if for the first time – what to believe.
Now a word or two about Rob Bell. I don't know what Rob thinks and I won't know until I read his book. Too much of what I'm reading on the internet is speculation.
I'm grateful to God that Rob Bell is opening this after-life door and, from what I'm hearing, he's only looking inside the door to see the prospects of universalism, asking you and me to realize both that we have some thoroughly unbiblical ideas and that we need to rethink this stuff all over again. I don't expect Rob Bell to say one thing new, though I expect him to say what he says well enough to grab our attention.
I just pre-ordered the book!
Hopefully more and more people will be emerging from the woodwork to preach the victorious Gospel of Christ.
I agree with you completely Jab about not recognizing churches. I just think of the early church still going to the temple (not that I'm equating churches with the temple) and using that as a their base. Just as the old was passing away, the institutionalized, and the new community based which spread like wildfire. The new became institutionalized and now must become the old, which would be 3 periods of "church history".
1. Tabernacle/Temple which was degraded over time until the time of Christ
(3 periods Tabernacle, Solomon, Nehemiah/Herod
2. Church which was degraded over time until... manifest sons of God?, Christ returns?, millenium? Restoration of RESTORATION
(3 periods Early church, Rome, reformation)
6 periods total
3. Universal Church hopefully no degradation necessary :happy3:
There was overlap between temple and church, the early christians were mostly jews, who would equate jews now? "churchianity" I don't say actual jews as they don't fit the pattern, they have become like the gentiles who will be brought in after all the jews are reached, as in Jesus saying He was sent to the house of Israel, and nobody reaching the gentiles (modern jews) until Paul came along. First shall be last
QuoteFor the earth will be filled With the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, As the waters cover the sea. Habakkuk 2:14.
Hi James- Great scripture - as the
WATERS COVER the SEA - :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower:
WoW this is great!! My husband (ET believer but open to the idea that UR could be true) loves Rob Bell! I can't wait to share this with him!
Quote from: lomarah on March 07, 2011, 08:42:02 PM
WoW this is great!! My husband (ET believer but open to the idea that UR could be true) loves Rob Bell!
Mine too. So far he's been listening politely when I talk about UR and then saying things like, "What, even Judas?" :laughing7:
When I told him it appeared that Rob Bell was coming out as a universalist the silence was deafening. :grin:
I'm still amazed that people find this contraversial. I guess there is still a large portion of christians out there who have not heard of UR doctrine, I forget that very few in the church teach this.
Quote from: thinktank on March 07, 2011, 09:44:56 PMI forget that very few in the church teach this.
I have not heard anyone in the church teach it, ever. I'll be very interested to hear the reactions to Rob Bell.
"I saw on another site's discussion forum that is orthodox Christian (ET) where they're already discussing it; their take is "in the last days there will be a great falling away..giving heed to doctrines of demons" ..i.e., regarding what they describe as "the universalist slant".
The Pharisees and Sadducees didn't get along - kind of on opposite doctrinal poles during their day ... until Jesus
came upon the scene ... then boy did they decide to "get along" and collaborate to demonize Jesus Christ and His good news.
I get a sense that a similar collaboration will take place within today's churchiantiy community. Suddenly, Armenians and
Calvanists, conservative and charasmatic, etc will unite to passionately oppose UR, readily condeming it as described by
Jabcat above. Interesting and exciting times. Though I'm not sure where Rob Bell personally stands exactly (in relation to UR).
I'm really looking forward to how Rob Bell's book is going to play out.
GKY
I saw his dvd entitled "Everything is spiritual" you can get pieces of it off UTube . . .it was SUCH an awesome presentation. I thank God for men like him that are a part of this, but I'm more excited that WE are SEEING with OUR OWN EYES the change that God is bringing to the religious system. She's not going to go down without a fight, but it's not us or "a" beleif she's fighting against.
Remember when Jesus rebuked Peter, called him satan and all of that . . .and later he did it again and told him to put his sword away . . .the church is still in that mode to where she "thinks" she's fighting FOR Christ when the reality is, she's blind toward the purposes and plans of Christ. Peter was so distracted by the death of Jesus that he thought he was helping Jesus by protecting the Jesus HE THOUGHT he knew. But the truth is, we don't need to defend our relationship with Jesus either. We dont' need to fight against them, we don't need to try to turn their minds away from what they're embracing . . .all that's being asked of us is that we live in what we see. Believe it, embrace it, plant it, share it . . .but warfare need not play a role in this one.
God IS changing the hearts of men. There will be warfare, but not by those who have been given eyes that see. The warfare is going to come from those who measure life according to their minds, rather than their spiritual position. The Sabbath has come and the rules have changed. What we are seeing is the result of those who try to live by 6-day mentality (labor and reasoning) in a Sabbath Day reality. There will be warring . . .just remember, blessed are the peace makers. Our authority is in the realm of peace, not panic. Brace yourselves, the world is about to be transformed . . .and we can be on the leading edge of that should we choose to engage in the role of a midwife bringing forth a new life into this realm we live in.
I've had a few friends on Facebook comment on this as well, which gave me a bit of chance to plug Universalism. Some are saying the controversy will be nothing and Rob Bell won't come across as a Universalist, I hope that when the book does come out that it is strongly Universalist. I want people to be shaken up buy this!
Quote from: thinktank on March 07, 2011, 09:44:56 PM
I'm still amazed that people find this contraversial. I guess there is still a large portion of christians out there who have not heard of UR doctrine, I forget that very few in the church teach this.
I hadn't even heard of it anywhere until two years ago. But, my spirit had been telling me ET wasn't correct for most of my life.
Quote from: shawn on March 08, 2011, 05:45:50 AM
Quote from: thinktank on March 07, 2011, 09:44:56 PM
I'm still amazed that people find this contraversial. I guess there is still a large portion of christians out there who have not heard of UR doctrine, I forget that very few in the church teach this.
I hadn't even heard of it anywhere until two years ago. But, my spirit had been telling me ET wasn't correct for most of my life.
I grew up in ET church all my life. I remember one time about 15 years ago a coworker told me he believed everyone would be saved. Of course I pointed out a few scriptures to him about hell, etc., and he just sort of let it go. Didn't hear another word about it until about 4 years ago, when in a bit of desperation I googled something like "is hell eternal" and I was taken to Brother J. Preston Eby's writing. I was astounded.
I told my husband about it and he wants to get the book! :mshock: :thumbsup:
Quote from: jabcat on March 08, 2011, 06:42:16 AM
Quote from: shawn on March 08, 2011, 05:45:50 AM
Quote from: thinktank on March 07, 2011, 09:44:56 PM
I'm still amazed that people find this contraversial. I guess there is still a large portion of christians out there who have not heard of UR doctrine, I forget that very few in the church teach this.
I hadn't even heard of it anywhere until two years ago. But, my spirit had been telling me ET wasn't correct for most of my life.
I grew up in ET church all my life. I remember one time about 15 years ago a coworker told me he believed everyone would be saved. Of course I pointed out a few scriptures to him about hell, etc., and he just sort of let it go. Didn't hear another word about it until about 4 years ago, when in a bit of desperation I googled something like "is hell eternal" and I was taken to Brother J. Preston Eby's writing. I was astounded.
Seek and ye shall find . . . I think Rob is going to be creating a lot of thirst out there with his message of liberation. I think it's going to cause many people to do what you also did, to get them to start searching and become hungrier for more . . .who's to say that it won't even lead a lot of people here even?? Truly exciting times to be living in!!
Yep :bigGrin:
This reviewer says Rob Bell is (probably) not a Universalist. Others are saying he says one doesn't need to be born from above. Things should be interesting. :mshock:
http://www.gregboyd.org/blog/rob-bell-is-not-a-universalist-and-i-actually-read-love-wins/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+gregboyd+%28Greg+Boyd+and+Christus+Victor+Ministries%29
I find religion breathless for information. I am amazed at all the impressions that The Word of God creates with the words of the Bible. Theologians and religionist and even Bible readers are painters for anyone and all who will listen to the lore.
Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world, not part of the world, but for all the world. He, Jesus is the Savior of the whole world. Not just those who play and follow a church. Jehovah is loves and His Love has no limit or boundry, should you attempt to make that wrong...you will find when you are finished that you were blessed...ultimatlly!
Why is it that Rob Bell's popularity concerns me a bit? I watched some of his youtube videos and didn't really hear anything earth shattering. Any links to online books or videos more than a couple minutes long?
I didn't really know much/anything about him. My concern is that he not be so unscripturally sound as to cast a bad light on peoples' perception of ultimate reconciliation - an "anything goes, you don't need to be spiritually re-born/come through Christ", etc. - but "oh yeah, there's no eternal hell". But God knows what He's doing, and He'll use this or whatever else He chooses to bring about His will. :thumbsup:
"Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." I Timothy 2:4 KJV
I've been going through some of Bell's understanding of scripture. I will say there are some things that concern me a great deal. Unless he is being misrepresented, I have read that he believes the Bible to be the work of men and they had agendas, denies the virgin birth, and believes hell to be a continuation state in the afterlife of "what reality we accept".
If these are true statements of his faith I am concerned with Bell's teachings being attatched to UR believers.
Quote from: jabcat on March 09, 2011, 09:37:37 AM
I didn't really know much/anything about him. My concern is that he not be so unscripturally sound as to cast a bad light on peoples' perception of ultimate reconciliation - an "anything goes, you don't need to be spiritually re-born/come through Christ", etc. - but "oh yeah, there's no eternal hell". But God knows what He's doing, and He'll use this or whatever else He chooses to bring about His will. :thumbsup:
"Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." I Timothy 2:4 KJV
Bingo. I was writing the post above as you were writing yours. :bigGrin:
I think this is a pretty good link. I'm all for looking at scripture in new ways. I do believe we need to be willing to allow the Holy Spirit to reveal new truths to us, grow us, and willing to lay down old belief systems if the Holy Spirit so leads us. But, will the Holy Spirit lead us to places that are not scripturally sound? If we have come to accept something in our spirit that is so clearly unscriptural then we must really take a fresh look at our beliefs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wSAEezBc3s&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wSAEezBc3s&feature=related)
I can't see youtube from work. I'm outright dogmatic about very few things, but this is one of them - in answer to your question "will the Holy Spirit lead us to places that are not scripturally sound?", I shout a resounding "NO!", and it would take a miraculous direct move of God Himself to ever get me to say differently. :2c:
Quote from: jabcat on March 09, 2011, 10:20:54 AM
I can't see youtube from work. I'm outright dogmatic about very few things, but this is one of them - in answer to your question "will the Holy Spirit lead us to places that are not scripturally sound?", I shout a resounding "NO!", and it would take a miraculous direct move of God Himself to ever get me to say differently. :2c:
Exactly. There are things that I consider truth beyond question (ie the Bible is the inspired word of God). Therefore, I can not believe the Holy Spirit will lead us to places that are unscripturally sound.
I have mixed emotions about people who beleive they need to stand up in front of their congregations to tear down another brothers relationship with God. I think this guy's argument isn't any different than some of the discussions we see here on the forum where we have one topic being seen from different perspectives because each individual is at a different place in God.
As to this guy's argument about Peter having faith in himself . . .he's being a bit contradictive with his own words because on the one hand he's saying that Peter "couldn't" have faith in himself because he asked Jesus to call him out of the boat first . . .and yet Jesus couldn't have faith in Peter either because we're not to lean on our own understanding . . .so if faith wasn't involved on either side . . .what made Peter think he could walk on water and what made Jesus let him think he could do it?
The guy then says if anything, Peter had "too much" faith in himself . . .which for me, woudl be a reason why Peter thought he could walk on water . . which would support what Rob was saying about Peter having too much faith in himself. For me, much of what Jesus was trying to get his disciples to see is that the power that was in Jesus was being given to them as well. He was "building" their faith . . . not in their own works, but in the fact that the power of heaven is at their disposal. He did the same thing with the feeding of the 5 thousand . . .it happened twice, the first time, Jesus just didi it all in front of them, the second time, he instructed them to do it . . .he was handing the reigns off to these men to carry on the same ministry he was doing himself.
I think the most powerful thing you could say to a person is "I believe in you". And for God to come to man and tell us " I believe you can do this . . ." is such a profound thing . . that a teacher would go to the student and tell the student that "they" will be able to do greater things than the teacher . . . To be honest, I sense this guy taking issue with Rob is a fundamentalist. He's relying more on what he sees Scripture to be literally saying rather than letting the Scripture become a living experience not based on knowledge, but relationship with the Father.
And I don't see Rob as a fake at all. I see Rob sharing Jesus to the world through his level of experience and understanding, just like we're all to be doing, it's just in a different form from what religion is used to seeing.
Nathan, I think some pastors feel led to "tear down another brothers belief" because people within their congregation are asking questions. If you have someone swaying beliefs of the congregation it's good to know he at least believes the Bible to be the inspired word of God. And for me, I would personally have a huge issue listening to anyone who didn't believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God. That pastor should as well. Unless Rob is being unfairly represented. I believe in his book Velvet Elvis he stated that he believed the Bible to be the work of men with an agenda. For me, that's a problem.
But there again, we have a limited understanding . . .because I for one agree that the Bible AS WE KNOW IT is not THE inspired word of God, it's merely a TRANSLATION of it, which leads to all of the division and destructive results people experience when trying to invoke their interpretations of Scripture on each other. And as to the hidden agenda piece, I would give him the benefit of the doubt beings I've not read up on what his critics are trying to claim, and I could see how it could be misunderstood with this particualr topic because I also believe, just from what research I have done personally dealing with the original canon of Scriptures "coming together" for the first time had a lot of political influence in translations as well.
Knowing that much, I would beleive that's more of what he was eluding to when speaking about the Bible being written by men with personal agendas . . .not that the original authors had the hidden agendas, but the original "translators" that translated it from Greek to Latin, from Latin to English . . ."they" were those with the hidden agendas when they did their translating.
I beleive the original Scriptures are the inspired Word of God and I also believe as we are led of the Spirit in reading our favorite translations that they BECOME the inspired Word of God not because of the translations, but because of the Spirit of God in us that breathes life into the words on the page so that we find affirmation and consolation in the Scriptures "because" we let the Spirit REVEAL to us what's being said, rather than relying on our understanding of definition or pronunciation.
remember, people always search the Scriptures because "they think" they'll find eternal lilfe in them . . .but all Scripture does is point to Christ. And I believe that's what Rob is doing as well. He's pointing to Christ just as much as the next guy. But because he has a different approach, others feel it's their right to take aim at him so they can PROTECT and DEFEND something that flesh has no power to defend or protect. So all they really accomplish is tearing down another brother in the name of religion . . .here we go, all over again.
Quote from: shawn on March 09, 2011, 10:04:48 AM
I think this is a pretty good link. I'm all for looking at scripture in new ways. I do believe we need to be willing to allow the Holy Spirit to reveal new truths to us, grow us, and willing to lay down old belief systems if the Holy Spirit so leads us. But, will the Holy Spirit lead us to places that are not scripturally sound? If we have come to accept something in our spirit that is so clearly unscriptural then we must really take a fresh look at our beliefs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wSAEezBc3s&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wSAEezBc3s&feature=related)
I think I understand what Rob is saying there. When he says that Peter does not have faith in himself, he means faith in his ability to do something that Jesus has just told him he can do--walk on water. We see Peter's faith when he jumps out of the boat [nobody else does that], so he clearly has more faith than those who stay in the boat, but then Peter takes his eyes off Jesus and starts looking at the carnal,-- the wind and the waves and the rain. Then he presumably thinks to himself, this is nuts, I can't do this, and sinks. Jesus tells him he is one of little faith because he doubted. Doubting is to be doubleminded: You can see the spiritual but you can also see the natural and you tell yourself--I can't do this, no way. Haven't we all had to walk through that? Rob is saying here have faith that you can do this because God has chosen you--I think that's what he means by 'have faith in yourself.' In other words, understand that you are not doing it on your own carnal steam, you are doing it with God's energy--doing it through Christ, and therefore you CAN do it.
Quote from: Molly on March 09, 2011, 05:06:39 PM
Quote from: shawn on March 09, 2011, 10:04:48 AM
I think this is a pretty good link. I'm all for looking at scripture in new ways. I do believe we need to be willing to allow the Holy Spirit to reveal new truths to us, grow us, and willing to lay down old belief systems if the Holy Spirit so leads us. But, will the Holy Spirit lead us to places that are not scripturally sound? If we have come to accept something in our spirit that is so clearly unscriptural then we must really take a fresh look at our beliefs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wSAEezBc3s&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wSAEezBc3s&feature=related)
I think I understand what Rob is saying there. When he says that Peter does not have faith in himself, he means faith in his ability to do something that Jesus has just told him he can do--walk on water. We see Peter's faith when he jumps out of the boat [nobody else does that], so he clearly has more faith than those who stay in the boat, but then Peter takes his eyes off Jesus and starts looking at the carnal,-- the wind and the waves and the rain. Then he presumably thinks to himself, this is nuts, I can't do this, and sinks. Jesus tells him he is one of little faith because he doubted. Doubting is to be doubleminded: You can see the spiritual but you can also see the natural and you tell yourself--I can't do this, no way. Haven't we all had to walk through that? Rob is saying here have faith that you can do this because God has chosen you--I think that's what he means by 'have faith in yourself.' In other words, understand that you are not doing it on your own carnal steam, you are doing it with God's energy--doing it through Christ, and therefore you CAN do it.
For me, the way Rob looks at these passages are not deal breakers for me. I often don't agree with a pastor about a particular view of scripture. I don't judge the man and know that my understanding is also limited and can/will change with time. As Nathan says, that's growth. I embrace believers and teachers who I do not see eye to eye with on many issues. I agree with relationship over doctrine. Loving God and our neighbor are the most important commandments. With that said, when I see things that I believe to be less doctrine issues and more issues with eroding the foundation of the faith ie Bible inspired, blood of Chirst a sacrifice for our sins, repentance, confession of sin etc. I will take issue. Paul did so as well.
But, for me there are deal breakers. It's when I will speak up and say this isn't right. I believe the Bible to be the inspired, inerrant word of God. This is not something that is negotiable. I believe Jesus died for the sin of all mankind, and that we must confess our sins...another non-negotiable. I seen one of Rob's videos where he was talking about repentance, confessing our sins and that it wasn't needed. We just need to live in it. The Lord's prayer is the example Christ gave to us about prayer. In it was Jesus asking the Lord to forgive us of our sins. There is a healing with confession, bringing sin into the open and asking for forgiveness.
There is something here that I touched on months back. Where do we stop? Where is this leading? The main problem I had with questioning the motives of the men translating, was the fact that they also canonized scripture. So, if you run with a continuation of that logic it can lead down the path of is our Bible inspired? Which books are inspired? What should we read and internalize as coming from God and what is coming from man? It leads to confusion within the body, not liberty and clarity of mind and spirit.
We can fall back on well the Holy Spirit teaches us. Very true. But, what is our compass? When something enters our spirit, our minds and it feels right we tend to accept it. But, if in that feeling it's based on something that is clearly not only not supported in scripture but rebuked in scripture there is a problem. Our Bible was given to us by God to discern.
I'm reading through this http://www.askelm.com/restoring/index.asp right now. It goes through the canonization process, and he states that the new testament was canonized by Paul, Peter, and John. Contrary to what most scholars believe. He gives historical and biblical evidence, which in my estimation seems more reasoned than the usual, "well we don't really know who canonized it, but it was sometime in the 2nd or 3rd century". I've actually spent 100's of hours reading about the historical reliability of the Bible, after reading the Davinci Code, and being fooled for a moment. but it made me search and understand why the bible we have is reliable. It strengthened my faith greatly. But in all that reading I could never find sufficient evidence as to who canonized the NT. I'm not done with the series yet, but so far the evidence is very well reasoned.
The reason I wrote this is Shawn said "The main problem I had with questioning the motives of the men translating, was the fact that they also canonized scripture."
According to the above, thats not the case. Which brings me to my point (which wasn't changed by the above link). I believe the original manuscripts and copies of those word for word, are Inspired, Inerrant. I don't believe thats the case with the bible you hold in your hands. which is where translational errors and agendas such as "aionos" come into play. All the translations can't be inerrant because they keep being revised, and many contradict each other. this is also the view taken by the majority of evangelical scholars.
Quote from: Nathan on March 09, 2011, 04:35:01 PM
But there again, we have a limited understanding . . .because I for one agree that the Bible AS WE KNOW IT is not THE inspired word of God, it's merely a TRANSLATION of it, which leads to all of the division and destructive results people experience when trying to invoke their interpretations of Scripture on each other. And as to the hidden agenda piece, I would give him the benefit of the doubt beings I've not read up on what his critics are trying to claim, and I could see how it could be misunderstood with this particualr topic because I also believe, just from what research I have done personally dealing with the original canon of Scriptures "coming together" for the first time had a lot of political influence in translations as well.
Knowing that much, I would beleive that's more of what he was eluding to when speaking about the Bible being written by men with personal agendas . . .not that the original authors had the hidden agendas, but the original "translators" that translated it from Greek to Latin, from Latin to English . . ."they" were those with the hidden agendas when they did their translating.
I beleive the original Scriptures are the inspired Word of God and I also believe as we are led of the Spirit in reading our favorite translations that they BECOME the inspired Word of God not because of the translations, but because of the Spirit of God in us that breathes life into the words on the page so that we find affirmation and consolation in the Scriptures "because" we let the Spirit REVEAL to us what's being said, rather than relying on our understanding of definition or pronunciation.
remember, people always search the Scriptures because "they think" they'll find eternal lilfe in them . . .but all Scripture does is point to Christ. And I believe that's what Rob is doing as well. He's pointing to Christ just as much as the next guy. But because he has a different approach, others feel it's their right to take aim at him so they can PROTECT and DEFEND something that flesh has no power to defend or protect. So all they really accomplish is tearing down another brother in the name of religion . . .here we go, all over again.
All that sounds good on the surface Nathan but Paul often rebuked false teachers that crept in among believers. Was Paul mere "tearing down another brother in the name of religion"? He was defending the faith. And while that is often distorted by man into a war of words and doctrines, Paul was well within his right to do so.
This I will agree with wholeheartedly...
I beleive the original Scriptures are the inspired Word of God and I also believe as we are led of the Spirit in reading our favorite translations that they BECOME the inspired Word of God not because of the translations, but because of the Spirit of God in us that breathes life into the words on the page so that we find affirmation and consolation in the Scriptures "because" we let the Spirit REVEAL to us what's being said, rather than relying on our understanding of definition or pronunciation.But, this isn't what Rob believes. During an interview with Christianity today Mr. Bell is quoted as saying [The Bible is a]
"human product...rather than the product of divine fiat". Also, from Mr. Bell
-"This is part of the problem with continually insisting that one of the absolutes of the Christian faith be a belief that Scripture alone is our guide. It sounds nice, but it's not true. In reaction to abuses by the church, a group of believers during a time called the Reformation claimed that we only need the authority of the Bible. But, the problem s that we got the Bible from the church voting on what the Bible even is. So, when I affirm the Bible as God's Word, in the same breath I have to affirm the when those people voted, God was somehow present, guiding them to do what they did. When people say all we need is the Bible, it is simply not true".While I can agree with Rob about the fact that the Bible isn't all we need, I do believe God was present during canonization and led the process. We also are absolutely dependent on the Holy Spirit for revelation. Without spiritual eyes given to us by the Holy Spirit we can not possibly understand scripture. But attacking the canonization process is a slippery slope. What books of the Bible are inspired? Which ones are not? Somewhere I have to draw a line in the sand and have faith that God did indeed guide this process. He did indeed protect the Scriptures. And even though some of our english translation may have some flaws the Holy Spirit is fully capable and willing to guide me to the truth using those Scriptures.
And again another quote about how Rob sees our Holy Scriptures... "
The people who eventually wrote all of this down weren't sitting there with their hand and the pend moving as if controlled by some outside force. The Bible had agendas. :mshock:
Sorry Nathan but this just doesn't pass the truth test. This isn't about doctrine, it's about eroding the foundations of the Christian faith. It brings confusion and insults the very word of God. If I were to stand quietly in the name of love and getting along allowing this to pass it wouldn't sit well with my spirit.
Quote from: redhotmagma on March 09, 2011, 06:51:57 PM
I'm reading through this http://www.askelm.com/restoring/index.asp right now. It goes through the canonization process, and he states that the new testament was canonized by Paul, Peter, and John. Contrary to what most scholars believe. He gives historical and biblical evidence, which in my estimation seems more reasoned than the usual, "well we don't really know who canonized it, but it was sometime in the 2nd or 3rd century". I've actually spent 100's of hours reading about the historical reliability of the Bible, after reading the Davinci Code, and being fooled for a moment. but it made me search and understand why the bible we have is reliable. It strengthened my faith greatly. But in all that reading I could never find sufficient evidence as to who canonized the NT. I'm not done with the series yet, but so far the evidence is very well reasoned.
The reason I wrote this is Shawn said "The main problem I had with questioning the motives of the men translating, was the fact that they also canonized scripture."
According to the above, thats not the case. Which brings me to my point (which wasn't changed by the above link). I believe the original manuscripts and copies of those word for word, are Inspired, Inerrant. I don't believe thats the case with the bible you hold in your hands. which is where translational errors and agendas such as "aionos" come into play. All the translations can't be inerrant because they keep being revised, and many contradict each other. this is also the view taken by the majority of evangelical scholars.
I'll have to read that link because I find the canonization process very interesting. But, even without it I believe by faith that God protected the canonization process and that our scriptures are truly inspired by God. From my understanding it was the Council of Carthage that finally accepted all 27 books of the New Testament. There was much debate among the early church fathers...the same people that Rob states had "agendas".
Quote from: ShawnI seen one of Rob's videos where he was talking about repentance, confessing our sins and that it wasn't needed. We just need to live in it.
I heard someone say the other day that 'Repent' was the equivalent of the military order, 'About face.' I think that pretty much sums it up. :laughing7:
If only we all could live in our repentence...
Hey Shawn . . .I'd paste your post like most others do but it doesn't let me add anything without freaking out on me . . .it's been a glitch I've had for a couple months now.
At any rate, I really didn't see anthing wrong with what Rob was saying in your quote. Unless there's still something more there that isn't being said. But saying the Bible is from human product, granted, I'm sure it comes across as a heretical thing to say, and I'm even more sure that Rob is fully aware of that when he says it. And I'm just as sure that he's aware of the verse that says Scripture is inspired by God. And I'll even throw in the idea that the cannanization of Scripture and the translating of Scripture is actually two different issues.
The cannonization is merely accumulating epistles and texts already written by those believed to be legitimate authorities, into one volumed book so as to stomp out all of the false proclamations crooked men were making while claiming to be from authentic authors.
But the translation is not accumulating books, it's actually rewriting Scripture. And like you, Shawn, I believe in faith that God's hand was very much in the gathering of Scriptures into the agreement of one book. But again, the culture of "our" day just doesn't grasp the kind of environment the religious church thrived in back when things were still at the infant stages of growth. How is it that immediately "after" the translations first came out that the world went into what we now call "The Dark Age" of time?
This is why I've said all along . . .before the topic of Rob Bell came into play, that the Bible as we know it, inspired when it was originally written, but not so much in translations from Greek to Latin . . .in fact, you do realize don't you that there was a reason why Latin was the first language it was translated into . . .not because Latin was the most common language, but because it "wasn't". The Priests of the church were the onlly ones allowed to own and read Scripture to the church and the perishoners had no option but to take the priests word for it that they were reading what was written. Because the priests were the only ones that knew latin.
I gotta to to another post, this one is freaking out again . . .
I know this may be approaching the line of degrading the Bible but that's not my intent at all. Like I said, I still do believe that Scripture is still inspired . . .but without the spirit engaged in us as we read it, our reading "of" it could be anything "but" inspired. Which is why I keep repeating that we really should embrace the call to "walk in the spirit". It's the Spirit's book that we're reading. And the pattern that Jesus left us with while the Spirit was solely in him was . . .everything isn't what it seems to be on the surface. But instead, everything has a spiritual principle lying beneath it. So to sell yourself out on just what's literally written will always leave one coming up short of the mark. And I think Rob sees that also when he talks about it being from men.
He's not denouncing the Bible anymore than I am . . .he references it constantly, he quotes from it constantly and he uses the very stories unfolding in it as his platform. So this is not an attack against the Bible. All it is, is it's an attempt to make people aware that just because one may have a disciplined understanding of the Bible, doesn't mean that "that" is the final word.
The Bible, inspired or not, is limited. It has a beginning and it has an end. But the author that inspired it to be written has no boundaries. And as I stated before, Scripture itself says that Scripture isn't what leads you into eternal life . . .all it is, is a sign that points you to where eternal life is, which is Christ. He IS the volume of the book. There's nothing wrong with the book, it's the perspective from which people are reading it that is defective.
As for absolutes . . .there are only two that I could stand on. One is, God has (past tense) redeemed us back to him. and two is, my perspective of him is EVER-CHANGING. Outside of that, nothing for me is as absolute as what my mind may try to convince me otherwise.
I couldn't agree more with you Nathan.
The Bible MAY become the Word of God only when it is enlivened by the Spirit. There is a reason why God did not have His Son Jesus dictate manuscripts to His disciples. This would have been entirely possible but it is not what Christianity was meant to be about. We ought not to idolise the love-letters whilst the Lover is still with us.
I think for me the bottom line is, I hope Bell's beliefs, whatever they are, doesn't generally trash the scriptures as not inspired and reliable (given translational, interpretational, and Spirit-revelation issues) or deny that all must come through Jesus as those scriptures say we must.
I think there are good points made in the recent posts by several different people. It's a topic that brings all types of opinions. I can testify that during a period of time when I began to question the scriptures' reliability/authenticity, God's conviction on my life was very quick and sharp - leading me back to respect of their reliability, given the issues in parentheses in the first paragraph.
We also have this at TM as a guide;
http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/announcements/moderatortm_expectations_regarding_the_scriptures_7383.0.html
I think there is inspired scripture out there and many times I have read the kjv bible and thought it must be wrong, but often through study and prayer it does make sense and restores my faith that the translation is correct. But here is my dilemma, in that Jesus said to the scribes you shut up the kingdom of heaven to the people"
Now the scribes were scholars and educated, I often feel that the bible we have access to today was written for only educated people and I find the claim that it is easy enough for a child to understand, not entirely accurate, hence the hundreds of denominations. People like Daniel when they needed God they studied for hours and prayed and sacrificed and so did the majority of the prophets, so the question is "do we as believers have to go through this process as well, just to hear from God? But didn't Jesus come to help all people, and the Fathers good pleasure to give us the kingdom? That means to me that the bible should be understandable for all people to make sense of it without having the common man to behave as a priest, we also unlike the prophets, who prayed, they received direct 100% revelation from God, we as people often look for revelation on what they the prophets already wrote, so our job should be much easier, I do also believe that, yes certain truths need to be pressed into, hence revelations and prophets etc, who need to pray etc, but I still think the average person should be able to understand the bible and this is where I feel the the English KJV bible and subsequent updates has stumbled the people and has given birth to much of the early church (Constantine period), ideas such as ET, etc. The answer given is mostly that it is a spiritual fault, that we are at fault at the spiritual side and interpret the bible carnally. But what if Jesus wanted us to have a majority of agreement, a church that understands the scriptures thouroughly, this means that the route of the problem is not the spiritual aspect or belief of man but rather the framework the foundation of the faith, which is the English bible, or even the latin bible, since the kjv translators only did the best with what they had.
Somethings are understood clearly in the bible, e.g Jesus is the saviour of mankind, he rose form the dead, he was the Son of God etc, but there are things not so clear, that perhaps should be. Type of things that the average folk has difficulty with
Self defence, biblical?
Mosiac Laws are they a guidance to modern living?
Commandments relevant to gentile?
ET, lake of fire
Life after death?
To judge or not to judge?
Rebel against tyrranical governents, or obey them?
These issues, just a few are very important to the faith yet, no clear instructions, strong cases often are presented on all sides. Either for some reason God designed things to be as this, perhaps seperating the wheat from the chaff, that he makes things appear to be either way, so that the factor of choosing is our hearts.
Or the English KJV or latin it was translated from, was incomplete hence missing key scrolls(books) of information(instructions), or the scrolls we have were mistranslated or changed deliberatlily. One thing is that the kjv is often looked at but not the latin it was translated from. Perhaps the Latin was at fault, or perhaps earlier still, the Greek translated rom the Hebrew. To add further complexity, none of hypothesized errors might be deliberate or by mistake, but simply the result of language complexities of changing one form of word into another and the changing ways in which we use the same language throughout history.
Quote from: pilgrim1 on March 09, 2011, 10:34:41 PM
I couldn't agree more with you Nathan.
The Bible MAY become the Word of God only when it is enlivened by the Spirit. There is a reason why God did not have His Son Jesus dictate manuscripts to His disciples. This would have been entirely possible but it is not what Christianity was meant to be about. We ought not to idolise the love-letters whilst the Lover is still with us.
That is certainly an interesting view. Are you saying that by believing the Bible is the word of God, that is a form of idolatry?
Bible worship is very possible; the Scribes and Pharisees did it.
The Word of God is Jesus, and well...if we want to be technical, the Bible isn't Jesus, and so isn't "The Word" of God, though it is a/the collection of inspired scripture.
The common use of the phrase "word of God" meaning 'collection of inspired scripture' is not the same as when people attribute that same phrase to saying that the Bible is "The Word of God" a title which belongs to Jesus alone.
Using the phrase 'word of God' vs. 'Word of God' - I'd say it is alright to call the Bible the word of God...just not The Word of God; when we call it The Word, we get into idolatry, when we call it 'the word of God' we get into a situation of cultural definition, and phrases...though I myself am uncomfortable these days with calling the Bible - The Word, whether capitalised or not.
I much prefer to call them "the scriptures", which is more accurate.
Shawn, you said this; "...or outright saying the Bible is the work of men with agendas. No matter how many times he quotes the Bible he leaves the impression that he believes it to be a good book to guide your living but not the word of our living God. If he doesn't feel like that, then he really should clarify. But, in all honesty I believe this to be his stance. For me, that's a deal breaker. I can't listen to a teacher who doesn't believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God." I agree. I really am not very open to someone who claims to be a believer yet trashes the scriptures - honestly, I don't trust or respect their perspective. They can say anything, "God told me", "God led me", etc., etc., while denying a standard to which to measure their claims. I certainly believe in Spirit revelation, but I don't believe the Spirit will EVER "reveal" or lead into anything that's incompatible with accurately translated, rightly divided scripture.
I don't know what pilgrim1 believes, I hope not what I'm about to say. I've enjoyed his posts. However, some claim that if one believes the scriptures to be inspired by God, and in their essence (especially the originals) God's Words to us, then yes, that is idolotry. I believe that to be a deceitful, straw man argument, that is meant to distract from the fact that God's written Words are to be a standard for us. Not His complete dealings with us, but a standard none-the-less - a way we can measure if someone's speaking truth or deceit. God reveals Himself in many ways. But I don't believe ANY way that will blatantly disagree with His scriptures to us, when accurately translated, rightly divided, and Spirit revealed. I believe to deny that is to open up to much imagination, carnal speculation, and deceit dressed in sheep's clothing. :2c:
Quote from: Lefein on March 10, 2011, 12:19:17 AM
Bible worship is very possible; the Scribes and Pharisees did it.
The Word of God is Jesus, and well...if we want to be technical, the Bible isn't Jesus, and so isn't "The Word" of God, though it is a/the collection of inspired scripture.
The common use of the phrase "word of God" meaning 'collection of inspired scripture' is not the same as when people attribute that same phrase to saying that the Bible is "The Word of God" a title which belongs to Jesus alone.
Using the phrase 'word of God' vs. 'Word of God' - I'd say it is alright to call the Bible the word of God...just not The Word of God; when we call it The Word, we get into idolatry, when we call it 'the word of God' we get into a situation of cultural definition, and phrases...though I myself am uncomfortable these days with calling the Bible - The Word, whether capitalised or not.
I much prefer to call them "the scriptures", which is more accurate.
I usually say "the scriptures" as well, mainly because I don't want this particular argument and people's varying opinions/understandings from detracting from the primary point I'm often trying to make at the time.
However, I believe the scribes and pharisees
misused the written Word, and
missed the Revealed Word - Jesus. They looked to and ONLY used the letter, and were not open to the Spirit and denied the Messiah. IMO, that's how they failed.
I believe there's misunderstanding on BOTH sides of this issue - those that deny the scriptures, and those that get so dogmatic they insist on things like KJV-salvation and any other translations are of the devil - and then many variations in-between.
This is from a previous post I've kept for these purposes. Hopefully it's helpful.
"My thoughts simply are, Jesus became the revealed Word in flesh, but His doing so did not negate the logos, which scripture states is forever settled in the heavens. In my understanding (and I've had some very intense dealings from God regarding His Word) there's the Word (thought/intent of God), the written Word, and Jesus the Word revealed and come in the flesh - not one or the other.
IMO, there can be a misunderstanding between the written Word, the spoken Word, and the fact that Jesus revealed the Word in flesh. As I've said, I don't believe one negates the other.
John 6:63
Jesus said ".....the
Words I
speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life".
John 1:1 Christ is the
living Word of God.
I believe scripture (accurately translated, rightly divided, Spirit revealed -
especially the originals) is the
written Word of God, as evidenced by Jesus' statement Himself - John 14:23 JESUS (THE
LIVING WORD) SAID, "if a man love me he will keep
my Words". (The Word saying keep my Word.)
Matthew 4:4 "It is written man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God".
John 15:3 Again, JESUS (THE
LIVING WORD) SAID, "Now you are clean through
the Word which I have
spoken unto you". (See it again, the Word
saying the Word?)
Logos: Unchanging self-existent Word of God
Psalms 119:89 "forever o Lord thy Word (logos) is settled in heaven".
Rhema: derived from the verb to speak. Romans 10:17 "so then faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God".
Shortly after God revealed UR to me, I was tempted to adopt what seemed to be a popular opinion on TM at the time, that Jesus ALONE was the Word, and that the written Word was suspect, unreliable, and not inspired. God dealt with me swiftly, deeply, and painfully that I was to not go in that direction, and was to maintain a belief [and stance] that His written Word is just that - His Word. Yes, Jesus is the Word -become flesh. But God also has written Word and spoken/revealed Word.
They operate in tandem. They don't exclude or diminish each other, and I don't believe I should either.
I later inquired (again) of God about this topic. He immediately let me know He had
already let me know. I went to the written Word. These scriptures are from perhaps the most literal English translation available, The Christian Bible (1991).
I John 2:7 The
Law is called
the Word that was heard 2:8 Then again, I am
writing a new
Word to you that
is true in Him.
:14 I have
written to you...and
God's Word is staying in you
Mathew 13:18-22
Jesus talks about the Word about the Kingdom, in the parable of the sower - Vs. 22; "Now the one among the thorns into which the seed was planted, this is the person who hears the Word, but the concerns of this age and enticement or riches stifle the Word, and it beomes unfruitful.
Mt. 15:3 "Why do you step beyond the boundaries of
God's Direction [Word] because of your tradition? ...
now you have invalidated God's Word because or your tradition."
Notice the differences, [1] and [2];
Rev. 3:8 You have kept [1]
my Word and you haven't disowned [2]
my name ("Yesu")John 1:14 The Word became flesh
John 8:31 Then [1]
Yesu was saying..."if you stay in [2]
My Word, you are truly my students"
37 "you are seeking to kill Me, for My Word has no room in you"
John 17:6,8 "I made [1]
your Name apparent...they have kept [2]
Your Word. Now they have come to know that everything that You have given to Me, is from You, because they have kept the Declarations that you gave me, I have given to them, and they accepted them, and truly knew that came out from You..."
A note of thought though (and I'll have to get back to your latest post Jabcat) is that even if (and I emphasise if) he (Rob) thinks of the Bible as "a good book" but not the "inspired word of God" (what ever that might possibly mean, and thousands of people have thousands of ways of defining what that means from literal red letter to spiritual truth collection); We should not assume that he is "trashing" the scriptures. Trashing the scriptures is to treat them the way that very bitter, militant Atheists do, rather than the way people who respect it do.
I think there is a spectrum of things to work with when it comes to trashing vs. adoring the scriptures. If I, for example, were to believe it were just a good book written by men with no divine intervention - that would not be me trashing the scriptures, that just means that I do not consider them to be of divine authorship. However if I were to go around and call the scriptures the most heathenish thing ever to come out of the mouth of primitive desert people's mouths, fit only to be used to wipe my bottom with and burned for fuel or laughed at - now that would be trashing them...
But I don't think that he believes it is "just a good book" (I'd have to do some research on this Rob person to tell for sure) if he's quoting from it so much, and you don't have to believe that our modern day translations (like the KJV) are 100% perfect in order to believe that the Bible is inspired. I'll give this example;
You can believe that the Bible is a good book written by men under the inspiring power of the Holy Spirit, though our modern day translations are imperfect - and still believe that the Bible is inspired.
You can also believe that the Bible is all of this, but that the ancient copies had some errors in them, or that the Bible had some errors in them even in the Autographs - and still believe that the Bible is inspired.
A fatalistic idea that "its either 100% or 0% trashworthy junk" is limiting, both in spiritual growth as well as in one's ability to receive the Truth, who is a Being before he is a Book. It is somewhat the same "fatalistic" attitude that alot of our ET brothers have regarding salvation and Jesus; if we'll recall, are there not those who say that if Jesus saves 100% of everyone then he, and his sacrifice were completely useless? This is a fatalistic, and as we can all who agree with UR espouse; very, very limiting to one's growth in God. The same it is with the fatalistic idea that if the Bible is not 100% perfect then it too is useless, limiting and hindering.
I personally believe that we should rely on our relationship with God as our foundation of revelation, rather than the other way around solely - this is to say, that the Bible is an important tool for our walk with Christ, but it is not the "all encompassing fulcrim upon which the faith of a man in God, or upon which universe depends on for existence".
Abraham had faith in the True God before Genesis was ever written, as did everyone up til Moses, and even then the Bible was a work in progress, again I say I believe the Bible is important, a staple of our spiritual diet, it is a large portion of the meat and potatoes that constitute the health of our faith. But it is not so to speak; "all" of the meat and potatoes. There is still a huge pile of mashed potatoes and a thick cut of lamb steak and even more so than that, a whole plate of living bread and a large pitcher of living water - Jesus, that is not "The Bible" which is a baked potato and a cut of beef on the plate, and some veggies - important to our diet, but not the sustaining Life Giving Meal himself. If that makes sense.
I believe the scriptures are inspired, and I believe that the Autographs, as far as I can believe by faith since we do not have them - were inspired, and definitely God given in a literal sense. But I also believe that our translations are imperfect and subject to a margin of error, (Aion? Kolasin? Hell?) not a huge margin of error; not in such a means that it is fit only for junk, no indeed! The Bible is extremely important to our walk, but it is not "God-Perfect", as some would claim. And I do not fatalistically abandon the Bible as worthless and idiotic just because I think it is only 90%, 95%, or so perfect rather than 100% absolute infallible in and of itself - infallible textually, and perfectly literally.
I live by this concept; The Spirit inspires, not the text. Yet I still believe the text to be genuine enough to be useful, though I'll not make it (and what inevitably comes to being my personal interpretation of it) my Lord, over the actual voice (experiences I have with) of My Lord.
Varying details of POV and interpretation aside, I think the bottom line for me is (and also for the purposes of the boards) is that the scriptures, accurately translated, rightly divided, and Spirit revealed are reliable - and our searching is within those scriptures, not against, or not arguing against either their inspiration or trustworthiness for matters of faith - again, given the bolded above.
Several people have had their say, different views presented, and we may want to start working our way back soon to the OP. Blessings, James.
Agreed, and agreeable on all points Jabcat.
Quote from: Nathan on March 09, 2011, 04:35:01 PM
. . .not that the original authors had the hidden agendas, but the original "translators" that translated it from Greek to Latin, from Latin to English . . ."they" were those with the hidden agendas when they did their translating.
Could you explain that, please? What hidden agendas did the translators have? Was their motive not to put the Bible into languages that more people of the day could understand?
Quote from: Lefein on March 10, 2011, 01:19:35 AM
Agreed, and agreeable on all points Jabcat.
:gimmefive:
Quote from: jabcat on March 10, 2011, 12:47:19 AM
Quote from: Lefein on March 10, 2011, 12:19:17 AM
Bible worship is very possible; the Scribes and Pharisees did it.
The Word of God is Jesus, and well...if we want to be technical, the Bible isn't Jesus, and so isn't "The Word" of God, though it is a/the collection of inspired scripture.
The common use of the phrase "word of God" meaning 'collection of inspired scripture' is not the same as when people attribute that same phrase to saying that the Bible is "The Word of God" a title which belongs to Jesus alone.
Using the phrase 'word of God' vs. 'Word of God' - I'd say it is alright to call the Bible the word of God...just not The Word of God; when we call it The Word, we get into idolatry, when we call it 'the word of God' we get into a situation of cultural definition, and phrases...though I myself am uncomfortable these days with calling the Bible - The Word, whether capitalised or not.
I much prefer to call them "the scriptures", which is more accurate.
I usually say "the scriptures" as well, mainly because I don't want this particular argument and people's varying opinions/understandings from detracting from the primary point I'm often trying to make at the time.
However, I believe the scribes and pharisees misused the written Word, and missed the Revealed Word - Jesus. They looked to and ONLY used the letter, and were not open to the Spirit and denied the Messiah. IMO, that's how they failed.
I believe there's misunderstanding on BOTH sides of this issue - those that deny the scriptures, and those that get so dogmatic they insist on things like KJV-salvation and any other translations are of the devil - and then many variations in-between.
This is from a previous post I've kept for these purposes. Hopefully it's helpful.
"My thoughts simply are, Jesus became the revealed Word in flesh, but His doing so did not negate the logos, which scripture states is forever settled in the heavens. In my understanding (and I've had some very intense dealings from God regarding His Word) there's the Word (thought/intent of God), the written Word, and Jesus the Word revealed and come in the flesh - not one or the other.
IMO, there can be a misunderstanding between the written Word, the spoken Word, and the fact that Jesus revealed the Word in flesh. As I've said, I don't believe one negates the other.
John 6:63 Jesus said ".....the Words I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life".
John 1:1 Christ is the living Word of God.
I believe scripture (accurately translated, rightly divided, Spirit revealed - especially the originals) is the written Word of God, as evidenced by Jesus' statement Himself - John 14:23 JESUS (THE LIVING WORD) SAID, "if a man love me he will keep my Words". (The Word saying keep my Word.)
Matthew 4:4 "It is written man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God".
John 15:3 Again, JESUS (THE LIVING WORD) SAID, "Now you are clean through the Word which I have spoken unto you". (See it again, the Word saying the Word?)
Logos: Unchanging self-existent Word of God
Psalms 119:89 "forever o Lord thy Word (logos) is settled in heaven".
Rhema: derived from the verb to speak. Romans 10:17 "so then faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God".
Shortly after God revealed UR to me, I was tempted to adopt what seemed to be a popular opinion on TM at the time, that Jesus ALONE was the Word, and that the written Word was suspect, unreliable, and not inspired. God dealt with me swiftly, deeply, and painfully that I was to not go in that direction, and was to maintain a belief [and stance] that His written Word is just that - His Word. Yes, Jesus is the Word -become flesh. But God also has written Word and spoken/revealed Word. They operate in tandem. They don't exclude or diminish each other, and I don't believe I should either.
I later inquired (again) of God about this topic. He immediately let me know He had already let me know. I went to the written Word. These scriptures are from perhaps the most literal English translation available, The Christian Bible (1991).
I John 2:7 The Law is called the Word that was heard
2:8 Then again, I am writing a new Word to you that is true in Him.
:14 I have written to you...and God's Word is staying in you
Mathew 13:18-22 Jesus talks about the Word about the Kingdom, in the parable of the sower - Vs. 22; "Now the one among the thorns into which the seed was planted, this is the person who hears the Word, but the concerns of this age and enticement or riches stifle the Word, and it beomes unfruitful.
Mt. 15:3 "Why do you step beyond the boundaries of God's Direction because of your tradition? ...now you have invalidated God's Word because or your tradition."
Notice the differences, [1] and [2];
Rev. 3:8 You have kept [1] my Word and you haven't disowned [2] my name ("Yesu")
John 1:14 The Word became flesh
John 8:31 Then [1] Yesu was saying..."if you stay in [2] My Word, you are truly my students"
37 "you are seeking to kill Me, for My Word has no room in you"
John 17:6,8 "I made [1] your Name apparent...they have kept [2] Your Word. Now they have come to know that everything that You have given to Me, is from You, because they have kept the Declarations that you gave me, I have given to them, and they accepted them, and truly knew that came out from You..."
Terrific post. I had never heard this point of view of the Word. And, I must be one of them "fatalistic" folk because I do believe the Bible to be 100% inspired. And while it's not all encompassing of my relationship with Christ, it's firmly founded within my walk. 2 Tim 3 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. Doesn't seem like much wiggle room there...
All Scripture is God-breathed. We see the Scriptures inspiration, and function. We don't worship the Bible but we do use it for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. We have confidence in the Bible because it is indeed
all God-breathed.
Thanks Shawn, bless you. I really feel God gave me that and led me to the right scrips. I don't think we have a "perfect" translation, but I believe there is the preserved meaning and accurate scriptures that God intended for us to have within those translations - which He reveals to us, and I believe He is revealing more and more in latter times. (It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, the honor of kings to search out a matter). So I believe we do have God's written Word to us, but it needs to be accurately translated and we need to read it with the Spirit and have it revealed and brought to life to us.
The only thing I personally make any allowances for is translational issues, which IMO include if something can be factually PROVEN that a little piece here and there is spurrious - i.e., there's a VERY few instances of a word being added/changed here and there in later manuscripts, and even a couple of places where it's a line or part of a line (I don't mean in English translations, where there are lots of conjunctive words added for clarity such as "the", "that", "and", etc.). But truly spurrious additions (not just varying people's opinions because it doesn't fit their particular doctrines or beliefs) in the later manuscripts are VERY few, as I've read that the oldest and best(est) :laughing7: manuscripts agree in the very high 90's percent of the time (98-99%). So BY FAR, I contend what we have is reliable when accurately translated, rightly divided, and Spirit revealed - and as Lefein said, I take it on faith and conviction that the Originals were perfect as God intended. So from my view, God did preserve His Word to us, just as He said He would - sometimes we've got to dig for those hidden things and "study to show ourselves approved".
The scriptures are a light to our path, the Spirit comforts, teaches/reveals, and Jesus saves! What more do you want?! :bigGrin:
Gary requested a specific thread be started to address this, so since we had this one going already, I just changed the title to the above. Hope that alright with you Big Nate. Forgive me if it's not, and let me know and I can do something else. :thumbsup:
Edit/P.S. Gary is hoping that at the very least Rob Bell's book will cause people to dig, search some things out rather than just accept some of the "popular" interpretations re: "hell", after-life, etc.
Ha . . .until you mentioned it Jabcat, I didn't even realize it got changed! :mshock: No worries.
I just wanted to add two things. One was to a question aimed at me about the hidden agendas when it came to translations. I'm not a scholar on the subject by any means, but what I "have" come across is that, if I'm not mistaken, the first translation that occured was not from Greek to English . . .that didn't happen until 1611 with the first King James Version . . .KJV has been revised several times since. But instead it was tranlated over to Latin. At that time, the Bible didn't have the popularity it has now in that every household has a half-dozen different translations, let alone Bibles. And it was only the priests that had access to Scripture so they could and did twist it into saying anything they wanted it to say. That's really what brought about the reformation to begin with.
But there was so much political motivation going on back then, backstabbing, excommunicating, murdering . . on an on. The one thing religion does to to men is that it does cause people to manifest a LOT of passion. Just recently in yet another suicide boming incident, the guy that blew himself up screamed "ALLAH IS GREAT". The last thing people heard just before some lunitic blew them to smitherenes was the same guy murdering them was telling them God was great . . . we are a strange human race sometimes.
To Jabcats last point on this book . . .I took a news article to church with me, made copies of it and handed it out, not because it was my plan to, but because once I mentioned it and the fact I had copies for anyone interested in reading the article, everyone there wanted copies. There is a great interest out there. Yes, there obviously are other books dealing with the same subject . . .Hope Beyond Hell is one of my favorites as well. But I think what we're seeing is that the momentum it begining to grow and God is bringing in truths that have been successfully swept under the rug all these generations until now.
The think about trying to bury a seed of life, thinking that you're "hiding" it . . . where ever you buried it, it's going to take root. . . .crap . . .need to start another post again . . .
Jab thanks for sharing about the word, that was a very enlightening post for me. :cloud9:
I truly believe this book that's shaking things up in the church is a tell-tale sign of the fact that the atmosphere in the heavenlies has changed from days of Labor to DAY of Rest. We've talked some about this before in the thinking in line with the "thousand years as a day" principle. From Adam to Abraham, two days, from Abraham to Jesus, another two days, from Jesus to our generation, yet another two days . . .thus the six days of labor have passed and now our natural world is exposed to the Sabbath Day and it's changed the religous atmosphere. The rules have changed . . .just as they did from what men were required to do in the six days leading up to the Sabbath, to what they were required to do "on" the Sabbath.
The conflict comes when men who've embraced the six-day mentaility, try to apply the same laws of labor to the Day of the Sabbath . . .I think the message that Rob is bringing with this book, same as the author of "Hope Beyond Hell", same as "The Shack" and literally hundreds of other "outside of the religious box" books that are now at our disposal, these are all accumulative evidence that the spiritual atmosphere has/is/will continue changing as we further engage ourselves with the Sabbath Day identities.
Jesus also said in three days, after they tore his temple down, in three days he'd resurrect it again . . .is it any wonder these headlines are bringing a resurrective sound to those who have the ears to hear it?
Quote from: jabcat on March 10, 2011, 02:23:50 AM
Thanks Shawn, bless you. I really feel God gave me that and led me to the right scrips. I don't think we have a "perfect" translation, but I believe there is the preserved meaning and accurate scriptures that God intended for us to have within those translations - which He reveals to us, and I believe He is revealing more and more in latter times. (It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, the honor of kings to search out a matter). So I believe we do have God's written Word to us, but it needs to be accurately translated and we need to read it with the Spirit and have it revealed and brought to life to us.
The only thing I personally make any allowances for is translational issues, which IMO include if something can be factually PROVEN that a little piece here and there is spurrious - i.e., there's a VERY few instances of a word being added/changed here and there in later manuscripts, and even a couple of places where it's a line or part of a line (I don't mean in English translations, where there are lots of conjunctive words added for clarity such as "the", "that", "and", etc.). But truly spurrious additions (not just varying people's opinions because it doesn't fit their particular doctrines or beliefs) in the later manuscripts are VERY few, as I've read that the oldest and best(est) :laughing7: manuscripts agree in the very high 90's percent of the time (98-99%). So BY FAR, I contend what we have is reliable when accurately translated, rightly divided, and Spirit revealed - and as Lefein said, I take it on faith and conviction that the Originals were perfect as God intended. So from my view, God did preserve His Word to us, just as He said He would - sometimes we've got to dig for those hidden things and "study to show ourselves approved".
The scriptures are a light to our path, the Spirit comforts, teaches/reveals, and Jesus saves! What more do you want?! :bigGrin:
Amen!!! God gave us these translations mistranslations and all for a purpose. Every one of us, even those who speak bad about the scriptures uses them to learn, teach, grow, inspire, and a host of other things. In my view, to trash, put down, say we shouldn't trust the Bible is speaking against the God who gave it to us.
CHB
Amen Nathan
The seventh angel blew his trumpet; and there followed loud voices in Heaven which said,
"The sovereignty of the world now belongs to our Lord and His Christ; and He will be King until the Ages of the Ages."
REVELATION leads to REVOLUTION which leads to REFORMATION.
Revelation has come . . .we're seeing the beginnings of a revolution that's about to transpire. Once it does, reformation is inevidible. :myahoo: :myahoo: :myahoo:
Hello all. For whatever it might be worth, here is a Youtube video link showing Rob Bell himself, as he addresses how he views the Bible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIKkvmSNUCY
I agree w Nathan, even to the point that if we were given the original manuscripts and understood those languages fully (the cultural contexts of words/phrases and all), we would still need REVELATION from the Spirit to understand it.
I appreciate what Thinktank said concerning how 4th century tampering has stumbled the average person's ability to understand the text - even to this day.
It's frustrating to witness even as little as 5 well-meaning men who devote their lives to study scriptures dilligently, cross-reference, etc and still not agree/corroborate on what it takes to become "saved" and "stay saved" (forget about pre/post/mid, tongues/no tongues, women teaching / not teaching in church, etc) . As Gary Amirault says, 22,000 denominations.
I consider myself very immature here in this post, but for my own sanity, I reference Jesus Christ's actions/decisions of his
earthly life as documented. Of course that also depends on how I interpret/perceive Him while I read. But in relation to
giving reverance to the scripture, I have to use Jesus' model to inform how I might understand scripture, Jesus being
the Word that became flesh and Jesus referencing (if you see Me, you see the Father). This is all I can do at this stage
of my faith (or lack thereof) to maintain sanity as I am admittedly very jaded concerning the validity of the text we have been given today.
Getting back to Rob Bell, I also have concerns (as Jabcat) that Bell might leave the impression that all URers at best give
light regard to scriptures or of more concern, not emphasize that Jesus Christ is the ONLY reason why salvation
and a reconcilled relationship with God the Father (whether Bell is a URer or not) is even possible to begin with.
But on behalf of Rob Bell, if God uses him (if for no other reason) to stir a very molded and stagnant pot of dead
churchianty in America, I'm good with that.
GKY
After listening to Rob's rebuttle on these issues . . .I guess I don't see how people could still be worried he thinks little of Scripture . . .at all. He's made it pretty clear here that the Bible is what it says it is and that Christ is the ONLY entrance to the Father . . .what's there to take issue with now? He's one of the few out there with his kind of clout that is emitting the SOUND of life as apposed to the NOISE of political religion. The more I hear him, the more I like him.
Here's part two to that same clip . . .I especially like his take on what blasphemy is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8U9jto2D00&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
Quote from: Nathan on March 10, 2011, 07:17:04 PM
REVELATION leads to REVOLUTION which leads to REFORMATION.
Revelation has come . . .we're seeing the beginnings of a revolution that's about to transpire. Once it does, reformation is inevidible. :myahoo: :myahoo: :myahoo:
For a long time the prophets have prophecied a large revival and reformation. Perhaps the key to ignite it is UR, that by it's nature will be an enemy to the religious spirit that dominates the church, and once the religious spirit is weakened, perhaps then revival can flow, the Holy spirit can work and Christ and the Father can do great works in the church, praise the lord.
Why do I always look at the youtube comments...
"heretic this, heretic that, you're going to Hell Rob Bell for thus and such, I wonder how you'll like it when you're burning, you're not of God...etc, etc"
hrmmpf...
You know what I think? I think people WANT other people to go to Hell. It makes them feel better, it makes them feel special, it makes them feel like God's little favourite.
Quote from: Nathan on March 10, 2011, 03:51:30 PM
Ha . . .until you mentioned it Jabcat, I didn't even realize it got changed! :mshock: No worries.
I just wanted to add two things. One was to a question aimed at me about the hidden agendas when it came to translations. I'm not a scholar on the subject by any means, but what I "have" come across is that, if I'm not mistaken, the first translation that occured was not from Greek to English . . .that didn't happen until 1611 with the first King James Version . . .KJV has been revised several times since. But instead it was tranlated over to Latin. At that time, the Bible didn't have the popularity it has now in that every household has a half-dozen different translations, let alone Bibles. And it was only the priests that had access to Scripture so they could and did twist it into saying anything they wanted it to say. That's really what brought about the reformation to begin with.
But there was so much political motivation going on back then, backstabbing, excommunicating, murdering . . on an on. The one thing religion does to to men is that it does cause people to manifest a LOT of passion. Just recently in yet another suicide boming incident, the guy that blew himself up screamed "ALLAH IS GREAT". The last thing people heard just before some lunitic blew them to smitherenes was the same guy murdering them was telling them God was great . . . we are a strange human race sometimes.
To Jabcats last point on this book . . .I took a news article to church with me, made copies of it and handed it out, not because it was my plan to, but because once I mentioned it and the fact I had copies for anyone interested in reading the article, everyone there wanted copies. There is a great interest out there. Yes, there obviously are other books dealing with the same subject . . .Hope Beyond Hell is one of my favorites as well. But I think what we're seeing is that the momentum it begining to grow and God is bringing in truths that have been successfully swept under the rug all these generations until now.
The think about trying to bury a seed of life, thinking that you're "hiding" it . . . where ever you buried it, it's going to take root. . . .crap . . .need to start another post again . . .
I suppose the danger in bringing the motivations of men into the equation is the fact that many will be left with the thought, "can I trust scripture". I have not heard the youtube clip of Rob defending his statements about the Bible, but will check it out later. What I do know is that men have always had motives. Should we also question the motives of Paul? How about John? Is this really a path we want to go down?
I trust God, not men. If God is truly sovereign then the motivations of men are irrelevant. I believe God has protected the Bible, and what we have can be trusted. That is my starting place, the foundation from which my faith is built. Because the Bible leads us to Christ. If I can't trust the Bible, I can only trust those feelings going on in me. And while I have grown closer to God, and I can hear the tuggings of the Holy Spirit I am still prone to allow the flesh to creep in and dictate what I want to hear. The Bible keeps me grounded, and helps in discernment.
So, when I hear of a pastor who made the statements I showed in a previous post, it will concern me. And you know what it should concern every believer. It's very possible that Rob's quotes were taken out of context. And if that is the case, then great I am very happy about that. If he has clarified, and states that he believes the Bible to be 100% God inspired then I welcome his teachings.
Quote from: CHB on March 10, 2011, 05:51:12 PM
Quote from: jabcat on March 10, 2011, 02:23:50 AM
Thanks Shawn, bless you. I really feel God gave me that and led me to the right scrips. I don't think we have a "perfect" translation, but I believe there is the preserved meaning and accurate scriptures that God intended for us to have within those translations - which He reveals to us, and I believe He is revealing more and more in latter times. (It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, the honor of kings to search out a matter). So I believe we do have God's written Word to us, but it needs to be accurately translated and we need to read it with the Spirit and have it revealed and brought to life to us.
The only thing I personally make any allowances for is translational issues, which IMO include if something can be factually PROVEN that a little piece here and there is spurrious - i.e., there's a VERY few instances of a word being added/changed here and there in later manuscripts, and even a couple of places where it's a line or part of a line (I don't mean in English translations, where there are lots of conjunctive words added for clarity such as "the", "that", "and", etc.). But truly spurrious additions (not just varying people's opinions because it doesn't fit their particular doctrines or beliefs) in the later manuscripts are VERY few, as I've read that the oldest and best(est) :laughing7: manuscripts agree in the very high 90's percent of the time (98-99%). So BY FAR, I contend what we have is reliable when accurately translated, rightly divided, and Spirit revealed - and as Lefein said, I take it on faith and conviction that the Originals were perfect as God intended. So from my view, God did preserve His Word to us, just as He said He would - sometimes we've got to dig for those hidden things and "study to show ourselves approved".
The scriptures are a light to our path, the Spirit comforts, teaches/reveals, and Jesus saves! What more do you want?! :bigGrin:
Amen!!! God gave us these translations mistranslations and all for a purpose. Every one of us, even those who speak bad about the scriptures uses them to learn, teach, grow, inspire, and a host of other things. In my view, to trash, put down, say we shouldn't trust the Bible is speaking against the God who gave it to us.
CHB
:thumbsup:
I think most people honestly believe in a forever burning hell, just like the Jews believed they were doing good by crucifying Jesus. Jesus said "if they hate me they will hate you, if they have persecuted me, they will persecute you and speak all manner of evil against you". Can we expect any different?
CHB
Quote from: Nathan on March 10, 2011, 07:58:48 PM
Here's part two to that same clip . . .I especially like his take on what blasphemy is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8U9jto2D00&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
That is certainly an interesting clip. I would stress that it is indeed important to be cautious when condemning someone as a heretic. Or, to say a particular church is heretical. I would guess Mars Hill has gotten some unfair press. So, Rob because he was called a heretic is basically saying those saying this could be committing blasphemy. I get why he would want to say this and I get why he is hurt. I have even seen some concerns about some of his teaching that wouldn't make me blink an eye. With that said, as a pastor it's important to be clear...concise and upfront about your beliefs and what you are trying to teach. Maybe some of his quotes about the inspiration of the Bible have been taken out of context. That is not an unreasonable assumption.
With that said, each believer should discern for themselves. For me, I am very open to looking at scripture in new and deeper ways. But, I will not travel down the road of questioning the motives of the gospel writers. I won't travel down the road of questioning the inspiration of scripture. If a particular pastor does that, I will not listen without direct Holy Spirit intervention. Like Jab, I have had dealings with this area in my life and it's not a place I want to go. Each believer should test teachings. Doing so is not an act of blasphemy. Each believer should seek a teacher that feeds them, and avoid those that don't. If Rob truly believes the Bible to be 100% inspired then I surely will listen to what he has to say. But, if he questions that, without a leading from the Holy Spirit to do so, I won't. It's as simple as that. It's not about judging Rob the person, it's about discernment and testing the teachings being presented to us.
He's a very inspiring speaker.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJLqyWAtpvE&feature=autoplay&list=ULwDUxMQy2cCA&index=6&playnext=1
I watched the videos of Rob defending his teachings and Mars Hill in general. I didn't hear anything unsound or remotely questionable. I'm still not sure how his beliefs fit in with his quotes from his book Velvet Elvis, but it's very good he has clarified. I also agree it's possible to be more Bible focused than God focused. Just like it's possible to be more sin focused than Christ focused. But, let me stress that placing importance on scriptures, believing that the Bible is God breathed, inspired, and using it for teaching, rebuke and discernment is not a form of Bible worship.
I've been going through his videos and I think I have found part of the issue some believers have with Rob.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttxZxiuVkUE&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttxZxiuVkUE&feature=related)
The first time after listening to this I was really taken back. I was like is he saying that if you repent of your sins, you are repenting to the wrong god? Is Rob against repentance? I don't know his stance on repentance. But, I think it's these kinds of statements that really floor people and open his teaching up to misunderstanding.
I believe his main point is we are to live in what Christ has done for us. If we are repenting as a way to manipulate God into doing something then we have a deep misunderstanding of repentance. If that was his point, I would whole heartedly agree. I believe repentance to be part of the process of healing in our lives. It's a turning from, not lip service or a way to get God to do something. It is finished! We should indeed live in that.
Let me say something. When I am wrong I try to be quick to repent. If I have misjudged Rob's teachings based on out of context excerpts then I was wrong and would apologize to Rob directly. What I know is after hearing his views on the inspiration of the Bible I am willing to listen.
I don't think you can listen to this guy out of context.
Here's an 80 min video--I haven't listened to it yet.
Everything is Spiritual
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=77024018179262526#
You'll be greatly blessed by it, it's still my favorite one. How'd you download the entire thing???
Quote from: Nathan on March 11, 2011, 12:30:40 AM
You'll be greatly blessed by it, it's still my favorite one. How'd you download the entire thing???
Friends in high places. :winkgrin:
Quote from: Molly on March 11, 2011, 12:21:32 AM
I don't think you can listen to this guy out of context.
Here's an 80 min video--I haven't listened to it yet.
Everything is Spiritual
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=77024018179262526#
Thank you for the link Molly. I just watched it and was floored. He articulated well things I have tried to articulate for years. Considering I am a student of science and a man of faith I have always known the two were one, but couldn't fully explain how. And, with all the wonderful new thoughts I can play with in my brain, I was left with one particular thing for my spirit...slow down...be. The depth of that concept is mind boggling. Every interaction is a spiritual act...wake up...experience...see...be.
I was richly blessed.
If you all have anymore links like that one please post them.
He's found his calling, that's for sure.
From Quantum Physics:
"The universe at its core is unpredictable."
"The universe at its core is some sort of relationship of energy--"
Relational energy--Sounds like this is where miracles come from..
This should make you happy, Shawn, and, actually I am coming to this conclusion myself:
In his writings, Bell affirms things as truth regardless of the source, saying "I affirm the truth anywhere in any religious system, in any worldview. If it's true, it belongs to God."[14] However, he acknowledges Scripture as the authoritative source of truth by which to compare all other truths in the Mars Hill Bible Church statement of narrative theology.[15]
--Wikipedia
Here's one from his NOOMA series: Rhythm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQCj3UT3YH0&feature=related
This guy reminds me of Nathan. :icon_king:
NOOMA: Rain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_kJpVjLwVY&playnext=1&list=PL659BC2970DBA95A1
Thanks for the links Molly. I will be sure to check them out. And yes, that does make me happy. :bigGrin:
SEE????? I kept tellin' ya but cha wouldn't listen!!!
Molly, I want to thank you for posting that as well . . .even though I "have" seen it over and over, I have not had it so easily accessable until now . . .and I LOVE being able to get to it from work . . .and to be able to now email it out . . .thank you very much!!!
NOOMA: Breathe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm2KNXCLzqU
I have heard some people say there is no v pronounced in Hebrew.
Nice clean subway he is in, makes it feel safer somehow as well.
Quote from: Molly on March 11, 2011, 06:02:57 PM
NOOMA: Breathe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm2KNXCLzqU
When a baby is born, what is the first thing a baby must do, or this baby isn't going to make it? Does the baby have to take a breath, or say the name of God?
I love that.
Rob Bell: Resurrection
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjXYlwvS5LY&feature=related
So is he, or isn't he? :scratchhead: My conclusion; he doesn't know for sure and he's leaving it sit there for now.
Rob Bell Denies Being a Universalist
By Lillian Kwon|Christian Post Reporter
Christianpost.com
Author Rob Bell speaks in New York City at the launch of his book tour, Monday, March 15, 2011. Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived releases Tuesday.
Just a day before the release of his controversial book on hell, Michigan pastor Rob Bell denied that he was a universalist.
Answering the straightforward question "are you a universalist?" posed by Newsweek's Lisa Miller Monday night, Bell said, "No."
"No, if by universalist we mean there's a giant cosmic arm that swoops everybody in at some point whether you want to be there or not," he elaborated.
....he has been accused of being a universalist and moving far away from traditional Christianity.
When pressed several times on whether he believes there is a hell, Bell only spoke of a hell on earth and provided no indication that he believes in an eternal place of punishment.
He admitted that Jesus was "unbelievably exclusive," pointing to famous statements like "I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me."
But Bell pointed out, "He's also fantastically inclusive," pointing to other statements Jesus made such as "I, if I am lifted up, ... will draw all people to myself" and there will be a "renewal of all things" (emphasis added).
"How exactly that pans out, that's God's job."
The Michigan pastor expressed his struggle with the concept that only a select few would make it to heaven and that billions of people would burn forever in hell.
The fundamental way most people were told about Jesus, he noted, was "God loves you, God has a wonderful plan for your life, He loves you so much that he sent Jesus because God wants a relationship with you. All you have to do is accept, trust, believe."
"If tonight, you reject what I'm saying to you and you were hit by a car on the way home, God would have no choice but to punish you eternally with torment and fire in hell. God would, in that split second, become a totally different being," he said.
"If there was an earthly father who was like that – this one moment, this the next – we would call the authorities, correct?"
"My experience as a pastor is lots of people have really toxic, dangerous, psychologically devastating images of God in their head, images of a God who's not good."
"In some sense, God being good is such a fresh, radical, new idea."
Christians, he suggested, need to return to sharing about God's love.
He asserted, "I believe there are moments when we have to return to our roots and we have to acknowledge that perhaps in some ways we've lost the plot along the way and that we need to return to the simplicity of God is love and God sent Jesus to show us this love that we might know this love, that we might extend this love to others."
But "can God be both loving and just?" one audience member asked.
"Yes," Bell responded. "There has been this human longing and desire for God to fix the world essentially. ... There has been this longing for justice, for a day [with] God saying 'if you want to do that, out.'"
"You also have this side by side [with] God's endless affirmation; God wants everybody to be saved," he said, citing Psalm 22.
"So you have the possibility of every single person being rescued – you have this longing. And then you have this longing for justice. And they sit side by side. And if you get rid of that tension, the modern mind loves 'it's either this or [that],' ... the Hebrew mind is okay with these things being true."
In Revelation, the last book in the Bible, it describes a restored city, heaven and earth coming together and the dwelling of God being with the people. And there are people who aren't in it, Bell noted.
Yet, "there's this beautiful thing, it's almost like the writer [saying] ... wink wink, there's a gate in the city and it never shuts."
"Huh?"
"It just doesn't get resolved. It sits there. I think it's important that we let it sit there side by side."
As for heaven, he warned against turning speculation about heaven and the afterlife into dogma.
"I think it's very important for people of faith to yes, I believe in heaven; yes, I believe it's real; yes, I believe that it's somehow intermingled with this reality and yet separate in some sense in this reality. How exactly all of that works out, I don't know."
"What I find really fascinating is Jesus turns the whole discussion upside down because he comes from a very first century Jewish worldview and he keeps insisting [that] actually God is interested in restoring and renewing this world," he highlighted. "He speaks of it as sort of a real place and yet it's always heaven and earth becoming one. As opposed to how do we get there, his interest is how do we bring there here?"
In the end, Bell acknowledged that he stumbled and wandered in his attempt to answer questions.
"I'm not very smart but I do know that there is good news."
Maybe he doesn't know what true Biblical UR is, i.e., everyone must eventually come through Jesus to be saved. :dontknow: Because although he denies being some version of universalist (Unitarian Universalism perhaps) he still says other things that sound like the door's WIDE OPEN to the possibility of Biblical Ultimate Reconciliation (the kind Apostle Paul described :).
yeah, he's either sly like a fox and knows or he's gettin' there.
In Revelation, the last book in the Bible, it describes a restored city, heaven and earth coming together and the dwelling of God being with the people. And there are people who aren't in it, Bell noted.
Yet, "there's this beautiful thing, it's almost like the writer [saying] ... wink wink, there's a gate in the city and it never shuts."
Quote from: Molly on March 16, 2011, 07:50:49 AM
there's a gate in the city and it never shuts."
Exactly :)
Two things . . .
I think one of the reasons why he's coming off as uncertain or unsure is because from other interviews, he's stated he hates it when people try to tag him under any certain movement. I think this is the same thing. He's not denouncing UR. He's actually stating things that we beleive also. He just doesn't see the necessity for the labeling.
And two . . .and this one may be a bit more sensitive . . .
In growing up in an ET environment, it was ESSENTIAL back then, for us to get people to say "The sinners prayer" . .they HAD to say the magic words before we would openly profess their salvation. It didn't matter that they agreed with our interpretation of things, but they HAD to SAY the words . . .
And now, with all of that behind us . . .it feels like we're going through that part of it all over again. "I realize that you believe hell is not eternal . . .BUT ARE YOU UR????
Seriously? If you think this through . . . if one does not believe the world is going to hell forever . . . where would they then go? it leads to the same exact conculsion that UR is known to believe. Are we wanting Rob to proclaimi UR as his banner so we can put a feather in our cap? The fact that he's professing hell is not a place of eternal torment should be a celebration in and of itself because it's all connected. Outside of that, UR is just a label and nothing more really.
He's calling people into a relationship with a God of love [from what I've seen of his talks]. His goal is not theology, although I heard him claim he is orthodox historically accurate Christianity. That's why he says things like 'wink wink, there's a gate in the city and it never shuts.' He doesn't want to get sidetracked by theology while still pointing out that God has both hands out to us all the time, even into eternity.
I like that "orthodox historically accurate Christianity" I'd add biblically in between historically and accurate. That sounds better than universalist, at least its more a description than, a label. We don't want to be another denomination. I agree with not wanting to be labeled, its just hard because thats what we do as humans is categorize. We need to forget the ism's and ist's.
Quote from: jabcat on March 16, 2011, 07:11:38 AM
So is he, or isn't he? :scratchhead: My conclusion; he doesn't know for sure and he's leaving it sit there for now.
Rob Bell Denies Being a Universalist
Answering the straightforward question "are you a universalist?" posed by Newsweek's Lisa Miller Monday night, Bell said, "No."
"No, if by universalist we mean there's a giant cosmic arm that swoops everybody in at some point whether you want to be there or not," he elaborated.
I think Bell answered the question just fine. The vast majority of people who come to tentmaker to challenge universalism think exactly what Bell says he is not. The same goes for any traditional Christianity based forum, the second universalism is brought up.
It is the same thing that CARM has done in the refutations of universalism made the case against it exactly in the way Bell says he is not.
I don't take on the label because when I do I spend 3 times as much effort simply trying to break down someones misunderstanding of the term. While Bell can be accused of being one, he can simply spend his time detailing what he believes, everyone will make up thier mind and call him lots of things, no sense in making their judgments for them. lol
Paul I can't agree with you more! The moment we use a label, we spend the next 10 minutes giving our definition of that label . . .I can soooo relate to that!!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2011-03-14-hell-book-love-wins_N.htm
a storm is brewing . . . this is so exciting!!!
Yes I think that Universal salvation is a bad term to use myself, it sounds too similar to new age eastern philosphy, that is where a lot of attacks are directed at, also universalism does not regard the death of Christ.
Quote from: Nathan on March 16, 2011, 06:55:44 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2011-03-14-hell-book-love-wins_N.htm
a storm is brewing . . . this is so exciting!!!
"But Richard Mouw, president of
the world's largest Protestant seminary, Fuller Theological Seminary based in Pasadena, Calif., calls Love Wins "a great book,
well within the bounds of orthodox Christianity and passionate about Jesus.
The real hellacious fight, says Mouw, a friend of Bell, a Fuller graduate, is between "generous orthodoxy and stingy orthodoxy. There are stingy people who just want to consign many others to hell and only a few to heaven and take delight in the idea. But Rob Bell allows for a lot of mystery in how Jesus reaches people.""
There are several advanced reviews of Rob's book out on the web. Here's a "negative" review:
http://www.bloggingtheologically.com/2011/03/09/book-review-love-wins-by-rob-bell/
Select quotes from the above review:
"You may want to read that again. It really says that. And it really means what you think it means."
"Does Rob Bell deny the existence of hell? He would say no. We would say yes."
The reviewer is obviously of the ET tradition.
According to what I read I think its safe to say that Rob believes in universal reconciliation/salvation. For example He talks about Matt 25:46 and says it is not eternal hell but an "intense period of pruning". He also gets into the aion/aionios thing.
He may not wish to present himself as and even deny being a "universalist" because that is a label that comes with a lot of different baggage. But he is definitely presenting ideas of UR that are discussed daily here on tentmaker. Whether he can present the message of UR in a strong and convincing manner remains to be seen, but the exposure will be awesome.
IMABHO (In my admittedly brief humble opinion) looking into this he is full UR, doesn't want to be labelled a "universalist", and is strategically trying to bring this message out so as not to lose the moment of opportunity (look what happened to Carlson Pearson - was that his name?).
Granted even within UR there are different views on what "hell" is - metaphorically speaking this world could be called a type of "hell" which I believe is what Rob is suggesting.
Quote from: thinktank on March 16, 2011, 09:13:38 PM
Yes I think that Universal salvation is a bad term to use myself, it sounds too similar to new age eastern philosphy, that is where a lot of attacks are directed at, also universalism does not regard the death of Christ.
Please could you and maybe some others explain why you think universal salvation is a bad term to use and what term we should be using instead and why? What's the difference between universal salvation and universal reconciliation?
Quote from: Miriam on March 17, 2011, 01:42:06 AM
Quote from: thinktank on March 16, 2011, 09:13:38 PM
Yes I think that Universal salvation is a bad term to use myself, it sounds too similar to new age eastern philosphy, that is where a lot of attacks are directed at, also universalism does not regard the death of Christ.
Please could you and maybe some others explain why you think universal salvation is a bad term to use and what term we should be using instead and why? What's the difference between universal salvation and universal reconciliation?
Hi Miriam,
I am also someone who believes that everyone will eventually be saved - though I refuse to be known as a universalist. This difference between "universalism" and "universal reconciliation" has to do with the role of Chirst in salvation. A Universalist believes that "all paths lead to heaven", whatever journey you're on will get you there. Heaven will be full of Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, and Wiccans.
Universal Reconciliationists however, believe that only people who have faith in Christ will get to heaven. No Muslims, Buddhists, or Wiccans allowed. The good news is that someday every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord, so that everyone will eventually be a Christian. It's an important distinction.
Quote from: Mr.Irrelevant on March 17, 2011, 01:59:22 AM
Quote from: Miriam on March 17, 2011, 01:42:06 AM
Quote from: thinktank on March 16, 2011, 09:13:38 PM
Yes I think that Universal salvation is a bad term to use myself, it sounds too similar to new age eastern philosphy, that is where a lot of attacks are directed at, also universalism does not regard the death of Christ.
Please could you and maybe some others explain why you think universal salvation is a bad term to use and what term we should be using instead and why? What's the difference between universal salvation and universal reconciliation?
Hi Miriam,
I am also someone who believes that everyone will eventually be saved - though I refuse to be known as a universalist. This difference between "universalism" and "universal reconciliation" has to do with the role of Chirst in salvation. A Universalist believes that "all paths lead to heaven", whatever journey you're on will get you there. Heaven will be full of Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, and Wiccans.
Universal Reconciliationists however, believe that only people who have faith in Christ will get to heaven. No Muslims, Buddhists, or Wiccans allowed. The good news is that someday every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord, so that everyone will eventually be a Christian. It's an important distinction.
Thank you. What, then, is a Christian Universalist?
Quote from: Miriam on March 17, 2011, 02:03:11 AM
Quote from: Mr.Irrelevant on March 17, 2011, 01:59:22 AM
Quote from: Miriam on March 17, 2011, 01:42:06 AM
Quote from: thinktank on March 16, 2011, 09:13:38 PM
Yes I think that Universal salvation is a bad term to use myself, it sounds too similar to new age eastern philosphy, that is where a lot of attacks are directed at, also universalism does not regard the death of Christ.
Please could you and maybe some others explain why you think universal salvation is a bad term to use and what term we should be using instead and why? What's the difference between universal salvation and universal reconciliation?
Hi Miriam,
I am also someone who believes that everyone will eventually be saved - though I refuse to be known as a universalist. This difference between "universalism" and "universal reconciliation" has to do with the role of Chirst in salvation. A Universalist believes that "all paths lead to heaven", whatever journey you're on will get you there. Heaven will be full of Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, and Wiccans.
Universal Reconciliationists however, believe that only people who have faith in Christ will get to heaven. No Muslims, Buddhists, or Wiccans allowed. The good news is that someday every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord, so that everyone will eventually be a Christian. It's an important distinction.
Thank you. What, then, is a Christian Universalist?
Technically it would be someone who is choosing the Christian path to heaven, though they don't rule out other paths as equally worthy. That's the technical meaning, but I'm sure people who use that term may well mean something else entirely. (including universal reconciliation)
I for one(and I am sure it is me only that is the one) am bowled over with laughter. I find the whole discussion.. out there somewhere, to say the least.
This man is speaking a truth, a Truth that the Bible teaches, and now that the media has found discussion that will fire and cause more media uproar and the people who follow the media(its called publicity, to sell something that is marketable and bound to make money) and those who believe that that same outlet, will in some way proclaim and bring forth a rea truth, get caught up in it... like they are supposed to.
1Ti 2:4 Who wills that all mankind be saved and come into a realization of the truth.
Now please what else could Bro. Bell write about, should he have a desire to express the Truth of what the Bible teaches?
Quote from: Molly on March 11, 2011, 12:21:32 AM
I don't think you can listen to this guy out of context.
Here's an 80 min video--I haven't listened to it yet.
Everything is Spiritual
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=77024018179262526#
Thanks for posting it, just finished watching it - that video was awesome!
A lot of the info that Bell presents in "Everything is Spiritual" can be found in the books "The case for the creator", and "The creator and the cosmos", if you ever want more scientific "proof" for God. His tying it in with the spiritual is brilliant.
he also states in the book coming out in the forward that there's nothing in there that hasn't already been said by others . . .so he's not trying to present a new thing. I think God is raising up the awareness of things that have been being said for years . . .but now, truth is gaining momentum in the arena of religion. And yeah, I'm sure publicity for selling a book is inevidible, but I believe God uses chickens, donkeys, super big fish .. .even loaves of bread to speak his message . . .I think he can use this just as effectively. I say . . GO GOD!!!
It's already caused many opportunites in conversations with traditional believers, they are seeing the publicity and they are beginning to stop and think about it . . . I think it's part of the Sabbath Day message . . . which is simply saying that as truth comes, the church can't recognize it due to their bondage of religions they've established and defend.
... and the HORNET:
hor'-net (tsir`ah; compare tsor`ah, "Zorah" (Jdg 13:2, etc.); also compare tsara`ath, "leprosy" (Lev 13:2, etc.); from tsara`, "to smite"; Septuagint sphekia, literally, "wasp's nest"): Hornets are mentioned only in Ex 23:28; Dt 7:20; Josh 24:12. All three references are to the miraculous interposition of God in driving out before the Israelites the original inhabitants of the promised land. There has been much speculation as to whether hornets are literally meant. The following seems to throw some light on this question (Ex 23:20,27,28): "Behold, I send an angel before thee, to keep thee by the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. .... I will send my terror before thee, and will discomfit all the people to whom thou shalt come, and I will make all thine enemies turn their backs unto thee. And I will send the hornet before thee, which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite, from before thee." The "terror" of Ex 23:27 may well be considered to be typified by the "hornet" of 23:28, the care for the Israelites (23:20) being thrown into marked contrast with the confusion of their enemies. Compare Isa 7:18, where the fly and the bee symbolize the military forces of Egypt and Assyria: "And it shall come to pass in that day, that Yahweh will hiss for the fly that is in the uttermost part of the rivers of Egypt, and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria."
Hornets and wasps belong to the family Vespidae of the order Hymenoptera. Both belong to the genus Vespa, the hornets being distinguished by their large size. Both hornets and wasps are abundant in Israel (compare Zorah, which may mean "town of hornets"). a large kind is called in Arabic debbur, which recalls the Hebrew debhorah, "bee." They sting fiercely, but not unless molested.
— Alfred Ely Day: http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/H/HORNET/
http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/topicseen/discussions_universal_salvation/rob_bell_love_wins_9429.msg118311.html#new
Quote from: jabcat on March 16, 2011, 07:39:53 AM
Maybe he doesn't know what true Biblical UR is, i.e., everyone must eventually come through Jesus to be saved. :dontknow: Because although he denies being some version of universalist (Unitarian Universalism perhaps) he still says other things that sound like the door's WIDE OPEN to the possibility of Biblical Ultimate Reconciliation (the kind Apostle Paul described :).
I'm sure he knows what UR is. Many opponents do too. They just often twist it a bit to build a strawman argument.
He just doesn't feel safe enough to openly declare it. Maybe it's tactics. Sometimes working from the inside out is more effective than a than a direct assault. Feed little bits and people swallow it. Feed large chuncks and people choke on it
A preacher can chose to give a weekly fire and brimstone sermon. Or give a sermon about all sorts of happy verses/concepts using the very same Bible translation. Is the glass half full? Or is it half empty?
Quote from: Beloved Servant on March 10, 2011, 05:51:23 PM
Amen Nathan
The seventh angel blew his trumpet; and there followed loud voices in Heaven which said,
"The sovereignty of the world now belongs to our Lord and His Christ; and He will be King until the Ages of the Ages."
Not unlikely the people in the 1800's said the same. Many books and UR was openly preached in churches. And then it disappeared again.
I mean; haven't people always though/hoped Jesus will return soon. All those people saw sign.....
:2c:
Are you disagreeing with the Scripture I quoted or with what Nathan wrote?
I'm not disagreeing with any Scripture. I'm just saying that many Christians who just like you and Nathan put great belief in Scriptures thought Jesus returned in their time. I'm sure Christians in 100AD, 1000AD, 1500AD etc all had that hope. They all knew the Bible and studied it daily. And saw proofs Jesus should/will come soon.
Nothing personal. Just an observation :2c:
Plus I might have overlooked some verse that you posted. (very possible)
:Peace:
I, for one, do not believe that Jesus is coming back but rather appearing in His saints.
About the Christians who have come before me I can not speak for them, for the LORD has appeared many times to many people throughout the Scriptures.
Yeah, not sure how my name got mixed into that either, because for me, he already accomplished the redemption of the flesh, there's no more need for us to expect him to be confined into one body of flesh. I do believe this realm is going to be reversed with the spiritual. I don't see anything being eliminated or destroyed, just reversal of the dominance in realms. we'll all be one body, which is what we should be now. The lines of division will be transformed into lines of distinction . . .like where a hand stops and an arm starts kind a thing . . .but we'll all be one body which is Christ at the head of us.
"... we'll all be one body, which is what we should be now." Nathan
Very well said and Beloved you to my friend understand.
My personal favorite so far.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T976TO1X-4&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T976TO1X-4&feature=related)
From Thomas J. Kissinger
"If you have not gotten Rob Bell's book entitled "LOVE WINS", you really need to get it!
Here is what Dr. Stephen Jones had to say about it........
"We have long wondered what would be revealed at this time. What is the key ingredient that makes the difference? And we have now seen His answer in the newly-released book by Pastor Rob Bell, Love Wins.
Last Saturday, when I went to Barnes and Noble, they told me that they had sold out almost immediately but that a large shipment was coming in a few days. I picked up three copies yesterday (two extras for apostolic friends). I read the book in a few hours and must say that I believe this book will change the church more than any other in our generation.
I believe that understanding the contents of this book is the missing ingredient that will transform true apostles into "effective" apostles.
Why? Because an effective apostle is one who succeeds in his mission. Succeeds in what? In revealing the heart of God.
I wish I had had this book in my college days. I wish I had been able to answer the objections of my fellow students at the University of Minnesota, who were unable to see the logic of an all-powerful God losing most of humanity to the devil. They could not see how the very God who had power over both life and death could Himself be bound to cast His children into a burning hell forever once they passed the deadline of death. They could not see how a God who claimed to be Love itself would be forced to resort to infinitely torturing those who rejected Him during their short time on earth.
Believe me, it was difficult making converts in those days. The message that I had to offer was largely ineffective. Why? Because at the time, I did not really understand the heart of God at all, though I had been raised in all the standard teachings of the church.
Rob Bell's book is not a book on theology. He does not approach the question from the perspective of indepth Bible study. Yet the questions he asks are profound. He raises all the questions that college students do. And the answer that comes out clearly is that the church has largely failed to present the Jesus of the Bible. It has failed to present the true heart of God that is burned upon every page of The Book. The fear motive in evangelism has encumbered God's Love with contradictions that have turned away an entire generation of youth.
Rob Bell writes on pages 107-109,
In the third century the church fathers Clement of Alexandria and Origen affirmed God's reconciliation with all people. In the fourth century, Gregory of Nyassa 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.
Central to their trust that all would be reconciled was the belief that untold masses of people suffering forever doesn't bring God glory. Restoration brings God glory; eternal torment doesn't. Reconciliation brings God glory; endless anguish doesn't. Renewal and return cause God's greatness to shine through the universe; never-ending punishment doesn't....
Which is stronger and more powerful, the hardness of the human heart or God's unrelenting, infinite, expansive love? Thousands through the years have answered that question with the resounding response, "God's love, of course." ...
At the center of Christian tradition since the first church have been a number who insist that history is not tragic; hell is not forever, and love, in the end, wins and all will be reconciled to God.
Simple. Profound. The heart of God. He quotes Scripture profusely, but somehow does not get bogged down in it. (Do I sound envious? No, but I do admire that and see its value for newbies.)
This is the understanding that will make the new apostolic movement truly effective. This is what will change the world and turn the church upside down. Or right side up.
We have a massive job ahead of us. We have been preparing for this task for many years. The key to our success will be to present the Love of God, not the condemnation of God. Paul spoke of us as "ambassadors for Christ," and he gave us the central message that we are to present to the world:
"that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and has committed unto us the world of reconciliation." (2 Cor. 5:19)
Yet somehow the Church settled on a new message: "Turn or Burn."
Which gospel do you think will be more effective? Which evangelistic message better reveals the heart of God? Is this why Paul's letters do not even refer to hell (hades) except to establish God's victory over it? (1 Cor. 15:55)
The fact that over 10,000 attend Bell's church in Michigan (largely young people, they say), and that his internet messages are viewed by a vastly larger audience, shows us the effectiveness of his message. The world rejoices in his message, because they are searching for a God who is worthy to be praised. A God more powerful than the will of man. A God who cannot tolerate the thought of failure (Num. 14:16 and 21).
I recall a testimony from a young man in prison who finished reading my book, Creation's Jubilee, on the eighth day of Tabernacles in 1996. His comment was, "Now that's the kind of God I can worship." My message was essentially the same as Pastor Bell's, but somewhat heavier in style and content.
In the two comings of Christ, the first apostles focused primarily upon the work of Christ on the cross and the outpouring of the Spirit. This was the Passover-Pentecost gospel. Our message today has added the revelation of Jubilee and Tabernacles (the second set of feast days). The Jubilee gospel is about setting people free through the Restoration of All Things.
That is the message of effective apostles today." -end quote-
PRAISE GOD!!!
ourtimeisnowhere
our time is now here.......
--
Sincerely,
Thomas Kissinger
Hearing The Truth Of God (A Website Dedicated To Promoting Truth):
http://www.hearingthetruthofgod.com/
Its a very good book. I will do a book review at a future date. I'm not sure I see eye to eye on all the beliefs but none the less there is much good insight,
My husband and I went to the Christian bookstore to get one yesterday but they were all sold out. They are going to call us when the new shipment comes in. (So excited that my hubby wants to read it!!!)
You can also download it as an e-book. (and an 3:30 audio book)
I just picked it up at lunch (from Chapters - Canada). I hope to read it this coming up week... it doesn't look too long actually.
Johnny Cash did a song called "Down There By the Train", he didn't write it, but it sounds universalist to me. I don't have the lyrics in front of me, but part of it goes "there's no eye for an eye, no tooth for a tooth, I saw Judas Iscariot carrying John Wilkes Booth." I knew nothing about universalism at the time I first heard it, but my heart responded to it, "what a wonderful, loving message". People have been beaten up for centuries with the ET gospel, "God is angry with you and wants to punish you", it's about time they got to hear something different.
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/johnnycash/downtherebythetrain.html
Rob Bell made the local secular/atheist radio talk show circuit.
They are intrigued. They think he's saying there is no hell.
Also this: It's going international.
Hell hath no fury: Pastor fired by church over posting doubts about sinners going to hell on Facebook
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1369541/Hell-hath-fury-Pastor-fired-church-doubts-sinners-going-hell.html#ixzz1HYRhLubs
Here's another article on the fired pastor, including an interview.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/pastor-fired-after-backing-new-rob-bell-book-questioning-hell/
Sometimes I find the comments after an article very revealing (and interesting). Following your linked article Molly, are these excerpts of readers' comments;
Reader Comments;
it's not for us to decide whether or not there is a hell. The Bible says there is and if you want to call yourself a Christian you have to deal with that fact.
Rob Bell is a progressive theologian who is perverting the message of Jesus Christ.
If there's no Hell there's no need for the work of Jesus Christ on the cross. Something Satan has been try to convince people of for centuries.
Hitler and Mother Teresa are in the same place for all eternity? Really??
We all tend to interpret scriptures in a manner to conform to our beliefs. The scriptures are full of statements affirming that all will be saved. Think about this statement: If God does not save everyone, then either He can't or He won't. If he can't then He is not omnipotent and if He won't, then the monster label seems appropriate.
What about those who have never heard about Christ? I will be honest Jim, I do not know...Scripture plainly tells us they are doomed. I believe the Word of God. Maybe because God knows they would not have chosen Him anyway they were put in this spot.
to the congregation – God bless you richly for standing up for Biblical truth
King James gave us this bible,leave it alone. He was a God fearing man.
It actually proves how little you understand how the Hebrew word for 'grave'(sheol) was changed to the Greek word for 'hell'(hades) for a Paganized, Romanized, Latinized TRASLATION of Scripture. The same version that 98% of Christians believe today. Yet, there is no verse that talks of an immortal soul, there is no verse that talks of an eternal torment. Verses like John 3:16 and Romans 6:23 clearly, CLEARLY spell out that the gift is eternal life and the "punishment" is death. (i.e., letting you die. Not eternal torture with a guy in red tights and a pitch fork. How Dantesque.)
If all go to heaven why didi chirst need to die for our sins?, why was there a fall of adam?, ehy is there a holy spirt to guides us through life. why would God spend one second of care. If the is no Hell, then Why would there be a heaven.
Yes, the consequences of sin are harsh. Unredeemed sin carries the harshest punishment of all. But the god news is, it's our choice, because we have a way out, provided by none other than the 'monster God' Himself. But anyone who thinks Christ died a horrible, agonizing death on the cross just to provide us with another option we can choose later after we've tried all the more appealing ways ourselves, they're fooling themselves.
Bell and Holtz are so incredibly deluded. Reading this makes me wonder if they've ever read the Bible. Eternal decisions need to be made this side of eternity. They should stop, step back, do the research, read the Bible, and make sure they've got it right before they continue. Not smart to make eternal decisions based on false teachings and false thinkings. As long as they've got breath in their bodies, it's not too late to choose to come down on the side of Truth. No breath means their eternal decision is in eternal concrete – No Do Overs! Now's the time to get it right!
Yes James, I know what you mean. I have read so much that I just can't stand to even think about it anymore. My husband (ET believer) and I both can't believe the hateful, judgmental responses of some of the most prominent preachers and thousands of those who call themselves Christians. It saddens my heart. He is a brave soul that Bell!
Amen to that! Bell is a brave man, and slowly, slowly, the message is getting out. All in God's timing.
Quote from: jabcat on March 25, 2011, 01:51:53 AM
it's not for us to decide whether or not there is a hell. The Bible says there is and if you want to call yourself a Christian you have to deal with that fact.
An honest reader that doesn't really know what hell means
QuoteRob Bell is a progressive theologian who is perverting the message of Jesus Christ.
If there's no Hell there's no need for the work of Jesus Christ on the cross. Something Satan has been try to convince people of for centuries.
For some hell is the core of Christianity. It's more important for hell to be true than for Jesus to be sucessful.
QuoteHitler and Mother Teresa are in the same place for all eternity? Really??
Mother Teresa sweared just before she died so she's in hell. But Hitler prayed 1 minute before he died so right now he's in heaven.....
QuoteIf all go to heaven why didi chirst need to die for our sins?,
Because without Jesus all would be very very dead for ever. Is it so hard to accept Jesus was succesful?
Quotewhy was there a fall of adam?, ehy is there a holy spirt to guides us through life. why would God spend one second of care. If the is no Hell, then Why would there be a heaven.
I guess your parents beat you up before every meal. That's the only way you can enjoy food...
QuoteBell and Holtz are so incredibly deluded. Reading this makes me wonder if they've ever read the Bible. Eternal decisions need to be made this side of eternity. They should stop, step back, do the research, read the Bible, and make sure they've got it right before they continue. Not smart to make eternal decisions based on false teachings and false thinkings. As long as they've got breath in their bodies, it's not too late to choose to come down on the side of Truth. No breath means their eternal decision is in eternal concrete – No Do Overs! Now's the time to get it right!
So the ET teaching is sin as much as you like but make sure to repent just before you die and all is fine. Repenting 1 second before or 1 second after death makes all the difference for eternity?
Gary should collect such questions in one article and adress them all. The above is what the flock thinks. Not the pastors etc.
Quote from: WhiteWings on March 25, 2011, 08:48:15 AM
Mother Teresa sweared just before she died so she's in hell. But Hitler prayed 1 minute before he died so right now he's in heaven.....
I love this!!! Classic evangelical logic haha!!
I read the first couple chapters of the book last night. Here is a mini "review" off the top of my head.
He definitely asks a lot of questions. Some people may not like this format because it is a lot of questions and not many direct say-it-plainly answers. However the questions are largely rhetorical and have an implied answer, and even more importantly they are designed to make you THINK. Many people don't think and simply follow along with the majority.
Regardless, he makes some excellent points in the couple chapters I've read already:
- many churches/organizations have this aversion to questions. They think questioning their own beliefs makes them a heretic and damns them to hell.
- we have all these different beliefs that have separated people into who gets in and who doesn't - have you noticed that the person in any particular belief system always includes themselves in the "who gets in" group? How convenient...
- many people believe in an "age of accountability". If the age of accountability belief were really true, the most loving thing we could do would be to terminate the life of someone before reaching the age of accountability
- how exactly are people saved? Are they saved by saying a sinner's prayer? Or by following a command? Or doing something? Or by forgiving others? Or by having someone forgive them? What does it even mean to be "saved"? If it is based on something we "do", is it really grace?
- what exactly is "heaven"? Why do people think it is a "place" somewhere far away, and make it seem like their objective is to leave our present "place" here on earth so we can get to the place we really want to be and leave everyone else behing... is the gospel about an escape plan?
Rob Bell tells a story about an atheist teenager killed in a car crash. He was 15 or so. If the age of accountability is 12, this kid had only 3 years to "get saved". What if he would have been saved if he made it to age 16? Why couldn't God have worked it so he lived another year?
At the funeral, someone asked if the teenager knew Christ, and as best they could tell he didn't. The comment was made "all hope is lost then I guess". Is that what the gospel has become? All hope is lost? That is good news?
He speaks about "aion" and "eternal" a bit without getting into the technicalities, that part was not as clear for me.
However he is the master of questions - questions that make you think. Some people are just too afraid to think about it though.
Quote- many people believe in an "age of accountability". If the age of accountability belief were really true, the most loving thing we could do would be to terminate the life of someone before reaching the age of accountability
This is exactly what made me question the hell doctrine. When my daughter was born I was tormented by thoughts about whether she would be saved or not... by thoughts that said "it would be better for her to die soon than to live to be an adult and reject God's salvation"... it was horrible and I cried out to God "HOW IS HELL GOOD???"
And then I was led to UR beliefs. :smile:
Quote from: lomarah on March 25, 2011, 06:25:18 PM
Quote- many people believe in an "age of accountability". If the age of accountability belief were really true, the most loving thing we could do would be to terminate the life of someone before reaching the age of accountability
This is exactly what made me question the hell doctrine. When my daughter was born I was tormented by thoughts about whether she would be saved or not... by thoughts that said "it would be better for her to die soon than to live to be an adult and reject God's salvation"... it was horrible and I cried out to God "HOW IS HELL GOOD???"
And then I was led to UR beliefs. :smile:
:thumbsup:
Indeed.
Another part I forgot is Rob goes into "rejecting Jesus/God"... what "Jesus" exactly are you rejecting? People claim that if you reject Jesus you are going to hell but some people don't even know who Jesus was, so what are they really rejecting?
Are you rejecting the Jesus that taught us to love one another?
Are you rejecting the Jesus that taught us to love our enemies?
Are you rejecting the Jesus that can't save your grandmother because she died with knowing Him?
Are you rejecting the Jesus that will throw us into a fiery hell at the first misstep?
Of course there is only one real Jesus, but people have all these different variations and ideas on what it means to "reject Jesus". And if you don't agree with them... off to hell for you.
If people don't actually know who or what Jesus is, they cannot have rejected the true Jesus. What they end up rejecting is a mis-characterization of Jesus. They reject a gross caricature of God.
LOL I keep remembering things from the two chapters I've read so far.
He brings up this point about why are Christians so busy to try to get to the next world ("heaven"), when the current world we live in needs so much love? Is the point of this world just to get out of it and "get to heaven"? (escape clause/rapture "save myself" mentality)
There are people who aren't Christians who show more concern for this world than those who are supposed to be showing the world love.
He makes so many good points, all summed up - it leads right to UR. If you can't tell I'm a fan of the book so far! :thumbsup:
That's a great point. If we're to love our neighbor as ourselves, then how can we also claim we can't wait to get out of here so we can get our reward and those dirty sinners around us can get theirs.
I definately need to read this book!
I read all of this book the other day. It's certainly hard to put down. The overall message is truly inspiring and I don't believe the church is going to be the same. It will prompt pastors to put out fires, but I believe it will take root. Once people taste the freedom of truly loving God not just fearing God they will want more.
I won't go into all the details of the book because I think each person needs to read it for themselves. I'm not sure I completely agree with all the views. With that said, the overall message wasn't lost on me...love wins.
I hope after more people read this book it can prompt some discussion about the details and views.
Have you wondered why some think this particular book will change the religious world when all the ones before it were trashed and referred to as being the work of Satan? I wonder just how nuch influence this book will have compared to all the others that have been written down through the years? I guess we will just have to wait and see.
CHB
Quote from: CHB on March 26, 2011, 02:30:52 AM
Have you wondered why some think this particular book will change the religious world when all the ones before it were trashed and referred to as being the work of Satan? I wonder just how nuch influence this book will have compared to all the others that have been written down through the years? I guess we will just have to wait and see.
CHB
I think a storms a brewin'. I feel that it's starting to happen, the day of rest is near.
Quote from: CHB on March 26, 2011, 02:30:52 AM
Have you wondered why some think this particular book will change the religious world when all the ones before it were trashed and referred to as being the work of Satan? I wonder just how nuch influence this book will have compared to all the others that have been written down through the years? I guess we will just have to wait and see.
CHB
I know what you are saying, but for some reason this book seems more "mainstream" - a wider audience, lots of controversy/publicity - maybe it will go farther.
Truth be told a book like Hope Beyond Hell may cover the topic better, but it just doesn't have the visibility that Love Wins has right now.
Many people buy stuff because a know person buys it too.
So when a know person writes a book many people want to read it. Bell seems to avoid all questions on what he believes. That's smart advertising. I didn't read the book because from what I've read (on this forum) it's shallow; but people that do and don't believe in UR think Bell teaches what they believe.
I'm sure if he very clearly stated he was a firm believer in <insert denomination here> his book would have sold much less.
Will it change the religious world? I think that depends on the pressure the people put on their pastor and how the pastor responds. Shallow books and especially the very shallow books like that of Lovelace are easily "refuted" by a good ol' fire and brimstone sermon. (Hanson's 4 works is much better in that respect). But if the pastor acts like a politician losing votes he will change his preaching (a bit) and the book did make a difference.
Also note that many people exactly knew what is in the book weeks before it was on sale....
Anyone who has read this book--
Would this be a good book for a 92 year old who has gone to
the Episcopal church all her life and has no faith?
I'm wondering if she has no faith because she can't make sense
out of the God she has been taught.
We think she might be fearing death, but we can't get her to talk
about God.
From Amazon.com
Editorial Reviews
Review
"It isn't easy to develop a biblical imagination that takes in the comprehensive and eternal work of Christ . . . Rob Bell goes a long way in helping us acquire just such an imagination--without a trace of soft sentimentality and without compromising an inch of evangelical conviction." (Eugene H. Peterson, Professor Emeritus of Spiritual Theology, Regent College, and author of The Message and The Pastor )
"A bold, prophetic and poetic masterpiece. I don't know any writer who expresses the inexpressible love of God as powerfully and as beautifully as Rob Bell! No one who seriously engages this book will put it down unchanged. A 'must read' book!" (Greg Boyd, senior pastor at Woodland Hills Church and author of The Myth of a Christian Nation )
"[Bell] is at his usual best here, casting fresh light on biblical truths, engaging readers with the compelling metaphor, turning the arresting phrase, and reminding all that the love of God is more powerful and sweeping than we can imagine." (Christianity Today )
"One of the nation's rock-star-popular young pastors, Rob Bell, has stuck a pitchfork in how Christians talk about damnation." (USA Today )
"In Love Wins, Rob Bell tackles the old heaven-and-hell question and offers a courageous alternative answer. Thousands of readers will find freedom and hope and a new way of understanding the biblical story - from beginning to end." (Brian D. McLaren, author of A New Kind of Christianity and Naked Spirituality )
Product Description
Millions of Christians have struggled with how to reconcile God's love and God's judgment: Has God created billions of people over thousands of years only to select a few to go to heaven and everyone else to suffer forever in hell? Is this acceptable to God? How is this "good news"?
Troubling questions—so troubling that many have lost their faith because of them. Others only whisper the questions to themselves, fearing or being taught that they might lose their faith and their church if they ask them out loud.
But what if these questions trouble us for good reason? What if the story of heaven and hell we have been taught is not, in fact, what the Bible teaches? What if what Jesus meant by heaven, hell, and salvation are very different from how we have come to understand them?
What if it is God who wants us to face these questions?
Author, pastor, and innovative teacher Rob Bell presents a deeply biblical vision for rediscovering a richer, grander, truer, and more spiritually satisfying way of understanding heaven, hell, God, Jesus, salvation, and repentance. The result is the discovery that the "good news" is much, much better than we ever imagined.
Love wins.
Amazon Bestsellers Rank: #4 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
#1 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > Christianity > Christian Living > Faith
#2 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > General
In case she got bad eye-sight: Love Wins audio book (http://www.amazon.com/Love-Wins-About-Heaven-Person/dp/B004S50AQM/ref=tmm_aud_title_0?ie=UTF8&m=A1HC3MLVT7QPHY&qid=1301121561&sr=8-1) (take the trial offer and it's free)
Perhaps you can print (or order for free) This 48 page book (http://www.amazon.com/Love-Wins-About-Heaven-Person/dp/B004S50AQM/ref=tmm_aud_title_0?ie=UTF8&m=A1HC3MLVT7QPHY&qid=1301121561&sr=8-1)
New 48 page
easy reading Abridged Ed. to help you share this message with others! Contains:
- The full Table of Contents
- Introduction
- Chapter Six (expounds 16 key Scriptures)
- Appendix I (186 glorious passages)
- Appendix II (Every Knee Will Bow)
- Appendix III (Testimony of Song) plus...
- A brief summary (new) of all ten chapters!
- It also includes a proclamation tract titled: "Jesus Died to Save the Whole World"- all taken from the newly revised edition.
Quote from: WhiteWings on March 26, 2011, 07:53:42 AM
Many people buy stuff because a know person buys it too.
So when a know person writes a book many people want to read it. Bell seems to avoid all questions on what he believes. That's smart advertising. I didn't read the book because from what I've read (on this forum) it's shallow; but people that do and don't believe in UR think Bell teaches what they believe.
I'm sure if he very clearly stated he was a firm believer in <insert denomination here> his book would have sold much less.
Will it change the religious world? I think that depends on the pressure the people put on their pastor and how the pastor responds. Shallow books and especially the very shallow books like that of Lovelace are easily "refuted" by a good ol' fire and brimstone sermon. (Hanson's 4 works is much better in that respect). But if the pastor acts like a politician losing votes he will change his preaching (a bit) and the book did make a difference.
Also note that many people exactly knew what is in the book weeks before it was on sale....
It's just a seed. Those who are hungry will find the depth they will seek.
Quote from: Molly on March 26, 2011, 08:25:07 AM
Anyone who has read this book--
Would this be a good book for a 92 year old who has gone to
the Episcopal church all her life and has no faith?
I'm wondering if she has no faith because she can't make sense
out of the God she has been taught.
We think she might be fearing death, but we can't get her to talk
about God.
I personally think so.
That customer review section over at Amazon is incredible. People are really getting into this, discussion the Greek, discussing the theology, discussing the emotional import. I think you can post answers to particular posters as well.
Go for it, guys. :happygrin:
Quote from: wwIn case she got bad eye-sight: Love Wins audio book (take the trial offer and it's free)
wow I just downloaded the audiobook. It's got music. I think the voice is Rob's.
This is cool. Thanks, ww.
Music? Is it a sermon with church music? I assumed he was just reading the book.
Yes the voice is Bell's
From Amazon: Rob Bell (Author, Narrator)
QuoteThat customer review section over at Amazon is incredible. People are really getting into this, discussion the Greek,
Likely I'm not following Christianity long enough to make a statement like this, but it seems words like aion become more common knowledge. Of course interpretation varies a lot but at least people seem to start looking below the surface of translations.
Quote from: wwMusic? Is it a sermon with church music?
No. lol. Turns out the music was just in the background while he was reading the preface.
I'm really enjoying the book, but I like listening to him speak about just about anything. It might even be a better book to listen to than to read because it sounds just like one of his sermons.
Quote...but it seems words like aion become more common knowledge.
Yes, I had never heard about it before this board. It changes how you think about everything.
But I notice a big objection over at Amazon is temporary hell = temporary life.
Quote from: Molly on March 26, 2011, 09:07:07 AM
That customer review section over at Amazon is incredible. People are really getting into this, discussion the Greek, discussing the theology, discussing the emotional import. I think you can post answers to particular posters as well.
Go for it, guys. :happygrin:
I've spent half my morning reading there and am only up to page 5 of the 14 pages of reviews. :grin: I love it that the debate has been opened up like this. :bigGrin: I could stay reading all day but need to get outside and mow the lawns. :grin:
Mariam .... "mow the lawns". :thumbdown: Why do you have to use such language? :mshock:
31 degrees in beautiful southwestern Ontario.... no grass cutting here for at least six weeks. :happy3:
:laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7:
Don't scare me like that. :happygrin:
Quote from: urpilgrim on March 27, 2011, 01:50:37 AM
31 degrees in beautiful southwestern Ontario.... no grass cutting here for at least six weeks. :happy3:
It's a typical English Spring over here and the grass is growing apace. :mshock:
I had a brief discussion about "Love Wins" today with some of our local church leaders. I didn't want it to be brief, but when I mentioned "Rob Bell's new book" one of them had never heard of him, let alone his book, and one of the others said, "Oh, some people are accusing him of being a universalist" at which point there were a few eyes cast to the ceiling and a couple of moans and the discussion moved on. :sigh:
Later, in a discussion about something else, one of them dismissed something as "heresy" and I wish I'd been brave enough to challenge him about the use of the word. I don't know what others here think, but knowing that word has its root in a Greek word for "choice" and strictly speaking means an opinion at odds with what's generally accepted means that it's not necessarily a bad thing. I guess we're so conditioned to that by phrases like "damned heretic."
I realised as well how much I appreciate the open and accepting way that things are discussed here. Kind of spoils you for discussions elsewhere sometimes. :winkgrin:
50+% of the Bibles I checked use the word sect instead of heresy. But you are right the it also means choice.
Because for most people heresy is a synonym for blasphemy next time you should answer: Jesus was crucified for heresy.
:sigh:
Coming out of lurkdom for this one . . .
I live in a suburb of Grand Rapids and drive by Mars Hill Church probably 4 times a week. I have seen those "Love Wins" bumper stickers for years and years now and always kindof wondered if they meant what I thought they meant. I was pleased to find out that they do. :icon_flower:
I also find it fascinating that Bell doesn't call himself a Universalist. I think the word "Universalist" has been pretty much monopolized by Unitarian Universalists, and is thus associated with multiple paths to heaven. Personally I don't mind the term, because the Universe is God's wonderful creation and I believe that He will redeem it all. I consider myself a Biblical Universalist. I also believe that he who controls the language often controls the message, so I don't like to let those who disagree with me define or choose the term that I will be labeled with. Just my :2c:.
Being intimately familiar with the religious culture of Western Michigan, I greatly admire Bell's courage in making his beliefs public. I am excited how this debate is transforming Western Michigan and all of Christianity! Love NEVER fails! :girlheart:
Quote from: Kimberlaina on April 21, 2011, 05:31:20 AM
I also find it fascinating that Bell doesn't call himself a Universalist.
It's because he feels that the term implies that what you believe doesn't matter, and that Jesus and the cross don't matter. Which is absolutely not what he means.