Little Diddy From Rob

It has some all fired up, but that goes with the territory I suppose. Enjoy

Comments

[AJ]

1 Corinthians 15 1-4
Now I would remind you, brothers, [1] of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,

Joe,
I was waiting for you to either ignore, or address this video. This did spread like wildfire. Beyond the babble about his historical assumptions, the core issue is that he ignores or tries to revise/rewrite what the Gospel really is, what it really means.

What is the Gospel? The word gospel simply means “good news.” The central message of the Bible is the gospel, or good news, about the person and work of Jesus Christ. In 1 Corinthians 15:1–4, Paul provides the most succinct summary of the gospel: the man Jesus is also God, or Christ, and died on a cross in our place, paying the penalty for our sins; three days later He rose to conquer sin and death and give the gift of salvation to all who believe in Him alone for eternal life.

The great reformer Martin Luther rightly said that, as sinners, we are prone to pursue a relationship with God in one of two ways. The first is religion/spirituality and the second is the gospel. The two are antithetical in every way.

Religion says that if we obey God He will love us. The gospel says that it is because God has loved us through Jesus that we can obey.

Religion says that the world is filled with good people and bad people. The gospel says that the world is filled with bad people who are either repentant or unrepentant.

Religion says that you should trust in what you do as a good moral person. The gospel says that you should trust in the perfectly sinless life of Jesus because He alone is the only good and truly moral person who will ever live.

The goal of religion is to get from God such things as health, wealth, insight, power, and control. The goal of the gospel is not the gifts God gives, but rather God as the gift given to us by grace.

Religion is about what I have to do. The gospel is about what I get to do. Religion sees hardship in life as punishment from God. The gospel sees hardship in life as sanctifying affliction that reminds us of Jesus’ sufferings and is used by God in love to make us more like Jesus. Religion is about me. The gospel is about Jesus.

Religion leads to an uncertainty about my standing before God because I never know if I have done enough to please God. The gospel leads to a certainty about my standing before God because of the finished work of Jesus on my behalf on the cross.

Religion ends in either pride (because I think I am better than other people) or despair (because I continually fall short of God’s commands). The gospel ends in humble and confident joy because of the power of Jesus at work for me, in me, through me, and sometimes in spite of me.

[mark]

That is one of Rob Bell's greatest works yet. It is laced with hard facts that indisputable but yet ignorant people in the 20th century don't want to hear it. But, Jesus was never about being popular. He is about truth. Rob Bell speaks the truth in that video clip and anyone who doesn't recognize it as such is simply not saved and is not a Christian. This is not a question of Rob Bell's ability to speak truth, he has already spoken the truth. Now its all about whether you are a true Christian and recognize that truth or if you are a fake Christian and thus you are confused when Bell speaks the truth at you.

[AJ]

Joe,
I was reading some of the stuff on Ken's sight and afew others and I will agree with one thing, now. I am not a fan of PCR and the sarcasm that he used in his review of the Bell video, or many others for that matter. I may agree with his/their premise for feeling Rob is way off, but there is NO GLORY in the way and attitude that they use to communicate that error. I almost cannot listen to it. It is rude, and offensive to me. Kind of just mean. Again, my dislike for Ken's and Rosebrough is not their motive or reason for fighting for God...it is HOW they do it, and the attitude and vapor that it creates. I know that there was an angry Jesus in the temple, slamming tables over etc....but I do not think he mocked anyone.

Rebuke the heresy, the sin, the false Gospel. Do not mock the man. do not mock the man for personal gain.

So we do see eye to eye a little. And I do like you. See.... :)

Also, I wanted to say I am sorry Ken is attacking you on his sight. That is a little over the top. There is no Glory to God in that. Stick with the facts, Ken. Do not make it more personal than it needs to be.

-Adam

[AJ]

Mark,
There may be truth in what Rob says...but it is not the Gospel, as he claims it to be. I think this is a good example of why people have an issue with him, as much as they do. he starts with truth, but rather than claiming and following the Word of God, he goes off to have a playdate with his imagination and interpretation. It is a little too much. The historic recap is full of assumptions and lead-ins to his personal agenda of help and works...and heaven on Earth..not Grace and God nor the Gospel. There is truth, sure, but it is not THE TRUTH as you seem to imply.
-ADAM

[Joel Shaffer]

After watching this video, I then endured two-in-a-half hours of one of the worst reviews I've ever listened to over at Christian Pirate Radio. Not that Chris didn't have any valid points. I agreed with the premise that Rob's historical research was quite sloppy and anachronistic, that Rob exaggerates the historical meaning of words such as gospel and church, and I also embrace his Corinthians 15:1-4 definition as the historical gospel. However, in this video, I appreciate Rob's "good-works" apologetic. He gets it that the church's generous good works, serving the poor and feeding the hungry is a powerful apologetic to the present culture. In Peter's first epistle, Peter encourages his readers to live holy lives that produce good works several times as a response to all of the slander they were facing. "Being the gospel" in this way is essential when your reputation is constantly being questioned. However, I am not fond of this terminology because it seems too human-centered than God centered and has created more fodder for the tabloid bloggers and internet Christian radio shock-jocks.

Here are some points where I disagree with his critique of Rob:

1. Unfair, Rude and Mocking towards Rob and this video

2. Judges Rob's motives (infers that Rob is being deceptive rather than just mistaken)

3. Places "Humpty-Dumptyism" or God putting this world back together again as outside of orthodoxy and then cherry-picks scripture such as II Pet. 3 to back up his position. By the way, many reputable evangelical scholars see the the old earth "destroyed by fire" as a cleansing or renewing because of the comparison to the Flood...its judgment did not destroy the earth, but rather cleansed it of sin. Although Rob does not talk about this judgment when it comes to the new earth, he always states that it is God who restores it. (by the way, I happen to be pre-mil so I disagree with Rob on how the earth is restored, but I realize that his view isn't heresy.

4. Assumes that Rob doesn't embrace a literal Resurrection because he connects resurrection with how we live our lives. How do you know he doesn't embrace both?

5. Comes across ignorant of the overarching metanarrative of scripture, which is creation, fall, redemption and new creation. Rob is emphasizing the new creation aspect of scripture's metanarrative when he speaks of God putting this world back together again. There are several messages on the internet where Rob preaches the metanarrative of Scripture so we shouldn't be surprised at his new creation conclusion.

6. If Rob is ignoring the epistles when it comes to a description of the gospel, perhaps Chris is ignoring the gospel as an invitation to another way of life found in the gospels when Jesus calls his disciples "to follow me."

7. As someone who has devoted my life to studying liberation theology and the social gospel, I can honestly say that Chris falsely labels Rob of holding to Liberation Theology and the Social Gospel. On the issue of Liberation and Social Gospel, so far, Rob's wholistic view of mission is more in line with Newbigin, Bosch, C.H. Wright (The Mission of God) and N.T. Wright (Surprised by Hope) than social gospel advocates of the late 19th century and early 20th century such as Walter Raschenbusch.

8. Characterizes Rob as a having some marxist agenda when he is only embracing more of a Ana-baptist non-resistance view of peace (which has never been considered unorthodox in the church).

9. Is bothered by Rob's serving vs. ruling comment, even though Christ calls his disciples to serve if they want to be great in the kingdom of God rather than ruling in Matthew 20.

10. Minimizes the early church's involvement in serving the poor and feeding the hungry. Throughout Scripture there are 2000 verses that talk about the response of God's people toward the poor. Even in Acts, Luke points out people such as Barnabas who sold his land so that there would be no needy in the Church, Cornelius who twice in Acts is commended for giving generously to the poor, and Dorcus, who was described as always doing good and helping the poor. Even D.A. Carson has stated that the Gospel (I Cor. 15:1-4) and service to the poor are inseparable couplets.

That should be enough fodder for now.....

[chris o]

Joel- What did you find sloppy/anachronistic about Rob's historical presentation? What sources would you recommend? What did you find to be "human centered" versus "God centered" in his terminology? Could you explain what you mean?

[Erica]

Joel,
Diddo! I was going to ask the same question as Chris.

[Joel Shaffer]

Chris,

Good question and hopefully this doesn't come across as rude and demeaning towards Rob. Rob's entire description of Mithra is pretty much off base according to the last fifty years of scholarship of early Persian religions. Edwin Yamauchi is the premier Mithra/Persian scholar that debunks about everything that Rob asserts about the Mithra religion in his book Persia and the Bible. Here is a little bit more about Yamauchi's qualifications. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_M._Yamauchi

The secret religion of Mithra did not enter into the Roman empire until the latter 1st century through some Roman garrisons that brought it back from engaging the Parthinians. Rob makes that Mithra was one of the most popular gods in the Roman Empire during the time that Christianity emerged which was around 30 A.D. That is about a 30-40 year gap at the earliest. Almost every reputable scholar, including Yamauchi, would even go as far to say that Mithra didn't get popular in the Roman empire until the 2nd century. Also, in Mithra there was no resurrection or no virgin birth. Mithra doesn't die, he just ascends into the heavens and he is born from a rock not an actual person. Sometimes I get frustrated with Rob because he uses obscure history that may or may not be true as a "Aha moment" to support his major point. Some people then say, "wow! I never heard any of this before!" and they assume that because he has uncovered this ancient history which they never heard before in their previous religious experiences that he must be on to something that others preachers or scholars somehow overlook. Please understand that this is a generalization and I realize that many people at Mars Hill are discerning and don't hold to every single word that comes out of Rob Bell's mouth. Also, I realize that God has used Rob's preaching to transform many, many lives so I critique him with fear and trembling.

As for the human-centeredness of how he uses gospel, the gospel is always about God and what he has done for us, which impacts the world. Rob seems to say that the church is the good news for the world, which can border on a form of social moralism. Of course he makes mention of Jesus saving us from our sins, but his continued emphasis on people as the gospel (which is more human centered) can have disasterous consequences....maybe not for this generation but for future generations (read David Well's "No Place for Truth"). Please understand that I am not accusing Rob of abandoning his beliefs of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (which is about what God has done for us).

And like I mention before, I actually come to some of the same conclusions as Rob, but I would have used different terminology to express it. For clarification sake, I think it is better to define the gospel as Christ dying for our sins and rising again (I Cor. 15:1-4) but at the same time, never extrapolating it from its context of the grand narrative of creation, fall, redemption, and final restoration. Moreover I think it is wise to define God's people responding to the poor and oppressed through justice and practical mercy as the social implications of the gospel and not the gospel itself so that we are not creating more confusion that it is by our social works that we are saved, but that we are saved in order to do good works of social justice and practical mercy. I realize that my opinion reeks of modern categories, but until someone else can define it better while staying faithful to the scriptures, that is where I am at right now......

[Joel Shaffer]

Erica,

I didn't mean to exclude you.....my bad!

[Erica]

Joel,
No problem! Ok I read your explanation. Now for my next question? So where do you believe Rob got his info from or do you think he made it up? Secondly, historically how do we know which scholars are accurate?
And I will have to research this on my own now, it is interesting. Not that I don't believe you or Rob but I enjoy doing a little research. :-)
I would still argue the point he is trying to get across is still valid even if the history he uses to prove his point might be off. I would also agree with you that their is more to the gospel then the social side. I think the gospel can be defined in many ways. I would say that in Matthew 13 where Jesus says I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."
Judas Agrees to Betray Jesus
It seems he did not want this women and her good works to be forgotten either.
Gospel simply means "good new" so obviously Jesus thought this women pouring perfume on him was "good news." I would say in our society when hear the word gospel it applies Christ death, burial and resurrection but I think when others use to imply a social works or good deeds that should be acceptable.

[Adam]

Erica,
I must disagree. What society, and what you, and what I think means NOTHING. What matters is what the Bible and what Jesus Christ have said the Gospel is. Our opinion is nota factor. It should not be acceptable to use "social works" as an acceptable use of the Gospel. That may be a result in some fashion, but it is not the Gospel.

[Joel Shaffer]

Erica,

I don't think at all that Rob made it up. That is where many of the tabloid bloggers are wrong in judging motives. My educated guess is that his sources that he got it from chose the late 19th century and early 20th century scholarship which promoted this view rather than the recent scholarship that has taken place. Since the 1950's the consensus among scholars is that Mithra was not a popular religion in the Roman empire until the second century and did not come to the scene until about 65 to 70 A.D. in the Roman Empire. Now I must say with ancient history, we can never be 100% sure. However, when the evidence seems to point one direction, it seems that we should embrace the accepted view rather than the eccentric view which has been abandoned by ancient historical scholars. I'd be very curious who Rob got his sources from about Mithra.

As for the the woman pouring her perfume on Jesus being remembered as the gospel, Jesus seems to place this act of worship by this woman towards him along side of the gospel that is preached, not necessarily as the gospel that is preached. It seems as if the gospel and good works are to be remembered together, not as the exact same, but as inseparable couplets together.

Adam, Erica was not appealing to what society or what she thinks. She appealed to the scriptures (Mark 14) and raised a legitimate question. Her point was that maybe the term gospel is used in more than one way (in the scriptures. To me it was a reminder to look at the whole counsel of God on the matter, not just the Bible verses that back up our argument.

[chris o]

adam- you said "What matters is what the Bible and what Jesus Christ have said the Gospel is." and what you THINK the bible etc. thinks the gospel is, is your opinion.

joel- i've heard the same crtiques of the mithra/copy cat theory. i wasn't sure if you were referring to that or other portions of rob's historical presentation. i agree that rob doesn't always use the best scholarship.

i don't disagree that the gospel is christ dying for our sins and rising from the dead. what i struggle with is, what does that actually mean? i reject the fire-insurance/free-ticket-to- heaven interpretation that adam subscribes to. and that is what i think a lot of this debate hinges upon.

lastly, i would agree that yes, God did it, but i think rob wants to emphasize on what God is still doing, how he's doing it and through whom.

[Joe]

Wouldn't 65-70 A.D be in the first century and depending on if you were some sort of stickler you would still have 35-25 to be in the first century (as in some people who said this century didn't actually change until 2001).

[chris o]

that should be *says* the gospel is, not thinks.

[AJ]

chris,
too much time at the pharmacy with the free samples. :)

I DO NOT subscribe to a "free ride, fire insurance interpreatation". Never said that, you did. The issue is what the Gospel IS. That is not my interpreation. That is the Bible being read, and not treated like a buffet.
-Adam

[AJ]

I thought this was pretty good...

http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/resources/video/What-Is-The-Gospel---John-Piper

[chris o]

"That is not my interpreation"

but it is your interpretation, as well, the interpretation of others. and how is plucking one verse out not treating the bible like it's a buffet?

i think that no matter how much mental/hermeneutic gymnastics you go through, the gospel, as it typically taught in mainstream evangelical churches, boils down to fire insurance.

lastly, what would you say to someone who doesn't even believe I Corinthians should even be in the cannon and thus would reject that prooftext outright?

[AJ]

you cannot pick one out and look to the ones that fit you better. It is all or nothing. How could it be any other way? This is not a "choose your own adventure" book. it is the Bible. I am starting to see why you are so polished and fascinated by Rob Bell, rather than the God.

The Gospel is not fire insurance. That is ridiculous. You can not grant authority to something based on how it is taught at some hypothical random church that you cannot even put a real name to. That is broad stroke generalization, at this point, it may as well be a myth you aligned to make your point more palletable. I know that sounds far fetched, so prove me wrong with some real majority on that type of fire insurance teaching, not some oddball example. Use the Bible, forget how it is taught. You tell me how it is determined by you that it is fire insurance. Don't say this means this, quote the bible, and show me where....or is that part of your 1 Corinthians ommision request?Lets start there.

regarding 1 Corinthians...I would ask you "why?". I would ask you what the motivation is to remove and reject the Bible.
What is your issue with that book?

Adam

[Erica]

Adam,
If you are right, and the word gospel only means one thing then please explain these passages.
Matthew 24: (You see the phrase "and this gospel" What is this passage referring to as being the good news?
14And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
Mark 10:29 29"I tell you the truth," Jesus replied, "no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel
What is Jesus referring to when he mentions the gospel? His death has not happened yet.
Luke 9: 6So they set out and went from village to village, preaching the gospel and healing people everywhere.
What gospel where they to preach in this passage?
Romans 16:Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, 26but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him— 27to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen.
What does he mean "Establish you by my gospel?"
The word Gospel is mentioned 91 times in the bible.
Their are approx. 230 verses referring to caring for the needy and the poor.
There are 508 verses that speak about love.
I believe lJesus is the gospel. God loved us and laid down his life, God says love each other give to the poor help the least of these. Jesus is the good news not just the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. It is Jesus, His son, His life and all he says is the gospel. Would we agree?

[Joe]

AJ,
I hope that the sun doesn't come out where you are b/c the egg on your face will cook. Relax. Your last comment to Chris was ridiculous. I have a picture of a sign around here somewhere from a church in Cutlerville that says, "Eternity will you spend it in smoking or Non?" The point Chris is making is that a lot of churches seem to make salvation only about going to heaven or hell. They never actually seem to care about what we live like now.
As for I Corinthians, You assumed Chris is the one that doesn't believe it belongs in the Cannon. This is where the egg comes from. Unless his world changed drastically, he does. But he knows someone who might not. So why don't you actually answer the question instead of pulling out ridiculous broad brushes and slapping silly egg colored paint everywhere.

[Bill H]

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
I’ve been watching this in awe. What an amazing exchange. Joe, you grow weary because you entertain such diversity. It’s like being emotionally drawn and quartered.
I would love to get involved but in at least part of the discussion I feel like a pea shooter against cannon.
Some random thoughts:
1. Jesus was one of those annoying proof texters and He of all people would not have needed to. He often refereed to and or quoted the scripture that was available in His day. I suspect that if you follow His choices you will find some of the “random” writings now rejected by much of Christendom.
2. There is very little of the Bible left when the new/old modernism gets done giving God, His gospel and Jesus Christ a make over. Years ago one article was honest enough to expose its intent with a title something like “A Brand New Jesus”. Paul’s epistles definitely have to go. The Gospel of John is cut because it demonstrates a Jesus character doing and saying many of the things He couldn’t, wouldn’t didn’t and would never. Revelation is little more than a religious vision on acid. I think Islam is more honest. It shopped out what it liked, but didn’t try to hop the gospel freight. It established a new religion, new name and new Religious Icon.
3. Much of the fault of the confusion falls directly on the shoulders of the fundamental / evangelical church. We were quick to learn Eph. 2:8, 9 forgetting that there was a verse 10. We began handing out free tickets to the heaven train without Christ’s caution to count the cost. We quoted Christ’s message that He had come that we might have life and have it more abundantly. We didn’t explain that He was offering life to those who had none. We also failed to caution that of those He was talking to when He made that promise, many would be hunted, persecuted and eventually martyred. Not at all the glib picture we were building monster churches with. Worse yet still is the idea that we can accept Christ’s salvation, but at some later date decide if we want Him sticking His nose in our life. That is not the message Christ had for man. We also forgot the challenge faith without works is dead.
4. That being said, Jesus did not come to fix the planet. He is coming back to do just that, but mankind will not like that either and Satan, when released, will have no trouble raising a rebellion. If you’re a Science Fiction nut, like me, you will have seen that theme played out in a number of different story lines. The gospel is wrapped up in three little words; “it is finished.” When someone gets a handle on that it will change them in many ways, ways they can’t mimic or counterfeit. The gut wrenching challenge of all this discussion can be summed up in a simple phrase; by their fruits ye shall know them. Love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance is the fruit of the Spirit and sadly lacking across the boards. There’s a bold, proud elitism riding high across the spectrum. Like scripture, we pick out those items in the list that fit our personality traits and figure some out of the whole is good enough. Those old enough will remember the tuna adds, sorry Charlie. Christ came, loved and died for His enemies. When we start to see that heart again, we'll know revival is eminent.

[AJ]

Joe,
How close to the sun to think I am? :) This is Michigan.. :) Maybe I can poach the egg.

You are correct, I did assume it was chris that wanted it removed from the Bible, I apologize now if it was not and I acting in error.
Also, I did answer him. Removing the book is a ridiculous thought. Therefore I would need to know why he wants to suggest it be removed. Without that, there is no where to start. In any case, you either believe the whole Bible, or none of it. So it is an open and shut case to me, and should be to you.

I understand the generalization he was making. That was where my issue was. he was lumping me into it. he does not know me. He does not know where faith is ..does he? When people, We have all done it, start to paint others into a mural of all those thing that are different than theirs like the baptists, The bull horn guy, the Fundamental Christians, Calvinists, the CRC's etc, it bothers me. For an example, see the tiomely post by Erica on her high school guy and AM/PCR guys Ken abnd Chris. You do not know a person based on a glance. That Bull Horn guy you saw at the Van Andel. You do not knowhim...or his Faith, or his reasons for taking his type of stand. Maybe that kind of man is what is needed for others to start thinking about there actions. What were you doing that night to spread the Gospel? I am just saying.

And finally, an apropriate lead in...I was guilty of that in some flavor with you two and Mars. I initially threw you two into the pot of Rob Bell and Mars just because you attended. Now, after time here and elsewhere I know I was wrong. I cannot paint you into anything if you do not show your colors first. If I did, figuritivly speaking, the painting would be ugly if I chose my coolors for you, even from the artsts perspective. As you know, I do not agree with Rob Bell on so many levels...but he is talking about his view of his god. It would be unfair for me to hold my dislike for his work against you. (note: I did not say "him", I said "his work") He is just a man, no more, no less. For my earlier actions towards you, I apologize, and hope you can forgive me.
If not..GAME ON. JUST KIDDING!!! :)

My point is this "generalizations when talking about faith and God are useless unless you know that those generaliztions are applicable to the other person."

Also, you and Chris have a habit of not answering questions with fact or actual answers, you just ask more questions. That is easy.

-Adam

[AJ]

Bill,
WOW. Well written. It was like a mini sermon. :)
That was refreshing, really. thank you.

-Adam

[Joe]

Let me work backwards:
1. I usually answer the question but then ask more, as Chris did on your comment to him. He gave his 2 cents and then asked the I Cor question. What can I say, I'm following in the way of my Rabbi. :)
2. I appreciate your apology and accept it without reservation.
3. You should re-read Erica's post. It was guy in college and you might know him.
4. I don't remember the bullhorn guy at Van Andel. Are you talking about the guy we saw at the fair? I have to say of your whole post this this is the one area where I take rather strong exception. I was with my family that night. The idea of "what were you doing to spread the gospel that night" is an unsustainable worldview. I would never cut my grass if the only thing that mattered was sharing the gospel. I mean really what does it matter what my grass looks like? That time could be spent standing on a street corner preaching the Bible. Have you ever read, "Heaven is a place on Earth" by Mike Wittmer? If so, I'd love to hear your take on it. Don't worry, he's not a Mars guy. :)
I have a post I've been kicking around on the whole bullhorn guy at the fair. Maybe I'll put it up here someday soon.
5. The whole you believe all or nothing is an interesting position to take. Martin Luther (no secret that he's one of my heroes) spent most of his life wrestling with the idea that James and Esther shouldn't be in the Bible. You have to admit there is some really interesting things in I Cor. I mean, chapter 15 about people being baptized for the dead and all that jazz.
6.I love poached eggs. Haven't had one in years but thanks for getting me to thinking about them. Maybe this weekend.
Ok, a crazy day calls.

[AJ]

Hey Joe, I do not claim to have it all down. I am a work in progress..as we all are, I hope.

It was the fair, you are right. Erica mentioned it.

I will say I have two way I hold to the Word...One is in a closed hand, and the other is in an open hand. But I hold to them all.

Glad I could help with your weekend menu. :)

-Adam

[chris o]

wow. my computer wouldn't pick up joe's blog yesterday, so i couldn't comment back.

adam, i honestly don't even know where to start. as for me generalizing, my generalizing only comes from experience of a life in the mainstream evangelical church and K-12 of Christian school. it really shouldn't even be necessary to give examples of the massive emphasis that is placed on the question of what happens when one dies by said stream of christianity. that should be self-evident to anyone who's spent a nano-second in the movement.

i would love to know your response to erica's question on how in the world the gospel was preached BEFORE jesus died and resurrected, if, in fact, that is what the gospel is.

for you to divorce the gospel from "social actions", or whatever you called it previously, is absurd. why? off the top of my head-- the parable of the sheep and goats; the parable of the rich man and lazarus; what jesus tells the rich young ruler; what james says pure religion is; the tremendous socio-political contrasts of the early church to the roman empire; and the entire kingdom of God motif(a kingdom is a social construct).

you said "In any case, you either believe the whole Bible, or none of it. So it is an open and shut case to me, and should be to you." please tell me why? why can't someone reject the old testament? why can't someone reject portions of the OT that seem to contradict the very image of God revealed in Christ? i don't, but i'm just wondering as to how you don't recognize the silliness in this statement. and yes, i ask you a lot of questions, because i fear that you aren't asking them to yourself.

you and i think about this stuff on way different levels. i understand where you're coming from. BELIEVE ME, i do. but you don't understand where i'm coming from because you're so conditioned to see things through a certain lens. i would love to go into this more, but the free samples (i'm at work right now) are calling.

[Bill H]

Chris,
Erica’s question: How could the gospel be preached before the death and resurrection of Jesus? It was preached in the life and religious practice of the nation of Israel. It was preached by the prophets of old. Christ taught his disciples that he had been born to die, be buried for three days and then rise and eventually return to heaven. He explained his kingdom was not of this world. He challenged Nicodemus that he needed to be born again. The “I am” pronouncements by Jesus Christ identify Him as the bridge to eternal life.
I realize you’re squeezed and have better examples to support your argument, but for the ones you’ve given: The sheep and goats is one of the tough ones until you realize these people had no idea what The Son of Man was talking about. He was describing results of a Christ centered life that made them different than the goats across the way. I don’t see Lazarus and the rich man supporting your argument? There is nothing to indicate that Lazarus, who went to Abraham’s Bosom, was in any way involved with social action. The rich young ruler and a lawyer both came to Christ, one to trap Him and one to impress him. Jesus called their bluff and sent them to think about their situation. They were both confronted with the reality that working your way to heaven involves a lot more than they bargained for. I’m selfishly hoping selling all that I have and giving it to the poor isn’t a requirement I have to meet. I believe James 1 is telling us to check our fruit. The social action identified is specific to orphans and widows? There are many profound issues discussed in that chapter.
The balancer is that those who claim to have “said the magic words”, but show no interest in growing or serving were more than likely
whistling in the wind.

[Bill H]

Back to Rob's video. When he's right, he's so right I want to give him a hug. We are the living gospel to those around us. The old saying is we may be the only Bible the people around us will every read. We are here on a mission. Where we disagree, it's pretty significant. I don't agree with his world view and the role Christianity plays.
This blog is good for me as it drives me back into the Word. For those who claim the Bible as their source and authority, they constantly have to test where they are with what it says. It’s the truth that will make you free. I want to read the Gospels again and review the teachings of Christ in regard to social action. A committed Christian life will ultimately lead to social action, but with the emphasis on the eternal? What does it prophet a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul? I want again to make an emphasis check for my own benefit.

[AJ]

Chris,
again you claim to have me pegged. Describe me, then. What is the only lens you claim I am conditioned to see through? And why do your experiences deem my, or any others, placement in a stream of Christianity? I am confused.

I do not divorce social actions from the Gospel. But the Gospel is much, much more than simple loving ones neighbor, etc. And that is where Bell seemed to go towards, in some repsect. He missed the big idea.

Hey, and what is the "movement" you spoke of people spending a nano second in? Was that the emerging church you were referring to?

Adam