Great post Josh. I think you’re hunch is right. Pluralism has shaken the isolated confidence of many a Christian. Now we’re sorting out how to have what Newbigin calls “Proper Confidence.” As we do, all the “core” doctrines are going to picked up and re-examined. Some will be cast aside and others will stand the test of time. It’s going to be an exciting, anxious, and sometimes ugly process that I hope will lead to something beautiful.

Me too. On my best days, me too.

I haven’t read the book. I love Bell, but I don’t think I will. It probably has something to do with all the drama surrounding it. Our debating wears me out sometimes…

You said:

“For instance, I’m convinced that most evangelical pastors ignore the historical roots of foundational concepts such as Satan (a Persian idea woven into Jewish thinking), hell, the devil, evil, etc. We’ve co-opted Greco-Roman notions of time and space and slapped a few scriptures on top and believe that we, evangelicals who’ve only been around for a short time, have an orthodox view of God and the world. It’s absurd. Our ahistorical view of Biblical texts is a travesty.”

This is so key. Sometimes I feel like we’re afraid to do honest historical work as Christians, as if God could somehow not withstand the scrutiny.

I must confess I’m a bit confused by the thrust of the comments here. The sense I’m getting is that (a) we should not be so quick to scrutinize the contents of Rob Bell’s book, but (b) we should be more quick to scrutinize what God says in His book.

II read the book as soon as I knew it was out. I really enjoyed it, but I was already prepared for these kinds of ideas having already read “The Last Word Abd The Word After That,” by Brian McLaren. I, too, don’t agree with everything RB says, but then he proposes more questions than he even tries to definitively answer. But I’m highly OK with this, too. It seems to me that part of what the not-yet-believing world objects to in many believers is our all-too-frequent representation that we KNOW things that we cannot KNOW, that we come across (and are) judgmental or condescending towards those who disagree or see things differently, and are hypocritical in that we fail to consistently live with integrity in regards to these things that we are sure that we know.
If we are honest, we must admit that much of what we believe is not directly derived from Jesus and the original biblical authors, but result from layers and layers of interpretation and tradition developed over years, decades, and centuries that have resulted in religious systems that are frequently and almost universally characterized by the aversion to entertaining questions that challenge the hermeneutic, doctrine, dogma, and tradition of religious systems.
Perhaps one of the greatest potential tools we have to engage not-yet-believers in a post-modern, post-Christian world is an openness and candor to entertain, examine and dialog about these kinds of questions and the foundations for the presuppositions and assumptions and presumptions on which they have been built. I am encouraged that there seems to be a growing awareness among many believers that may subvert many existing religious system because it recognizes that the Kingdom is first and foremost about Relationship with the King, rather than right beliefs and doctrines. I still believe that this is the Message that the world is dying to hear – the one that Jesus died to confirm.

A great review, Josh. I’m wading through the book a second time because, I admit, I read the first time hunting for RB to say he didn’t believe in hell. (To the contrary, he says often that he believes in hell and that hell should be taken seriously.)

Nonetheless, I agree with him some; disagree some. But overall, I’m most disappointed with the firestorm that the evangelical world created over it, especially among so many who hadn’t even read the book.

I think your hunch is right that this topic hits a nerve. Hopefully we can all study more as a result and search out truths.

And you’re also right that the church will withstand this maelstrom as it has many in the past. “She’s strong.” Amen. With the Lord as the head, no wonder.

There are many debatable parts of Rob’s books, my interpretations of scripture and everyone else’s interpretations of scripture. However, Jesus said the two commandments which hold everything together are to love him and love others. If we executed the game plan, love WOULD win and debates would cease.

Brad–great thought.
Rjohns–my point is that people criticized teh book before it came out and then offered criticisms that were more revealing of evangelicalims’s love of sentimentality and sound-bytes as opposed to careful historical work.
Jeff–thanks for sharing such deep thoughts.

Good thoughts, Josh. I think you are accurate in some with your comments about our distorted view of what the story was supposedly about.

I read Love Wins within a week of its release and in the time since, I have had time to sit back and reflect on the most important thing I learned from the book and the many good questions it raises.

We have to learn that the good news is actually good news.

More fully, it seems that much of the preaching I was raised on (and emulated in my career, I regret) seemed to offer the good news, but was not content to let the good news be the whole offer. In order to “further entice” the listener to accept the good news, we seem to have trumped up some really awful news that can give rise to an either/or situation. Accept the good news, or burn in hell. Looking back, I wonder if we feared that without the alternative, the good news was not good enough to be compelling. Personally, it really struck me when Bell pointed out that hell was not a central part (or really any part of note) in most of the early church’s kerygma… So why is it so central in mine? Can I learn how to preach the good news as compelling on its own?

Let me ask the question of those here: Does Rob Bell preach the gospel about Jesus Christ? If so, please point out where he has done so.

Another question: Of those posting here, how many have read at least one Rob Bell book, how many have watched NOOMA videos, and how many have listened to at least one sermon from his church?

Despite what you’ve said – “I’m convinced that most evangelical pastors ignore the historical roots of foundational concepts such as Satan (a Persian idea woven into Jewish thinking), hell, the devil, evil, etc…” – I’m convinced otherwise.

The evangelical pastors I know have studied many of these ideas in seminary, etc. To paint with such a broad brush doesn’t serve anyone well.

Most of us who are pastors know something about the historical roots surrounding the Bible. I believe that sometimes faint echoes of God’s revelation bounced off the spiritual eardrums of men in other cultures. They intuitively knew more than they understood, and wrote some of it down (such as ideas about Satan). Biblical writers didn’t “steal” their ideas from their historical context. To say so denies the supernatural inspiration of Scripture.

If the Bible is just a cobbled-together commentary on the cultural surroundings of its authors, we have no faith left.

I think that’s why Rob Bell has stirred such controversy – It isn’t about how Christ-followers will relate to some new cultural norm, thus pleasing the sensibilities of the 21st Century, but it’s about whether or not we will stand in stark contrast to this world’s system… just as Jesus did.

The Mars Hill Bible Church is located in Grand Rapids, MI.

Good thoughts. Like you, there were parts of Bell’s book that I absolutely loved as a good expression of the gospel while other parts no so (either because I disagreed with a point he was making/hinting at or because his theological and exegetical methods seemed to lack). Nevertheless, I found no reason to condemn him or criticize him with the degree of toxic rhetoric that some used so flippantly. But that is what happens when we begin to confuse our theological paradigms with the gospel itself. What we conclude about the doctrine of hell (among some other doctrines) and whether we are right or wrong is not the same as denying that Jesus is the Son of God (which Bell has never done).

Grace and Peace,

Rex

P.S., I read some books by Bell as well as listened to some of his videos.

Can anyone point out where or when, in any of his books, videos, or sermons, Rob Bell has preached the gospel?

rjohns–I guess it is a matter of definition. If the gospel is about Jesus dying for your personal sins so you can go to heaven than Bell isn’t your guy. If you think Jesus died to set the world free of sin, evil, injustice in prep for God’s new heaven and new earth then Bell is your guy. See Velvet Elvis, Jesus Wants to Save Christians and a sermon series he did entitled “The Flames of Heaven”

I’d be careful to insinuate that someone doesn’t preach the gospel just because he doesn’t speak the language you do.

Josh,

“I’d be careful to insinuate that someone doesn’t preach the gospel just because he doesn’t speak the language you do.”

If you look back through all of my posts, you will see that I did not say Rob Bell doesn’t preach the gospel. I just asked a question–much like Rob Bell does! The question I asked was: Where does Rob Bell preach the gospel? Does my asking of that question strike a nerve?

I’m not interested in giving my own definition or interpretation of the gospel. Because why should you or anyone else here really care what I think the gospel is? What they should care about is how the Bible defines the gospel.

Paul says, in 1 Corinthians 15:1, that he would like to remind his readers what the gospel is. Then in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, he summarizes it. And yes, he (Paul) says it definitely has to do with Jesus dying for our sins and being raised from the dead.

The kingdom is important. However, you can’t skip individual salvation. You come to salvation *individually*, and are saved *into* Jesus’ kingdom community.

Great post. Thanks Josh. Good conversation.

rjohns- Please forgive my lack of insight. Why are you questioning if Bell has ever preached the gospel?

Just a question and I’m very calm. Well sorta, my wife is having a baby. :)

Hi Josh,

Thanks for a thoughtful evaluation of Bell’s book. I agree that many jumped the gun on criticizing the book.

I’ll admit to not being entirely comfortable with your assertion about the historical roots of biblical concepts. Like Keith, I think that many people have seen these things, even if they don’t spend a lot of time talking about them.

My view of Scripture doesn’t allow me to say “When Luke passed on Jesus’ teachings, that was accurate, but when he talked about Satan, that was merely something he picked up from the Jewish worldview as influenced by the Persians.” I’ve chosen to use the Bible as the standard by which I judge all other ideas.

I don’t think Persian dualism fully explains what the Bible says about Satan. While some Jewish writers may have believed in a form of dualism, the Bible never portrays Satan in those terms.

I won’t take up too much space here, but I’d encourage you to open to the fact that some have studied these concepts and rejected them, rather than merely being ignorant of them.

Grace and peace,
Tim Archer

Tim,

Thanks for your notes. I think I may not have communicated what I meant about Satan. All I’m suggesting is that notions of inspiration surrounding dictation fail to recognize the way in which everything, all of God’s work is soaked in the culture in which God is at work. I don’t think you and I are that far off. The acultural tendency of evangelicalism is disturbing. That’s all I meant.

I should have said “many evangelical pastors” not “most”–my mistake. I think it’s most. I think there are many.

Great thoughts.

rjohns–when you ask a blog (readership) where Bell preaches the gospel, the natural “interpreptation” is that you are not sure or have not encountered it yourself. So either, a) you’ve not done the work you are assuming others have or b) you have done the work and don’t think he preaches the gospel. Those are the two obvious interpretations.

BTW–how does Jesus define the gospel in your opinion? How do the Gospels define the gospel?

The corinthians passage says Jesus died because of our brokeness and was raised from the dead. That is the gospel. And the implications of that depend on how you interpret the meaning of his death and resurrection. Did Jesus die so that we can go to heaven? (something the bible never says) or did Jesus die because our brokeness is so pervasive that we would kill god himself when he comes in the flesh and shows us how god intended us to be human?

And does Jesus resurrection mean anything if tge gospel is merely Jesus being a sacrifice for our sins? And of the gospel was just about Jesus sacrifice… Why did he live and minister for years rather than just stepping down into a body so he could be an stoning sacrifice?

Could it be because the gospel is bigger than explaining atonement? Rather, could it be that Jesus life up to and including the cross is our pattern… And we are called to emulate that pattern as Gods reign breaks into to our reality?

I didn’t conclude very well my rant above.

The point is, Jesus death and resurrection is a central part of the gospel, but without context of the broader narrative, one can make the passion of Christ mean nearly anything.

Kingdom without a cross is moral-do-gooder theology. Cross without a kingdom is reductionistic manipulation.

When we set out to define the gospel, we run the risk of oversimplification. I wish everyone could hear Scott McKnight’s lecture at the Rochester College Streaming Seminar in which he asks and answers the question “what is the gospel?”.

Obviously, 1 Corinthians 15 is a very important chapter to our understanding of the gospel but it’s not the only chapter in the NT that speaks of the gospel/good-news. When Jesus began his ministry proclaiming the good-news, it included the kingdom of God. So God’s reign is very important to our understanding of the gospel. In the apostolic preaching of Acts, we find not only the death and resurrection of Jesus being preached but also Jesus as the fulfillment of Israel’s prophesy, calls for repentance, the ascension of Jesus, and the promise that God is restoring all things (for example, see the sermon preached in Acts 3.11ff). So each of these themes must be present in the proclamation of the gospel as well.

When I consider all the various themes that are a part of “the gospel”, it seems very difficult to define the gospel in one neatly crafted sentence (at least so for me) that encompasses everything that is said in scripture about the gospel. As far as it matters to what Rob Bell has said in his teaching and writings… When we consider full scope of what the gospel is, I think we can quite easily say that Rob Bell does preach the gospel. Is his proclamation of the gospel perfect? Of course not! But then again, who among us does proclaim the gospel perfectly?

Grace and Peace,

Rex

Rex, Well stated brother. Well stated.

M. Shoemaker: Best wishes to you and your wife.

But not to ignore your question: I’m asking if anyone can tell me when or where Rob Bell has preached the gospel because (a) some here say he is a good teacher (i.e. he “preaches Jesus”), and (b) a good teacher should speak the gospel. After all, Paul said, “Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!”

The Gospels say that the “gospel” is the entirety of the good news about Jesus. There is no definition Per Se, although Paul’s summary in 1 Corinthians comes close.

Consider how Mark opens his book in Mark 1:1, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” Here Mark is referring to the whole story about Jesus as the gospel!

As you follow the narrative in scripture, you see the gospel unfolding. Every step of the way, Jesus and his disciples share as much of the good news as has been revealed at that point.

Because we now sit at a place in history where we look back on Jesus’ death on the cross, we have a more complete picture than, for example, did John the Baptist. As a result, we should proclaim all we know about it. That is the mandate that Jesus gave us as the church (e.g. Matthew 28:20).

So…teaching about the kingdom, and the hope we have to live in a restored creation, free from the taint of sin and death, glorifying God and experiencing Jesus eternally…that is our hope. It is an essential part of the gospel.

However, it is equally part of the gospel that we don’t deserve this hope. We don’t and can’t earn it, because we are all law-breakers; without Jesus, we live under God’s wrath. We must, individually, accept God’s grace by repenting and trusting in Jesus and him alone to save us from God’s wrath. You have to understand the bad news that you are a law-breaker to fully grasp and appreciate the good news. The good news is that your entrance into God’s kingdom is free from your standpoint precisely because it was costly from Jesus’ standpoint. God is both the Just and the Justifier.

And Josh, yes, I’ve listened to a great deal of Rob Bell’s teaching. I’ve read his books, watched his videos, and personally interacted with an assistant minister (and his wife) from Rob Bell’s church. I know what he teaches, I know what guest speakers at his church teach, and I know that he does not relate the entirety of the gospel to his hearers.

Worse, he sows doubt continually regarding the clarity of scripture and our ability to understand it. Read “Velvet Elvis” and you will see a litany of questions regarding the virgin birth and other doctrines which Bell questions. Of course, you can say that he is only raising questions for discussion. However, as you rightly pointed out above, questions cannot be used as an excuse to mask what you are really trying to say. A skilled writer could put forth an entire discourse that consisted entirely of questions, yet leave no mistake about the propositions that lie behind the questions.

In addition, he opens his pulpit to false teachers. For example, Phyllis Ticket taught from his pulpit that God’s voice is a sentient female entity who has a daughter, which she names the “Bat Kol.” She teaches that when Jesus was baptized, the voice that said, “This is my beloved son, with whom I am well pleased,” that this was the Bat Kol. What was Rob Bell’s response to this? Did he explain or correct this to his congregation? No…his response was to invite her back again later as a guest speaker.

The bottom line, Josh, is that you are a preacher of the gospel. Aren’t there better teachers out there to point your congregants and blog readers to?

Unfortunately, “Gospel” is becoming a trigger word in our day…kind of like “charismatic” and “social justice” and “born again.”

Anybody have any ideas for a word to use instead of gospel when talking about the gospel?

I’m following this conversation with interest. Good stuff. But, at the same time, I sadly note that your previous blog posts about serving the poor, caring for widows, and loving our neighbors and enemies don’t receive as much passionate conversation as discussions of who’s in and who’s out. I know your post and Bell’s book are about more than that, but for many, it’s easier (and seemingly more fun)to discuss heaven and hell than to daily and with great sacrifice live into the words Jesus taught us to pray, “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” sgb

Rjohns

It sounds as though you’re coming to this discussion from a reformed background.

You’re understanding of gospel, based on your last comment, appears to interpret scripture through the lense of Romans rather than through the “gospels”.

Maybe that’s why we all seem to be talking past one another. And that’s exactly why having these conversations (civilly) is important for the kingdom.

We often know what we mean when we say it. The trouble seems to be that words don’t often mean exactly the same thing to everyone. You and I can both say gospel and focus on entirely different aspects.

Josh P–The Jesus Story or, to quote Jesus, the kingdom of God.

Josh,
Great thoughts. Thanks for re-engaging the conversation. One thing that I struggle with is how too quickly we throw the bigger conversations to the side in search of the latest greatest topic. It’s like we have to all find the “new” thing to tweet or post so that we people will read our stuff. This topic was not through being discussed and you’ve revisited it well with this post. Hope the conversation continues.

I’m still reading the book but based on what I’ve read I agree with your statement that “I think parts of the book are breath-taking, dead-on and kingdom focused. I think other sections are a stretch, sloppy, and rather reckless.”

I’ve heard this critique from others which makes your sharing that “a few credible authors (two of the more influential leaders in evangelical and mainline churches) even made suggestions to early drafts that were largely ignored” even more astonishing.

SO…my question is….do you think the struggle with the sloppy, reckless parts are because there still exists a sort of expectation that if you write a book you should try and avoid being reckless and stretching entire sections?
I know we live in the age of the information explosion when anyone can write books but I wonder if there is still this sense that maybe we hold an unspoken (an even spoken) expectation that if people are going to write they need to be organized and write with a certain type of depth and research. I know this feeling is what has kept me from responding to blog posts, keeping up my own blog, responding to tweets, etc, etc.
Maybe this is just my graduate theological education rearing its head too. I’m completely open to that possibility.

Some of the criticism I heard about the book was more about this type of thing that the actual engagement of the heaven/hell topic. “People want their pastors to answer questions and not just ask them all the time,” I’ve been told by people who struggle with Bell. I for one appreciate the questions after years of growing up around people who seemed to have all the answers.

What do you think?

I am weary of people whose purpose it seems is to make the simplicity of the Christ as complicated as possible. A child can understand, a guy on the street or up a tree gets it, an adulteress from the wrong side of the track caught on quite well, but guys with book deals and seminary degrees can only muddy the water.

I am amazed at the posturing that is passed off as deep thinking and scholarship. Paul decided on purpose to count what you guys hold dear as garbage that he might know Christ alone. His claim was that he did not come in the wisdom of men but preaching Christ only.

It think some guys wasted their money on an education that only makes their ignorance less easy to see.

Finally, there is not one gospel in Paul’s writings and another in the gospels. Both proclaim the good news about Jesus and what he himself has already accomplished for ungodly sinners.

People should not have to leave a church gathering on a Sunday, or the page of a book by a Christian author, looking like a human question mark. It isn’t that complicated.

Agreed with the last comment – the Gospel is most certainly the story of the Kingdom of God.

Hi Justin,

No, actually I’m not of the Reformed tradition, I’m not a Calvinist. I don’t want a label, and if I did, I wouldn’t know which one to use for myself. As far as my background, I was raised in the Church of Christ.

Note that in my last post, far from interpreting the gospel through the lens of Romans only, I said, “teaching about the kingdom…is an essential part of the gospel.” How much more clear could that be?

But repenting and believing in Jesus alone to save us is also an essential part of the gospel (see Mark 1, John 3, John 6).

What I’m saying is that both are part of the gospel. If someone consistently teaches one without the other, there is something wrong.

It is also worrisome that Rob Bell repeatedly asks teachers into his church who teach that God’s voice is a female sentient being who has a daughter named “Bat Kol.” I found this out simply because I downloaded a Sunday sermon from Rob Bell’s web-site and listened to it. So Josh…if you point people towards Rob Bell, they may be exposed to the same strange teaching. Is that what you want? Can’t you think of something better to promote?

Rjohns,

That’s a new idea to me. Just read through Tickle’s sermon.

Certainly something I need to read more about, especially considering that she is way smarter and more educated on church history and the original languages.

Plus – I’ve found when I immediately dismiss something a person is saying because it’s strange or out there in some way, I often miss out on learning new things because I’m never challenged.

I’m fairly certain at least 20% of what I believe is wrong, I just dont know which 20% it is.

Rjohns -

To respond to your not being a Calvinist…

The way you describe atonement, if I’m correct (one of you guys with the applicable degrees let me know if I’m wrong), is a much later development in Christian thought that goes back to Calvin, Luther, and ultimately Anslem.

There is certainly something mystical about atonement, and it deserves a place in our theology of gospel, but, as far as I can tell, it’s not the core of what God was doing. Jesus forgave people’s sins before he died. It seems to me that his death is more ethical (god wants us to realize how deep his forgiveness goes… Dying rather than killing us, his enemies) than mystical.

If I could summarize my view of gospel, it is humanity has broken what god created for good. God loves us so deeply that he came as man, living how god intends we all live, and we rejected him, but he still let us do evil to him bc evil is only defeated by righteousness, not more evil. And his resurrection is a testament that god’s way, though it seems foolish, is how is has and is defeating evil once and for all. We are called to participate in that life now, without fear, because resurrection frees us to lose everything, even our lives, in love of humankind and creation.

Mark 9:38 “Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”

39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us. 41 Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.

So, I’m sure most will ask if Rob Bell is driving out demons…I have no idea but I do doubt it because I think only God does the miracle… But he is challenging all of us to actually have to think about some things.

For all the biblical babble that is going on it amazes me how little anyone takes the scriptures of God restoring His creation seriously. Is Jesus the Saviour of the world or not? Does he love his enemies or not? Will the whole world be filled with the Glory of God or not? Will all men die or will all men be made alive in Christ (each in his own order) or not?

I’ve never read a Rob Bell book or have seen his videos…but I have sat in churches for over 50 years and have heard the most bizarre things and beliefs coming out of men and women who claim to know it all. I believe when people decide to seek God and love their neighbor (as we each work out our own salvation with fear and trembling) we may get a handle on some things. But like the ages before us…we cast stones and demand everyone to believe our understanding which of course is tainted by all the teachers and leaders we have chosen to listen to.

Justin & others,

In terms of the atonement, I believe that Jesus offered himself as a blood sacrifice…a propitiation to God for our sins. This is not a new idea. It is much older than Calvin or Luther. In fact, it is the basis of the sacrificial system described in the Old Testament.

This is a very Jewish idea, and it certainly would have been on the minds of Jesus’ followers in the first century. This is particularly true given that Jesus died around Passover. Paul considered Jesus to be a Passover lamb, and even John the Baptist, before Jesus’ death, said, “Behold the lamb of God!”

So no…I don’t think my understanding of the atonement is a recent development, nor is it a specifically Christian idea; rather, it is Jewish.

As far as whether or not this was at the center of what Jesus was doing…I honestly don’t think that God himself would come to Earth as a human being and allow himself to be abused, spit on, nailed to a cross, and then crushed under the guilt and burden of all sin unless it was at the center of what he was doing.

Remember, this was an event that caused God the Son to sweat like great drops of blood and say, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me.” Kind of an important thing to leave out of the gospel message, don’t you think.

I’m not saying that any of you necessarily leave this out of the gospel…but Rob Bell does, as several of you here have already admitted. And that makes his gospel a different one than what the Bible teaches.

Some of you here seem to think that any criticism of anyone who claims to be a Christian is unwarranted. However, the New Testament does warn of false teachers, of wolves in sheep’s clothing. By definition, a wolf in sheep’s clothing must be attempting to appear as a sheep. Otherwise, they would fool no one.

As Christians, we should exercise discernment and not chase after every hip new teacher who comes along to tickle our ears.

RJohns. How do you read Bell’s chapter on atonement in Love Wins and not think he values what you’ve just said?

Josh, that is a good question.

I think Rob Bell should have clarified whether or not he believes that Jesus’ death on the cross was necessary to appease God’s wrath. In the book, he does not make that clear, and in fact I think he implies otherwise. Even in the trailer, he implies otherwise when he says that he has trouble believing in a theology where Jesus saves us from God.

In short…it seems clear that Rob Bell has a problem with substitutionary atonement. It is not fair to say that he has a problem with the cross. There are different aspects to Jesus’ death on the cross; it is the substitutionary aspect that Bell seems to object to.

I have a problem with substitutionary atonement. I think it makes God a monster. That god could be so angry that someone needed to be murdered because I committed just one “sin” just doesn’t seem in line with a god who also tells me to forgive 70 times 7.

Do you also think there was something magic in the blood of animals that caused peoples son to be forgiven? Is not the sacrificial system more for our own assurance of forgiveness than for God’s? How else could Jesus forgive sins before he died?

Doug–yes. Yes. Yes.

Sara–great point. The hard work is what we avoid, isn’t it?

Royce–wow. I don’t know what to say to that other than if it’s so easy, why did Paul have to write so many different letters (some of which didn’t even get in the NT)? Is it really . . . easy?

Justin – I think I found your 20%.

Justin,

Actually, I think that God would be a monster if he just forgave “70 times 7″, as we are required to do. What would you think about a judge in a courtroom who simply let everyone go? You murdered someone…I forgive you, you’re free to go! We would think that is bad, not good. God is a God of justice who hates evil.

As far as someone having to be murdered because you commit just one “sin”…that seems like an academic question only. My guess is that you haven’t committed just one sin. In fact, I would say that you are probably an habitual sinner. How many times in your life have you lied? Ten? One hundred? More? Have you ever looked at someone with lust? Jesus says that you are an adulterer at heart. Have you ever used God’s name in vain? Then you are a blasphemer. Would you like all of the private thoughts you’ve ever had to be listed on a post on this blog? Probably not, if you are like me. The Bible says that none of us are righteous, and our hearts/consciences confirm this.

You put “sin” in quotation marks. I read that as an implication that sin is not so serious. But it is serious. Not just because of what you did, but because of who you are offending. For example, if you curse at your goldfish, there are no consequences. If you curse at your boss, you’ll probably get fired. If you curse at a judge, you might go to jail. What about if you curse at God? How much worse is it to offend an infinitely powerful and holy God? Can that really even be measured?

About forgiving “70 times 7″, that is something we are obligated to do, not God. God is not obligated to forgive your sins. Think about the angels…God does not forgive their sins, and they do not get a Savior.

In any case, we are obligated to forgive others because we are ourselves in need of forgiveness (e.g. Matthew 18:23-35). God doesn’t need anyone’s forgiveness, and he is not obligated to forgive. He does forgive out of grace and mercy, but it is not because he is obligated, it is because of love.

I don’t think that animal blood has any power at all to bring about forgiveness. But I believe that Jesus’ blood does, and God instituted the system of animal sacrifice to foreshadow and symbolize what Jesus did. Just like “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness,” men sacrifices animals and their sins were covered on the basis of the sacrifice Jesus would eventually make.

God is the one who is ultimately offended when we sin…he is the one who has been wronged. He has the right to say how this is made right. What the Bible says is that, although men thought they were murdering Jesus, he was in fact voluntarily sacrificing himself (God the Son) to satisfy God the Father’s wrath. In other words, the Trinity executed justice on itself to demonstrate both justice and mercy.

The proper response is not to accuse God of being a monster. What God did was the ultimate act of love…he took a punishment you deserved. If we repent and trust Jesus to save us, then everything is paid for.

The beauty of this is that as forgiven sinners, we have no right to boast over any other believer. The only reason we are saved is by God’s grace, not by any merit of our own. Also, if you view sin as being the serious thing it is, then you will appreciate God’s grace more fully. In Luke 7:36-50, Jesus points out that the one who has been forgiven much will love more. Also consider the Pharisee and the publican in Luke 18:9-14. The man who goes away justified is not the one who says he has one “sin”, but the man who begs for God’s mercy.

And comment I meant to include also about animal sacrifice: Animal sacrifice foreshadowed Jesus’ death on the cross, and the whole system was meant to remind man of that.

However, even the sacrifice alone could not bring about forgiveness. God still wanted faith and a heart that was rightly oriented toward him. That is why, at certain points in the Old Testament, God rejected certain sacrifices if the one doing the sacrifice was motivated wrongly.

Ultimately, people in the Old Testament were saved in the same way that we are saved now…by God’s grace through faith. Old Testament “saints” were saved by having repentance and faith in God’s promises, which were ultimately promises about Jesus. We are saved by repenting and having trust/faith in what we now know Jesus did.

Where in the bible does it say that Jesus died so that we don’t have to? My reading of the biblical narrative leads me to understand the death of Jesus was not to appease an angry God, rather, it is a sign to humanity that God is reconciled with us, and we therefore should Live reconciled to him. We needed Jesus/God to die, in order that we would truly understand the depths of our depravity and the reach of Gods love and forgiveness. Which goes back to your understanding of penal substitutionary atonement… Which is a theological concept that was really developed by Anslem.

As to putting sin in quotation marks, it wasn’t to cheapen my view. Sin leads to death and we see it every day. I think we tend to cheapen our understanding of sin by making it a list of rules (lying, adultery, etc) when in reality, it is much broader than that. It is our trying to put ourselves in the place of God and the resulting structures of power and oppression that result from that. We all participate in these broken structures and we are called to be transformed by Gods spirit in the midst of them by standing up against oppression and injustice, by recognizing and confessing out participation in them, and participating with God in putting the world back to rights.

Jesus death on the cross show us how broken our community is… It seems reductive, to me, to just say that he died because of individual sins and had to appease God. And given the political hope of Israel for salvation from oppression, it makes more sense that Jesus death serves to disarm the powers and free people, not from individual sin and hell, but from the hell we find here on earth of which humanity thought death was the ultimate weapon.

I propose we all go to lunch. Thoughts?

I’m in.

Sure. I’ll treat.

Love this conversation. very educational and thought provoking for a younger Christian like me.

For clarification: when I commented earlier saying I agreed with the last comment, Josh’s comment is the one I was referring to (Royce and the other gentleman’s were not showing at that time).

I just read back over and honestly got a bit annoyed at Royce’s comment. The problem isn’t education. Highly educated people disagree with Bell as much as agree with him. In fact, John Piper – Bell’s foremost critic – graduated from the same seminary.

I will say, however, that Royce has a point in pointing out the gospel is simple at its core.

Final thoughts, perhaps.

Please consider:

“In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” (1 John 4:10)

“Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.” (Hebrews 2:17)

“for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” (Romans 3:23-26)

propitiation: something that propitiates : specifically, an atoning sacrifice (Merriam-Webster dictionary)

There are several Greek words behind the word “propitiate” in the texts above. Here is the Greek definition of one of them:

hilasterion: (a) a sin offering, by which the wrath of the deity shall be appeased; a means of propitiation, (b) the covering of the ark, which was sprinkled with the atoning blood on the Day of Atonement.

The word “propitiation” is a very rich, loaded word. It carries the ideas of anger-appeasement, sacrifice, covering, and forgiveness, all at the same time.

The death of Jesus was, in part, to appease God’s anger. In fact, in the garden when Jesus said, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me”, it was the cup of God’s wrath that he was most certainly referring to (see, for example, Jeremiah 25:15).

What is amazing to me though is that, unlike a petty god from mythology, God graciously provides the means of his own appeasement. That is specifically what 1 John 4:10 is saying. And so we don’t miss it, God foreshadowed it in the Old Testament (Leviticus 17:11, Genesis 22).

In the Genesis 22 passage, God provides a sacrifice in place of Isaac on Mount Moriah. Isaac even carries the wood that would presumably be used in his own sacrifice up the hill on his back, much like Jesus would do years later.

Jesus did not need to die, as you say, to show us the depths of our depravity. Men have understood the depths of their depravity for years, both based on conscience and by comparing their selves to God’s law. Jesus died as a demonstration of both God’s justice and his mercy, because this is the way God has decreed that our sins might be forgiven. It demonstrates God’s justice because he said that there is a high price to sin which must be paid, and his mercy because he provided himself (or rather, God the Son) as the means of paying this penalty.

When someone dies, you want it to mean something. It is far less barbaric to say that Jesus sacrificed himself to bring about the real, effectual forgiveness of sin, than to say that he died merely as some sort of example.

It is the case that, since Jesus died for us on the cross, we should live in righteousness; he saved us by grace through faith in him, so we are free to obey out of love, not fear. Any parent would want their child to obey based on their love and gratitude for them, not out of fear or legalism. Similarly, if you are playing in the street, and someone sacrifices their life by diving in and pushing you out of the way of an oncoming car…you don’t turn around and go back to playing in the street.

This is an outworking of what Jesus did on the cross, but it is not central. What’s central is that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, and he died for your sins.

And that is the primary problem with Rob Bell’s book. He hides what is central to such an extent that he is preaching a different gospel.

I don’t think men did understand the depths of their depravity until Jesus was killed. If you remember in Acts… A lot of people were cut to the heart when they realized Gods messiah had been killed. That was part of the sermon.

I have never said that atonement doesn’t exist…. But Jesus death as atonement seems to come about later in the timeline…. It’s a metaphor for what God was and is doing in the world. But again, how did Jesus forgive sins before he died if God needed a human sacrifice? I still havent received an answer to that question.

And if the cross wasn’t about ethic, simply a loophole in Gods holiness code to allow crappy people to be forgiven. Why did Jesus come as a person and live for 33 years and minister and talk of a very political but not from this world “kingdom of god”?

And do the sermon in Acts mention anything about propriation or substitutionary atonement? Acts 2, Peter clearly states that it is us who killed Jesus, not god, because we didnt, and many times still don’t get it.

Justin,

About the first part of what you said…okay, perhaps you are right. Seeing a sinless person who is willing to die for the sinful is a powerful way to point out my sinfulness. I don’t stack up well in comparison to Jesus.

But I can’t agree that a belief in Jesus’ death as atonement came about later. After all, I just showed that Paul, John, and the writer of Hebrews all used “propitiation” which essentially *means* atonement. They used this term in relation to Jesus’ death. And they predate Anselm of Canterbury by a thousand years.

You said, “Why did Jesus come as a person and live for 33 years and minister and talk of a very political but not from this world ‘kingdom of god’?”

I can’t know all of God’s reasons why Jesus would live as a human until adulthood. However, we can know some reasons. For one thing, Jesus adhered to God’s law in a way that we never could. He was the second Adam, and he succeeded on our behalf where the first Adam failed. He completed the requirements of the law. For us, the law is “our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith” (Galatians 3:24). It is like a mirror that shows us our sinfulness. Ultimately, when we are broken and repentant, and realize we can’t keep the law, it drives us to the foot of the cross to seek grace and forgiveness.

Second, by living without sin, Jesus could offer himself as a spotless sacrifice. In the Old Testament, God never accepted blemished sacrifices, probably because the sacrifice was ultimately just a pointer or foreshadowing of the perfect sacrifice to come–Jesus. If Jesus had sinned, *he* would need a savior himself, and would not have been able to be our Savior.

Third, Jesus was able to teach his disciples/apostles so that they could serve as the foundation of the church. Later, he aided them in this, and probably in the writing of the New Testament books, by reminding them of the things he had said through the Holy Spirit.

Finally, Jesus was not a political or social reformer; he was after the reformation of hearts. He passed up a whopper of an opportunity to make a political/social statement in Matthew 26:6-13. A woman had used extremely expensive ointment to anoint Jesus, and his disciples said it should have been sold, with the money going to the poor. Jesus said, “You always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me.” Political and social behaviors are symptoms of our heart condition. Proper behavior follows if the heart is in right relation to God and neighbor. By calling for repentance and faith, Jesus struck at the root of the problem–our corrupt hearts–instead of attacking symptoms.

Additionally, Jesus avoided commenting on the biggest socio-political issue of the day: the Roman occupation. It is hard to paint Jesus as being political if he ignored this “elephant in the room.”

You said, “How did Jesus forgive sins before he died if God needed a human sacrifice? I still haven’t received an answer to that question.”

From looking at both the Old and New Testaments, it seems like God always forgave sins in the same way–by grace (undeserved favor) through faith. In other words, we don’t deserve forgiveness–it is a free gift–and we receive it by having faith in God and the promises he made, which point to the Messiah (or in our case, looking back to the Messiah).

Galatians 3:6-8 speaks specifically to the question you are asking:

“Just as Abraham ‘believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness’…Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, ‘In you shall all the nations be blessed.’”

In other words, Abraham had faith in God and trusted in the promises about the Messiah that God had made up to that point, and God credited it to him as righteousness. He was borrowing against what Jesus would do in the future. That is true even though Abraham was not completely righteous. And that is grace through faith.

So I would say that Jesus forgave people of sins before his death on this same basis.

Hey Josh! Thanks for writing this piece. It’s been a ball (and a TASK) reading through all of this commentary. Gotta love blogging and the internet.

Just thought I’d let you and your readers know that I’ve received a review copy of Francis Chan’s rebuttal title, “Erasing Hell” and over the next 8 weeks–a chapter a week–I will be juxtapositioning the two titles. I figure there will be plenty of one-sided reviews for both titles already. This will, hopefully be something unique. Maybe you and your readers would like to drop by and take part in what is happening.

Here’s part one:http://is.gd/RUz2Fb

rjohns – where do you attend worship? I think I’d like to visit.

I think you’re stretching a little by saying that God forgave Abrahams sins based on a not yet realized messiah. I don’t see how you’re getting there based on the text.

And with regard to Jesus being apolitical…. He was anything but. His kingdom was absolutely political, it just wasn’t dominated by seeking power and glory and domination, rather it’s a politics from the bottom up that relies on self sacrifice and radical love for enemies and trusting in God, the true king, to make things right.

If Jesus wasn’t political, why are so many of his teachings based in the political language of the day? Kingdom, Gospel, and extending to Paul, the word church was quite a political term as well.

Saying “Jesus is lord” in those times meant “Caesar is not”

Rome was very tolerant of religions, as long as they worshiped the emperor and made their allegiances to pax romana. Christians refused, and were persecuted and scapegoated.

Justin,

Yes, you are right about “Jesus is Lord,” “Caesar is not.” You think I overstated myself about Jesus being apolitical? Perhaps…

Although I think your statement:

“it’s a politics from the bottom up that relies on self sacrifice and radical love for enemies and trusting in God, the true king, to make things right”

is very similar to mine:

“Political and social behaviors are symptoms of our heart condition. Proper behavior follows if the heart is in right relation to God and neighbor.”

I’ll have to stand by what I said, though, about Abraham’s forgiveness. I don’t think I’m stretching it at all.

Consider Romans 3:21-31. In verse 25 it says, “in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.”

The word “forbearance” means “a refraining from the enforcement of something (as a debt, right, or obligation) that is due” (Merriam-Webster dictionary). What I believe it is saying is that God held over the debt of the Old Testament faithful until such time as Jesus would pay that debt.

Also, Hebrews 10:10-12 says, “And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.”

This says that Jesus offered one sacrifice (his body) one time, for sin. Period. So two things…one, this statement is specifically talking about sin sacrifices, and it says Jesus’ body was such a sacrifice. And two, it says the sacrifice is once for all, which I am saying includes the Old Testament saints.

It’s so funny how we can read the same passages and take away different things….

I look at Romans 3 in the context of Paul trying to explain to tge Jews in Rome that the Gentiles were even included. He uses language they know and understand to say that the system of sacrifices was jut a shadow, a reminder of a forgiving God… But man doesn’t truly understand that god has forgiven him until God himself comes and sacrifices himself. Gods ultimate act to show the world his truest nature… That he would die himself rather than destroy his creation, even though his creation deserves it. Gods justice is upside down. His grace doesn’t make sense… And man continues to this day to keep people outside of that grace, but Jesus laying down his life announces how far god has gone to let us know we are loved and forgiven. That culture understood sacrifices to the Gods. God/Jesus died as the final sacrifice… And end to a system that was merely a reminder. Now we (all creation) are called to also sacrifices our selves, to the point of death, for even the worst of sinners to announce And participate in gods reconciling love.

Justin,

Let me ask a question: If we had just met, and you knew I didn’t know about Jesus, what would you tell me? If I asked, “What must I do to be saved?”, what would you say?

rjohns–I’d tell you about the kingdom and the king.

Josh,

But more specifically? What would you tell me about the king and the kingdom?

rjohns,

There’s not enough space to write all that I would tell you. Scripture is testimony of how much ink was spilled to try and explain the Gospel to communities of Jesus followers who still struggled to understand. So I think it would be foolish to think that anyone coming from a pagan background would understand the gospel after a short little conversation – and I know so because in my ministry, I have read the Bible with people who previously have never ever seen or heard the Bible taught and I know how difficult it was for them to even grasp the concept of “one God” let alone the fact that this one God becomes flesh in the person of Jesus.

So what I would start doing is telling you the story of God at work in the world which includes telling you about Jesus and what all this has to do with you and I (and everyone else). I would not presume that it is a story you would understand immediately but what I would hope is that as we develop a friendship, you would see that the story I am telling is something being lived out in my own life that way my life can serve as a living testimony (rather than an another obstacle).

Grace and Peace,

Rex

I’d ask what you want to be saved from.

“what do I do to be saved” is a loaded question. And I’m fairly certain that what it meant in the first century isn’t quite what it meant in the 6th, or the 11th, etc.

The Jews certainly weren’t asking “how do I go to heaven when I die” or” how can I be forgiven for lusting, or for saying a curse word” but they are saying “how can we be saved from a world thy isn’t working the way we understand gods promises” or “how can we be saved from Rome and oppression”

But I can honestly say that question has never come up in my life. What question has is “why do you live in such a rough neighborhood” or “why do you hang put with prostitutes and drug dealers” or “why do you have a homeless woman living with you” or “why don’t you have a gun in the house living in that neighborhood”

And that’s when I tell them about a king and a kingdom that is disarming the powers, lifting up the broken, setting prisoners free, and defeating injustice.

Sometimes the words we use obfuscate things more than they should. “what can I do to be saved” or “how can I participate in god’s movement of salvation”

BTW,

Since everyone on this thread seems to have a vested interest in teaching the gospel to others, everyone ought to pick up a copy of Vincent J. Donovan, “Christianity Rediscovered” and read what a challenge it is in teaching the gospel to a pagan culture as well as the greatness of what happens when the Gospel story is told. The book is a 169 page story that you will not want to put down once you pick it up and start reading.

Grace and Peace,

Rex

K. Rex,

Thank you for the tip. I’ll check it out.

I’ll say this though…the question I asked was specifically asked by a pagan, of Paul and Silas in the book of Acts. Apparently, they were able to explain quite well to him what the gospel was, and to his family as well.

Also, I’ve explained the gospel to several people, including an atheist from Communist China, who was kept by his government from ever having exposure to the Bible or Christian ideas. He understood.

What I’m finding on this board is that no one wants to give a clear explanation of the gospel.

Paul didn’t seem to have the same reservation…the summary he gives of the gospel in 1st Corinthians is short enough to be a “Tweet”.

rjohns–the gospel, according to Jesus, is that the kingdom of God is among us and we are invited to join in it (Mk. 1:14-15).

rjohns–would you say that Jesus taught the gospel?

Rjohns – did you read the entire chapter? The guard asked that question because he saw the gospel. Paul and Silas stayed in prison when they could have run away, the guard realized that while their lives hadn’t mattered to him, his life mattered more to Paul and Silas than their own.

He saw salvation, or the kingdom in action, or the gospel, before things were explained in detail.

That’s why Jesus talks in parables “the kingdom of god is like…” not “here is my in-depth analysis of how atonement works… Listen closely, if you dont understand it to the point it’s no longer mysterious, you won’t be forgiven or be saved. It’s not about mental ascent to principles or having the correct logical interpretation of what happened on the cross; it’s about radical forgiveness, and our response to that radical forgiveness.

Let me say this one thing regarding how simple or complex the Gospel story is…

It matters not whether we tell a simple story or a complex one if the story we tell doesn’t produce the fruit of the gospel. If the people we are telling our the story too, be they pagans, atheist, or good ol’ Americans, don’t produce the fruit (faith and love) that Paul so clearly heard about among the Colossians (cf. Col 1.3-6) then perhaps we’ve planted seed on bad soil…OR perhaps the story we’ve told isn’t actually the gospel story that Jesus and the Apostles told.

May we all be people who tell the one story that matters, the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The gospels are the stories in which God becomes the king of God’s own creation. The kingdom is the movement he started in his life, teachings, culminating in his death and resurrection in which he invites people to think, see, act, and engage the world in new ways. Ways that are actually glimpses of the coming new heaven and new earth.

Josh,

Let me ask this another way:

Can a committed Hindu or Muslim take part in this kingdom?

Can a person who is unrepentant take part in this kingdom?

Can a person who believes there are other ways to be saved (than through Jesus) be a part of this kingdom?

Rjohns….

“Can a committed Muslim or Hindu be a part of this kingdom?”

We need to unpack your language a bit here. Are you saying a committed Muslim being someone who worships Allah? Or is it prayer rituals that makes someone a Muslim? Is it what people believe or what people do/who they are?

I don’t see Jewish followers of Jesus in acts stop being Jews. And this caused issues because Jewish Christians thought being a Christian also meant being Jewish.

But Paul seems to think that those who attempt to destroy someones culture in order to make them a good christian are missing the point. Much like well meaning American missionaries who make Africans go to church in suits and ties, and read only the king James bible.

Christianity isn’t about destroying what is faithful in ones culture. The Koran talks a lot about justice for the poor and the oppressed… And they believe Jesus to be a prophet. Can someone be a disciple and still hold to Muslim teachings that aren’t in conflict with Jesus? I think sure.

Just like we have all sorts of ideas about what it means to be human apart from our faith. Can you be a follower of Jesus and a capitalist? Communist? Libertarian? Democrat? Republican? Evolutionist? Creationist? And on and on.

We’re all seeking truth and were all on a journey and the gospel is that god’s reality is breaking into all of our realities and we must be open to being transformed. That’s the beginning of discipleship and it doesn’t start or end in the same places for all people.

rjohns–great questions. Let me think about that.

Josh,
Thank you.

Justin,
By “committed Muslim,” I mean someone who holds to the Shahadah and attempts to practice the other pillars of Islam.

By “committed Hindu,” I mean someone who holds beliefs that typify Hinduism. For example, belief in a supreme being who is manifested in a number of subordinate gods or avatars, as well as a belief in kharma, reincarnation, and personal duty (i.e. works).

I’m not sure how we turned to a discussion of destroying someone’s culture. I don’t see why you have to destroy someone’s culture to tell them about Jesus. If you look around you at peoples’ faces, it seems obvious that God loves variety. In fact, my guess is that this variety will survive the resurrection and be with us for eternity. So…since I’m not advocating destroying anyone’s culture, I won’t address the issue further.

But Justin, although the Qur’an does label Jesus as being a rasul prophet (a prophet with a book), they are not really talking about the same Jesus. Their Jesus was only a man. He was not divine, and he was not God’s son. And in fact, they generally do not believe that Jesus even died on the cross.

Rjohns – that was a tangent by which I assumed some things about what you were saying. I apologize.

To be brief, I’m always going to tell people about god and the story of putting the world back together. But at the same time, I feel like there are people who follow Jesus who don’t know it. Just as there are many who think they are following Jesus, but aren’t.

Wherever love is, God is there also. And there is most certainly love in other religions and other cultures. Like Josh said in an earlier post, the kingdom is particular, but not exclusive. Does what someone believes make them a follower or what they do?

For me, I believe god announced his forgiveness in Jesus and we are called to be agents of god in continuing that forgiveness… And when we have faith that the Jesus way is the best way, or the way to truly embody god’s intentions for humanity, that is where we find salvation or abundant/eternal life. Our job then in evangelizing is not showing people how to jump through the right hoops to gain forgiveness, even if that means believing all the right stuff. Rather it’s announcing forgiveness and calling on the forgiven to turn away from their rebellion and join in what god is doing to “make all things new”

Justin,

People in all religions show love and experience blessings. God shows common grace to all men: “For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good.”

That does not necessarily mean they will avoid God’s wrath. It means God is being patient with them.

You asked “Does what someone believes make them a follower or what they do?”

I would say…neither.

We are not saved *by* our belief or faith, we are not saved *by* our works, we are not saved *by* baptism or repentance. We are saved by *God* because he chooses us and graciously gives us a changed heart that is capable of hearing his message, repenting, having faith, and showing fruit.

“As it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’ What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’ So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, ‘For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.’ So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills” (Romans 9:13-18).

God himself grants repentance:

“God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 2:25b).

How and when God grants new birth through the Spirit is a mystery:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God…The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit” (John 3:3b-8).

The above is a play on words. The Greek word for “wind” is the same as is used for “Spirit.”

We don’t know where the wind will blow, and we don’t know where or when the Spirit will work to bring about new spiritual birth.

You sure sound like a Calvinist to me. :)

Justin,

If I am, then I’m not of the five-point variety. Maybe two-and-a-half points. :)

I’m a couple chapters into the book (and my husband has read all of it) and I guess I’m first and foremost not a big fan of the first chapter full of questions that did nothing but confuse me. But perhaps that’s because with 2 little boys draining all my energy, I don’t want to have to “think” when I read. :)

BTW-I read “Velvet Elvis” and loved it.

But the thing that disappoints me is that he almost condoned the firestorm it created by releasing the video and some of his interviews when the book was released. I watched his interview on the Today Show (as well as others) and the subtitle on his interview was “Famous Pastor Believes There is No Hell”. Seriously? If that isn’t the message of his book, why did he allow it to be belittled to that one phrase? Of course h’s going to get criticism! It almost appears that he wanted the debate in order to sell more books.

I certainly don’t believe that the way he has been treated by other ministers of the faith has been right. I agree with your thoughts about “who made him pope” Josh. NO ONE IS PERFECT and therefore no book written by man today is going to be perfect. Take the good and disregard the not-so-good. :)

That’s just my layperson and very humble opinion!

Jenae–thanks for sharing your thoughts. You raise several excellent points. Thanks for taking the time to write. Love ya much.

Peace,

Josh

Sorry I’m arriving late to this conversation. I appreciate the manner in which it took place. Contributors disagreed yet still respected each other; that makes me want to keep an eye on this blog.

I’d like to add a few of my own comments, although perhaps folks are finished looking at the thread. In that case, I’ll be talking to myself!

First, regarding Phyllis Tickle, and her accuracy as an authority on original languages and Jewish history. I’ve listened to the sermon in question at Pastor Bell’s church, given by Ms. Tickle. I can read Koine Greek, and can tell you that some statements she makes in her sermon regarding the Greek text and the Holy Spirit are not accurate. If anyone wishes for more specifics, I can give them. You can make whatever conclusions you wish from this, as to whether or not to rely on her for accurate information.

Second, regarding the “theory” of penal substitution (or substitutionary atonement). Here is a sample definition of this doctrine: “By offering himself as a sacrifice, by substituting himself for us, actually bearing the punishment that should have been ours, Jesus appeased the Father and effected a reconciliation between God and humanity” (Millard J. Erickson, “Christian Theology” [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998] p.833).

It is not factual to say that this theory originated with Anselm in the 12th century. Anselm apparently originated a particular flavor of atonement theory which is more rightly called the “satisfaction theory.” He believed that Jesus made a payment to God which satisfied God’s wounded honor. In contrast to this, the penal substitution position holds that Jesus death was a just yet merciful punishment for our transgression of God’s law. In other words, Jesus did not die to satisfy the hurt feelings and wounded pride of some feudal overlord. He died to demonstrate both the justice and mercy of a loving God.

Also, a number of early church leaders specifically talked about the penal substitution. These include Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Eusebius of Caesarea, Justin Martyr, Athanasius, John Chrysostum, Augustine of Hippo, etc.

Particularly of interest is Clement of Rome, as he mentions Jesus’s substitutionary death several times in his letter to the Corinthian church. This is significant because this letter is in fact the earliest uncontested writing from the church, period. In fact, it almost certainly predates the writing of the New Testament book of Revelation, when at least one of the Apostles still lived. Clement himself died about 96 AD, which means that he significantly predates Anselm.

The thing to keep in mind, I believe, is that it is not mutually exclusive to believe that Jesus died and was punished for your sins, and to also believe that his death is the ultimate example of love. And in fact, I believe that many of the church “fathers” listed above held to more than one view of the atonement in addition to the penal position.

Clarification to a comment I made above: When I said that the letter of Clement to the Corinthian church was the earliest uncontested writing from the church, I meant to say that it was the earliest uncontested writing from the church outside the New Testament!