Keep Yourselves in the Love of God

I read the very last section of Jude today which is subtitled in the ESV "A Call to Persevere." I think it would behoove us to consider the delicate tension between human responsibility and Divine ordinance with respect to the perseverance of the saints. The title of this post comes from the first part of Jude 21. Jude clearly presents this keeping as a part of our responsibility. Notice that he says "keep yourselves", which is active, rather than something like "be kept", which is passive. We need to be active in persevering to the end.

That said, we also need to keep in mind the fact that the Bible is clear we are kept by God. In Jude 1, the greeting is to those who are "kept for Jesus Christ." The ESV has a little note that says the word "for" could also be translated "by" so that it would read "kept by Jesus Christ." Furthermore, in verse 24 Jude praises God "who is able to keep you" (24). So this idea of keeping is a theme in Jude and the responsibility seems to go both ways. Understanding such a thing is quite difficult. More recently I believe I've been able to make some sense out of it at least, but it takes far too long to really explain.

There's a danger of leaning too far one way or the other. For example, you could be fatalistic and use God's grace as a license for sin. After all, if you have God's promise that He will keep you to the end, doesn't that mean you can get away with whatever you want? Not exactly. Jude has been clear already that only ungodly men marked out for destruction are the ones who "pervert the grace of our God into sensuality" (4).

Then you could lean the other direction and declare that it is completely up to you to keep yourself saved. This is not the case either, because then you would be getting credit for your salvation. After all, you were good enough to remain in God's favor, weren't you? But Jude ascribes all the glory to God in verse 25. So what do we do? We must keep them in tension. Paul says it wonderfully: "work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Phil. 2:12-13).

We have the privilege of fighting a valiant fight, but if we're not fighting, we're not in the army. So fight the spiritual fight - against sin, against falling away, against false teaching, against "every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God" (2 Cor. 10:5) - and hold on to the hope that all those who are enlisted by the Lord will see victory. There are no casualties in God's army. He is able to keep you.

A Typo in the Bible?!

What's wrong with this sentence?

"One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was reclining at table close to Jesus" (John 13:24).

Mickey has already written on this topic here, but I thought I'd mention it to you since it was in my reading for today as well. He seems to think it is deliberate. I might agree, given that it happens with the same Greek word in two different books (Mickey notes the issue in Mark).

Eager to Write to You

Today's installment comes from the short book of Jude, verse 3: "Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints."

It's important to note that Jude is motivated by good news. In verse 2, he says to his readers, "May mercy, peace, and love be multiplied to you." This context must be kept in mind when thinking about the book of Jude. And it's not as if Jude is just giving lip service to these things. He wants these aspects "multiplied" to his readers. He is serious about Christians being full of mercy, peace, and love. Furthermore, he is "very eager to write about our common salvation." He deeply desires to rejoice with his readers that their names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life!

But another thing compels him to write about something other than this joyous truth. The faith that makes up the foundation of their salvation is under attack. The mercy, peace, and love that Christians are supposed to have is being compromised. As verse 4 says, certain people "pervert the grace of our God into sensuality." In light of this attack on the grace of God, Jude's prescription is that we "contend for the faith" (3). The NASB actually has "contend earnestly." We need an active counterattack, defending the truth and combating falsehood.

I'm sure many of the so-called "judgmental", "divisive" preachers of our day (here I have in mind men of God like Bobby, Derek, MacArthur, Piper, etc.) and days past (Jonathan Edwards anybody?) have identified with Jude. The preaching of the hard truths of the gospel must be done, although unpopular, because our faith is under attack, and that from within! We're not talking atheists here. We're talking about people who claim to be a part of the Christian church who are tearing it down from the inside out!

I don't think anyone wants to have to be the Discernment Nazi, because they would much rather everyone believe and rejoice together in the truth with one mind! But the fact is that such discernment is necessary because there are some who have "crept in unnoticed" (4). It takes work sometimes to see who these people are, and we always need our antennas up for their false teachings or bad methods. We need to be diligent Bereans in our discernment levels. Only once we have taken the good and thrown out the bad can we truly proclaim with boldness a message of grace from an exceedingly merciful, kind, and good God.

Wash Your Feet

Continuing my daily reading through John, I came across this verse. It's nothing new, but I think it is a good and necessary reminder: "The one who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but is completely clean" (John 13:10). Jesus is washing the disciples feet and has moved from talking about physical washing to a spiritual cleanliness. As Christians, we are totally clean. No sin is held against us. We have already laid our foundation of repentance and faith and need not lay that foundation again (Heb 6:1).

That is not to say that sin doesn't worm its way into our lives in a very real way, for "we all stumble in many ways" (James 3:2). Jesus was symbolizing the constant putting off of sin that needs to happen in the believers life. This is sanctification. Our feet will get dirty; that is certain, which is why we need to be constantly uprooting sin in our life. It cannot be allowed to cake in to our skin. It cannot be ignored, cannot be "gotten used to."

I've been convicted, challenged, and blessed by the 8-part sermon series that Pastor Mike Fabarez of Compass Bible Church in Aliso Viejo, CA just completed a few weeks ago on battling sin. We need to take drastic steps to hunt it down, rather than passively accept its existence. So, how's it going with you? Are there any sins you need to have washed off your feet, Christian? If you are not allowing Christ to wash you, then "you have no share with [him]" (John 12:8). But isn't it amazing that the Lord of glory would willingly stoop to do such a thing for us? Praise God for His grace!

Isaiah: True Witness of True God

I've been continuing to engage in regular dialogue with a Jehovah's Witness, and now more recently his wife as well. They come visit my house at 10am on various Saturdays, sometimes by appointment, other times just to see if I'm home. The focus of our conversation is generally focused on the Trinity, as I am more concerned about their view of Christ than of anything else. The gospel, after all, centers around Him, and without the true Christ, there is no true God, true salvation, or true life. I find it interesting that even my pagan professor of last year realized John intention in collecting all the "I am" statements of Christ and compiling them, while skirting most parables, etc. This is a reference to the I AM self-identification of God in the Old Testament. Unfortunately, the New World Translation (JW version of the Bible) has so mangled the translation of the tense that no Jehovah's Witness can see the obvious connection.

I just thought I'd share a few verses that glorify our Lord Jesus Christ as Yahweh incarnate. The incarnation is quite probably the most glorious miracle ever performed by God, greater even than converting sinners (which, if you know anything about your own sinfulness, is saying something).

I was reading through the daily reading bookmarks that we just handed out in High Point, and came across this verse in John 12: "Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him" (v. 41). The context makes it clear that the pronoun "him" is referring to Jesus Christ. "These things" refers to two quotations from the book of Isaiah that John quotes in the verses immediately preceding verse 41. The first quotation is from Isaiah 53:1. We know that Isaiah 53 is a prophecy of Jesus Christ, but it is the second quotation that I really want to focus on. The verse in John 12 tells us that Isaiah speaks Isaiah 6:10 because he "saw [Jesus'] glory." If we go to the context of Isaiah 6, the vision Isaiah has just seen is a vision of "the King, the LORD of hosts" (v. 5):

In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said:

"Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts;
the whole earth is full of his glory!"

And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke. And I said: "Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!"

Do we realize what's going on here? Jesus the Christ does indeed make appearances in the Old Testament, and this is one right here! This is the glory of Jesus, not of an angel, but of Yahweh! How much more glorious does this make the incarnation, not to mention sacrifice, of Christ? He had been on His throne in His temple, and stepped down, becoming a... pooping baby?! Stand in awe of your God this Christmas (and always!); He loves you with a love we will never grasp.

Velvet Elvis Discussion with David Wilson

This is my response to a short book (and I'm only half kidding!) sent to me by David Wilson, a personal friend of mine, in response to my critique of Velvet Elvis. Thanks, David, for giving me permission to post this publicly.

Disclaimer:
I do not speak for Rob Bell. This Critique is also not to convince Evan of the quality of the book. Neither is this an attack on Evan's personage, Evan is a close-personal friend of mine. Also I do not think that Evan is wronging Mr. Rob Bell by his review. He has done exactly what Rob Bell has asked, to look at the book critically and to take from it what he may. Now to my critique of this Review.

I appreciate the disclaimer. And sorry it's taken so long to get back to you on this.

I will start by talking about the first part of Evan's review the so-called "Peeves". Firstly I want to partially agree with Evan on this that Rob Bell likes title that catch the attention of the passer-by. This is something you will see Bell do many times which having sometimes shocking sometimes strange statements such as a book called Velvet Elvis, not however for sheer shock value however but to challenge assumptions. Now for my first Critique. Evan said "Repainting Christianity is like repainting the Mona Lisa. All you get out of the deal is a fake (or a different painting altogether...)" here is my challenge to this, Bell is not suggesting that Christianity is something that needs to be repainted, as in saying that it is not good and needs to be fixed. What he is saying, at least to me, is this if we claim to believe in an infinite omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God, as finite, sometimes (maybe even oftentimes) foolish, unseeing creations. How can we say that we have figured it all out? What Bell I feel is saying is that we need to take what we have learned from the theologians of the past and now continue to seek deeper understanding of who God is in that. I feel he captures that when he says "times change, God doesn't but times do. We learn and grow, and the world around us shifts, and the Christian faith is alive only when it is listening, morphing, innovating, letting go of whatever has gotten in the way of Jesus and Embracing whatever will help us be more and more the people god wants us to be."(Bell, 11) He is not saying that Christianity is wrong or flawed. Christianity is perfect, Christians aren't and thereby need to be watched, listened to and when necessary corrected. Paul shows us this in his criticism of Peter. We are called to challenge what we are taught "I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false."(Rev 2:2 ESV) Here we se Christ commending a church for challenging what they were taught against the scriptures, Bell is calling us to do that, to take what men have said and put it to the test against what God has said.

Notice, however, that Bell claims "the Christian faith is alive only when it is listening, morphing, etc." I'm sure he fits in Jude 3: "contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints" somewhere in his theology. I'm just not sure where or how. Or maybe he's just doesn't use words very precisely, which would be intensely frustrating, because then you would never really know what he's trying to say.

I am going to just go ahead and skip the rest of the comments about my "peeve" section. My peeves aren't the issue, so I'll just jump over that.

Now I move on past Evan's peeves, Evan claims that Velvet Elvis is "dangerous, poisonous, and ungodly". I can hardly think of a statement more harmful to the community of believers, I then can be considered dangerous, poisonous and harmful because I to agree with Bell on the mass majority of his writings. I feel this goes to an extreme and is inappropriate merely on the basis of saying that Bell's book, which has many people to Christ, is the work of the devil.

I would like to know about these people who were led to Christ by this book. I'm not talking about people who didn't go to church but now they do, I'm talking about genuine, committed converts. Who was converted in reading this book?

I will now combat Evan's 6 Reasons You Should Not Spend Money on Velvet Elvis

1. Bell does not take Doctrine Seriously.
Evan disapproval of the trampoline analogy is understandable. And I agree to an extent that the analogy is a bad one. However I think it does have merit in it. When I first read that passage I was upset by it, not to Evan's extent perhaps but I did see the flaw, Bell removes the pivotal support of the trampoline. The firm, unmoving base. I think that there are gray area's in Christianity, that is that there are areas of theology that do not need to be agreed upon by all believer to gain entrance into heaven. I wish Bell had used something other than the trinity however to show that. I believe that the trinity is an imperative to the faith. And moreover I know Bell would agree with me on that from knowing his own theology.

That's fine if Bell himself agrees with you when he isn't writing books, but it's certainly not the message he's sending here. The simple fact of the matter is that he used the Trinity. He used the virgin birth. These are not what we'd call "non-essentials." He's treading on dangerous ground. His point about the Trinity not being fully known or articulated until the 4^th century was the best point he could make. However, I don't think that this fits the analogy of a spring at all. It's not like the understanding fluctuated with the times, it simply developed with more and more revelation. (Sort of like a brick wall might with more and more bricks?) People before that probably did not understand the full nature of God in the same way, but that doesn't imply that they denied it. There are hints at plurality in the Old Testament as well, so we can't rule out all understanding.

However we do need to be flexible, it's okay if someone doesn't go to the same denomination as me, or read the same translation of the bible, what Bell is doing there is challenging us to consider, I feel as I feel he does later when he talks about what if the virgin birth meant something different than we think, and what I take from this portion is this. We need to decide what are imperative and what are not imperatives to the gospel, and then with the nonimperatives say that I don't have to agree with this but it doesn't jeopardize their salvation. As to Bell not saying this is legalism I think he shows that in the comparison to "brickianity" where he sites the pastor saying that if you don't believe in a literal seven day creation that it is the same thing as saying that Jesus never died on the cross.

We must realize, however, that Bell says nothing about what you're "taking away," right? I mean, he doesn't talk about any imperatives to the gospel whatsoever. He says you don't have to know anything about Christian doctrine to become a Christian and start living life like Jesus. This is patently false. It is so obviously false that the fact that he put that in there makes me question which Jesus he's following. Hard words, I'm sure, but you certainly do have to know some doctrine to be saved. Like I said to Amanda: you gotta know you're a sinner! You gotta know you've broken God's law. This is all doctrine. You have to know that Christ died for the sins of sinners. Oops. More doctrine!

I agree with him that God is too big to be boxed in.

Can you also explain to me what that phrase means exactly?

2. Rob Bell claims that no one can ever tell you what the Bible is really saying.
Bell speaks of the mystery of God that God is too great for us to understand. Not that we can never know what the bible is saying but that there is always more to learn. Did you know that Augustine wrote 6 commentaries on Genesis? He couldn't stop seeing more of God each time. And you're correct that he does say that we come from a specific perspective of scripture, of course we do. God shapes our lives and moves us so that each of us can gain some insight that is unique on scripture. A holocaust survivor has a different perspective on the verse Romans 8:28 than someone raised in the lap of luxuries. Look up sermons on the book of Romans, than read commentaries on it and you will see different perspectives on everything contained within. What Bell I feel is challenging there is that God is to big for any one man to comprehend or any group of men, and so is his word, not that we can't come to a proper understanding of it but merely not a full understanding of it.

I don't remember any of this being in Velvet Elvis.

By the way as to Evans comment "I penciled in a note there, which says: "You mean your version of what Jesus believed about them?" it is a rule in writing that when you are writing that you don't have to and probably shouldn't say "in my opinion" because it weakens your essay and is redundant since you are writing it so it will always be your opinion. You are not supposed to qualify statements.

You seem to have missed the point of my comment. I said that because Rob Bell was being hypocritical. He got angry at someone's comment. Their comment was that "As long as you teach the Bible, I'm OK with you." He got mad and faulted them for saying such a thing because he knew they were only talking about their interpretation. He provided no other reason to fault this person's comment. He then proceeded to give us his opinion. If we applied his logic to himself, we could equally reject his opinion, simply because it was his!

3. Rob Bell uses unnecessarily confusing, unbiblical language.
Bell writes in the poetic form, I like this idea and find beauty in his statements I don't see Evan explain how they are confusing and feel that this point would be better suited to his peeves due to the fact that while confusing to him it is not to many people.

He uses phrases like "God is the ultimate reality." Please explain what that means, and give me good reason to believe that you're interpreting it correctly, because I have no idea what it means, nor am I convinced that it has any real meaning at all.

Moreover I would argue this many Christian writers use language which is unintelligible to non-Christians. Words such as sanctification, redemption, edify, and many other theological terms which we use can merely distance ourselves from those we wish to reach. What Evan finds confusing and unintelligible in this book may just be a breath of fresh air for those uneducated in theological terminology.

We have our own Frisbee lingo at Stanford when we play Ultimate. The first thing we do when we get new people coming in is teach them the language, so they can understand. I think the same should be done for non-Christians interested in Christianity, which seems like the audience he's going for.

Rob Bell believes that the church should "surrender its desire to convert people"
Bell follows a scriptural basis laid down by Christ in Matthew 5:16 which says "In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven."(ESV) Bell feels that your witness is more valuable by works not speech and that we should focus on doing God's word not just on conversions.

Your witness (speech) should be validated by your life (works). Bell is not saying this, though. He's saying "stop speaking the gospel altogether." Stop wanting to convert people. Uh… wrong. That's what we're all about. The desire of my heart should be to see those around me saved (Rom 10:1). Why do we become "all things to all people"? "So that by all means [we] might save some" (1 Cor 9:22)! Matthew 5:16 is not in conflict with these goals, but Rob Bells position is.

I feel sometime we can get so caught up with getting as many people as possible to repent that we do things for the wrong reasons not to follow Christ but to gain numbers, this explains to me why crusades have a 92% backslide rate of people who accept Christ but do not follow through with that commitment.

Well if they didn't follow through then I guess they never repented! People who repent don't "unrepent." People who put their faith in Christ don't "unput" their faith in Christ. Otherwise, it was never genuine faith or repentance to begin with (1 John 2:19).

However, I agree with Evan that there is a need for both. I do not feel that Bell's perspective makes the book not worth reading. I will agree that this is an area where Bell falls short in my opinion.

Any book that tells you to stop evangelizing the lost does not deserve to touch human hands. Can you tell I'm mad at Rob Bell? Anybody who takes him at his word will see that this is destructive to the church. We don't need less evangelism; we need more evangelism done the right way.

4. Rob Bell promotes man-centered theology.
Bell does not say that man is not sinful; he does not claim man may survive without grace. He disagrees with that. But what he does say is that "God has an incredibly high view of people" that is not saying that men are basically good and have no need of grace. But that God choose us, set us apart for a purpose and knows that we can accomplish it through Him.

Key phrase that you're sneaking in: "through Him."

We are His creations He would be a bad creator if he had no faith that his creation's could not fulfill what he had called us to do.

Really? Alrighty then. Let's see what man does and does not do.

• Our hearts are deceitful and desperately sick (Jer 17:9).
• We are full of evil (Mark 7:21-23).
• We love darkness rather than light (John 3:19).
• We are unrighteous, do not understand, do not seek for God (Rom 3:10-12).
• We are helpless and ungodly (Rom 5:6).
• We are dead in our trespasses and sins (Eph 2:1).
• We are by nature children of wrath (Eph 2:3).
• We cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor 2:14).

In fact he wouldn't have called us to do it.

Apparently, there are none who seek after God (Rom 3:10-12), and yet God tells us to seek Him (Psalm 105:4). Huh? God works in us to do the seeking. Like I said, God has a high view of Himself and His own ability to work in clay pots glorious wonders (like repentance from sin and faith in Christ).

Thinking only on our sin leads to self hate and shame, feeling that I can say from experience lead to anything but God. Has not sin been defeated by Christ? We focus on "…whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things." Philippians 4:8 (ESV) not on our sin but on God's grace.

If we never think about how utterly wretched we are, we will never appreciate God's grace the way it was meant to be appreciated. It is a true, honorable, just, pure, lovely, commendable, excellent thing to ponder your sin in light of God's holiness. This should drive you to be all the more amazed at and appreciative of God's grace. The problem is people never think about their sin at all, so God's grace (which is all they think about) doesn't end up being all that spectacular. We need balance, not lopsidedness.

5. Rob Bell treats temporal issues as more important than eternal ones. Who needs the gospel more, the unsaved or the saved? The saved have received it, believed it and now try to live it.

So once you're saved, you don't need the gospel?

The unsaved need to hear and believe. It is why Christ hasn't come back yet. The main benefits do come to those who believe it is true,

Then where is the disagreement? Rob Bell said that the gospel is a benefit for those who don't believe because they are the ones who get the awesome neighbors, not because they can believe it and be saved.

but who needs it more?

This question is really confusing to me, to be honest. Everyone needs the gospel! Just because you've taken advantage of it doesn't mean you no longer need it just as much as the unbeliever.

I would say the unbelieving. Saying that the unsaved need the good news, that it is especially good for them isn't an eternal perspective?

I suggest you go back and read the chapter a little more carefully. Rob Bell is not talking about non-Christians getting saved. He's talking about non-Christians getting nicer neighbors.

If giving the good news, showing it isn't for those who need Christ so that they might receive it isn't eternal than what is?

I didn't say anything of the sort! Of course the gospel is for those who don't believe! However, the main benefits of the gospel come to those who DO believe it. Those who don't believe it receive happy things only in this life and not in the next.

Secondly we do need to be pillars of truth it is true all the verses you quoted are obviously true. But if we look to Christ we see him being a pillar of truth in what? In peoples homes, at parties, Christ entered into the worlds medium without compromising his truth. Why can't we?

I never said we couldn't. I didn't say "don't go to parties." I said that the church does not need to learn how to throw better parties before it has something worthwhile to share with the world. Rob Bell says otherwise.

Yes it's tough to deal with persecution, yes we need to deal with persecution. But we see in scripture not rage, not ignoring the ways in which the world lives but attempting to show God through them. Like Paul in Athens, we stand in the ways of the world without compromising what we believe and what we preach. Not wildly, ignorant of dangers, and not in inappropriate places but where we may be seen as a light in the Darkness.

I think that "showing the love of God" and "the gospel" are two different things. The gospel is the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins. This is not culturally determined, and does not need to change with culture. The expression of it does not need to change with culture. The fact is that humans have broken God's law, and therefore they are condemned. But God offers a cancellation of their debt to those who will repent and put their trust in Jesus Christ, who died and paid the fine. How is this not clear? What about this needs to be changed? In order to be understood by culture, nothing needs to be changed. Yet I rarely hear this message. In fact, Rob Bell himself denigrates it.

My Closing Remarks
Evan's criticism of the book Velvet Elvis was biblically based and well presented.

Now I'm really confused! If it was "biblically based and well presented" then why did you take so much exception to it?

He portrays this book, as he perceives it, as unedifying and unworthy of effort to understand.

Incorrect. It is not unworthy of effort to understand. The danger is when you understand it correctly and take it seriously. To be honest, I don't think you really grasped the gravity of what he was saying, but I suppose I could be wrong on that one…

In all honesty after recommending this book to Evan, I realized that it would not be a book he would like.

Got that right… ^_^

I would like to agree with Evan on one thing though. This book is dangerous, it is dangerous in the sense that it makes us decide what is most important to us. It is dangerous because it makes us think and challenge, it is dangerous because if it were not it would not be worth reading.

Well then we actually don't agree (on this point) because that's not how I used the word 'dangerous.'

I would challenge this. Don't take what I am telling you at face value, and for that matter don't take what Evan is telling you at face value.

I think you means don't just accept uncritically what we have to say. I think this is a good example of what I mean by imprecise language. To take what someone is telling you "at face value" means to not read anything in to what they said. However, from the context, it was fairly clear what you meant.

Read the book for yourself and decide.

Yea… sorry bro, but I have to stick to my original recommendation. There are plenty of other books out there that are infinitely clearer and more edifying than this one (ok, well maybe not infinitely, but you get the idea). Don't waste your money on it.

We are just men flawed, unrighteous, imperfect. We don't have all the answers and these articles do not say all there is to be said of Velvet Elvis or Rob Bell.

They certainly don't!

It was good hearing from you, David. I'm sorry we disagree about this. I suspect a lot of it might be talking past each other, but perhaps it would be more worthwhile to go into Rob Bell's theology in general, rather than just this book. You often refer to personal knowledge about his theology that I can't argue with. Perhaps we can continue the conversation? (How's that for trying to be relevant! I'm even using emergent language!)

Velvet Elvis Conversation

I've had the privilege of having a more extended discussion with one Amanda K on the topic of Velvet Elvis. The comments preceding this post can be found at the original Velvet Elvis review.

I appreciate that you put [out there] what your personal qualms were regarding the book. My point was just that if you couldn't hold them in and present the book as objectively as possible, then I wondered how much they ruled what you read. That's all.

Alright, but the only reason you'd want to bring in the fact that my opinions were involved is for explanatory power in showing why I made a mistake. But that's a pointless endeavor to make before you've even proven I made any mistake at all! First you move prove that I made a mistake, then you can attempt to offer an explanation as to why I might have made that mistake. But before you've proven I made a mistake, proving why I would have done so is irrelevant.

Doublespeak... I'm not arguing back because it is pointless and has nothing to do with the actual book.

Fair enough!

1. For Rob Bell saying you don't have to know anything, I think that's interpretation again isn't it?

Maybe it is, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Here's the quote again: "You don't have to know anything about the springs to pursue living 'the way.'" -Velvet Elvis, 34. It is clear from the context that he means the "springs" are the doctrines and "the way" is Christianity. That is my only 'interpretation' and it is certainly warranted by the context. Let me restate the sentence with the definitions of his words inserted: "You don't have to know anything about Christian doctrine to pursue living the Christian life." I'd say that's pretty straightforward.

"I interpret that more loosely, choosing to take it with a grain of salt and believing he means you don't have to know everything, rather than you don't have to know anything. You take it more literally. OK."

"Literally," I suspect, is a loaded term. I take his sentence at face value. Perhaps he does mean what you're saying, but that's not what the sentence I quoted means. "You don't have to know anything" doesn't mean "you don't have to know everything" just because we want it to. If he means the latter, and said the former, then he is an incredibly sloppy writer. By the way, biting the bullet on this one and admitting him a sloppy writer does not prove that he meant the latter.

Science. Not an evolutionist, no. I didn't mean to bring science into this as a huge point or something, I'm just saying we have to test our faith. Science and fossils and land formations, etc say the Great Flood never happened. So do I ignore evidence and continue believing it happened? Or do I think, "Ok maybe it was metaphorical" or figure out some other way to explain it? Or maybe I keep searching for scientific evidence to show it DID really happen, etc.

If the Flood never happened, then Jesus was not God, and the New Testament writers were not under inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This is not a leap of logic. Jesus believed in a literal worldwide flood (Matt 24:38-9), and Peter believed in it (2 Pet 2:5). God cannot be wrong. So if they were wrong, then they are not from God. What I am stressing here is that doctrine is quite necessary, contrary to what Bell claims. Surely he would point out that my Christianity is "weaker" because his would be able to stand even if the flood were proved wrong. If his Christianity is still standing while the flood does not exist, then He is serving a lying God! I do not believe he's doing this, but he certainly seems to open the door to the possibility, which is dangerous enough for me to call it out.

My point is, be willing to question. The feel of your entire post was that you will not even listen to what someone else is saying. You'll pretend (maybe not even on purpose) to because that's the Christian thing to do, but you're not really considering what they're saying. Looking at your replies to all these comments sort of just affirms that. But I dunno, could just be my interpretation…

Amanda, I've been studying this for a while now (though not long at all compared to some), and I have to admit, I've come to have strong convictions about certain points of truth that I have discovered (for example, the Flood). So, if I am not given rock solid reasons to question what I've been convinced of, then I simply am not going to budge. This is not something I can be faulted for. It's not as if I ignore what people say. I consider what they say, and often times I quickly evaluate that it is not of substance or not worth considering. For example, I did this with Rob Bell's book. You cannot (and should not) have some sort of crisis of faith every time anyone offers anything new. Yes, ask questions, but to what end? For the sake of asking questions? Surely not. I asked many hard questions of myself and of God. The point of that was to get answers! Now I believe I have arrived at a knowledge of certain truths and of the Truth Himself. It takes something more substantial than a mere suggestion to start the whole process over again.

2. Speaking of interpretations...
My interpretation of that comment is you're sort of a [*****].
(PS God still loves me, just as much as He loves you in fact, even though I said that)

I was reading through Colossians recently. Consider this a loving rebuke: "But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander and obscene talk from your mouth" (Col 3: 8). You also might consider this one: "If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless" (James 1:26). I don't make many requests as to the character of those posting, but I've really never had any issues. It's too bad the first one had to come from a Christian. I want your religion to be full of value and significance, but we all destroy that when we use unwholesome words (Eph 4:29).

OK but seriously... Yes, I'm interpreting your post. And maybe I'm doing it incorrectly. Who cares, it's an interpretation. And your review is on your interpretation of the book. I think your interpretation is wrong. But it's an interpretation. Interpretation=opinion. How can there truly be right or wrong interpretation? Unless you're missing the point of what the source is saying. Which I think you did with this book. You've gotten so lost in the details you've failed to see the whole POINT. That's what I've *interpreted* from what you've said.

What would you say the point of this book was?

O please, take what I'm saying with a grain of salt (or common sense, whichever is your poison). If you're reading the label with your whole life brought into it (oh no! Sugar! Bad memories! Repress! Repress!) then you're beyond professional help.
"The point was that he was being hypocritical."
OK that's your interpretation. But does he need to say that since it's his book, he'll be offering his interpretation, so please ladies and gentlemen, realize this is what HE thinks? Does he really need to say that? I think it's a given.

Of course it's a given that people are expressing their own opinions. But he faulted someone's opinion merely on the basis that it was their opinion. It made him sick because it belonged to them. He did not say "they believed x, and here's why x is wrong. And they believed y, and here's why y is wrong." He just said that their comment about him teaching the Bible made him sick simply because he knew it was just their opinion of the Bible. Well of course it's your opinion of what the Bible teaches, but that's irrelevant. What's relevant is whose opinion is right.

3. I agree that people will read into it their own stories and lives and feel validated. But I feel like we can trust God to turn them to (real) truth at some point along the path. When people turn to God, it has very very little to do with our part in it, and a WHOLE LOT more to do with what God does in their heart. I mean are we realy that much of control freaks?

Ok, I'm going to interpret what you just said, and you can tell me if it's accurate. "I agree that people will read into Rob Bell's book their own stories and lives and thereby inject foreign meaning into his words, and therefore feel as if he is validating their opinion. But God can change anyone's heart. He is in control and so you ought not fault anyone who is making it easier for people to lie to themselves about what God teaches us to do." I don't know if you realize this, but that is hyper-Calvinism. You are denying the responsibility of the prophet to make the word of God clear. This is clear even from your original comment, without considering my interpretation. In the same vein we could say "I agree that Joel Osteen preaches a false gospel, but God is in control and will bring around who He wishes in His own time, so you can't fault Joel for his sincerity." Huh? If the dude is off the track, he needs to get on it. That's what God wants, end of story! I'm in no wise denying God's sovereignty. I consider myself heavily reformed in my theology, but this does not toss out human responsibility, which seems to be what you just did. If I'm wrong (and I hope I am), let me know.

4. Evangelism... Maybe I've had horrible luck with evangelists, because every time someone has come up to me to tell me about Jesus, they were pushy and intrusive. So I dunno, maybe it's just a weird fluke having multiple experiences like that. Because I know people who believe in handing out trac(k?)s and all that but they are very nice people, not pushy or intrusive.

If you call yourself a Christian, why did they have to be pushy and intrusive? It seems to me you would have been excited to meet another believer! Nevertheless, perhaps their activities were unwarranted. I agree, those can get really annoying, and even bring reproach to the gospel. Tract is the word you're looking for. I tract a bit myself, and I do my best not to be the "annoying salesperson." If people don't want it, they don't have to have it. I always seem to run out giving them to people who take them willingly anyways.

Evangelism isn't the only way to help people come to know God. I mean evangelism in the sense of walking up to strangers and talking about God, PS. There are multiple ways. Based on our gifts, I think. Disagree with that if you wish, argue back all you like, that's one point you won't move me from.

I agree that contact evangelism isn't the only way to do evangelism, but it is quite a blessing when it gets done. You do find people who are interested in engaging you and those are some of the most exciting times. Especially when you realized that your hard work preparing is paying off!

I'm choosing not to respond to the agenda part. You aren't understanding what I'm saying so I'm not going to waste my energy and time when you're already so set in this.

I suppose I'm not! Understanding you, that is. Perhaps you mean that you hate it when people ditch unbelieving friends just because they've given up on any hope of converting them. I think the solution is not to eliminate hope of conversion as a motivation for friendship, but to never let go of that hope, and to always be friends, not forsaking the community.

5. The point isn't that man is so fantastic, God couldn't help but love him. The point is that we suck and we know it and God knows it, but He chose to love us. God loves us. Maybe it's my interpretation again, but when I'm loved, I feel valued, whether or not I really have any value at all. Does that make more sense? I know we're worthless dirtbags. But God loves us. His love is what gives us value, not that we deserve it on our own merit.

That makes perfect sense, and I agree! Especially with your last sentence. We're worthless in that we are not attractive to God for salvation.

6. OK I read through that part in the book where Bell talks about neighbors and all that. My interpretation (wink, wink) of his point is that when we become such loving neighbors, it transforms the people around us. They want to join. I feel like he is saying we show God's love to them. We represent God. And maybe they'll come around. Maybe they won't. But they still receive the love either way.

Great! And are these benefits better than the ones received by the believers?

OK you asked for this... In interacting with you on this, I feel as though you've turned God's grace into a rule. Like, "accept it or face the consequences." Which is true. But that presentation distorts the message behind it. As face value it's true, but under the surface is where I feel like it's... skewed I suppose.

What do you mean by turning God's grace into a rule?

But to each his own. I applaud you for the passion you have for Christianity and for the effort you put forth to express God's love to a hurting world.

I appreciate that!

Where did I get that Bells wants us to show God's grace?
Well. He wrote a whole book on loving people and living out Christianity. I think the time alone it takes to do that means he wants it. But I'm inferring.

Alright, fair enough. I would simply argue that he doesn't do a super job (that being an understatement).

You know, I think this whole conversation comes down to our interpretations (again!). I mean I genuinely feel like neither of us is going to be swayed. So........ God bless. haha but really. Have a great week (:

It is possible to come to a conclusion about who has the right interpretation!!

O PS as for putting your personal stuff into it all, it was throughout your post and your replies. It's the way you say things, and how it honestly is in sort of a demeaning manner. I don't feel like I could talk to you about my weaknesses or what I'm going through or things I struggle with, because you would look at it and just tell me I'm dumb or something for struggling with those things rather than helping me through them. That's what I get from the post and your replies. I trust Julie's friendship with you to be proof enough you're not really like that in person. This is just the feel I get from your writing.

I admit that there is a different dynamic when we're talking about (and in) private versus public forums. Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt!