Post Tenebras Lux

Take a Moment...

2012-02-28T10:14:00.000-05:00

Contemporary Tolerance Is Intrinsically Intolerant...

John Piper is stepping down...

Thiselton and hell...

Playing charades with theologians...

How to listen to a sermon...

Did Paul Get Adam Wrong?

2012-02-27T12:58:00.000-05:00

I appreciate both the biblical acumen and practical ministries represented by those within The Gospel Coalition. They are men I respect and often look to for biblical/theological insight. Recently, though, I have begun to see the importance for my own spiritual journey in not simply re-affirming the declarations of TGC (or other people/organizations I normally agree with), but, rather, completing the appropriate due diligence on the issue-at-hand.

A few weeks ago, I began a series on thinking through the historicity of Adam. On a much more popular level, this was followed up by Kevin DeYoung, as well as responses from James McGrath and Pete Enns (amongst many others).

After reading (and re-reading) their posts, I wanted to offer a few ruminations.

To begin, we ought to be cautious when declaring that those “others” are either not E/evangelicals or that they are trying to destroy what the Bible is teaching. Admittedly, I am not far-off from having done this (e.g. see my review of Rob Bell’s book); however, I have eased a bit since then by attempting to build bridges, rather than walls. In other words, although I might stridently disagree with someone over a specific issue, my conviction is that Christ will not be honored and people will not be satisfied with snarky, arrogant attitudes. I am, however inadequately, trying to do my part in building bridges.

Moving on…

I do not think that denying the historicity of Adam is necessarily a capitulation to evolution (theistic or otherwise). God, in his divine majesty and incomprehensibility, could have determined to historically create our founding father and mother as well as prescribe for the Genesis account to be written a specific way. In other words, I am not yet comfortable affirming evolution (theistic or otherwise) primarily out of ignorance to the scientific data (or lack thereof).

With that being said, I think that both McGrath and Enns, in their respective responses to DeYoung, are correct in stating that narrative does not necessarily equate with history (although it can be historical at times), and that poetry does not always have to be non-historical in nature. We cannot simply affirm the historicity of any ancient document because it is in narrative form. We must allow other factors to contribute to, and perhaps determine, our affirmations about historicity.

This is also why DeYoung’s quotation of Keller irks me. He quotes Keller as stating that, “When you refuse to take a biblical author literally when he clearly wants you to do so, you have moved away from the traditional understanding of biblical authority…” But this is most certainly an interpretative difficulty, wholly dependent on whether one believes that the author clearly wants the reader to understand the specific text in question as literal. For me, it seems most appropriate to suspend judgment on the literary genre of Genesis (in particular), being that I have not had sufficient time to study it on my own, nor do we have anything less than a “hung jury” on this matter of genre interpretation.

To be sure, though, Enns is not allowed to get away free and clear. It appears that Enns’ affirmation consists of viewing the Bible through a scientific lens, rather than viewing science through a biblical lens, or, perhaps, attempting to permit both science and the Bible to run as parallels. Now, as stated in my previous post, I am by no means a scientist, nor, at this point, even in the same realm of Old Testament scholarship as Enns. With that said, I am not yet comfortable affirming a scientific view of the Bible contra to a biblical view of science.

Enns, along with another dear friend who has been helping me think through this issue, seems to think that Paul misunderstood the historicity of Adam based on his scientific ignorance and possible misinterpretation of the Creation story. This, from their perspective, is what leads Paul to provide the following argument in Romans:

Paul expects to face the following argument from the Judaizers in Rome:

If the Jews received the Law/circumcision from God, then they are righteous/justified before God.

They did receive the Law/circumcision.

Therefore, they are righteous/justified before God.

Which also provides the following corollary:

If the Gentiles did not receive the Law/circumcision from God, then they are not righteous/justified before God.

They did not receive the Law/circumcision.

Therefore, they are are not righteous/justified before God.

Paul’s response to them is as such:

If Adam is the father of all, then Jews are equal to Gentiles before God.

Adam is the father of all.

Therefore, Jews and Gentiles are equal before God.

Now, if Paul did misinterpret the Creation story, we could still make an argument for the inclusion of Gentiles (i.e. the scope of salvation) based on the authority of Christ and Old Testament prophetic literature, but should we assume that Paul got it wrong?

Could Paul have had a better understanding of the genre and intent of Genesis than we do?

Should we take a scientific view of Scripture, or should we take a biblical view of science?

Can they run as parallels?

What do you think?

Take a Moment...

2012-02-23T08:22:00.000-05:00

So, the computer I was using on Tuesday did not want to be helpful, ergo no Tuesday "Take a Moment..."

If you came looking for links, my apologies.

Hopefully we are back on track...

Two posts on Lent (a day late I know...): Tim Gombis and Joel Willitts

4 ways blogging has made me a better person...

Love your theological enemies...

An infographic of the Ordo Salutis (order of salvation)...

Go beyond the sex questions...

Take a Moment...

2012-02-16T10:41:00.000-05:00

When Pastors Give the Sex Talk...

Richard Dawkins is lost for words...

How to avoid postgrad burnout...

Redeem the time...

One of my favourite sermons...

Take a Moment...

2012-02-14T10:41:00.000-05:00

5 Signs Waiting Has Weakened Your Faith...

Tim Challies responds to the John Piper "Masculine Christianity" chaos...

Pete Enns responds to Kevin DeYoung's post about the historical Adam...

What is humility?

Would Jesus dispense birth control?

I Disagree With Your Disagreement...

2012-02-13T10:39:00.000-05:00

Sometimes I enjoy disagreeing just to be a provocateur. And, as I near my one-year anniversary of blogging, I have noticed, followed, and contributed to not a few online disagreements. Some, admittedly, have had little couth (my actions included), and some, more recently, have had a bit more tact.

To be clear, I am not opposed to disagreement. In fact, one of the most important things I learned in seminary was that interacting (via reading, discussion, etc.) with those from a differing perspective is just as important (if not more so) as interacting with those from within your own boundary markers. If your actual desire is to engage people with issues (i.e. hand-to-hand, eyeball-to-eyeball), rather than simply fire rhetorical artillery from a safe point, we must cultivate our ability to understand their argument(s) from their vantage point.

So, then, how are we to disagree?

Each semester, I begin my various philosophy classes with three academic virtues for studying the discipline. It might not be obvious, but there can be a fair amount of disagreement (student v. student and, often, student[s] v. Instructor) as our differing philosophical perspectives (e.g. the existence of God, ethical systems, epistemological frameworks, etc.) become more apparent. Therefore, if these academic virtues can work towards fostering a healthy classroom environment, perhaps they might also be useful as we think through web-based disagreement. The three academic virtues are:

Contextual sensitivity,
Presuppositional awareness, and
Open-minded humility

Now, I cannot take credit for creating the definitions behind these virtues, but I can offer some insight into how these virtues might affect our disagreement(s).

First, contextual sensitivity ought to help us accept others’ differences (e.g. race, gender, philosophical/theological perspective, etc.) at face value. Second, presuppositional awareness ought to help us recognize both the presuppositions we bring to the “dialogical table,” as well as the presuppositions embraced by our dialogue partners. Third, open-minded humility ought to help us remember that we might be wrong in our suppositions, and, therefore, ought to come to the “dialogical table” with a deep sense of humility.

So, proceed in your disagreement(s), and may we do so with wisdom, grace, and humility.

Postscript: Please also be sure to read Stephen Altrogge's helpful insights (here and here) on how to disagree.

Take a Moment...

2012-02-09T10:39:00.000-05:00

Asking better questions...

What difference does Predestination or Freewill have on ministry effectiveness?

The global war on Christians in the Muslim world...

Take a Moment...

2012-02-07T10:44:00.001-05:00

Much discussion surrounding Piper's recent message (note - I love John Piper; he's been a "game-changer" for me; but he still can make mistakes...): Rachel Held Evans, Tim Gombis, Michael J. Kimpan, Michael F. Bird, and J. R. Daniel Kirk - Part 1 and Part 2.

Kevin DeYoung offers 10 Reasons to Believe in a Historical Adam; James McGrath responds...

Know your enemy...

Win the man, not the argument...

Truth...

Take a Moment...

2012-02-02T11:17:00.000-05:00

Preston Sprinkle (a Pauline scholar) breaks down the New Perspective on Paul: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5...

Kevin DeYoung and Carl Trueman weigh in on the recent Elephant Room 2 chaos...

Sex-trafficking at the Super Bowl...

Should you publish your own book?

Why Jesus died...

Take a Moment...

2012-01-31T11:01:00.000-05:00

A few concerning posts surrounding Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill Church: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3...

The blog tour for Pete Enns' The Evolution of Adam has begun...

Numbers in the Church: Is Bigger Badder or Better?

The Humanity of Christ Matters...

Adam: Actual or Allegory?

2012-01-30T13:00:00.001-05:00

It has been almost 10 years…

I remember the summer after I turned 20 when I was first challenged with a new theological perspective: Calvinism.

Up to that point I had not heard much, if anything, about Calvinism, but I remember being simply blown away by the idea of God’s electing love, efficacious call, etc.

Since that summer I have not been simply blown away like that by another biblical/theological topic…until now.

This new (well, perhaps new for me) concept has given me reasons for pause.

My reasons for pause are twofold:

The first reason is somewhat similar to my recent attempt to precisely outline my theology of hell based on the controversy surrounding Rob Bell’s most recent book, Love Wins – you can read my review here. My hope is that throughout this process I might be able to precisely outline what I believe and, perhaps more importantly, why I affirm said belief. In other words, whether a critique has been issued from a differing perspective or I am attempting to provide some insight to those within the same perspective, my desire is to be able to provide a clear, intelligent, and biblical argument for my affirmation(s).

The second reason is fairly dissimilar to my recent attempt to precisely outline my theology of hell. Throughout that recent process, I felt comfortable with where I thought I would end up, namely that upon completion of my studies I would remain “where I began” but with a bit more acumen. However, this time, I feel much less comfortable with where I think I will end up. My concern is that I will not end up “where I began.” I am also concerned about the implications of such an affirmation (i.e. How will this affect my theology? What will people think about me? Will I be ostracized from the conservative evangelical “family” because of my viewpoint?).

The above two reasons should clearly demonstrate why this issue is so important for me to think through.

Now, to the issue…

Painting broadly, the issue revolves around a few questions:

Is the Genesis account actually about human origins?

Could it possibly be about something else?

Something bigger?

Something more meaningful?

These are questions that need answers.

I recently posted a similar question as my Facebook status and received several challenges. I think what might be best, at least for me, is to address two of those challenges and demonstrate why, at least for me, they hold little weight within this discussion.

One challenge was posited as such: “[H]ow does one truly know which stories actually happened and which are just narratives? One could use this then to say that the story of Christ is just a narrative.”

I think we can nullify this challenge for three reasons:

We need to be sensitive to genre-specific criticism, wherein we are charged with elucidating the text in its appropriate grammatico-historical context
“To think that the Israelites, alone among all other ancient peoples, were interested in (or capable of) giving some definitive, quasi-scientific, account of human origins is an absurd logic.” (Pete Enns)
The secular accounts of Jesus’ existence (Celsus, Lucian of Samosata, Josephus, Babylonian Talmud, etc.)

A similar comment was made and ended with a declaration that we need to submit to the authority of the Bible. Let it be known: I affirm the authority of the Bible! And yet, I do not think it is that easy. Affirming the authority of the Bible is empty without a proper understanding of the text (i.e. what did the text mean then, before what does the text mean today). More often than not, Christians seek to affirm various texts as authoritative without having first completed their exegetical due diligence. Therefore, it is not enough to simply declare that we must affirm and submit to the authority of the Bible, as this affirmation and submission to authority can be harmful (if not damning) based on our understanding of the texts we declare are authoritative.

A few questions I will be pondering throughout this process:

What was the purpose behind the Genesis account? Was it a declaration of human origins? Was it a declaration of something else? Was it both?

In light of Enns’ statement above, what if God in his wisdom, majesty, and sovereignty determined to reveal (at least in small part) the origin of the universe (and humanity) through his “special” book to his “special” people?

How does theistic evolution, or Adam as metaphor, figure into a Pauline understanding of Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15?

As I continue my deliberatoin, my goal is to read several books (I Love Jesus & I Accept Evolution, The Evolution of Adam, and Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?) and follow several blogs (Pete Enns, Karl Giberson, and The BioLogos Forum).

I encourage you to engage the issue(s)!

Lastly, please note that in no way am I claiming that I have this issue figured out...

In no way am I claiming any type of scientific or biblical/theological expertise on the matter...

My attempt is to wade through the mire that this issue presents (just as any Christian ought to!). And I do so with great trepidation...

Also, please know that I am open to, and, perhaps, expecting, your comments on this issue (regardless if they are affirmative or critical). Both types of comments should help me and those reading this blog as we collectively think through this issue.

May we have wisdom as we investigate.

Take a Moment...

2012-01-26T10:18:00.000-05:00

Some preliminary thoughts on The Elephant Room...

Teens and Porn...

The Conversion of Saint Paul...

Freaking out about 2012...

Naturalism, Knowledge, and History...

Take a Moment...

2012-01-24T10:50:00.000-05:00

Don't waste your infertility...

Why the abortion issue won't go away...

Should I marry a man struggling with pornography?

Atheism: A Null Hypothesis on God...

Is it worth it to be a blogger?

Why "Organic" Living is Not the Best Way

2012-01-23T09:50:00.001-05:00

Over the last few years, my wife and I have been trying to eat and live a bit more “organically.” Although we had been considering this decision for some time, it was the birth of our first daughter, and our desire to give her the healthiest environment possible, that provided the impetus to try out this “lifestyle.”

Sure, we still make mistakes (lots of them, in fact), and, no, we are not totally crazed hippies (whatever your definition of that might be…).

And yet, although we have embraced this “lifestyle” (at least, to a certain extent), I think there are two serious flaws with “organic” living.

Specifically…

“Organic” living can lead to idolatry and arrogance.

Now, be sure to hear what I am not saying: I am not saying that people should not eat healthy, or exercise regularly, or live consciously, or do what they think is best for their family.

Also, I am not saying that “organic” living always leads to idolatry and arrogance; I am saying that it can lead to idolatry and arrogance.

When we begin to trust in the food we eat, the exercise we endure, the supplements we take, the clothing we wear, the bicycle we ride to work, etc., we can place that in front of what ought to be our top priority, namely God in Christ.

If we look at the biblical definition of idolatry, we should understand it as placing anything above God. Most already understand that we can put many items into this category (wealth, sex, prestige, knowledge, etc.), and yet we should not be so naïve to think that “organic” living could not also fall into this category.

As early as Exodus 20, God instructed the Israelites with the Ten Commandments, wherein God specifically states: “You shall have no other gods before me.” So, what we ought to consider is this, “Are we placing our healthy, chic lifestyle on a higher pedestal of worship than we are God in Christ?” If we can answer in the affirmative (at any time!), then we are in fact in need of repentance for idolatry.

Additionally, “organic” living can lead to arrogance. Within the “organic” community there is a pervasive attitude that demonstrates an “I am (or know) better than you” mentality. Some might consider this to be a harsh judgment, but I have been able to detect this attitude for two main reasons:

First, because of my theological training I am often tempted to look down on others for either not caring for or understanding certain theological truths that I consider to be extremely important. Because I have (and do) struggle with this temptation, it has become easier to see this attitude demonstrated in other areas of life. Second, because my family is partially within this culture, I often observe those (both within my own family and those outside) who think less of others (sometimes subtly and sometimes overtly) because they do not either care for or understand the importance of “organic” living.

Perhaps what is best is to consider Paul’s argument from Rom. 14-15, and then to apply it to our present-day context, namely that those who are under conscience to eat a certain way (amongst sundry other “organic” lifestyle choices) ought not to judge those who do not yet have the knowledge or desire to render unto that lifestyle. Conversely, those not adhering to this lifestyle (whether in part or full) ought to not judge those living “organically” for the lifestyle choices they believe to be best.

In sum, my hope and prayer is that God would crush both idolatry and arrogance within the community of Christ in order that we might have charity on the non-essentials and move towards an ever-increasing love for God in Christ.

Take a Moment...

2012-01-19T10:12:00.000-05:00

5 Questions for Pro-Life Advocates...

The Evolution of Adam - Video Interview #1...

5 Myths about Anti-Christian Persecution...

iPad 3 on sale in March...

Why I do not teach Christian living principles...

Take a Moment...

2012-01-17T10:36:00.000-05:00

A Christian Psychology and Reponse to Homosexuality...

Driscoll on Britain: Offensive, Wrong, or Neither?

Paul's Letters and Early Christian Worship...

How to remain a Christian while in Seminary...

You are not Jesus...

Why Tebow [Doesn't] Te-blows

2012-01-16T10:17:00.000-05:00

I love hype.

I love college football for that singular reason.

I love the NFL playoffs for that singular reason.

Tim Tebow has now been involved with both.

But, frankly, the hype surrounding Tim Tebow is exhausting. Regardless of which side you are on…

There are some who say,

“It was called a God thing :) ‘God searches the whole earth to find those who’s hearts are perfect toward Him.’ He is blessing Tebow.”

… and there are others who say,

“Amazing grace? Lol. Grace has nothing to do with it. Why can’t he just be a good player?”[1]

In light of these statements, I would like to make two recommendations: For those thinking that God shines down His “special” grace allowing Tim Tebow to throw, for instance, 80-yard game winning touchdowns – please note that this is highly unlikely, if not wholly (not to mention the apparent lack of special "grace" in his most recent 9/26 completion/attempts ratio with one fumble lost). But, conversely, for those thinking that grace has nothing to do with Tebow’s success – please note a theological concept entitled “ common grace”, not to mention also considering God’s sovereignty.

Proponents of Tebow’s overt witness for Jesus, those claiming that he gives all the glory to God and thereby receives (or deserves) God’s special blessing on his professional football career need to remember that God does not need us (Acts 17:24-25), as though he needed anything (which includes our worship or attribution of glory to God – although this also does not mean we should not worship and glorify God), and thereby is not required to bless anyone in anyway for their overt witness or attribution of glory to God.

Conversely, those opposing Tebow’s outspoken faithfulness need to consider that God “makes the sun rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matt. 5:45), ergo there is a certain measure of “grace” that is bestowed upon Tim Tebow (and everyone in actuality) because of God’s overarching graciousness towards the world and people he created.

Now, I have heard the retort of those opposing Tebow (or at least the hype surrounding Tebow), “How can God care about a football game when 30,000 children die everyday from preventable disease?” I think the answer is twofold: God’s sovereignty and the problem of evil. However, being that this post is specifically about Tim Tebow (not to mention the time and spatial restraints), perhaps that topic is best deferred to a different post.

But, maybe, just one thought on God’s sovereignty: if we affirm Scripture as inerrant and authoritative (which I do), and we have texts indicating that “God does as He pleases” (Ps. 115:3; 135:6), and that everything is done “according to the counsel of his will” (Eph. 1:11), perhaps what might be safest is recognizing that God is able and actually powerful and magnificent enough to govern everything from molecular biology to supernovas, from tsunami waves to healthy childbirth, from throwing a football to [insert your potentially meaningless task].

In conclusion, I think that moderation is best (isn’t that true for most things?). Whether you affirm God’s “special” grace in Tebow’s every step, or think that grace has nothing to do with it…you need to relax.

[1] Note that both of these statements are direct quotations from Facebook (1 comment and 1 status), and both are from professing Christians.

Jesus > Religion: Some Thoughts on the Bethke Video Chaos

2012-01-13T22:29:00.001-05:00

If you can answer in the affirmative to being alive and within the stream of Evangelical Christianity, then you have most likely seen the following video:

And, if you scuttle around the blogosphere you will have most likely seen not a few critiques of this video. However, the critique that I linked actually brought about more frustration than the video did (I think I would prefer you to read Kevin DeYoung's critique or Jared Wilson’s critique instead).

There is a certain sense of arrogance-laced theological one-upmanship that is becoming the pervasive norm within the blogosphere (some might even argue that what I am attempting to do here feeds the problem). One particular introspective moment I had after reading Fitzgerald’s post was how I often find myself desiring to critique (wherein my focus is on finding anything negative within the argument/discussion/message/idea), instead of, rather, focusing on the positive aspect(s) of said argument/discussion/message/idea.

So, instead of critiquing Fitzgerald’s post (which it could certainly stand to have – oops), or instead of critiquing the video itself (which has already been done ad nauseam), in this instance, I want to briefly reflect on three parts of agreement with Bethke’s video.

1. And just because you call some people blind, doesn't automatically give you vision...

My fear is that this statement is more true than we recognize. My fear is that within, primarily, American Evangelicalism we have those within the varied theological streams using their theological one-upmanship or pseudo-biblical understanding to mask their inability to see their own blindness (Luke 6:39), or to portray themselves as pure, when they are, in fact, not (Matt. 23:27-28). May God grant me the grace to repent when I see this particular sin within my own life.

2. See the problem with religion, is it never gets to the core. It's just behavior modification, like a long list of chores...

The core is sin; which leads to the need, which is new life in Jesus Christ. Jesus came (at least in part) to redeem a people and provide for them an opportunity for transformation. Moralism, which is probably the better term to use (instead of religion), can only offer behavior modification; it can only offer the "10 steps to a more fulfilled life." But moralism lacks eternal significance. Christ and what he accomplished at the cross is what we ought to focus on, not behavior modification.

3. See because religion says do, Jesus says done...

Now, this depends; if Bethke is insinuating that religion is the means by which we are accepted by Christ, than the separation is appropriate (Eph. 2:8-9); however, we ought to also remember that Christ has called us to obedience (Matt. 28:20). Moreover, I believe that one of the most over-looked themes in the New Testament is that of patronage (see David deSilva's excellent work Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture). Patrons would often extend an unwarranted gift to a patronee, but then would expect some type of return, which, if not reciprocated would have led to a great offense for the patron and shame on the patronee. In short, if Eph. 2:8-9 describe how "religion" does not provide any salvific efficacy, Eph. 2:10 describes the importance of "religion" in the post-conversion life.

In sum, there is much to say both positively and negatively in regards to this video and its varied responses. My hope is that we would learn to not necessarily retreat from disagreement, but that we would, rather, look to affirm truth and disagree with charity.

Take a Moment...

2012-01-12T10:40:00.000-05:00

10 Words You Mispronounce That Make People Think You're an Idiot...

Dan Kimball responds to Justin Bieber's comments about church...

Learning from Christopher Hitchens...

How to disagree online without being a total jerk...

Who are We? Saved Sinners or Saints who Sometimes Sin?

Take a Moment...

2012-01-10T10:37:00.000-05:00

What is Good News for the Poor?

When your preacher is not John Piper...

Law without gospel makes people give up...

Is Tim Tebow a hypocrite?

Why is forgiveness so difficult?

From the Pulpit to the Pew (A Guest Post)

2012-01-09T08:20:00.000-05:00

**Today's post was written by Ryan Sarpalius. He is a Human Performance Manager for the largest utility in California. He graduated from The Master's College in Santa Clarita, CA and currently lives in the San Francisco Bay Area. He has a wife, Candace and three children, Owen (age 6), Ella (age 5) and Jack (age 7 mo.). Ryan writes for the blog Witherless.**

I’m not a pastor. I’m not an Academic or a Professional Counselor. I’m an average guy, saved by grace, trying to be the best Husband, Father and Employee that I can. It might seem strange, then that I am writing about the importance of preaching. It is a little bit strange. But while Pastors and Seminary Professors place a high value on sound preaching and teaching, those of us who listen have slowly come to value it less and less.

This is a big problem.

The Importance of Preaching

Preaching is important because it is a profoundly divine component of biblical worship that moves and shakes God’s people to glorify God’s name.

If we who are not pastors are to benefit from the very glorious purpose and design of preaching, we must understand that “to the extent that the preacher faithfully explains and applies the Scriptures, we are hearing the very words of God through the voice of a man. The preaching of the Word of God IS THE WORD OF GOD.” (Art Azurdia; The Master’s Seminary Chapel; Jan 18, 2007)

Many readers may have had the privilege to spend years under a faithful, hard-working, godly pastor who faithfully preaches God’s Word, holding it in high-esteem and working diligently to apply the meaning to their hearers. Other readers might not even know what a “pulpit” or a “pew” is. Perhaps I should have called this “From the Music Stand to the Comfy Stackable Chair.”

The bottom line is there are pastors who view preaching with high-regard and there are pastors who do not.

I’ve found myself sitting under the teaching of both. As I have observed preaching and the affect it has on the lives of my family and I, I have to come to realize that sound biblical preaching DOES matter.

It matters a great deal.

Several factors have contributed to the decline in biblical preaching. You can read more about my thoughts on that here: http://witherless.com/blog/text/13448724

Aspects of Biblical Preaching

Polluted preaching can sometimes be difficult to discern. So it is important we seek to understand what biblical preaching looks like. The shepherding of our souls and the worship of our Creator are at stake.

Here are 3 things to look for when searching out good preaching:

Cross Centered

Sitting under preaching that consistently leaves out the message of the cross will slowly starve your soul.

Paul says to the Corinthian Church, “When I came to you, brothers, I did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” (1 Cor. 2:1-2)

Many churches and pastors give lip-service to “the Gospel” but fail to adequately preach God’s good news of grace to their hearers from every text of Scripture. While the message of the cross is not necessarily explicit in every text, we know that the entirety of Scripture is intending to teach us about Who God is, who we are and the wonderful message of saving love throughout redemptive history. THAT is what nourishes our soul.

You may ask, “Doesn’t that just mean every sermon will be exactly the same every time?” This leads to the next aspect of biblical preaching; Expository.

Expository

Jeff Ray in his book, Expository Preaching says, “In preaching, exposition is the detailed interpretation, logical amplification, and practical application of a passage of Scripture.”

Jeff D. Ray, Expository Preaching (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1940)

When seeking out healthy, biblical preaching, it is important to find teaching that exposes the meaning of the text as it was originally written and then be told how that meaning applies to God’s people today. It is typically verse-by-verse preaching through one book of the Bible at a time, but it doesn’t necessarily need to be.

One of the dangers in today’s pulpits is “textual” preaching that appears to be expositional, but really is not. That is to say the preaching starts in a text, which may follow the text from the week before, but then the message shoots off into something else entirely. For example, I’ve heard a pastor start in Colossians 3:18, “Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord” and immediately go to Genesis 3 (and remain there) to talk about why God created men and women equal. While it is gloriously true both men and women are equal in God’s sight, that’s really not the meaning of Colossians 3:18.

The text of Scripture chosen by the preacher should not be a launching pad into personal thoughts and unrelated ideas, but should link the hearers to the context of God’s Word and help us understand what God meant when He said it.

The advantage of expository preaching for those of us in the seats is that even if your pastor/teacher is unable to adequately apply the text to you, you’re able to truly “see” the meaning of the text and allow the Spirit to apply its meaning to your life.

God Glorifying

It seems this should go without saying, but I fear that in many pulpits today man, not God, has become the center of preaching. There is such a hyper-focus on being relevant, keeping listeners engaged and applying the truth of the Word that many preachers are failing to keep the worship of God at the center of their preaching.

In California we have an unbelievably awesome sandwich shop called, Mr. Pickles. You can spot one a mile away because you can see a teenager dressed-up in a giant pickle suit dancing feverishly and sometimes spinning a sign. I know that when I see that dancing pickle, I can pull over and order a Turkey & Avocado on Dutch Crunch with garlic-pesto sauce.

In much the same way, we can identify biblical preaching by the way in which it seeks to bring honor to God and His Word. Is the preaching you’re listening to using a text to give you “10 Steps To A Better You,” or is it unpacking the dynamic truth of the Word of God and stirring up your affections for our Savior?

The Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy the following famous words about faithful preaching. As we listen in, we can see our responsibility of turning toward the truth and avoiding teachers who suit our own passions:

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.

(2 Timothy 4:1-5 ESV)

It is true that God can speak to his people in spite of poor preaching. But we ought to work hard to place ourselves under the preaching and teaching of a faithful minister who holds God’s Word in high esteem and loves to see the good news of the Gospel seeping out of every verse he preaches.

It is God’s Word through the message preached that flows from the pulpit to the pew (or comfy stackable chair).

Take a Moment...

2012-01-05T10:16:00.000-05:00

President Obama and Same-Sex Marriage - The Dance Continues...

Your favourite theologian was a slave-owner...

How I Pick Books I've Never Heard Of From Authors I May Not Know...

Pietism: What is it?

Christianity is bizarre but not absurd...

Take a Moment...

2012-01-03T10:23:00.000-05:00

Why does Jesus keep telling everyone to keep quiet about him? (Didn't he grow up singing "Be A Missionary Every Day" in his synagogue?)

A few worthwhile reviews of the Driscoll's newest book "Real Marriage": TGC, Tim Challies, Denny Burk

Why New Year's resolutions don't work...

A New Year's note to self...

Intelligent Design is Dead: A Christian Perspective...

A few New Year's resolutions...

2012-01-02T12:48:00.000-05:00

This year I have only a few New Year's resolutions (see, in part, why we should always be resolving, and, in part, why New Year's resolutions don't work)...

1. Love God better (not just things about God - although I do think that is part of the equation).
2. Be a better husband and father.
3. Blog weekly (and not just the bi-weekly "Take a Moment..." segment, but personal, substantive material).
3. Read more.
4. Begin establishing a solid foundation in theological German, and (next fall) begin taking biblical Hebrew (both PhD prep).

Do you have any resolutions?

Do you have anything that you would like me to blog about in this next year?

Take a Moment...

2011-12-29T10:34:00.000-05:00

How to start a blog...

An online magazine worth checking out...

What would it take for you to change your mind?

Al Mohler on Mark Driscoll...

Why is God so silent in my life?

Take a Moment...

2011-12-27T10:15:00.000-05:00

3 book/reading lists worth considering: Please read books!

Trevin Wax compiles his top 5 weather videos of the year...

The five conundrums of Calvinism...

The 45 most powerful images of 2011...

The dark side of theology...

Take a Moment...

2011-12-22T10:15:00.000-05:00

A little Christmas thinking: Was Jesus born at an inn? and Was Jesus a carpenter?

How to disagree the right way...

10 words we have to stop misspelling...

Michael Bird has a few great posts on Christianity and paganism: Part One, Part Two, and Part Three

10 ways to bring the gospel home this Christmas...

Take a Moment...

2011-12-20T10:19:00.000-05:00

Christ and Culture Once More...

Why your podcast should not be your pastor...

Some year-end thoughts on the "Young, Restless, and Reformed"...

The Triumph of Christianity over Paganism...

Peter Hitchens on Christopher Hitchens...

Rob Bell's parting epistle to Mars Hill...

My 2012 Reading List

2011-12-19T10:35:00.000-05:00

I’m currently trying to finish four books before the end of the year: Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert's "What Is the Mission of the Church? Making Sense of Social Justice, Shalom, and the Great Commission", Christopher Hitchens' "God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything", Darrin Patrick's "Church Planter: The Man, the Message, the Mission", and N. T. Wright's "Justification: God's Plan & Paul's Vision".

And, I think I’ve decided that I want to read approximately 20 books next year.

If you’re interested, here’s the list:

Bible (duh)
Tolkien's "The Hobbit"
Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings"
Yousef and Brackin's "Son of Hamas: A Gripping Account of Terror, Betrayal, Political Intrigue, and Unthinkable Choices"
Piper's "Think: The Life of the Mind and the Love of God"
Noll's "Jesus Christ and the Life of the Mind"
Witherington's "Is there a Doctor in the House?: An Insider's Story and Advice on becoming a Bible Scholar"
Gupta's "Prepare, Succeed, Advance: A Guidebook for Getting a PhD in Biblical Studies and Beyond"
Dawkins' "The God Delusion"
Piper's "God Is the Gospel: Meditations on God's Love as the Gift of Himself"
McKnight's "The King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisited"
Jeffery, Ovey, and Sach's "Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution"
Payne's "Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul's Letters"
Saucy's "Women and Men in Ministry: A Complementary Perspective"
Webb's "Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis"
Bird's "The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification and the New Perspective"
Bird's "Introducing Paul: The Man, His Mission and His Message"
Barclay and Gathercole's "Divine and Human Agency in Paul and his Cultural Environment"
Carter's "The Roman Empire and the New Testament: An Essential Guide"
Kim's "Christ and Caesar: The Gospel and the Roman Empire in the Writings of Paul and Luke"

Lastly, my goal is to begin reviewing, at least, some books upon completion. With that said, I am considering this to be a list in flux, specifically for the purpose of allowing “hot reads” to enter the list for reviewing purposes.

Take a Moment...

2011-12-15T10:38:00.000-05:00

Must we believe in the Virgin Birth?

I gave some advice for the young and aspiring theologian last week...here are some additional thoughts on seminary from a graduating seminarian...

Tebow, Calvin, and the Hand of God in Sports...

More noteworthy books...

A quick and easy lesson in hermeneutics...

Take a Moment...

2011-12-13T14:25:00.000-05:00

Some additional thoughts on the "New Calvinists"...

The Achilles heel of Inclusivism...

Why studying the Bible won't (necessarily) change your life...

God can do anything he wants...

Do I have to write my own sermons?

Take a Moment...

2011-12-08T12:24:00.000-05:00

Why we need Jesus?

Getting inerrancy wrong...

Why Rick Warren's church is cancelling Sunday services...

Your spiritual life depends upon killing sin...

If Jesus isn't real, how can you be made at a myth?

Take a Moment...

2011-12-06T10:54:00.000-05:00

Women, Stop Submitting to Men...

Some foreign language expressions worth knowing...

Does Antiporn = Anti-sex?

How to Talk with People about the Gospel...

Some thoughts on Genesis 6:4...

Some Advice for the Young and Aspiring Theologian

2011-12-05T07:09:00.000-05:00

Last year I completed my Master’s degree, and, by God’s grace, I am going to begin my Ph.D. in New Testament studies in 2013 (which, right now, seems far away, but I think it will be upon me before I know it…). With that said, I have a few advisory items for the young and aspiring biblical studies/theology student:

Read Helmut Thielicke's "A little exercise for young theologians".
If you have the means, get a formal biblical/theological education (e.g. M.Div, MTS, D.Min, Ph.D.), it will give you more “street cred”.
Complete as much education as possible before getting married.
Once you are married, complete as much education as possible before having children.
Read and pray.
Do not go to the same school for more than one degree (i.e. do not go to Moody Bible for both undergraduate and graduate education). It will be most beneficial to “mix it up”.
Complete your Master’s degree at an evangelical seminary.
Do not complete your Ph.D. at an evangelical seminary.
Read just as much literature from those you disagree with, as you do from your theological “buddies”.
Begin the task of writing now. Whether it is blogs, articles, or books, get started now. This exercise will benefit you in the end.
Learn the languages (e.g. Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, and German – for starters).
Read and pray. A lot.
Do not be afraid to be wrong (i.e. stay humble).

Take a Moment...

2011-12-01T10:41:00.000-05:00

Celebrity Pastors: Top of the Heap or Overexposed?

HCSB vs. ESV vs. NIV...

The Public Reading of Scripture...

3 Things You Need to Know about Sin...

Joel Osteen gets a reality show...

Take a Moment...

2011-11-29T10:05:00.000-05:00

Why We Must Be Unapologetically Theological...

Why Academics Annoy People...

Can Heretics Be Saved?

Christians and Alcohol...

Hobbits Ahead of Schedule...

Take a Moment...

2011-11-24T09:40:00.000-05:00

How do love and holiness relate?

The Beauty in the Words...

Gospel-driven sanctification...

Thanks be to God...

Presidents proclaim "Thanksgiving to Almighty God"...

Take a Moment...

2011-11-22T10:08:00.000-05:00

Why do we love C.S. Lewis and hate Rob Bell?

A Closer Look at the Gates of Hell...

Mutual Submission?

7 Negative Effects of Porn...

Did Paul believe in the Bible?

6 Things I Took Away From ETS

2011-11-21T07:21:00.000-05:00

Last week, I spent Tuesday through Friday in San Francisco at the annual meeting for The Evangelical Theological Society. Here are six things that I took away from my time there:

In order to live in San Francisco, you must be at least one of the following: Asian, hipster, homosexual, or rich.
If you are going to converse with Mike Bird, you will, most likely, have to ask him to repeat himself on more than one occasion.
I love higher academics – specifically of a biblical/theological nature (I have never felt more of an external/internal push to get my PhD than I did this last week).
I hate higher academics (there is a certain sense of arrogance that comes with higher academics [e.g. whom you know, what you’ve written, where you teach, how many languages you know, etc.] – my prayer is that I will always be connected to the local church in such a way that will help me stay grounded.
I want to go back to San Francisco (but not without my wife), which quickly entered into my top three American cities (with Chicago and Boston being my top two, in that order).
I need to go to conferences like these with at least one other kindred spirit (i.e. another brother sharing the same passion for biblical/theological education [e.g. see Jesse Mileo, Ryan James Reedy, Chris Mayberry, Bill Streicher, and Peter Gurry]).

Take a Moment...

2011-11-17T09:51:00.000-05:00

Calvinists Sometimes Make the Worst Calvinists...

Finding Joy, Finding Hope...

Top 10 Reasons to Join a Church Plant...

Are you Kidding Jesus? You Expect Me to Do THAT?

TheCall mixes anti-muslim rhetoric with racial reconciliation...

Take a Moment...

2011-11-16T09:23:00.000-05:00

The Tragic Lessons of Penn State - A Call to Action

A prayer about the grip of pornography and God's grace...

So you want to be a Bible Scholar?.

Why We'd Be Miserable in a World Without Religion...

For Vegans...

Take a Moment...

2011-11-10T12:44:00.000-05:00

A couple of interesting book reviews...

A short video on "who wrote the gospels"...

Tattoos and Christians...

Do People Who Commit Suicide Go to Heaven?

Michael Bird's list of "things to do and remember" at ETS and SBL...

Take a Moment...

2011-11-08T10:46:00.000-05:00

Why Study the Classics?

Conservatives and Social Justice...

Trevin Wax has five nagging questions about DeYoung's and Gilbert's newest book about the mission of the church...

Billy Graham turns 93...

Michael Bird provides five reasons why women should go to ETS...

Take a Moment... (A Day Late!!)

2011-11-04T10:29:00.000-04:00

According to Shane Hipps (Rob Bell's replacement), all things post-mortem are speculation...

Insult someone like Shakespeare...

The New/Old Perspective on Justification...

Does an unbelieving child disqualify an elder?

Is the world wrong about marriage?

Take a Moment...

2011-11-01T10:23:00.000-04:00

The Young Christian's Guide to Sex at Seminary...

Was It Wrong for the Lions to Mock Tim Tebow?

Is election in Calvinism good and just?

Harold Camping repents...

Some thought by Billy Graham on living out the latter years...

Jesus, Joel Osteen, and Partying with Prostitutes and Homosexuals: A Response to Michael J. Kimpan

2011-10-28T07:37:00.004-04:00

Well…if there is one thing Michael J. Kimpan and I can agree on, it’s our disdain for country music.

I just can’t get with it.

When I was in junior high school, some of my friends were listening to country music, and in an attempt to fit in, I gave it a shot…one shot. Thankfully, soon after, I discovered rock music and have never looked back.

So, see, we can agree on some things.

Actually, it appears that we can also agree on Joel Osteen, in that I also don’t foresee any of his books climbing to the top of my list of “must-reads”.

However, in agreement with Mohler, I must admit there appears to be some level of disconnect between Osteen’s answers (which, from the interviews I’ve seen, is pretty typical), namely he cannot perform a same-sex wedding ceremony because he believes homosexuality to be sin, and yet he could attend such an event, thereby giving both his acknowledgment of and approval to such an event

Based on Mohler’s response, Michael, whose post made Red Letter Christians syndication, posits the following question: “i wonder what mohler thinks of the fact that jesus frequented house parties thrown by prostitutes?”

In my opinion, there is also a disconnect within Michael’s thinking regarding attending/performing a homosexual wedding ceremony and frequenting house parties thrown by prostitutes. Michael continues:

i’m pretty sure jesus didn’t endorse men and women using and selling each other’s bodies for sex. yet there he was, sitting, eating, talking and drinking with them. and the pharisees saw that as an endorsement of their behavior. i can hear them now: ‘that’s moral and theological nonsense. ministerial malpractice.’

These statements need dissecting…

First, to be sure, Michael and I are in agreement that Jesus did not endorse men and women using and selling each other’s bodies for sex. No argument there.

Second, Michael and I are also in agreement that Jesus sat, ate, talked, and drank with sinners. We cannot get around that, whether we want to or not (Matt. 9:11; 11:19; Mark 2:16; Luke 5:30). However, we don’t know, precisely, his level of interaction with prostitutes, that is, we don’t know if he attended their “house parties” (Matt. 21:31-32). But, for the sake of argument, let’s say he did sit, eat, talk, and drink with prostitutes in their own homes. Does this necessarily equate with attending/performing a homosexual wedding ceremony? My contention is that it is not equivalent.

Here’s why…

If we are going to insist that the only true way to love a homosexual well (and, therefore, point them either overtly or covertly to Christ) is to attend/perform a homosexual wedding ceremony (even though we might consider homosexuality to be sin), then this would seem to equate that, in order to truly love sinners well, Jesus should have gone with, celebrated with, and congratulated prostitutes as they sold their bodies and publicans as they stole from people…All the while saying, “Look, I know what you are doing is sinful, but I love you, so I want to be here and support you in this”.

Huh?

To me, at least, that’s a non sequitur.

Again, remember that even Michael intimates that “jesus didn’t endorse men and women using and selling each other’s bodies for sex”.

So, instead of insisting that we must attend/perform a homosexual wedding in order to truly demonstrate our love to the individual, perhaps we should be willing to stand for what we believe is biblical whilst also loving the sinner (Luke 14:26), for we do not see evidence of Jesus endorsing the behavior of prostitutes and tax collectors (and in fact, he called them sick [Matt. 9:12]) and, yet, we still see that they loved Jesus, believed Jesus, and followed Jesus.

Michael, then, offers a generalized warning, that “regardless of where our conviction lies in the issue of homosexuality and gay marriage, let us tread cautiously…”

I couldn’t agree more with this part of his statement…

But, then he states, “lest we mistake standing up for our beliefs with standing in the way of people entering into right relationship with God”.

With that statement, I think Michael has shown his hand (as long as I’m interpreting his statement correctly).

To me, he is intimating that a homosexual wedding ceremony is bringing their love and life into the covenant of godly living. But, again, this statement doesn’t follow, because what I (in theory) am standing up for is in direct disagreement to the assertion that a homosexual wedding is “people entering into right relationship with God”. In other words, if, in this specific situation, "standing up for my beliefs" affirms that homosexuality is sin, then I am most certainly not "standing in the way of people entering into right relationship with God" because what I believe they are doing is sinful. In fact, you might be able to make the opposite argument, in that standing up for my beliefs (based on my understanding of the biblical texts) is a means that God might use to actually bring them into a right relationship with him. With that said, this issue, to be sure, can only be addressed with a full discourse on the (potential) sinfulness of homosexuality.

To, perhaps, begin this conversation, I would point our readers to the following articles as an introduction:

Clobbering Homosexuals with the Bible?

A New Testament Perspective on Homosexuality

Romans 1:18-32 amidst the gay debate

Lastly, we should be cautious in calling people out as Pharisees (which, again, if I am interpreting Michael’s subtle thought process correctly, is precisely what he is doing). In fact, he seems to equate Osteen with Jesus and Mohler with the Pharisees. Is this equation not also harsh? Oddly enough, Michael has written another post surrounding a different Mohler post, wherein he states that we need to just “shut up and love people”…

And yet, Michael seems quick to call Mohler a self-righteous Pharisee because of his willingness to take a stand for what he believes. I think we need to employ caution here.

Do we not all have Pharisaical tendencies at times?

In conclusion, I will return to a partial agreement with Michael in declaring a desire to tread cautiously within these discussions/debates/etc. because of two reasons: Jesus Christ and people. Above all things we are called to love God, honor him, and bring him glory - even when that means potentially telling someone that they are in sin. However, we are also called to love people, and, lest we forget, on the other side of our debates are people, not just ideas and theories, but people.

Let us love, and love well, regardless of where we fall in this debate.

I hope that I have been gracious, even in my disagreement, and that these discussions between Michael, myself, and our readers will prove beneficial for the Church and the promotion of God’s glory.

Thank you for taking the time to engage!

Take a Moment...

2011-10-27T10:25:00.000-04:00

Prioritizing how you read...

Fantastic, albeit lengthy, interview of N.T. Wright by Trevin Wax...

Some thoughts on Michael Horton's thoughts about total depravity...

In the face of trouble, who are you?

Cultivating God's joy...

Take a Moment...

2011-10-25T11:56:00.000-04:00

Tough Text Tuesday: 1 Timothy 2:15...

The Evangelical Surrender of Truth...

Interesting (and most likely controversial) thoughts on doubting God...

3 things we can learn from Harold Camping...

Ignorance is not always bliss...

Bridging the Gap

2011-10-24T09:10:00.000-04:00

I was once asked to blog as part of my homework assignments for graduate school. I remember thinking something like, “Do people even read blogs?”

If I’m honest, at the time, I thought the assignment was a little silly.

But, now, approximately five years later, here I am.

Blogging.

I’ve come a long way…

And, in fact, it is with a sense of honor and humility with which I enter into a new series of blog posts.

Michael J. Kimpan, a fellow blogger, recently approached me about his desire (one which I share) to "bridge the gap" between people (specifically, in our case, bloggers!!) who do not see eye-to-eye on certain philosophical and theological perspectives. His desire is to promote healthy dialogue amongst fellow Christians, while not accepting the “agree to disagree” excuse.

Therefore, we are going to pursue this line of dialogue with what we might call a bit of charitable “back-and-forth” blog posts/open letters/etc. surrounding various philosophical and theological concepts.

I must also admit the feeling of trepidation when approaching something like this. Please know that it is not my intent, nor do I believe it is Michael’s intent, to earn points in a “besting of the other guy” mentality. In fact, to quote John Piper in his response to N.T. Wright:

The final judgment feels too close for me to care about scoring points in debate…the prospect of wasting my remaining life on gamesmanship or one-upmanship is increasingly unthinkable. The ego-need to be right has lost its dominion, and the quiet desire to be a faithful steward of the grace of truth increases.[1]

Piper then states that he believes Wright shares this same mentality, and so I will echo Piper when I say that, at least on this point, both Michael and I agree.

My first response will be in relation to Michael’s recent blog post entitled "al mohler, mullets and gay marriage".

Stay tuned…

[1] John Piper, The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2007), 13.

Take a Moment...

2011-10-20T10:32:00.000-04:00

And older (2009), but still worthwhile piece from John Piper on Hero Worship and Holy Emulation...

Although we don't see eye-to-eye on much, I think this blog post is certainly worth considering...

The Gospel: Not News or Story but News Story...

What's Dustin Kensrue's (Thrice's frontman) Story?

Mars Hill - Portland Church Met By Protesters...

Take a Moment...

2011-10-18T10:26:00.000-04:00

Michael Horton reviews Scot McKnight's "The King Jesus Gospel". And Scot McKnight responds to his review. Oh, and Michael Bird weighs in too...

Would you attend a same-sex wedding?

7 random pieces of advice for the younger leader...

How to know the will of God...

Loving your wife despite your schedule...

Take a Moment...

2011-10-13T10:14:00.000-04:00

Is there anything normal about pornography?

Very funny (and short) video of Matt Chandler imitating Mark Driscoll...

Thabiti Anyabwile on "celebrity" and "rock star" pastors...

Some responses to Thabiti...

Some of my thoughts on hero admiration v. hero worship...

Take a Moment...

2011-10-11T16:19:00.000-04:00

A review of "Against Calvinism"...

Should Pastors Peform Marriages for Co-habitating Couples?

How to read the Bible...

Some thoughts on Celebrity and Rockstar Pastors...

Take a Moment...

2011-10-06T10:16:00.000-04:00

A "Take a Moment..." in honor of Steve Jobs:

Steve Jobs: An Elegy

What should Christians think about the death of Steve Jobs?

10 ways Steve Jobs changed the world...

Take a Moment...

2011-10-04T13:02:00.000-04:00

The Problem With Taking the Bible Literally...

Ten Foundational Verses for Eternal Punishment in Hell...

Mark Driscoll talks with Doug Wilson about spiritual gifts...

Rob Bell, Hollywood Celebrity?

Sin Is Cosmic Treason...

Here We Go Again, Rob...

2011-09-30T10:11:00.000-04:00

Well, here we go again. Let’s see what happens in the blogosphere regarding this recent bit of news.

If you haven’t heard, Rob Bell is leaving his church. Moreover, it now appears that we know, at least in part, the impetus for Rob’s departure.

Now, I’m not going to attempt to decipher Bell’s personal intentions. I don’t know the man; in fact, I’ve never even met the man. And, to be sure, we should remember the hailstorm that came when bloggers began attempting to decipher his recent bestseller, Love Wins, a bit too early (which, in retrospect, was more often than not a critique of his public promotional video, which I am convinced, in the end, was appropriate). Still, it is with a bit of trepidation that I try to offer a few thoughts regarding the public news of Bell’s departure.

What concerns me most is what appears to be a relinquishing of any kind of Christ-exalting, gospel-centered, accountability-infused pastoral ministry.

Let me explain.

First, in regards to relinquishing a Christ-exalting gospel-centeredness, all that has been offered regarding the spirituality of Stronger is that it will include “spiritual overtones”. What does that even mean?! (I suppose that is on par for Bell, though, as he leaves us with more questions than answers.) Instead of providing a robust, Christ-centered gospel, we are left with vague and opaque “spiritual overtones”. I have no doubt that Bell wishes to share “the message of God’s love with a broader audience”; however, if Christ is not intrinsically present, then there is no salvific value to any of it. If we relinquish the gospel, it is because we have relinquished Jesus Christ, for he is the gospel. I’ve written previously about what I think the message of the gospel is, so I will leave you with that.

Second, Bell (along with others) has already been criticized for leaving his ministry to “pursue a growing number of strategic opportunities”. Now, if you are being called by God to pursue something else, you better do it. Moreover, we ought to pause when questioning someone’s calling, for only God and the individual know their true calling (in these situations I often remember the statement made by my Bibliology/Prolegomena professor regarding claimed spiritual experiences; he said, “You cannot tell someone that they did not experience what they claimed to have experienced, for only God and that person truly know what, or if, they have experienced). And yet, my concern, to echo Stetzer and Warren, is the potential for ego-feed and/or lack of pastoral accountability in completing future projects. My hope and prayer is that Bell will come under a good church to keep him accountable as he pursues these future strategic opportunities.

Take a Moment...

2011-09-29T10:20:00.000-04:00

Take a Moment...

2011-09-27T10:26:00.000-04:00

Who is and is not an E/evangelical?

Gospel or Justice - Which?

Should "Broader Interests" Preclude Pastoring?

Why Young Adults Are Walking Away From Church...

Devotions? Eh...

2011-09-26T14:42:00.000-04:00

So…I’m back. A short-lived "hiatus", if you want to even call it that. I’ve decided that blogging provides too great of an avenue for fleshing out what I’m thinking; therefore, if you read this, you will have to continue to deal with me, at least to a certain extent, for some time…

With that said, I’ve been thinking through something recently…

What is the purpose of a “devotional” time or “quiet time” before the Lord, and does that necessarily have to be distinct from an academic biblical/theological pursuit?

To be sure, I am going to make a distinction between the “reading” and “praying” parts of a “devotional” time, namely, in focusing on the “reading” aspect.

Now, some background to my conundrum:

Throughout graduate school, this was a constant struggle of mine – Do I need to set aside a time to read, for instance, a Proverb or a chapter from one of the gospels everyday, although I am, in one of my classes, working through the Greek in Galatians? Do I need to be, for instance, reading a Psalm everyday while, in another class, I am studying Scripture attempting to discern the hypostatic union of Christ?

Or, once I finished graduate school, I found myself prepping for sermons, etc., and I found myself trying to discern whether this prep-work needed to be separate from a daily “devotional” reading? Is not an exegetical study of Eph. 2:1-3 (i.e. the total depravity of man) “devotional”?

Or, the events of these past few months have relit my passion to write on a pastoral level, which I have done here, here, and here. But in these pastoral pursuits, does this equate to a “devotional” time, or do I need something separate?

Or, lastly, as I work for/with Dr. Preston Sprinkle on researching his various Pauline quests, this problematic question still lingers…

What’s the purpose? What’s the difference? Is there a difference?

What are your thoughts on this issue?

Take a Moment...

2011-09-22T10:32:00.000-04:00

Watch Tim Keller discuss reaching your city with the Gospel...

When Theological Work is Dangerous...

A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy - An Interview with Richard Dawkins...

Did you marry the wrong person?

and, lastly, Something I am honored to contribute to...

Take a Moment...

2011-09-20T10:12:00.000-04:00

Millennials Have No Moral Framework...

5 Ways to Redeem Your Ride to Work...

Who is the most dangerous guy at your church?

Was the Apostle Paul married?

Books every Christian should read...

Take a Moment...

2011-09-15T10:27:00.000-04:00

Come on Pat Robertson...

Tim Keller discusses the possibility of salvation outside of Christ...

Culture in the Church vs. Church in the Culture...

50 Rules for Dads of Daughters...

The Failure of the Megachurch...

Take a Moment...

2011-09-13T10:17:00.000-04:00

Mark Driscoll's new website...

Trevin Wax, Ben Witherington, and Joel Willitts interact with Scot McKnight's new book The King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisited...

Wrath is Love's Response to Sin...

Faith in public...

Why We Worship the Way We Do...

Take a Moment...

2011-09-08T10:29:00.000-04:00

Well...I didn't post anything on Tuesday because I got my days mixed up...

So, thanks to the American Labor Day Holiday, I've added a couple extra goodies on for today...

What Makes Evangelicalism Evangelical?

New York's Post-9/11 Church Boom...

Paul Did Not Teach "Stay in Slavery"...

Preaching, Manuscripts, and Fraternal Critique...

Evangelicals Divided on Gay Marriage...

What Kind of Leader Are You?

One Book for College...

Take a Moment...

2011-09-01T10:23:00.000-04:00

Al Mohler responds to Brian McLaren (and others) regarding the historicity of Adam...

How to destroy your own research paper in one simple step...

An interesting and humorous list characterizing incoming college freshmen...

An interesting exchange over biblicism between Scot McKnight and Kevin DeYoung...

A Tool for Building Great Leaders...

Take a Moment...

2011-08-30T09:44:00.000-04:00

A Plea for Christians to Use Their Brains...

Why Doctoral Students Can't Get no Satisfaction!

When Doctrine Isn't Enough...

Presbyterians Meet To Consider Leaving Church Over Gay Clergy...

Take a Moment...

2011-08-25T10:39:00.000-04:00

Be Not Afraid of Evangelicals...

An interesting response to Al Mohler's article on Adam, Eve, and creation...

Do You Doubt Yourself? Good.

9 Core Principles of Writing...

Did Jesus Preach the Gospel?

Take a Moment...

2011-08-23T10:01:00.000-04:00

15 ways incoming freshmen can seek to glorify God as they head off to college...

When Christianity is Idolatry...

Is Pluralism more tolerant than Christianity?

Continuing to think through "Erasing Hell"...

The Rise of Blogs and the Demise of Traditional News...

A Happy Hiatus

2011-08-22T09:09:00.000-04:00

This is an announcement for the masses…or, at least the 10 people that read this blog…

I am going on a blog writing hiatus.

And although it would appear that I am going on hiatus far too early into my blogging career, at this time, it seems to be the most appropriate course of action.

DO NOT BE ALARMED!

The life events that are leading me into this hiatus are good life events!

For instance, I am developing and teaching courses this fall semester (and, frankly, I am behind in my studies).

Also (and this is the primary reason for the hiatus), I have been afforded the distinguished honor and pleasure to begin working as a research assistant for Dr. Preston Sprinkle.

The various scholarly and literary pursuits in which I will now be involved will take up much of my time.

Attempting to forecast the completion of this hiatus is difficult. And, although I do still plan on providing the bi-weekly “Take a Moment…” blogs, it does not appear that any additional substantive material will be provided.

To be sure, I still have some ideas mulling around in my head regarding certain blog series (i.e. homosexuality and inclusivism), which I do plan on addressing when I return.

My hope and prayer is that God has used this blog to benefit your walk with Jesus Christ, and that you will continue to be blessed by it until, and certainly after, I return.

Because of His grace and for His glory…

Take a Moment...

2011-08-18T10:51:00.000-04:00

Is Homosexuality Wrong? (a potentially helpful precursor to some future blog posts)

Women now demand that their multiple babies be aborted...

Tim Challies writes about C.J. Mahaney and whistleblowing...

Generational Conflict in Ministry...

The danger of defining yourself by what you are against...

Take a Moment...

2011-08-16T09:57:00.000-04:00

Michael Bird provides a critique on "liberal" Christianity...

Is It Humble To Think All Paths Lead to God?

The Ten Commandments for Commenting on Blogs...

Is Tim Tebow a Blasphemer?

Thinking historically about Christian nationalism...

Take a Moment...

2011-08-11T12:18:00.000-04:00

Tim Challies answers some questions regarding his blog and blogging, in general...

How to Raise a Fake Christian... (a necessary read for parents)

Evangelicals and the Gay Moral Revolution...

Trevin Wax interviews David Platt about his latest book Radical Together...

Why we must fire boring teachers and preachers...

Ryan Graham is Called

2011-08-10T09:06:00.000-04:00

Last night I went to see my dear friend, Ryan Graham, play a show with his band, Good Luck Varsity, after being on tour for about two months. In fact, they were able to bring the entire tour with them back home, which was fun to see them interact with the brothers they had made during these last two months (to certainly include my opportunity to enjoy a really good metal-core band!).

Now, I’m getting old. I don’t particularly enjoy going to shows very often (perhaps it’s too “scene” for me now), and if I do make it out to a show, I generally try to stay as far away from the “mosh pit” (or whatever it’s called these days) as possible. However, it’s not only my age that keeps me out of the “mosh pit”, but, rather, I enjoy watching the bands play and express their passion through music by the various antics performed while on stage (metal-core bands certainly have some of the most entertaining antics!).

I’ll come back to this in a minute…

I’ve heard before that a “calling”, in regards to ministry, can be broken down into three parts:

You have a passion to do something;
You have an opportunity to do that something; and
You have been affirmed in your doing of that something.

This breakdown of what it means to be “called” has been personally helpful, as I’ve considered my future and what it means to be “called” to teach, write, and disciple.

Now, back to last night…

As I stood near the back corner of the room watching Ryan play, I suddenly felt deep gladness in my heart, because he is following his “calling”. Now, most people will grumble and complain that those who play in bands need to “grow up, get a job, and become a man”, and although I believe that might be an eventual necessity (it’s what I had to do), it is, nonetheless, encouraging for me to see Ryan presently pursuing what he feels “called” to do (for he certainly has the passion, opportunity, and affirmation of what he is doing).

Please hear what I’m not saying: Not everyone who simply has a passion for music should immediately quit his or her job and start touring. Instead let this be an opportunity for pause, wherein we might contemplate what it means to be “called” in our own lives. May we consider the above three requirements and see where we are in relation to living out our “calling” in relation to the ministry of Jesus.

I’m happy for Ryan; I’m happy for his ministry; and, I’m happy that he is honoring God in his ministry.

Take a Moment...

2011-08-09T09:49:00.000-04:00

Is Seminary Necessary?

Tim Challies thinks you should follow these people on Twitter...

Francis Chan on the Sovereignty of God...

Evangelicals Question the Existence of Adam and Eve...

How to kill moralism...

Take a Moment...

2011-08-04T10:16:00.000-04:00

The Gift and Responsibility of Studying the Original Languages in Seminary...

Some additional thoughts on Chan's Erasing Hell by Jeff Cook and Trevin Wax...

What Do the Religions Teach About God?

A book list worth considering...

Al Mohler on the death of Anglicanism...

Take a Moment...

2011-08-02T09:48:00.000-04:00

Is Jesus the Only Way?

Getting Bin Laden... (a lengthy, but worthwhile read)

Sproul, Driscoll, Chandler, Tchividjian Discussion Panel...

Ministers of Grace in Need of Grace...

Homosexuals and the Christian Music Industry...

Take a Moment...

2011-07-26T10:02:00.000-04:00

I might not get to post anything on Thursday, so here are a few additions to the bi-weekly "Take a Moment..."

Evangelicals converting to Catholicism?

I'm done with living like a Christian!

Reading when you can't afford books...

Lust: Not for men only

A book worth your time...

Kevin DeYoung on Mark Driscoll and Effemigate...

Piper and Carson discuss hermeneutics and the use of extra-biblical sources...

An Arrogant Theology

2011-07-25T10:06:00.000-04:00

It’s important for people to be right… or, if I’m honest, it’s important for me to be right.

As I’ve studied and taught philosophy and logic, I’ve begun to learn the “art of argumentation”, and the honing of this skill has certainly infiltrated my quest for biblical/theological expertise.

Over these last few months, as I’ve patrolled the blogosphere, I’ve noticed that this is a primary preoccupation amongst bloggers and those commenting.

Whether the conversation is about God…

…or hell…

…or homosexuality…

…or salvation.

We want to be right.

It seems, though, that the two primary camps at the forefront of biblical/theological argumentation (the neo-liberals and the neo-Calvinists [I’m painting broadly here]) have vastly different ways of expressing their claim(s) to accurately interpreting the Bible.

For instance, those within the neo-Calvinist camp (which I would generally place myself within) seem fixated on making propositional statements; whereas, the neo-liberal camp seem fixated on asking questions.

But don’t be fooled; winsome and provocative questions can be just as affirming of truth and accuracy as are propositional statements. Consider what Kevin DeYoung has to say on the matter:

Don’t think for a second the questions don’t communicate something…Words mean something and words do something. Whether the sentences end in question marks or not…who could think for a moment that I am not teaching something? This is not mere provocation. It is not an expression of searching inquiry or humble wrestling. My questions pack a rhetorical punch. They tell you what I think is foolish and what is wise. They suggest that some beliefs are noble and others are not. They tell you what God is like and what you should believe about him. My questions teach.

Often, those within the neo-Calvinist camp are accused, by those in the neo-liberal camp, of arrogantly claiming their confidence in their biblical exegesis (which is usually demonstrated via propositional statements). And, although I am willing to admit that I can, at times, struggle with this claimed theological arrogance, can we be sure that a similar form of arrogance is not found in winsomely and provocatively posing questions? In other words, regardless of which camp we fall in, we ought to be cautious in disparaging someone because of their assumed arrogance, when we might be akin to the same form of arrogance in our assertions of biblical superiority.

Perhaps this is a prefacing post, as my plan for the next few posts is to think through an issue that is becoming heavily discussed in the media and the blogosphere.

The issue…is homosexuality.

Is it a sin?

Was Paul only talking about man/boy pedophilia?

Is the Bible even clear on this issue?

How are Christians supposed to relate to homosexuals?

Can a homosexual be a Christian?

These are going to be some of the questions that I plan on thinking through over these next few weeks and months. And, although my intention will be to eventually make propositional statements regarding what I see as biblical truth claims, my hope is that those who would want to disparage me for “arrogantly” stating such-and-such, would instead consider their hearts before disparaging, and, in the end, if an attack is necessary, attack the argument, rather than the arguer.

Take a Moment...

2011-07-21T10:49:00.000-04:00

More thoughts on the arguments of Bell's and Chan's books...

What does it mean to serve God?

Some encouragement for the New Calvinists...

Mistaken Monotheism...

Take a Moment...

2011-07-19T09:56:00.000-04:00

Why you need to pray for your pastor...

Does the word "Evangelical" mean anything anymore?

4 steps to killing sin...

Should the church accountant be the one called the "worship pastor"?

4 things I've learned about God through my baby who was born blind...

Take a Moment...

2011-07-14T10:17:00.000-04:00

Learning to Blog with Maturity...

A review of David Platt's Radical...

How Not to Succeed in the Academic World...

What is There Between Minneapolis and St. Andrews?

Take a Chill Pill...

2011-07-13T15:22:00.002-04:00

So much mayhem has happened recently due to Mark Driscoll’s facebook post regarding effeminate worship pastors…

Rachel Held Evans' blog response has gone viral, and now World Magazine has responded to her response. Although I personally would not have suggested that Driscoll make such a comment public, I also, in partial agreement with World Magazine, don’t think that those, namely Evans and her various supporters, have treated Mark fairly – as concerned as they are with him treating others lovingly and fairly.

Perhaps, instead of attacking people (wherein we are often employing the old saying of "the pot calling the kettle black"), regardless of which side you are on, we could, instead, espouse a bit of biblical acumen and leave our attacks to shoddy exegesis and diluted philosophy rather than character?

Remember, we are all fallen. We all make mistakes. Some of us just have grander stages for which to make these mistakes.

In other words…

Take a chill pill.

**EDIT: Driscoll has published a short article, perhaps in response to this whole situation. I wonder if Rachel Held Evans will do the same.

Take a Moment...

2011-07-12T14:06:00.001-04:00

Biblical Authority in an Age of Uncertainty...

Erasing Hell and Erasing Bell...

Is it ok to believe in hell and not like it?

How to talk about the afterlife (if you must)...

A word about C.J. Mahaney's leave of absence...

Also, don't forget to check out my post on Hero Admiration v. Hero Worship...

Hero Admiration v. Hero Worship

2011-07-12T08:53:00.000-04:00

**Although I was going to wait and publish this post next week, based on some current situations amongst pastors I respect, I thought it might be best to submit it now.**

I love John Piper. I love Mark Driscoll. I love Matt Chandler. I love Kevin DeYoung.

Have I mentioned that I do not have a personal relationship with, nor have I even met, these men?

And yet, I claim that I love them because their ministries have heavily affected my view of God, life and faith. Or, perhaps a better term to use would be “hero”. Those four men listed above, amongst others for sure, are, for me, heroes of the faith. I look at these men; I see their love for God, in Christ; I see their intelligence; I see their successful ministries; I see their blogs, books and articles; and (if I’m honest) I see their popularity (i.e. they are great spiritual/ministry leaders – and who doesn’t want to have followers?). To me, these men are the epitome of successful pastor/theologians.

However, I have recently found myself thinking through hero admiration v. hero worship; and I am concerned that those of us (including me!) within the New Calvinism community might be prone to hero worship, which is an idolatrous slap-in-the-face to God and His gracious sovereignty in placing these men in their respective ministries.

Last fall I went to my first Desiring God national conference in Minneapolis; it was a great experience. First, the conference subject matter: Think; and, secondly, it felt like I was rubbing shoulders with some of New Calvinism’s elite. Prior to Al Mohler’s session, I went to save seats near the front of the auditorium, wherein I eventually found myself sitting across the aisle from John Piper and several of his staff members. It was in that moment that I really began to ponder hero admiration v. hero worship, for, as I snuck peeks across the aisle (as if John Piper were that cute girl in your high-school class), I found myself completely star-struck, raising him up ever higher on the pedestal of Theologian Par Excellence.

But why?

Isn’t there danger in that?

Does it breed a certain type of idolatry?

Does Piper not have sin issues (which, in fact, might have been the reason he took a leave of absence recently)?

Does Piper not argue with his wife?

Does Piper not have hunger pangs?

Does Piper not have the occasional runny nose?

In other words, although I don’t know the four heroes mentioned above, I am confident that they would admit their own sinfulness, normalcy, and memories of early ministry, wherein they might have also dealt with hero worship. Therefore, let this be a reminder that we all put on one pant leg at a time; we all crave to be admired; we are all still wretched and depraved sinners before a majestically righteous God; and we have all been appointed to do the work God has set before us.

A Concise Theology of Hell

2011-07-11T09:43:00.000-04:00

The following is a capstone/summary of some of my previous blog posts (which can be found here and here). Moreover, the following will be provided as a lecture to my church’s college group this coming Wednesday. I pray it will be fruitful.

Introduction

In recent months, the traditional/historical understanding on the doctrine of hell has come under scrutiny. This has been primarily through the release of Rob Bell’s newest book Love Wins. Although I disagree on most points with this book, our discussions over the next two weeks will not necessarily be a critique of his book, per se, but, rather, will be about hell itself. If you are interested in a direct critique of Bell’s book, you can read that here.

Now, most people will agree that hell is a nasty subject.

So why talk about hell at all?

Here are five reasons why we need a theology of hell:

1. God’s glory deserves it:

Note that God’s glory does not need it, but deserves it (Acts 17:24-25). Therefore, although God does not need our help in anything, we owe it to God to live in and declare the truth that has been revealed to us.

2. The Bible talks about it:

If we affirm that the Bible is revealed, inspired, inerrant and authoritative – then we must be willing to think through every issue, idea, proposition, and story the Bible talks about.

3. Theology is important:

If we need to think through Biblical topics, then, what necessarily follows is theological thinking. In other words, thinking theologically is important and it helps us as we seek to understand God.

4. Eternal destinies are at stake:

The Bible, as we shall see, discusses the eternal destinies of all humanity. Although I believe that salvation has present implications, we should not belittle the eschatological (the last things) implications.

5. Our evangelism needs it:

If, at least partially, salvation is about the eternal destination of human souls, then, this must be one of the motivators behind our evangelism. Why evangelize if everybody will eventually be saved?

Now that we have addressed the “why”, let’s address the “what”.[1] And, as a reminder, as we study this doctrine (or any doctrine), we need to affirm that the Bible is true, right and the ultimate authority on all matters of life and faith…especially the hard topics.

Will Everybody Be Saved?

The first issue we need to address is whether or not everyone will, in the end, be saved.

This teaching is known as Universalism. Universalism teaches that “every human being whom God has created or will create will finally come to enjoy the everlasting salvation into which Christians enter here and now”.^[2]

Those that hold to Universalism normally are “prompted partly…by direct compassion for one’s fellow humans, but mainly by the thought that inflicting eternal punishment is unworthy of God, since it would negate his love”.^[3]

Some texts that would appear to support this position are: John 12:32; Romans 5:18; 11:32; and 1 Corinthians 15:22-28 (amongst others).

And yet, we find that:

[T]he universal terms in these texts (forms of pas, “all,” and kosmos, “world”) are all limited or generalized by their context in such a way that it is nowhere possible to maintain that every human being everywhere, past, present, and future, is being clearly, specifically, and inescapably spoken of as destined for salvation. The most that standard commentaries find in these passages is that God will…restore his world, and that the summons and invitation of the gospel of Jesus Christ is equally applicable to, and valid for, everyone to whom it comes.[4]

More so, “[m]ost universalists…concede that universalism is not clearly taught in the Bible…”^[5]

Therefore, although this teaching empathizes with our compassion, we need to be sure that if Universalism is true, then “[b]loody-handed practitioners of treachery, genocide, and torture, and bloody-minded devotees of personal cruelty and child abuse are included; no one is left out. Universalism thus asserts the final salvation of, for instance, Judas, Hitler, Genghis Kahn, Stalin, and Saddam Hussein, to name a few.”^[6]

Moreover, we should be sure to note that Universalism was recognized as heretical since AD 500.^[7]

So, if we can agree that the Bible teaches that not everyone will be saved…then what?

Annihilationism

Another potential outcome raised by those who do not support the traditional doctrine of hell is a teaching known as Annihilationism.

“Annihilationism is the belief that those who die apart from saving faith in Jesus Christ will be ultimately destroyed.”[8]

Clark Pinnock summarizes why he, and others, affirm Annihilationism:

“Obviously, I am rejecting the traditional view of hell in part out of sense of moral and theological revulsion to it. The idea that a conscious creature should have to undergo physical and mental torture through unending time is profoundly disturbing, and the thought that this is inflicted upon them by divine decree offends my conviction about God’s love.”[9]

Now, although most of the core tenets regarding Annihilationism will be refuted in our analysis of the traditional doctrine of hell, I want to briefly observe God’s love in relation to Annihilationism, along with observing the following quote:

“[W]e cannot cite one saying that speaks plainly of an end to the punishment of the finally impenitent. Those who look for a different teaching in the NT must point to possible inferences and alternative interpretations. But if Jesus wished to teach something other than eternal retribution, it is curious that he has not left one saying that plainly says so. In the NT there is no indication that the punishment of sin ever ceases.”^[10]

Moreover, we should be sure to note that Annihilationism was recognized as heretical as early as the Second Council of Constantinople (553) and, again, by the Fifth Lateran Council (1513).

So, then, what about God’s love?

God’s Love

God is love (1 John 4:8). I, in no way, want to discount this fact. It is God’s love that draws, saves, reconciles and keeps believers; however, that fact does not negate that God is also many other things: patient, merciful, just, holy, righteous, kind, creative, wrathful, etc. And, what we must reconcile is that God’s attributes work together in perfect unity. In other words, although God is love, his love is patient, merciful, just, holy, righteous, kind, creative, wrathful, etc. What this indicates is that God’s love cannot be separated from his holiness; God’s love cannot be separated from his righteousness; and God’s love cannot be separated from his wrath.

Tradition, Tradition

One traditional definition of hell is “a place of eternal conscious punishment for the wicked”.[11] It will be this definition that we will stick with and attempt to explain.

Eternal

Michael “Squints” Palledorous, one of the characters in The Sandlot, always knew he was going to marry Wendy Peffercorn. However, some time before they had their first kiss on the side of the community pool, “Squints” made his famous quote about the Beast’s sentence to its backyard fortress as he uttered, “For-ev-er”.

Rob Bell, in Love Wins, aptly describes the feeling of The Beast’s owner upon learning of its sentence:

“Remember sitting in class, and it was so excruciatingly boring that you found yourself staring at the clock? Tick. Tick. Tick. What happened to time in those moments? It slowed down. We even say, ‘It felt like it was taking forever.’ Now when we use the word ‘forever’ in this way, we are not talking about a 365-day year followed by a 365-day year followed by another 365-day year, and so on. What we are referring to is the intensity of feeling in that moment. That agonized boredom caused time to appear to bend and twist and warp.”^[12]

Bell also states that, “[w]hen we use the word ‘age’ like this, we are referring less to a precise measurement of time, like an hour or a day or a year, and more to a period or era of time. This is crucial to our understanding of the word aion, because it doesn’t mean ‘forever’ as we think of forever.”^[13]

To begin, we ought to note that there are two different words (and their many derivatives) used to address “an age” or “eternity”: aion and aionios. With that said, we ought to next look at how these terms are defined.

Aion has four definitions: (1) a long period of time, without reference to beginning or end (of time gone by/the past/earliest times, or of time to come which, if it has no end, is also known as eternity); (2) a segment of time as a particular unit of history, age (the present age or the age to come); (3) the world as a spatial concept; and (4) the Aeon as a person.^[14]

Aionios has three definitions: (1) pertaining to a long period of time, long ago; (2) pertaining to a period of time without beginning or end, eternal; and (3) pertaining to a period of unending duration, without end.^[15]

With those definitions in place, it would certainly seem absurd to attempt to persuade someone that aion never has a temporal sense, as the following texts demonstrate: Luke 20:34-35; John 9:32; Acts 15:18; Rom. 16:25; 1 Cor. 2:8; et al. All of these texts (and many more) certainly point toward a temporal or historic sense when using the word aion.

However, the issue at hand is whether, at times, aion, aionios, and their derivatives can have a non-temporal meaning (i.e. specifically, contextually and correctly defining the term as eternal, eternity or everlasting). For instance, consider the following texts:

Rom. 9:5 – will God’s praise be only temporary?

Rom. 11:36; 16:27; Eph. 3:21; Phil. 4:20 – will God’s glory be only for an age?

2 Cor. 9:9 – is God’s righteousness momentary?

Based on this evidence, is anyone really willing to continue arguing that aion, aionios, and their derivatives do not, at times, convey a non-temporal sense?

Therefore, if we are willing to concede that there might be instances where the sense is non-temporal, then, what should follow is a reminder that we ought to read, interpret and understand Scripture in its context. In other words, we ought to translate aion, aionios, and their derivatives as temporal when it fits contextually (e.g. Luke 20:34-35), and as non-temporal when it fits contextually (e.g. 2 Cor. 9:9).

Moving now to two specific New Testament texts:

In Jesus’ parable in Matthew 25:31ff, the term aionion is used, which Jesus uses both to point to the eternal life of the righteous and eternal punishment of the cursed (Matt. 25:41, 46). Therefore, if we are to read this portion of Scripture in context, unless we are going to conclude that the eternal life of the righteous is also temporal, we must conclude, rather, that the eternal life of the righteous and the eternal punishment of the cursed are, in fact, eternal. Moreover, Jesus uses the same word aionion to address the “eternal fire” reserved for the “cursed”.

Next, within Revelation 20:10, John uses the phrase tous aionos ton aionon (translated “for ever and ever”), to describe the eternal torment received within “the lake of fire and brimstone”. Now, those who wish to argue for a temporal meaning of this phrase must also consider Revelation 22:5, which describes the eternal, or unending, reign of God’s servants. Therefore, if an argument is made for the temporal nature of the torments of hell in Revelation 20:10, then we must conclude that the reign of God’s servants in Revelation 22:5 is also temporal. Surely, no one is willing to contend for that part of the argument.

Conscious Punishment

Conscious can be described as “aware of one’s own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.”

Punishment can be described as “a penalty inflicted for an offense, fault, etc.”[16]

Before we look at the consciousness of hell, let’s take a moment to consider punishment.

An argument rejecting the traditional/historic understanding of God’s wrath answers the question, “how we would respond if an earthly father did to his children what God will eventually do to part of humanity?”, with “we would throw that father in jail for life” (i.e. surely a loving, kind and merciful God could not be involved in something this heinous). However, if this is the criteria by which we judge God, then should we not have already thrown God in jail for “murdering” Uzzah (2 Sam. 6:1-11), or Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11)? Of course not, because we know that God, in his holiness, justice and righteousness, must respond to sin (Habakkuk 1:13). Therefore, the critical error in this reasoning is that our eternal fate ought to rest on the (often) triteness of our sin, rather than the majesty of the One sinned against. For instance, if I attempted to attack a regular “Joe”, I might end up in prison for a short while; however, if I attempted to attack the President of the United States, I would, most likely, remain in prison for the remainder of my life. This is because the crime, although the same, has a different consequence when committed against someone of greater renown. Therefore, we surely ought to not place Almighty God on the same level as our earthly fathers.

Matthew 13:49-50 – note that the evil will be thrown into fiery furnace, where they will experience weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Mark 9:47ff – note that sinners will be thrown into hell where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.[17]

Luke 16:19ff – note that the rich man is experiencing torment (vs. 23).

Revelation 14:9ff – note that those who worship the Beast will be tormented with fire and sulfur (vs. 10).

Conclusion

So, I’m still convinced that hell is a nasty subject; but, I’m also still convinced that hell is something we need to consider (see introduction).

Something else to consider: don’t let your philosophy trump your exegesis. Now, please note that I am pro-philosophy (in fact, I teach several philosophy classes at a local community college), and I am well aware that philosophy and exegesis are linked; however, my concern is when we allow our philosophies (appropriately compassionate as they may be) to trump proper exegesis of hard texts.

Lastly, remember that the Bible is true, hell is for real, and God is good in all things.

[1] Please note that a theological study on hell could take many weeks; I have two. With that said, I want to focus on some of the key biblical ideas, propositions and objections towards the historic version of this doctrine.

[2] Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson, Hell Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 170.

[3] Ibid., 172.

[4] Ibid., 187.

[5] Ibid., 171.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Origen and his doctrine of apokatastasis (the universal return to God and restoration of all souls) were anathematized (deemed as heretics) at the Second Council of Constantinople (553).

[8] Morgan and Peterson, Hell Under Fire, 196.

[9] William V. Crockett, Four Views on Hell (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 164.

[10] Walter A. Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 395.

[11] Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 499.

[12] Rob Bell, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived (New York: HarperOne, 2011), 31.

[13] Ibid., 57.

[14] Frederick William Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 32-33. It should also be noted that BDAG is arguably one of the premier language resources. With that said, one must be willing to grapple with the evidence provided therein in order to claim reputable scholarship.

[15] Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 33.

[16] Both definitions found at www.dictionary.com

[17] Jesus is quoting Isaiah 66:24.

Take a Moment...

2011-07-07T11:53:00.000-04:00

A brief review of Francis Chan's Erasing Hell...

C.J. Mahaney is taking a leave of absence...

Michael Bird on the Church and Israel...

Eternal and Temporal Goals of the Gospel...

Is Church Membership Biblical?

Take a Moment...

2011-07-05T10:30:00.000-04:00

Robert Schuller ousted from Crystal Cathedral...or was he...

How to disagree while being both faithful and winsome...

Getting to know our Muslim Neighbors...

Preaching and Preparation...

Glorifying God for the greater thing...

Take a Moment...

2011-06-30T10:28:00.000-04:00

Should pastors share everything with their wives?

Why Kurt Willems doesn't celebrate July 4th...

Some other thoughts on Christian Patriotism...

Bell, Hell, and what we did well...

Was Paul a sex addict? (disclaimer: I don't think he was...)

Why I Still Trust John Piper More Than Rob Bell

2011-06-29T14:33:00.000-04:00

This is also overdue…but still pertinent…

You’re right; perhaps John Piper made a mistake with his now infamous tweet.

However, until, if ever, Piper comes out and specifically indicates why he tweeted what he tweeted, we will never know the true substance and purpose behind his tweet. Although we can know the general purpose behind why Piper uses Twitter.

With that said, I still find a proclivity within myself to trust John Piper, despite his potentially flagrant “sin”, more than Rob Bell.

Why?

Three reasons:

Although Piper might have had a lack of judgment, let us not forget that we are all sinners (Rom. 3:23), which does not preclude those within popular ministries.
Despite the fact that Piper is a sinner, and that his tweet might have been uncalled for, I agree with his apparent concern regarding the path Bell is choosing to take.
Based on Bell’s latest monograph, it is quite evident that Piper’s skill in exegesis, history and logic is quite superior to Bell’s.

So I ask, what is the greater sin? A momentary lack of judgment? Or bad exegesis that dishonors God and leads others astray?

I suppose that is your decision to make.

My review of Bell's Love Wins can be found here.

Resources by John Piper can be found here.

Take a Moment...

2011-06-28T10:09:00.000-04:00

Did we really blow the Rob Bell situation?

Some musings on baptism...

Dan Kimball on Francis Chan's Erasing Hell...

10 myths about introverts...

Tim Keller's interview with World Magazine...

Take a Moment...

2011-06-23T10:10:00.000-04:00

Another great response to "Love Wins"...

Our out of whack opinions...

Calvinists who love Wesley (a must read for crazy Calvinists)...

Stop using two spaces after a period...

Timothy Dalrymple's lastest series on Christianity and homosexuality...

Take a Moment...

2011-06-21T10:30:00.000-04:00

The Inclusive Jesus...

Randy Alcorn discusses Mark Galli's book "God Wins"...

Evangelism v. Discipleship...

Westboro Baptist Church hates Mark Driscoll...

A great online resource for biblical/theological study...

A Review of Rob Bell's "Love Wins"

2011-06-19T22:49:00.001-04:00

I get it.

I’m late…really late with this review.

In fact, both Tim Challies and Kevin DeYoung (amongst others) had actually written reviews on Rob Bell’s Love Wins prior to its public release. Along with these two reviews, I’ve provided a few additional reviews that were helpful: Ben Witherington, Scot McKnight, Jim Spiegel and Mark Galli. Or, if you want to pay to read some refutations, you can pick up books by Michael Wittmer, Mark Galli and/or Francis Chan. With those reviews in mind, please note that it will be my goal to not belabor certain points that have already been addressed by other reviewers; rather, my intent will be to focus on some issues that concerned me personally.

For those that don’t know…

Rob Bell, founder of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grandville, Michigan (not to be confused with Mars Hill Church in Seattle, Washington, led by Mark Driscoll), has a church following of 8,000+, is a renowned speaker and author of several books, to include Velvet Elvis, and has been described as a winsome, provocative, creative and engaging communicator.

HOWEVER, when we enter into the arena of Biblical scholarship, it is not enough to only be winsome, provocative, creative and engaging (emotively charged qualities), we must also be, and perhaps should primarily be, prudent and astute historians and exegetes (cognitively charged qualities); for, to be winsome, provocative, creative and engaging is, at best, empty without the use and foundation of accurate historical and contextual exegesis.

Quickly though, two preliminaries before we get to the review:

First, a word on making judgments: I think we need to be careful in assuming that someone is being judgmental simply because they disagree; or, for that matter, that someone is being judgmental just because they are a Calvinist. It certainly seems ironic to me that the criticism, vitriol and “judgmental” attitudes claimed to come from those within the “neo-Calvinist” or “neo-Reformed” movement towards the “emergent” or “neo-liberal” questioning of “traditional” biblical/theological interpretation is absolutely similar to the criticism, vitriol and “judgmental” attitudes demonstrated by the “emergent” or “neo-liberal” movement towards the “neo-Calvinist” or “neo-Reformed” movement when they question the questioning of the “emergent” or “neo-liberal” biblical/theological interpretation. For, when those within the “emergent” or “neo-liberal” movement take personal jabs at the “neo-Calvinist” or “neo-Reformed” movement for being the claimed “key holders of orthodoxy”, they are, in fact, making an assertion that they are the “key holders of orthodoxy”. In other words, there are opportunities for healthy disagreement and reflection if we can contest the position, rather than the person (although “attack” is a violent term which causes most people pause and concern). For instance, within the same paragraph Jesus calls us not to judge and then calls his opponents dogs and pigs (Matt. 7:1-6).

Second, Bell's YouTube video, wherein he “comes clean” has a critical error to it. If I say that I believe in the color “green”, and yet my understanding, interpretation and conception of “green” is actually the color “blue” (or some made up color) then I have misunderstood, misinterpreted and misconceived the color “green”. Therefore, if Bell’s understanding of heaven, hell, salvation, etc., are misunderstood, misinterpreted and misconceived as compared with historical/traditional orthodoxy, then the statements made in his “coming clean” are, in fact, quite inadequate.

Now, onto the review…

One concern that is, perhaps, overall in tone is permitting philosophy to trump exegesis. Now, please note that I am pro-philosophy (in fact, I teach several philosophy classes at a local community college), and I am well aware that philosophy and exegesis are linked; however, my concern is when we allow our philosophies (appropriately compassionate as they may be) to trump proper exegesis of hard texts. For instance, before he even gets out of the preface Bell is already allowing his philosophy to trample upon exegesis:

“A staggering number of people have been taught that a select few Christians will spend forever in a peaceful, joyous place called heaven, while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better. It’s been clearly communicated to many that this belief is a central truth of the Christian faith and to reject it is, in essence, to reject Jesus. This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus’s message of love, peace, forgiveness, and joy that our world desperately needs to hear.”[1]

Or, consider this example:

“[I]t’s important that we be honest about the fact that some stories are better than others. Telling a story in which billions of people spend forever somewhere in the universe trapped in a black hole of endless torment and misery with no way out isn’t a very good story. Telling a story about a God who inflicts unrelenting punishment on people because they didn’t do or say or believe the correct things in a brief window of time called life isn’t a very good story.”[2]

More so, Bell’s exegesis, when employed, is quite disconcerting. For instance, Bell insists that “[t]he…meaning of this word aion refers to a period of time with a beginning and an end”; or, that “[w]hen we use the word ‘age’ like this, we are referring less to a precise measurement of time, like an hour or a day or year, and more to a period or era of time…it doesn’t mean ‘forever’ as we think of forever”.[3] Now, I have addressed aion previously, so I will not belabor the point other than to say that I agree with Bell that at times this word can have a temporal meaning, however, it can also at times have an eternal meaning.

Furthermore, Bell’s historical accuracy is lacking:

“Gehenna, in Jesus’s day, was the city dump. People tossed their garbage and waste into this valley. There was a fire there, burning constantly to consume the trash. Wild animals fought over scraps of food along the edges of the heap. When they fought, their teeth would make a gnashing sound. Gehenna was the place with the gnashing of teeth, where the fire never went out.”[4]

Although, this has been a common myth throughout Christian history, other scholars would argue that “[t]here is no convincing evidence in the primary sources for the existence of a fiery dump in this location”.[5]

Now, although I am pretty certain that we are all flawed (including me!) to some degree as historians and exegetes, my concern is that, whereas our flaws might take place in the home, or small group, or even larger church congregation, Bell’s flaws are done via world-wide monograph publication. With that said, Bell should have employed a bit more scholastic due diligence within his monograph; and, henceforth, anything I (and you too) read or hear from Bell should be scrutinized for historical and exegetical accuracy.

An additional concern of mine is Bell’s apparent rehashing of liberal Christianity. Liberal Christianity is generally thought to emphasize social justice at the expense of doctrine/propositional truth. Now, although I certainly affirm that a critical aspect of Christianity is to care for the orphan and widow (Jam. 1:27), I would also affirm that this is not the ultimate or final goal to the Christian life. Consider the following quotes by Bell:

“Compassion for the poor, racial justice, care for the environment, worship, teaching,

and art are important, but in the end, for some followers of Jesus, they’re not ultimately

what it’s all about.”[6]

“Taking heaven seriously, then, means taking suffering seriously, now…[a]round a billion

people in the world today do not have access to clean water. People will have access to

clean water in the age to come, and so working for clean water access for all is

participating now in the life of the age to come… [i]t often appears that those who talk

the most about going to heaven when you die talk the least about bringing heaven to

earth right now…[a]t the same time, it often appears that those who talk the most

about relieving suffering now talk the least about heaven when we die.”[7]

Should access to clean drinking water (in this life) trump our eschatological (and perhaps more urgent) need for a Savior (in this life and the one to come)? In other words, we ought to be cautious in espousing a Christ-less, moral, therapeutic deism, wherein, at best, our actions (as important and compassionate and charitable as they might be) are empty, and, at worst, are simply an attempt at self-aggrandizement.

But why…?

It’s because, although I partially agree with Bell that “eternal life is…about a quality and vitality of life lived now in connection to God”, I also believe there are serious eschatological implications regarding the future destinations of all humanity.[8]

In fact, at times, Bell actually seems to be agnostic toward his position on hell.

“[i]n other stories he tells, very religious people who presume that they’re ‘in’ hear from him: ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’”[9]

“[h]e tells entire villages full of extremely devoted religious people that they’re in danger, while seriously questionable ‘sinners’ will be better off than them ‘in that day’”.[10]

“Those are questions, or more accurately, those are tensions we are free to leave fully intact. We don’t need to resolve them or answer them because we can’t, and so we simply respect them, creating space for the freedom that love requires.”[11]

“This invitation to trust asks for nothing more than this moment, and yet it is infinitely urgent. Jesus told a number of stories about this urgency in which things did not turn out well for the people involved. One man buries the treasure he’s been entrusted with instead of doing something with it and as a result he’s “thrown outside into the darkness.” Five foolish wedding attendants are unprepared for the late arrival of the groom and they end up turned away from the wedding with the chilling words “Truly I tell you, I don’t know you.” Goats are sent “away” to a different place than the sheep, tenants of a vineyard have it taken from them, and weeds that grew alongside wheat are eventually harvested and “tied in bundles to be burned.”[12]

But if Bell believes in ultimate reconciliation, then why these warning passages? Where are the evildoers going? What are these devoted religious people in danger of? Is it only about not living your best life now? Or is there more to it?

Another concern is that Bell seems to make a critical error in over-emphasizing the love of God as the ultimate attribute. Yes, God is love. God is love. However, that statement does not negate that God is also many other things: patient, merciful, just, holy, righteous, kind, creative, wrathful, etc. And, what we must reconcile is that God’s attributes work together in perfect unity. In other words, although God is love, his love is patient, merciful, just, holy, righteous, kind, creative, wrathful, etc. What this indicates is that God’s love cannot be separated from his holiness; God’s love cannot be separated from his righteousness; and God’s love cannot be separated from his wrath. Let’s pause a moment and reflect on a few quotes from Bell regarding this subject:

“That’s how it is – because that’s what God is like, correct? God is loving and kind and full of grace and mercy – unless there isn’t confession and repentance and salvation in this lifetime, at which point God punishes forever. That’s the Christian story, right? Is that what Jesus taught?”[13]

“[I]f your God is loving one second and cruel the next, if your God will punish people for all of eternity for sins committed in a few short years, no amount of clever marketing or compelling language or good music or great coffee will be able to disguise that one, true, glaring, untenable, unacceptable, awful reality.”[14]

“But there’s more. Millions have been taught that if they don’t believe, if they don’t accept in the right way, that is, the way the person telling them the gospel does, and they were hit by a car and died later that same day, God would have no choice but to punish them forever in conscious torment in hell. God would, in essence, become a fundamentally different being to them in that moment of death, a different to them forever. A loving heavenly father who will go to extraordinary lengths to have a relationship with them would, in the blink of an eye, become a cruel, mean, vicious tormenter who would ensure that they had no escape from an endless future of agony.”[15]

What these statements mock is the apparent “Jekyll and Hyde” characteristics of the traditional/historical conception of God: loving and desiring a relationship with all of humanity during life and damning, with hateful vengeance, all those who die apart from a relationship with God, in Christ. Moreover, an argument rejecting the traditional/historic understanding of God’s wrath answers the question, “how we would respond if an earthly father did to his children what God will eventually do to part of humanity?”, with “we would throw that father in jail for life” (i.e. surely a loving, kind and merciful God could not be involved in something this heinous). However, if this is the criteria by which we judge God, then should we not have already thrown God in jail for “murdering” Uzzah (2 Sam. 6:1-11), or Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11)? Of course not, because we know that God, in his holiness, justice and righteousness, must respond to sin. Therefore, the critical error in this reasoning is that our eternal fate ought to rest on the (often) triteness of our sin, rather than the majesty of the One sinned against. For instance, if I attempted to attack a regular “Joe”, I might end up in prison for a short while; however, if I attempted to attack the President of the United States, I would, most likely, remain in prison for the remainder of my life. This is because the crime, although the same, has a different consequence when committed against someone of greater renown. Therefore, we surely ought to not place Almighty God on the same level as our earthly fathers.

Furthermore, Bell’s emphasis on the love of God promotes his confidence in post-mortem opportunities for reconciliation:

“And so they expand the possibilities, trusting that there will be endless opportunities in an endless amount of time for people to say yes to God.”[16]

“At the heart of this perspective is the belief that, given enough time, everybody will turn to God and find themselves in the joy and peace of God’s presence. The love of God will melt every hard heart, and even the most “depraved sinners” will eventually give up their resistance and turn to God.”[17]

“In the third century the church fathers Clement of Alexandria and Origen affirmed God’s reconciliation with all people. In the fourth century, Gregory of Nyssa and Eusebius believed this as well. In their day, Jerome claimed that “most people,” Basil said the “mass of men,” and Augustine acknowledged that “very many” believed in the ultimate reconciliation of all people to God.”[18]

“Central to their trust that all would be reconciled was the belief that untold masses of people suffering forever doesn’t bring God glory.”[19]

My concern with the above statements is the lack of biblical evidence to support such claims. I have already, albeit briefly, addressed post-mortem evangelism, and therefore will instead stress that although some argue that Scripture is silent on the possibility of future (post-mortem) opportunities for reconciliation, I would contend that if we affirm that God is sovereign, why would he not have found it relevant to indicate these future opportunities? In stark contrast to this argument from silence, it seems more appropriate to affirm the New Testament writers’ emphasis on the “faith decision” in this life.

Two additional issues raised by Bell, which certainly deserve more space and thought, are inclusivism, which Bell addresses here:

“As obvious as it is, then, Jesus is bigger than any one religion.”[20]

“Within this proper, larger understanding of just what the Jesus story even is, we see that Jesus himself, again and again, demonstrates how seriously he takes his role in saving and rescuing and redeeming not just everything, but everybody.”[21]

“What he doesn’t say is how, or when, or in what manner the mechanism functions that gets people to God through him. He doesn’t even state that those coming to the Father through him will even know that they are coming exclusively through him. He simply claims that whatever God is doing in the world to know and redeem and love and restore the world is happening through him.”[22]

“Sometimes people use his name; other times they don’t.”[23]

…and Bell’s apparent denial of penal substitutionary atonement addressed here:

“Many have heard the gospel framed in terms of rescue. God has to punish sinners, because God is holy, but Jesus has paid the price for our sin, and so we can have eternal life. However true or untrue that is technically or theologically, what it can do is subtly teach people that Jesus rescues us from God. Let’s be very clear, then: we do not need to be rescued from God. God is the one who rescues us from death, sin, and destruction. God is the rescuer.”[24]

So that’s it. There’s my review. Those are my concerns with Bell’s most recent monograph. I believe Rob Bell is a Christian brother who simply allows his philosophies to trump his exegesis. Ergo, it is my hope and prayer that those reading Bell’s book, those reading this blog, and those reading any other reflections on biblical matters will approach them with critical minds, examining their content historically, exegetically and theologically.

[1] Rob Bell, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived (New York: HarperOne, 2011), viii.

[2] Ibid., 110.

[3] Ibid., 31-32.

[4] Ibid., 68.

[5] http://blog.bibleplaces.com/2011/04/myth-of-burning-garbage-dump-of-gehenna.html

[6] Ibid., 26.

[7] Ibid., 45, (cf. 78-79).

[8] Ibid., 59.

[9] Ibid., 52.

[10] Ibid., 53.

[11] Ibid., 115.

[12] Ibid., 196-197.

[13] Ibid., 64.

[14] Ibid., 175.

[15] Ibid., 173-174.

[16] Ibid., 106-107.

[17] Ibid., 107.

[18] Ibid., 107-108.

[19] Ibid., 108.

[20] Ibid., 150.

[21] Ibid., 150-151.

[22] Ibid., 154.

[23] Ibid., 159.

[24] Ibid., 182.

Post Tenebras Lux

Take a Moment...

Did Paul Get Adam Wrong?

Take a Moment...

Take a Moment...

Take a Moment...

I Disagree With Your Disagreement...

Take a Moment...

Take a Moment...

Take a Moment...

Take a Moment...

Adam: Actual or Allegory?

Take a Moment...

Take a Moment...

Why "Organic" Living is Not the Best Way

Take a Moment...

Take a Moment...

Why Tebow [Doesn't] Te-blows

Jesus > Religion: Some Thoughts on the Bethke Video Chaos

Take a Moment...

Take a Moment...

From the Pulpit to the Pew (A Guest Post)

Take a Moment...

Take a Moment...

A few New Year's resolutions...

Take a Moment...

Top five most viewed blog posts (2011)

Take a Moment...

Take a Moment...

Take a Moment...

My 2012 Reading List

Take a Moment...

Take a Moment...

Take a Moment...

Take a Moment...

Some Advice for the Young and Aspiring Theologian

Take a Moment...

Take a Moment...

Take a Moment...

Take a Moment...

6 Things I Took Away From ETS

Take a Moment...

Take a Moment...

Take a Moment...

Take a Moment...

Take a Moment... (A Day Late!!)

Take a Moment...

Jesus, Joel Osteen, and Partying with Prostitutes and Homosexuals: A Response to Michael J. Kimpan

Take a Moment...

Take a Moment...

Bridging the Gap

Take a Moment...

Take a Moment...

Take a Moment...

Take a Moment...

Take a Moment...

Take a Moment...

Here We Go Again, Rob...

Take a Moment...

Take a Moment...

Devotions? Eh...

Take a Moment...

Take a Moment...

Take a Moment...

Take a Moment...

Take a Moment...

Take a Moment...

Take a Moment...

Take a Moment...

Take a Moment...

A Happy Hiatus

Take a Moment...

Take a Moment...

Take a Moment...

Ryan Graham is Called

Take a Moment...

Take a Moment...

Take a Moment...

Take a Moment...

An Arrogant Theology