wow… blogs can so easily lose focus can they?

i think (to return to the topic at hand) that what Carson is saying is that where Bell goes with this “reach” to a non-christian is dangerous because he doesn’t GIVE people the whole gospel. The Christian can read his stuff and “read between the lines” and fill in the pieces we think are missing and sometimes not even know we are doing it…

that is the danger. Without making a stand and clearly communicating the WHOLE Gospel there is danger in drifting toward a false-Gospel…

just trying the frame this part of the conversation in a larger context…

Paul’s Jesus is not Lord or Messiah, but a manifestation of Paul’s vivid and fruitful imagination. Subsequently, for hundreds of years, Christians have been mislead. Paul’s theology is not based on the Lord of the Old Testament. Because Paul’s theology is not base on God’s truth, it’s dead. This assertion can be verified by tracing Paul’s theology to the Old Testament where you will find only obscure and/or unbelievable references.

The following is my comment on a recent Time magazine article on Paul’s theology with reference to Jesus. I mention a few of the essential predicates of Paul’s theology. There are, of course, many more, which require a lengthy discussion. However, I believe that my brief introduction to Paul’s theology is a good beginning.

I just read the article entitled “Re-Judaizing Jesus” in the 3-24-08 issue of Time. I am fascinated by the topic of how Jesus came to be defined differently because of Paul’s theology. Briefly, my view is that Paul did not have a clear understanding of the Lord. You come to this idea by comparing the OT Lord with Paul’s Jesus. Paul claimed on one hand that Jesus is God’s firstborn and our brother while claiming on the other hand that Jesus is Lord, as John (14:6) said, “If you know me, you know the father as well.” The problem with Paul’s theology is that it trivializes Jesus in order to gain converts, and in so doing, gave Jesus human characteristics, which although appealing to converts, is uncharacteristic of God (Lord).

The key for understanding Paul’s error is to trace back his theology to the OT, an exercise that theologians have failed to pursue. The key factor of this criticism begins with Paul’s assertion that, whereas Moses veiled his face to protect the Israelites from seeing the Lord’s radiance, believers in Jesus will see the Holy veil of God in each other’s face. There is, of course much more that is wrong with Paul’s theology. As an example, Paul’s claim that Jesus was God’s first-born is ludicrous. How can Jesus, who is also Lord, become God’s first-born, unless you regard the man Jesus to be His first-born? Applying logic to this assumption, you would have all believers equal to Jesus, which, according to Paul’s words, is what we are to believe.

If you research the OT for Paul’s assumptions, you will find little, if any, basis for his theology, and, if you disregard his theology, the NT takes on different meaning. For example, where does the OT say that gentiles replaced the Jews? If you read the new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31), which is a basis of this assertion, you will find no mention of gentiles. My position is that Paul was not God. If that is true, which we have to believe, except that he claims to be the brother of Jesus (Lord), then when his theology conflicts with the OT, you must conclude that Paul lacked the spiritual insight he claimed to possess.

Regards,

Chuck Nance

I believe that OT prophets confronted the real Lord and not Paul’s Jesus, who has become so trivialized that, for many Christians, Jesus is just a nice guy, or about the nicest person, they’ve ever known.

I believe the above-mentioned issues regarding the Lord require serious scholarly research and not just blind faith in Paul’s words regarding Jesus. In short, there must be consistence between the Lord of the Old Testament and Jesus of the New Testament. If you are to believe Paul, they are not the same.

Regards,

Chuck Nance

I asked a simple question, nothing more. Your attack on my character is uncalled for. You really need to calm down before responding to questions or criticisms. Practically every person that you disagree with on this blog gets lumped into labels, categories, and insults. You claim we all misunderstand you, have “bad hermeneutics”, follow Calvin and Augustine instead of the Bible, or you bow out while insulting and attacking someone’s character.

You’ve called me a jerk, immature, childish, prideful, arrogant, and now you blatantly attack my character. I’ve been sarcastic with you, but I’ve not once stooped to this level of uncharitable name calling and slander.

My advice to you is this: Stop debating online because you obviously can’t handle it. You get mad and lash out at people who question, criticize or disagree with your views. I’ve yet to see anyone come close to your level of hostility on here. It is unwarranted and wrong.

I will choose never to address or answer you again on this blog. Your childish games and immaturity only reflect your theological beliefs and character as a person. You give your system a bad name and lack any aspect of humility or godly character.

Thank you for making me opposed to your theological and political system even more than I was beforehand. It is precisely because of people like you that others want nothing to do with Christianity. I’m glad I gave you a chance to show your true colors. Please forgive me for any wrong I have done to you or offense I have been. I realize I have spoken some out of anger and some out of pride. However, because you keep continuing to respond to me in the manner you do, I will not acknowledge any more of your posts. Blessings

You seem to run into this a lot. Maybe you are to blame?

Brett,

I’ve debated whether or not I should reply to you because I’m not sure how receptive you’ll be to this criticism but I realize that others will be reading this so I’ll reply:

“For one thing, Bell is a minister in the church,”

Here you make a false distinction between those in the ministry and those who are not, as if people who are ministers are somewhat higher in status than those who are not. Your distinction seems to assume that since Bell is a minister he is not under the same scrutiny that Bush is under.

“Bell is an obvious Christian because he is in the ministry, Bush is not.”

Here you are stating very clearly that the reason that Bell is a Christian is obviously “because” he is a minister. Surely, your reasoning has more to do with something other than his profession. Again, see my comment above about your distinction between those in ministry and those not.

“Bush works for the kingdom of the world, Bell works for the kingdom of God.”

Here you make an assumption that you make throughout, that most politicians are working for the devil. Let me make this clear, you can’t automatically assume that. Just because you don’t agree with someone politically does not mean that they are not a Christian.

“Bush is promoting killing and war, Bell is promoting peace and love.”

Now you are making a distinction between party lines. Are you saying that people who support the war are not Christians whereas people who are against the war are Christians? So, is anyone who is for the war a non-Christian? It seems that you are assuming his Christianity based on whether or not Bush votes as you do. Let me post some of Bush’s own testimony and see which part you object to:

‘I was humbled to learn that God sent His Son to die for a sinner like me. I was comforted to know that through the Son, I could find God’s amazing grace, a grace that crosses every border, every barrier and is open to everyone. Through the love of Christ’s life, I could understand the life-changing powers of faith.’

Please let me know what part of this is false in your mind and why. Thanks.

“Politics has nothing to do with Christianity…period.”

There is a man in my church who is running for state senate. Should I assume that he is a non-Christian or should I discourage him from pursuing such a non-Christian lifestyle?

“George Bush is an idiot, few people would actually doubt that. Even some of my right-wing friends acknowledge that he is an idiot.”

I disagree with this assesment. I think that anyone who has the ability to become President of the United Sates is not necessarily an “idiot”. It seems your justification for calling him an “idiot” is that “some of my right-wing friends acknowledge that he is an idiot.” Is this really the only the defense that you have? Please provide other evidence than ‘my friends say it too.’ What if I said, (for example) ‘D. A. Carson is an idiot. Even the people I hang out with say this.’ Does this make it true?

“The exact same question can be asked to your side of the camp, which I’m sure you’ve participated in plenty of those discussions about democratic candidates.”

I find this interesting since earlier in this thread you said, ‘Labels can be dangerous, and I ask that you please do not label me when I have never classified myself with any movement.’ When did I classify myself with any movement? And yet you seem comfortable to say ‘your camp’? Again, interesting.

“Benny Hinn says he is a Christian, Joel Osteen says he is a Christian.”

Both of them are in ministry so they are obviously Christians right?

“Now tell me Tristan, what did Jesus mean when he prayed to the Father in John’s Gospel for us to be one and to love each other?”

I find this to be a very ironic question in a conversation where you are doubting the salvation of a person who claims to have accepted Christ and I am not.

“I mean, I personally don’t like John Piper or Al Mohler, but honestly try my best to not slander them or call them heretics.”

You seem to be saying that either D. A. Carson or Gilbert were slandering Bell or calling him a heretic. Can you cite where they were doing that and how you disagree with their assessment?

“I disagree with a lot of their theology, like you all do with Bell, but I’m not writing papers and posting on blogs about how wrong and evil they are.”

Again, ‘you all’? Will you please let me know what group you’re aligning me with because I’m not sure? Where did I say how wrong and evil Bell was? Thanks.

“I certainly disagree with Mohler and Piper, but I try my best not to slander and degrade them and call them false teachers…especially in public contexts!”

Both of the people you mention are very public figures with very public ministries. If they state something very publicly do you see anything wrong with correcting them very publicly? I don’t. If I were to publicly criticize something my friend said in private that would rightly be viewed as wrong (and a little weird), but for me to publicly criticize something that is stated in a public forum is not as wrong because they are making their case public. By releasing his videos to the millions, Rob Bell is telling everyone, “This is my view of Christianity”, and in such a public forum I think everyone should have an opportunity to respond.

“If it’s blatant heresy, then yeah, speak up and let everybody know. But when it comes down to secondary doctrinal and methodological issues, then please just shutup.”

‘Shut up’ is always such a nice phrase to hear in a civil conversation. But my issue is not as much with that phrase but with the concept that surround it. The phrase “shutup” obviously means ‘don’t talk about it’. So, here is the issue. You seem to assume that “secondary doctrinal and methodological issues” are unimportant. What about issues such as church government, baptism, evangelism, preaching, end-times, or all other issues that are not classified as “blatant heresy”. Should we not discuss these issues publicly? Or with regards to these issues should we all just “shutup”?