The Cycle of Hope in Life & Death

Take heart… there is Hope!
http://peterrollins.net/?p=2818

by Peter Rollins
posted 6/5/11

I remember, when I was young, reading a short story by the great Philip K. Dick about a man who discovers that insects are highly evolved beings intent on destroying humanity. If I remember correctly the insects communicate to one another through a form of ESP that the man is suddenly able to pick up.

He gains this unusual skill purely by accident late one evening while sitting in his house. The insects that he overhears quickly realise this and immediately send out a message to millions of other insects, telling them that the man must die.

Within a matter of seconds a mass of insects start appearing from everywhere. They ooze out of cracks in the wall, they slide through the slit beneath the door, and they flood from the gaps between the floorboards.

But just as it would seem that everything is lost dozens of spiders drop down from the ceiling and form a circle around the terrified man. One of these spiders addresses him saying, “You have discovered that the insects of the world are here to destroy humanity, but don’t worry we spiders have been placed here to protect you”.

The vast sea of insects edge ever closer as the spiders close ranks around the distraught man.

“Is there any hope?” he cries as the insects circle around him in their millions.

“It’s difficult to say,” replies one of the spiders, “there are so many of them. But we think there might be hope, so be courageous”

Soon the insects reach the circle of spiders and begin the overrun them.

Again the man pleads to the spiders, asking if there is any hope and again they reply with a cautious “yes”.

More minutes pass and soon the insects are crawling all over the man, millions of them. They begin to overrun his body and sliver into his various orifices.

“What’s happening” chokes the man to one of the few remaining spiders, “I thought you said there was hope”

“There is,” replies the spiders, “I promise that there is.”

“But I am dying” he shouts with his last breath, “they are killing me.”

“Oh” replied the spider, before succumbing to the flood of insects, “I’m sorry, but we never meant that there was hope you. We mean that there might just be hope for your species.”

As I reflect upon this story I am reminded of how much I want there to be hope for me… for my circle of friends… for my life. But perhaps this very narrow understanding of hope is not only misguided, but actually oppressive.

For there is a necessary shadow side to the belief that there is hope for me as I face my own demise and it is the sense that there really is no hope at all. These are not two separate realities but rather intimately tied to one another as heat is to light. Both of these feelings are centred upon me and focus upon my tightly bounded circle of reality.

But there can be a profound sense of peace as we expand the concept of hope beyond ourselves and the idea of our own longevity. Whether or not we will persist as an individual is not settled one way or the other when we expand our understanding of hope but rather becomes irrelevant (whether one believes in it or not). Rather we find a certain comfort in seeing ourselves as part of something much bigger, as participating in the ongoing manifestation of life herself. And that, whether or not there is any hope for us, there might just be hope for life, hope that she will eternally spring forth from the dark void of nothingness.

Eating with Others

On Consumption, Vomiting and Eating with Others
http://peterrollins.net/?p=2840

by Peter Rollins
posted 9/5/11

One evening a young man who is returning home after a long and tiring day at work gets a call from his concerned wife, “Dear, be careful on the way home as I just heard on the radio that some crazy guy has been spotted going full speed the wrong way up the freeway.” “Sorry love” he shouts back, “can’t talk right now… there isn’t just one nutter, there are hundreds of them!!!”

...One of the interesting things to note about this little anecdote is the way that the husband does not even entertain the possibility that he might be going the wrong way. Rather he takes it for granted that he is right. This is not a belief that he is conscious of, rather all his conscious thoughts are filtered through this belief.

This situation is sadly all too common. Let us approach this idea by briefly reflecting on how we encounter people with different political, religious and/or cultural values to our own. When faced with such a confrontation (that society all too often attempts to protect us from) our primal response is often one of either,

Consumption – Attempting to dissolve their difference by integrating them into our social body (making them like us)

Vomiting – Rejecting them from our social body as a foreign agent that must be expelled (protecting the integrity of our body)

Of course, most educated and enlightened communities attempt to avoid these very natural tendences, opting instead for a more reflective position that gets beyond these extremes of consuming the other or vomiting them out. This more thoughtful position can be described as eating with the other. Here the community seeks to sit down with the other and seek out places of convergence.

However this third position still operates from the same underling belief as the others,

Consumption – We are right and you are wrong. We shall integrate you

Vomiting – We are right and you are wrong. We shall reject you

Eating with – We are both right in some substantial way. Let us reflect upon where we converge and move forward together

In each of these cases we seek to exorcise or downplay the monstrosity of the other (their bizarre practices and beliefs). But what if one of the truly transformative encounters with the other is not where we try to annihilate their monstrosity (by abolishing it, rejecting it or domesticating it), but by coming into contact with our own monstrosity through it? In this alternative type of encounter we glimpse how we look through their eyes and begin to ask whether our beliefs and practices are just as strange.

This is the subject of a book that I am currently writing.

Rob Bell: Rob's German Twin! (1 John 2.1-6)

Can't get enough of coincidences? Well, try this one...

When recently travelling overseas
Rob's "brother from another mother" look-alike
stunned him when they first met!

He had volunteered to be Rob's German translator
and was quite naturally the logical pick not only because
he looked like Rob but was also
a local German preacher.

The crowds laughed with delight
at the comic inference
as did Rob's Mars Hill congregation a week later
at first sight!

You can hear more in the sermon link below...

"Can you tell which is which?"

Rob Bell's Love Wins Tour at the

Costello Arena in Dusseldorf, Germany, April 2011

Studies in 1 John 2

  "Guard This" 

http://marshill.org/teaching/2011/05/15/1-john-guard-this/

May 15, 2011, Mars Hill Church, Grand Rapids, Michigan

Rob Bell Website - https://www.robbell.com/

Open Theism as Unsettled Theological Opinion (Theologoumena)

Why I am NOT an Open Theist
http://rogereolson.com/2010/08/29/why-i-am-not-an-open-theist/

by Roger Olson
Posted August 29, 2010

Someone asked me why I am not an open theist. I respect open theists for their dedication to biblical exegesis and for their determination to emphasize the personal nature of God. I am also attracted to open theism as a solution to the problem of evil. (Which I, personally, do not think Calvinism can solve. Arminianism does a better job in that it does NOT say God foreordained or rendered sin and evil certain. The distinction between God’s antecedent will and God’s consequential will is necessary for any good theodicy.) Most of the leading open theists are my friends and I would love to be with them on this issue. I have been their defender on many occasions.

However, I have the same problem with open theism as with Calvinism when it comes to theology’s normed norm–tradition. The key Calvinist doctrines of unconditional election, limited atonement and irresistible grace were not even thought of until at least Augustine in the fifth century. (And, I still believe, no Christian suggested limited atonement until the ninth century.)

[And so,] if open theism were true, it seems to me early church fathers such as Irenaeus, who learned the faith under Polycarp who learned it under John the Apostle, would have known of it and taught it. I realize this is not a knock-down, drag-out proof against open theism. However, I’m cautious about embracing doctrinal ideas (or even theologoumena* which is what open theism really is) that are so new in terms of church history.

I’m also stuck on Jesus’ prediction/prophecy to Peter that he would deny him three times before the rooster crows. Open theist explanations just don’t convince me yet.

I don’t see any great need to make up my mind about this in some kind of hard and fast way. In fact, I kind of like thinking about it. As I said before, it really doesn’t make any difference to worship or piety.

********** 

.... some google searches brought these several definitions up ...

*Theologoumena and pious opinions are actually the same thing. In fact, "pious opinion" is the very definition of theologoumen. Basically, one can think of a theologoumen as being a pious opinion that does not contradict the dogmas of the faith but is not required by any dogmas, either. An example of this would be the pious (but uncertain) belief that each of us is assigned a guardian angel upon his/her baptism. To my knowledge, there's nothing in the Apostolic deposit of faith that requires one to believe such, but neither is there anything in our Tradition forbidding such belief. Hence, this belief is relegated to the area of pious opinion, or theologoumen.

++++++++++

Theologoumena is a theological opinion on a subject that has not been definitively settled by the Church. I suppose whether one would define such opinions as "genuine" is if the foundation of said opinion is generally in accordance with the consensus of the Fathers, or the phrenoma (mindset) of the Church.

++++++++++

Excuse me for being a tad persnickety, but the word is theologoumenon (sg), theologoumena (pl), meaning a theological hypothesis that is a legitimage subject for debate or difference of opinion without anyone incurring the label "heretic" for his/her views on the subject.     

++++++++++

First Words on Theologoumena

http://rtmerrill.com/writing/theologoumena.php

April 8, 2007

A coherent-sounding blogger[1] named Tom provides this definition:

The definition of this word ‘theologoumena’ is from the Greek and Latin meaning “to speak of God.” The term usually refers to the historicization of theological statements derived from speculation on divine things and logical inferences from revelation rather than based on historical evidence. For example, the genealogy of Jesus and his virgin birth are classified by some as theologoumena derived from beliefs that Jesus was the son of David and the Son of God. (Patzia, A. G., & Petrotta, A. J. (2002). Pocket dictionary of biblical studies (116). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.)[2]

Or, as some would say, “baggage.”

The Archbishop (Orthodox) of Etna, Chrysostomos, in an article[3] on an Orthodox Christian response to a World Council of Churches paper, in passing defines theologoumena as:

“privately-held, though possibly accurate, views held by some [Church] Fathers.”

Chrysostomos goes on to say that the concept of a firm line between dogma and theologoumena is a Western one, and that the Orthodox approach ought to be:

“a thorough, careful search of the Fathers and to an existential immersion into their spirits—to something that ultimately rises above the useful tools of research that we have borrowed largely from Western theological schemata.”

This is apparently done in the context of full participation in the continuity of Orthodox life, bound together by baptism, the eucharist, and the priesthood, which:

“constitutes a breeding ground for spiritual transformation and for development of that discretion by which a Father can, in one instance, honor the intent and quality of a non-Orthodox sacrament (discerning, as it were, the closeness of its relative truth to the criterion of truth within Orthodoxy), and in another reject such a sacrament.”

I understand this to mean that participation in the Orthodox community through participation in its sacraments, forms or sharpens a way of knowing which those outside the Orthodox community lack. I believe that idea of “other ways of knowing” is an important one when it comes to spirituality.

Chrysostomos has a lot more to say, but not much about theologoumena.

My next stop will be blogger Tom, whose full name is Tom Price[4]. I think he’s coming from a completely different direction, and that may be useful.

---

[1] Understanding the word “blogger” is left to you as part of your cyberspace immigrant-assimilation course
[2] http://abetterhope.blogspot.com/2007/03/what-is-true-christian-faith.html
[3] http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/bemandos.aspx
[4] http://www.tompriceapologetics.blogspot.com

God's Self-Limitations (Torrnace, Pinnock)

http://rogereolson.com/2010/08/30/gods-self-limitations/

by Roger Olson

Posted August 30, 2010

Several posters here seem to me to ignore an important presupposition of classical Arminian theology and of open theism. (I could probably list some other theologies that also affirm God’s self-limitation, but our discussion has been mostly about these.) That presupposition is that, in creation, as in incarnation (with important differences) God limits himself.

All Calvinists that I know affirm some kind of divine self-limitation, although they are much less likely to promote it as a crucial theological idea than, say, open theists. I argue that it functions as a “control datum” for classical Arminians, as well. (Reformed scholar Richard Mueller has found this through his own archeology of Arminius’ theological influences and ideas.)

The reason God is not the author of sin and evil is that he limits his power in relation to creation. By his own choice he is not, in the inimitable words of Baptist theologian E. Frank Tupper, a “do anything, anytime, anywhere kind of God.” He COULD be because he is omnipotent, but he chooses not to be that kind of God.

Why? For the sake of having real, rather than imaginary, relations with human persons.  (Perhaps also for the sake of having such relations with other kinds of persons, but we know little of that.) We all believe that, in some way or other, God limited himself in the incarnation. (Whether you are a kenoticist or not you have to believe in some kind of divine self-limitation in the incarnation. Kenoticists just take it farther than, say, two minds or two consciousnesses Christologists.) For example, he could not do miracles in certain times and places due to people’s lack of faith.

The idea of the “openness of God” to new experiences and to grief, etc., was proposed and promoted by Barthian theologian Thomas Torrance in Space, Time and Incarnation. It was actually Torrance, rather than Pinnock or any other open theist, who coined the phrase “openness of God.” (See pp. 74-75 for the entire statement about God’s entering into time with us.) Other non-open theist theologians who espouse a view of God limiting himself in relation to creation are Dallas Willard (see The Divine Conspiracy, pp. 245ff) and the previously mentioned E. Frank Tupper (see A Scandalous Providence: The Jesus Story of the Compassion of God, passim.)

Why do these and many other theologians posit God’s self-limitation in relation to creation? To make coherent belief in (i) genuine personal relationships between God and persons and (ii) to avoid divine determinism which inevitably makes God the author of sin and evil.

We don’t have to know all the “ins” and “outs” of God’s self-limitations to believe that he does limit himself and that his self-limitation is the reason for evil in the world. That is, it is the indirect reason but not, of course, the effectual cause. God allows evil without foreordaining it or rendering it certain. Why does he intervene to prevent or stop it sometimes and not other times? Well, we have no way of knowing that anymore than we can know why Jesus could sometimes do miracles and other times could not. The reasons are hidden in God; he has not seen fit to tell us what they are. We know faith sometimes plays a role. Sometimes obedience does. But we can’t know all the reasons.

I, for one, would rather believe God limits his power than believe that God’s power is the ulterior reason for whatever is happening [(aka, Calvinism's postulates)].

For a powerful refutation of meticulous providence see theologian David Bentley Hart’s little book The Doors of the Sea: Where Was God in the Tsunami? (Eerdmans, 2005) It’s a powerful critique of any theology that attributes all calamaties to God’s providence. Hart doesn’t quote this adage (paraphrased), but his book is consistent with it: “Nobody should articulate a theology that cannot be spoken standing in front of burning children.”

Hart warns against any theology (such as he sees in consistent Calvinism) that makes God (however inadvertently) “morally loathsome.” “[i]f indeed there were a God whose true nature–whose justice and sovereignty–were revealed in the death of a child or the dereliction of a soul or a predestined hell, then it would be no great transgression to think of [that God] as a kind of malevolent or contemptible demiurge, and to hate him, and to deny him worship, and to seek a better God than he.”

The only way to avoid that (logically, in my opinion) is to affirm God’s voluntary self-limitations in relation to creation.

Fortunately, most divine determinists (including most Calvinists and many Lutherans) DO NOT go so far as to attribute sin and evil to God. In fact, most strongly deny that God is the author of sin and evil. The point is, however, that logical consistency would seem to require that within their systems. And we all know someone who has taken it that far.

Calvinists often say that Armianians “can be” Christians by virtue of a “felicitous inconsistency.” Well, I will say the same about Calvinists at this point. Their theology requires, as a “good and necessary consequence,” that God be the author of sin and evil. That they deny he is the author of sin and evil is a felicitous inconsistency. I applaud them for not following the logic of their doctrines of providence and predestination to their natural conclusions. However, I worry that many of the “young, restless, Reformed” people will carry it that far. I have seen it done. 

continue to -

 

Index to past articles on "Calvinism v. Arminianism"

 

 




 

Doctrine & Worship - Worship & Doctrine

I couldn't help but notice the same styles mentioned in the article below and thought its discourse may help distinguish our biases, prejudices and preferences based upon our beliefs, views and opinions about God.

- skinhead

**********

Why do conservatives and moderates/liberals worship the ways they do?

http://rogereolson.com/2011/02/16/why-do-conservatives-and-moderatesliberals-worship-the-ways-they-do/

by Roger Olson
Posted February 16, 2011

I have worshiped in many different kinds of churches. Here I’ll focus only on Protestant ones.

I’ve noticed a puzzling pattern. Conservative Protestant churches (especially evangelical ones) tend to worship creatively, experimentally, enthusiastically, using contemporary styles of music. The sermons are often illustrated or partly acted out. A lot of technology is used depending on the church’s resources. Often there are drums and guitars and even saxaphones (!) accompanying the music. Seldom is an organ used. There seems to be an emphasis on feeling and emotion–stopping short of fanaticism in most cases.

At the same time, these churches that worship in such contemporary ways often have very conservative, traditional doctrines and practices: no women deacons or elders, only men taking the offerings, proud proclamation of the inerrancy of the Bible, young earth creationism, etc., etc. At least they think this is all traditional and any hint that they should update their beliefs and practices in these areas is met with icy rejection.

More moderate to liberal Protestant churches, on the other hand, seem more than willing to relativize and contemporize doctrine and practice–except worship. Their worship seems most often to be planned traditionalism–by whatever standard of tradition the particular church believes in. Moderate to liberal Protestant churches, even those in very low church traditions, tend to use liturgy, hymns (old and new), eschew “praise and worship” chorus singing, use pipe organs, turn to readings from ancient sources, etc., etc.

These churches see nothing wrong with updating everything except worship. Oh, they many engage in some degree of “liturgical renewal,” but that often means turning the clock back to ancient sources and patterns of worship. Worship in these churches tends to become more and more formal as their doctrinal revisions (or rejections) become more and more accommodated to contemporary culture.

Why does this pattern seem to be so prevalent and pronounced?

   Responses to Why do conservatives and moderates/liberals worship the ways they do?

1. Steve C says:

   February 16, 2011 at 9:38 am

   Perhaps [the conservative] group is desperately trying to experience the God that their theological framework has very specifically required them to believe in. [While the more moderate/liberal group], having somewhat less specific requirements about the exact nature of God, is more satisfied to simply recognize and worship God for whatever their experience with God already is.
2. David Rogers says:

   February 16, 2011 at 10:36 am

   Here’s a speculation based on no sociological info whatever.
   Conservatives believe that spirituality/religion is the content. The form is adaptable to the sub-culture (culture is too large; the selected sub-culture usually conforms to that of the age of the leadership; their life-situation changes, the form changes) and doesn’t affect the content. They are wrong.
   Liberals believe that spirituality/religion is the form. Content is supplied by the ever-changing culture and sub-cultures. They are wrong.
   Form and content are intertwined, and there is no such things as separation. Form always affects the content, and content always affects the form. The important thing to ask is to determine how each affects and “effects” the other. Also, one should ask, “What am I losing by using this form or centralizing this content?” Most people never ask such a question.
   • David Rogers says:

     February 16, 2011 at 1:32 pm

     Let me clarify:
     Conservatives believe that spirituality/religion is found in the content.
     Liberals believe that spirituality/religion is found in the form.

Arminianism is NOT Semi-Pelagianism

American Christianity and Semi-Pelagianism

http://rogereolson.com/2011/02/20/american-christianity-and-semi-pelagianism/

by Roger Olson

posted February 20, 2011

I have agreed with my Calvinist friends (such as Mike Horton) that American Christianity is by-and-large Semi-Pelagian. Where I tend to disagree with them is that this is the same as Arminianism. I have demonstrated conclusively in Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities that Arminianism is not Semi-Pelagian.

What is Semi-Pelagianism? It s a technical term used in the discipline of historical theology for the teaching of the “Massilians” John Cassian, Faustus of Riez and Vincent of Lyons (and others such as possibly Prosper of Aquitaine) that the initiative in salvation is on the human side even though full salvation can only be by God’s grace. Cassian termed the initiative in salvation “exercising a good will toward God” and argued that God awaits it before he offers grace.

Semi-Pelagianism, then, is denial of prevenient grace. Classical Arminianism is, of course, all about prevenient grace. My friend Stan Grenz described it using four words: conviction, calling, enabling and enlightening. (There is no order to these; they are simultaneous in the work of prevenient grace.) These are all the work of the Holy Spirit through the Word of God and without them no one seeks God. This is classical Arminianism. It is very different from Semi-Pelagianism which, I argue, is the folk religion of American Christianity.

My evidence for this is based on almost 30 years of teaching theology in three Christian universities (on the graduate and undergraduate levels). Almost inevitably, when I explain classical Arminianism some students exclaim “That sounds like Calvinism! How is it different?” Of course, it’s easy to explain the difference, but to Semi-Pelagians Calvinism and Arminianism sound alike because of the emphasis on total depravity and prevenient grace. (One crucial difference, of course, is that Arminianism regards prevenient grace as resistible while Calvinism believes it is irresistible.)

As an Arminian, I feel no need to apologize for this situation. Some trace it back to Charles Finney, the great evangelist of the Second Great Awakening. Calvinists especially like to categorize him as an Arminian, but I don’t claim him as a true Arminian. He did not believe in total depravity or the absolute necessity of supernatural prevenient grace. For him, prevenient grace (and thus God’s initiative) is in the reasonable appeal of the gospel to the intellect.

The situation is that most American Christian churches (including evangelical ones) are EITHER Calvinist or Semi-Pelagian by default. I say “by default” because it isn’t intentional; non-Calvinists simply haven’t been taught differently. The vast majority of Christians in America think these are the only two alternatives. If we Arminians have anything to apologize for, I guess it would be doing a poor job of getting our message out. But, then, we get all too little help from major organs of opinion-making such as Christian magazines.

I call Semi-Pelagianism the default theology of American Christianity. One of my main purposes for writing Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities was to correct those who think they are Arminian when they are really Semi-Pelagian. The other, of course, was to correct Calvinists who accuse Arminianism of being Semi-Pelagian.

 

 

continue to -

 

Index to past articles on "Calvinism v. Arminianism"

 

 

 

 

Rob Bell Is NOT A Universalist

The Promised Response to Bell’s Love Wins

http://rogereolson.com/2011/03/25/the-promised-response-to-bells-love-wins/

by Roger Olson
Posted March 25, 2011

Discussion of Bell’s Love Wins is now allowed here for those who can truthfully say they have read it. If you post a comment about Bell’s book be sure to say whether you have read it.

I finally received my copy yesterday. (Sometimes I think mail has to arrive in my city by Pony Express!) I read it last evening and this morning.

First, it is obvious to me that early critics of the book were wrong and they owe Bell an apology. Nowhere in the book does Bell affirm universalism. (Let’s not quibble about what “universalism” means; we all know what the critics meant–that Bell was saying everyone will eventually be saved, go to heaven, and leave hell empty. He nowhere says that.)

Bell does say it is okay to “long for” universal salvation. So did Pope John Paul II! I’m sure some critics who jumped the gun and attacked Bell for promoting universalism without reading the book will come back around and use that to support what they said. But they are not the same. To long for universal salvation is not to affirm it.

On page 114 Bell says “So will those who have said no to God’s love in this life continue to say no in the next? Love demands freedom, and freedom provides that possibility. People take that option now, and we can assume it will be taken in the future.” And nowhere else in the book does he say that eventually everyone will say yes to God’s love. His emphasis on freedom as necessary for love requires him not to say that. Can he hope for it? Who is to say he can’t?

The point is – universalism is the assertion that eventually all will be saved. Nowhere does Bell assert that.

Bell continues in that chapter to say that hell is getting what we want. This is simply another way of saying “Hell’s door is locked on the inside” – something I think C. S. Lewis said. (Or it may be someone’s summary of Lewis’ The Great Divorce.)

Chapter 6 is about what is usually called inclusivism – that salvation through Jesus Christ is not limited to those who hear his name. (I’ve discussed problems with restrictivism here before.) I find nothing in that chapter that Billy Graham has not said. (Go to youtube.com and look up Graham’s responses to questions from Robert Schuler.)

While reading Love Wins I kept thinking “This sounds like C. S. Lewis!” In his Acknowledgments Bell thanks someone for “suggesting when I was in high school that I read C. S. Lewis.”

One thing I disagree with in Love Wins (and I disagreed with it in The Shack) is Bell’s affirmation that God has already forgiven everyone through Jesus Christ. I believe God has provided everything for forgiveness, but forgiveness depends on acceptance of God’s provision. I don’t know how to reconcile universal forgiveness with Jesus’ statement that the Father will not forgive those who refuse to forgive. Of course, if “forgive” means “forgive everyone of the guilt of original sin,” then I can accept universal forgiveness (which is how I and most Arminians interpret Romans 5). But I don’t think that’s what Bell means.

Those who accused Bell of teaching universalism based on promotion of Love Wins jumped the gun and owe him an apology. I won’t hold my breath. Vilifying anyone based on what you think they are going to say is clear evidence of bad judgment; it breaks all the rules of civil discourse. It is part of what I mean by “evangelicals behaving badly” and illustrates what I call the fundamentalist ethos.


Perhaps the time has come for moderate and progressive evangelicals to say “Farewell neo-fundamentalists.” There’s no point in prolonging the long kiss goodbye. We are two movements now–fundamentalists and neo-fundamentalists, on the one hand, and moderate to progressive evangelicals on the other hand. This painful parting of the ways happened between the movement fundamentalists and the new evangelicals in the 1940s and 1950s. It is happening again (among people who call themselves “evangelicals”) and the time has come to acknowledge it as, for all practical purposes, done. It’s just a matter now of dividing the property.

**********

The videos below have been added to this blog post 
to reinforce Dr. Olson's assessment of Bell's position.

Rob Bell Responds to Charges of Universalism

before the release of his book, Love Wins

March 13, 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg0mkooAqiU

Part 1: Rob addressing Mars Hill about his new book Love Wins before it is released.

[March 13, 2011] [Live Shadow-cast]

**********

Rob Bell Thanks Mars Hill for helping him write Love Wins

March 13, 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk590SWE0pM

Part 2: Rob thanking Mars Hill for inspiring his new book Love Wins before it is released.

[March 13, 2011] [Live Shadow-cast]

**********

Rob Bell "What I Believe" after the release of his book, Love Wins
March 27, 2011

~ both videos are similar but each begin and end differently and together
give a fuller presentation of Rob's Introduction to the Churches of Revelation ~



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7JSwVxYxtQ&feature=player_embedded#!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRNudF2emT4

Rob addressing Mars Hill about his new book 'Love Wins' after it was released.
[March 27, 2011] [Live Audio]

**********

 

Rob Bell Defends Himself and his church Mars Hill, pt.1
April 22, 2011



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIKkvmSNUCY



Rob Bell Defends Himself and his church Mars Hill, pt.2
April 22, 2011



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8U9jto2D00&feature=fvwrel



Rob Bell Defends Himself and his church Mars Hill, pt.3
April 22, 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJLqyWAtpvE

(False) Suppositions to Open Theism

Can God change the past?

http://rogereolson.com/2011/02/10/can-god-change-the-past/

by Roger Olson

posted February 10, 2011

Sounds like “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” doesn’t it? So, if you really hate speculative questions and discussions, maybe this one’s not for you!

I listened to a well-known evangelical Calvinist philosopher criticize open theism as limiting God–especially God’s omniscience. So, during the discussion time, I asked him if God can change the past. He said no, God cannot change the past. (My question wasn’t whether God would change the past but whether God could change the past if he wanted to.) Then my question was whether he was limiting God’s omnipotence. He said no because the past is by definition what cannot be changed. Of course, open theists say the future is by definition what cannot be known (i.e., the portion of it that is not yet settled).

I agree with the Calvinist that God cannot change the past; it just seems inconsistent to me to say that does not limit God but saying God cannot know part of the future does limit God. It seems that if God could change the past we would find some example of it in Scripture and we would find there something about praying for God to change the past. Also, in my experience, few people, if any, pray for God to change the past. Isn’t that a kind of implicit proof that Christians do not believe God can change the past?

IF I believed God could change the past I’d be on my knees praying for him to undo the Holocaust. (The Holocaust is on my mind because this evening I am going to hear some theologians and biblical scholars talk about it.)

But, if the fact that God cannot change the past (which most Christians agree he cannot) does not “limit God,” how does saying that God cannot know some portion of the future limit God? It would seem to me that, logically, God’s glory is just as much at stake in his ability to change the past as know the future exhaustively and infallibly including events that are yet to be determined.

Perhaps the real issue between classical theists and open theists is the nature of the future and NOT the nature of God. Greg Boyd has been pushing this point very strongly for years. And yet his critics continue to accuse him and other open theists of limiting God and depicting God as less glorious. I suspect those critics would agree with the Calvinist philosopher I mentioned at the beginning of this post. I think I see an inconsistency, if not hypocrisy, in this.

What do you think? Can God change the past? If so, why is there no example of it in Scripture? (I’m not talking about God forgiving past sins or anything like that. I’m talking about God literally undoing events that did happen.) And, to those who say God can change the past I ask whether they pray for him to do so? And, if God cannot change the past, how is that not a limitation of his power? And, if it’s not, then why is saying that God cannot know future events that are now undetermined?

Not long ago I heard a well-known open theist present a paper arguing that open theism does not in any way limit God. It does not even say God limits himself. The question is, of course, what constitutes a “limitation?” What do you think? Is it possible to say that even open theism does not “limit God” or even portray God as self-limiting? (I have customarily explained to people that open theist says God limits himself.)

**********

Last (?) thoughts (for now) on God changing the past (or not)

http://rogereolson.com/last-thoughts-for-now-on-god-changing-the-past-or-not/

by Roger Olson

posted February 2011

So, here is where I have come to on this subject as a result of the discussion happening here (which I invited). MOST (not all) respondents agree that God cannot change the past because of the NATURE of the past. Those who said God would not change the past because he foreordained it missed my point. My question was not about “would” but “can.” The Calvinist philosopher I mentioned (who denied that God can change the past) did not appeal to foreordination. He simply stated that God cannot change the past because the past is what already happened. Thus he was appealing to logic.

The strongest argument I have read here (or anywhere) against God being able to change the past AND that [is] not “limiting God” is that "to change a past event is to undo that which one is changing, which means not changing it." For example, if God “went back” (as it were) and undid the holocaust it would make it the case that the holocaust never happened and therefore God would have nothing to “go back” (metaphorically speaking) and undo. So, changing the past seems (in spite of movies) to be absurd. That God cannot do it is no more a limitation of God’s omnipotence than the fact that he cannot create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it.

Here’s my point all along: IF it is the case that God’s inability to change the past has to do with the nature of the past and not at all with any limitation of God’s glory or power, WHY would it [be] the case that God’s inability to know future, undetermined events (i.e., decisions and actions of free creatures) limits God’s glory or power or even omniscience? Isn’t that claim like saying that God’s lack of knowledge of the DNA of unicorns diminishes his power and glory? Or, more to the point, how does it differ from saying that God’s inability to change the past limits his power and glory?

In short, if it is the case that God’s inability to change the past, because of the nature of the past, does not affect God’s glory and power, why would it be the case that God’s inability to know the future exhaustively and infallibly affects God’s glory and power insofar as the future is partly unsettled?

Now, PLEASE stay on track with me here. The discussion is NOT about God’s sovereignty at this point. To raise the issue of God’s providential sovereignty and claim that saying God’s inability to know the unsettled future limits God’s sovereignty is to veer off topic and raise a separate issue.

IF someone argues that for God to be all glorious and all powerful he MUST foreordain and determine everything past, present and future he or she raises a different set of questions. What I am asking here is only this: IF it is the case that God logically cannot change the past without that in any way diminishing his glory and power HOW is it the case that an inability to know the future exhaustively and infallibly diminishes his glory and power insofar as knowing the future exhaustively and infallibly is logically impossible?

In terms of “cash value” here is my point. Many Calvinists (and perhaps others) claim that open theism especially diminishes God’s glory. (Some Calvinists claim that open theists are not even Christians!) Those same Calvinists probably believe God cannot change the past (logically). But open theism claims that God cannot know the future exhaustively and infallibly because of the nature of the future–not because of any inherent limitation in God (including self-limitation except insofar as God created a world where he could not know the future exhaustively and infallibly).

Now, of course, as I said earlier, IF a Calvinist changes the subject to claim that ALL non-deterministic theologies diminish God’s glory and power, that’s another debate. Then not only open theists but classical Arminians, many Lutherans, most Catholics, probably all Anabaptists and many other Christians are diminishing God’s power and glory. But Calvinist critics seem to aim primarily, if not exclusively, at open theism as especially limiting God’s glory and power. But how so? How is the open theist’s view of God and the future any MORE diminishing God’s glory and power than any garden variety non-deterministic theology?

Doesn’t this prove that the debate specifically over open theism is NOT over God but over the nature of the future just as the debate over God’s power over the past is NOT over God but over the nature of the past?

**********

I found the commentary helpful on the subject above and would encourage interested readers to further peruse those following reader questions and statements here - http://rogereolson.com/last-thoughts-for-now-on-god-changing-the-past-or-not/ - in later articles I hope to provide additional open theism discussions as I find them helpful of pertinent. - RE Slater

Being Human 3

http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2011/05/17/being-human-3-rjs/

by RJS

May 17, 2011

Chapter 2 of Joel B. Green’s book Body, Soul, and Human Life: The Nature of Humanity in the Bible is entitled “What does it mean to be human?” In this chapter he addresses the title question from two directions. First he discusses the scientific evidence for the connection of human life with the rest of animal life. This includes a consideration of the material features that may, or may not, make us distinctly human. After laying this foundation, Dr. Green then moves on to consider the nature of human uniqueness from a biblical perspective. In the post today I would like to put forth the scientific data and ask how this influences our understanding of what it means for our understanding of the human soul. In the next post I will consider the biblical perspective.

In asking what makes us distinctly human Dr. Green considers three categories or phenomena relating to the material nature of humans: the human genome, consciousness, and mind reading (a fourth category, moral agency, is left for a later chapter).

The development of genome sequencing has led to the discovery that the human genome is smaller than that of many less complex forms of life (common rice has ca. 50,000 genes, a primitive worm, c. elegans, has ca. 20,000 genes, while humans have only ca. 25,000 genes. Clearly the complexity of human life is not reflected by a mere counting of the number of genes coding for proteins. Rather, there is a more intricate, and not fully understood, process of activation effecting the connection between the simple genes and the end result. It is not the number of genes, but when, where, why, and how, the genes are expressed.

Dr. Green also notes that the chimpanzee and human genomes differ in rather small ways (a good summary table can be found in this post). Ignoring insertion and deletion segments the homology is ~98.8%, looking at protein encoding genes the homology is >99% and over all the homology is ca. 95%. The differences between humans and chimpanzees are subtle on this level.

These numbers – either the number of genes or the gene homology between humans and chimpanzees – prove little in terms of human distinctiveness, except to eliminate some possible sources. We are created from “the dust of the earth” as are plants and animals. The features that make us distinctively human arise from something else.

What aspects of our nature make us distinctively human?

Is “humanness” connected to the physical and material form of our bodies? If so, How?

Does “humanness” result from the possession of a soul?

More significant than gene counts and gene homology are considerations of consciousness and the theory of mind.

In discussion of Christian anthropology generally, appeal is often made to baseline human experience that I am more than my body – that is, to my experience of a subjective inner life, the perceptions, thoughts, feelings, and awareness of my experiences, including what it is like to be a cognitive agent. This subjective, first-hand quality of experience goes by the shorthand “consciousness,” and for most of us it is difficult to believe that our first-person experiences of embarrassment or fulfillment, love or hate, smells or color are nothing more than brain states. (p.39)

However, it is becoming increasingly difficult to draw a sharp line between humans and the other animals in the realm of consciousness. Some animals, especially primates, are more similar to humans than previously imagined. This is a nascent science – and one deserving of skepticism and caution. But it appears that many of the characteristics of human consciousness, including the ability to problem solve, hypothesize, and think about one’s own thinking, can be identified in other nonhuman species. This is evidence, some will say, that consciousness is simply a material, physical phenomenon. It does not separate us from the beasts. In any case it appears that the difference between human and animal consciousness is a matter of gradation or degree rather than a sharp line with the presence of consciousness in humans and the absence of consciousness in animals.

The theory of mind is another characteristic sometimes thought to be uniquely human and nonmaterial. The theory of mind refers to “the cognitive ability to understand others as intentional agents with their own beliefs and desires.” This may seem to be a purely human, abstract concept. Recent research however, has suggested that there are nerve cells that fire when others are observed engaging in an activity. These mirror neurons are not unique to humans, they were first discovered in monkeys, and play a role in language acquisition, music, and more. Again the difference between humans and other animals appears to be a difference of degree rather than kind.

Embodied mind and consciousness. Not only is it difficult to draw a line separating distinctively human traits and characteristics from those of animals, it is also increasingly clear that all of these human characteristics are rooted in our physical, material, bodies. Everything, including thoughts, perceptions, decision making ability, empathy and more, is traceable to biological responses characterized by physics and chemistry. Dr. Green summarizes this embodiment, and asks what it means for the concept of the soul.

If the capacities traditionally allocated to the “soul” – for example, consistency of memory, consciousness, spiritual experience, the capacity to make decisions on the basis of self-deliberation, planning and action on the basis of that decision, and taking responsibility for these decisions and actions – have neural basis, then the concept of “soul,” as traditionally understood in theology as a person’s “authentic self,” seems redundant. (p. 45)

The realization of the material embodiedness of human existence does not mean that humans are nothing but chemistry and physics; a carefully balanced set of reactions. Nor does it mean that scientists are forming a united front intent on reducing human existence to nothing but materialism. Dr. Green summarizes:

This does not mean that neuroscientists ans neurophilosophers are unanimous in their reducing humanity to their brains or bodies; rather, many, in urging that humans are more than their physicality, simply refuse to identify that “something more” with an ontologically distinctive entity such as a “soul” or “spirit.” (p. 46)

In the next post we will look at the biblical material that touches on the nature of what it means to be human and how this relates to the concept of the soul.

If everything we think and do can be traced to physical and chemical processes in biology – the electrical signals of neurons in response to sight, sound, taste, smell, touch – what is the role for, or essence of, the human soul?

**********

If you wish to contact me directly you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net

If interested you can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science and Theology.

The End of Evangelicalism 5

http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2011/05/16/the-end-of-evangelicalism-5/#more-16772

 

May 16, 2011

by Scot McKnight

David Fitch contends the ideology of evangelicalism is rooted in three major “master-signifiers”: the Inerrant Bible, Decision for personal salvation, and the Christian Nation. But he contends this ideological set of factors is losing ground because the antagonisms in culture no longer support the ideas, and furthermore the last fifty years have gradually eroded the “politic” that is needed for the church to be what God wants it to be in America. Obviously, these are strong and bold claims … we’ve looked at the Inerrant Bible idea, so today we turn to Decision. All of this is from David’s new book, The End of Evangelicalism? Discerning a New Faithfulness for Mission: Towards an Evangelical Political Theology (Theopolitical Visions).

Fitch’s big claim is this: the obsession in evangelicalism with making The Decision has cut off Christians from the necessity of personal transformation and from ecclesial robustness. In other words, as long as you’ve had the experience you don’t really have to change and you don’t really have to see your life in the context of a church life.

What happens to evangelism when the gospel message transcends personal transaction and becomes a holistic entrance into the mission of God in this world?

[If you examine evangelistic plans, you will see they are shaped by a theology and a salvation theory and an atonement theory and almost never are they sufficiently robust when it comes to calling people to the kind of life the gospel actually calls us to.]

Here Fitch draws on four scholars: Tom Wright’s understanding that justification is more than personal transfer of sins and righteousness because the theme of justification is also about God’s making things right in the world (and not just with me, but surely including me). Second, he examines Michael Gorman’s idea of theosis and shows that justification entails dying to self and being raised to new life personally and corporately — all of which reforms “desire” (David doesn’t develop this much but it’s at work in this chp). We are living out then the new politic of death and resurrection together.

Then he turns to John Millbank’s idea that “gift” entails a life of reciprocity. We are caught up in the Trinitarian life of reciprocity once we are “in Christ.”

All of this leads to this very important claim by David Fitch:

“The call for conversion, however, is no longer ‘Have you made the decision to receive Christ as your personal Savior?’ It is, ‘Have you entered into the salvation begun in Jesus Christ that God is working for the sake of the whole world?’” (150). So the offer is an invitation to enter into the kingdom vision of Jesus, and I’d like (shamelessly) to mention here my newest book: One.Life: Jesus Calls, We Follow, and I’m encouraged by how many students and campuses are now reading this book.

Finally, he appeals to Dallas Willard’s emphasis on kingdom living that leads to transformation into the mission of God in this world.

continue to -

 

The End of Evangelicalism 4

 

The End of Evangelicalism 6