Text & Culture - The Relevancy of God's Word to Contemporary Culture

Attending "Talking Points" a week ago I met each of the speakers (except Doug Moo who was being interviewed at the time), revisited many friends and made new friends. From the conference I came away with feeling "How vast is the spectrum of human experience found within the bible" as God uses those ancient experiences of believers and non-believers alike to speak to our own, more contemporary experiences, in new and personal ways! And that within the bible's rich tapestry of story and narrative is discovered again and again the salvific themes of "renewal, restoration, reformation, redemption, and resurrection."

For it is to these rich biblical themes that gives us warrant to discuss the Bible's relevancy between its ancient manuscripts and texts-of-yesteryear to that of our global cultures today. Which very themes have been presented within the body of this blog in a variety of forms and functions: to the ancient text, we've discussed hermeneutics, various theologies, and subject matters on personal awareness and apprehension; to culture, we've discussed, or have shown, how the bible is made relevant to our common lives and lifestyles. So that none of these subject matters are new here, but only revisited again and again by way of helps and decorum.

Overall, my favorite lecture was by Scot McKnight as he heatedly ripped through the several themes of (emergent) Christianity (at least to my way of understanding the Gospel) to some of my overly conservative evangelical brethren's consternation. These themes have most recently appeared in Scot's latest book, "The King Jesus Gospel," just newly published by Zondervan this past month. Here are the themes as I hastily captured them without further review to date:

• What is Biblical Relevancy? Neither a mirror of culture nor a reduction of message
• Culture, Compromise, and Corrupted Christian Traditions
• The Primacy of Christology (New Covenant) over Soteriology (Calvinism)
• God's Love Expressed in the New Covenant and through Salvation History
• Biblicism and the MultiVocality of Scriptures (sic, Christian Smith)
• Authority of Revelation v. Authority of Church Tradition
• Discerning Truth & the Wisdom of God: All good theology leads to the gospel of Jesus
• The Comprehensive Gospel v. Reductionism (creeds and confessions)
• Cultural Criticism (sic, Peter Rollins): What is most relevant is most anti-cultural
• Family Terminology in the Bible: God's love in the midst of family dysfunctionalism
• Critique of the Redemptive Movement Hermeneutic (sic, Bill Webb): Paul is not a prisoner of a pre-set cultural hermeneutic (Ex. "slavery")
• The Ethics of the Kingdom of God: - Personal & Social Justice in the Gospel of Jesus

I say to the consternation of some of the brethren present, but not to all of the brethren who were present. Simply because it was my unhappy experience to have had lunch with one group of pastors struggling with the reception of these emergent Christian themes - themes not intended for the conference's topics per se, and would only appear an hour later at McKnight's afternoon presentation when speaking to the "Relevancy of God's Word (text) to Contemporary Culture" (thereby making these emergent themes very relevant!). Which is why I intended to be present on this day, hoping to hear the emergent themes of Christianity freshly enacted in the ears of my fellowship's very conservative Reformed and Baptistic brethren, and to watch audience's reaction (which were graciously received in humble and studious fashion).

I began this blogsite six months ago because of the severe backlash which I had witnessed firsthand to Rob Bell's Love Wins book - both to sort out my own thoughts as well as to correct the many misstatements,  popular jokes and poor opinions of so many of my friends, family and fellowship. Thus, we have here explored each theme and topic of Emergent Christianity from a variety of perspectives and discussions, and I am beginning to find hope that my fellow conservatives and evangelicals are beginning to understand and embrace these same topics as well in their own way, however belatedly, if this conference is any indication.

Anyway, back to my story. I had unwittingly sat down amid a lively discussion about my pastor and church (Rob Bell of Mars Hill) as he is transitioning from Grand Rapids, Michigan, to Los Angeles, California, to begin new ministries (announced but only a week earlier). And as quickly identified myself to help quiet the conversation down and then found as quickly again a layer of ice 3 layers thick extending across our lunch table making for my discomfort, try as I did to crack and break it at the simplest levels of gracious communication. Consequently, McKnight's later lecture was unforeseen, but a most welcomed reminder to my serving brethren, that Christ is larger than our ideas of Him, His message, or even his servants. And it was my prayer that God ministered to my tablemates that hour by opening their hearts just a crack to understand the courage it took for someone like Rob Bell to speak to the church's cultural conditions in its misconstrued Christian messages and misplaced tasks.

Later I found Dr. Watson to be pleasant and helpful as we talked at day's end on several matters of eschatology and hermeneutics - especially relating to Webb's Redemptive Movement Hermeneutic. His patient teaching earlier in the morning on several OT passages will give to the listener tremendous examples on how to relevantly exposit the bible in its original texts to today's culture. His method is at once plain and simple, but peppered with humor and personal insight, and was a solid review of how to teach the bible using the careful, considered means with which we have on hand through the Internet, research tools, and informed websites; helping to make plain and meaningful God's word in our studies and to those around us. As you listen you'll discover indeed that the Scriptures are relevant to our culture when discerned, divided, and handled aright without any additional need for hermeneutical gymnastics, delusions, misled suppositions, forced imaginations and whatnot.

Doug Moo presented at length a pedantic discussion on the new NIV Study Bible and the translation work he has done in committee with CBT (Committee on Bible Translation) as its long-time chairman in conjunction with  Biblica and Zondervans, as they together created an up-to-date dynamic equivalency version of the English Bible. The NIV's initial publication date was 1984 and after several transitions has produced its latest release during this month, October of 2011 (see the CT article further below). Hence, we all received as part of our attendance package, a gift from Zondervan Publishing of the new 2011 NIV bible.

Doug went on to explain how a common English word is translated into the vernacular which ended up not being too common at all when exposed by regional biases of linguistic naunce; the efforts of the many teams of scholars who work on their translation teams; and the difference between literal bibles (NASB, ESV), dynamic equivalency bibles (NIV, TNIV, HCSB), and meaning-by-meaning bibles (NLT, The Message) that occur along a wide spectrum of publications each serving a specific purpose for their readership at-large. Several articles ago within this blog, a video clip by the BBC was submitted showing how a team of scholars (not the CBT) were working on updating the ESV bible and was reviewed here: http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/09/difficulties-in-translating-bible-esv.html. Referring back to this blog article will give the reader an idea of the difficulty of splitting a word's nuance from its literary syntax found within a biblical passage and how a translation team cooperates to meet its objectives.

Lastly, Zondervan Publishing was present to vouchsafe several displays of academic study tools and pastoral/personal wares along a couple of tables where, to my surprise and great pleasure, I found my cousin's son (and thus my second cousin) representing the marketing department. From time-to-time I mention Mason's blog, "New Ways Forward," and was glad to visit with him; he is a very astute young man, showing broad and good discernment in matters of the Christian faith, and I would highly recommend reading his blog as you can (http://masonslater.com/). Mason's blog may also be found listed along the sides of this blog as well in the blogger section.

As always, may God's grace and peace be yours.

R.E. Slater
October 2011

**********

You can listen to each of the talks here:

1 - Click here for Dan Watson's Lecture

Daniel R. Watson
Associate Professor of Old Testament
Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
Kansas City, MO

2 - Click here for Doug Moo's Lecture

Douglas Moo, Ph.D.
Kenneth T. Wessner Professor of New Testament
Wheaton College, Chicago, IL

3 - Click here for Scot McKnight's Lecture

Scot McKnight

Professor of Biblical & Theological Studies

North Park University, Chicago, IL

4 - Click here for the follow up Q&A Session

http://grts.cornerstone.edu/grts/

**********

Talking Points at GRTS

http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2011/10/09/talking-points-at-grts/

by Scot McKnight

October 9, 2011

Last week Grand Rapids Theological Seminary hosted an event for pastors and students (and anyone else) interested in the connection of ancient text to modern culture. The event was called Talking Points: Text and Culture. Three different speakers, with Q&A, flexibility, and a generous break for lunch permitted all of us to interact over the presentations.

Dr Dan Watson, of Midwestern Theological Baptist Seminary, got us going with a talk about how culture informs the Old Testament, and his theoretical as well as illustrative examples were a good warm-up to the topic. Showing how culture informs that text is what many need to see all over again, and Dan offered plenty of examples.

At the heart of the issue of text and culture, of course, is translation, and GRTS invited Doug Moo, of Wheaton, who heads up the Committee on Bible Translation, which provides the translation for the NIV 2011 (all NIVs actually), discussed how the NIV translators worked: how they examined original text in original language, how they sought to create “natural” English, and how that involves both interpretation and seeking for natural English equivalents to what the text says. By all accounts, this was a special time for all of us.

My talk, after lunch, which had one of its goals to keep everyone awake and away from those early afternoon naps, was devoted to the theme of “cultural relevance,” and I developed seven themes — briefly of course.

Not enough thanks can be given, but to Joe Stowell and John Verberkmoes and Nate Clason I offer my appreciation for hosting a fine event — and to Zondervan for providing an NIV 2011 to each person.

**********

Correcting the 'Mistakes' of TNIV and Inclusive NIV, Translators Will Revise NIV in 2011
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2009/09/breaking_transl.html

"We fell short of the trust that was placed in us."

Ted Olsen
September 1, 2009

Note: An earlier version of this blog post said that Keith Danby's remark that "some of the criticism was justified and we need to be brutally honest about the mistakes that were made" was in regard to the Today's New International Version. He was discussing the earlier New International Version Inclusive Language Edition, released in the U.K. in 1996. I sincerely apologize for the error.

In announcing a major revision of the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible, Biblica (formerly the International Bible Society and Send The Light; or, IBS-STL) CEO Keith Danby said decisions surrounding the release of the NIV inclusive language edition and the 2002 revision, Today's New International Version (TNIV), were mistakes.

"In 1997, IBS announced that it was forgoing all plans to publish an updated NIV following criticism of the NIV inclusive language edition (NIVi) published in the United Kingdom. Quite frankly, some of the criticism was justified and we need to be brutally honest about the mistakes that were made," Danby said. "We fell short of the trust that was placed in us. We failed to make the case for revisions and we made some important errors in the way we brought the translation to publication. We also underestimated the scale of the public affection for the NIV and failed to communicate the rationale for change in a manner that reflected that affection."

Danby said it was also a mistake to stop revisions on the NIV. "We shackled the NIV to the language and scholarship of a quarter century ago, thus limiting its value as a tool for ongoing outreach throughout the world," he said.

"Whatever its strengths were, the TNIV divided the evangelical Christian community," said Zondervan president Moe Girkins. "So as we launch this new NIV, we will discontinue putting out new products with the TNIV."

Girkins expects the TNIV and the existing edition of the NIV to phase out over two years or so as products are replaced. "It will be several years before you won't be able to buy the TNIV off a bookshelf," she said.

"We are correcting the mistakes in the past," Girkins said. "Being as transparent as possible is part of that. This decision was made by the board in the last 10 days." She said the transparency is part of an effort to overhaul the NIV "in a way that unifies Christian evangelicalism."

"The first mistake was the NIVi," Danby said. "The second was freezing the NIV. The third was the process of handling the TNIV."

Gender-inclusive inclusion?

Doug Moo, chairman of the the Committee on Bible Translation (which is the body responsible for the translation) said the committee has not yet decided how much the 2011 edition will include the gender-inclusive language that riled critics of the TNIV.

"We felt certainly at the time it was the right thing to do, that the language was moving in that direction," Moo said. "All that is back on the table as we reevaluate things this year. This has been a time over the last 15 to 20 years in which the issue of the way to handle gender in English has been very much in flux, in process, in development. And things are changing quickly and so we are going to look at all of that again as we produce the 2011 NIV."

I don't think any member [of CBT] would stand by the NIVi today," Moo said. "But we feel much more comfortable about the TNIV." He expects many of the TNIV's changes to appear in the updated NIV.


"I can predict that this is going to look 90 percent or more what the 1984 -IV looks like and 95 percent what the TNIV looks like," he said. "The changes are going to be a very small portion of the whole Scripture package."

Nevertheless, Moo said, the NIV does not currently reflect developments in the last 25 years of scholarship in Bible translation. CBT has made 1200 changes to the text in its database since the TNIV's most recent 2005 revision. (About 100 of these, such as typos, appear in current print editions.)

"I sit in a church where the NIV is a pew Bible," he said. "But Sunday after Sunday I hear the preacher say, 'I don’t think the NIV is quite right here.' And I feel like saying as a member of the CBT, 'Yes, but we've changed that!'"

Likewise, he said, the NIV is a translation that strives to reflect contemporary idioms and there have been significant changes to the English language in the last quarter-century.

"The English is understandable but not natural to people anymore. It's not what people are saying day to day," he said.

For example, Girkins said, the NIV uses the term alien rather than foreigner. Using contemporary English is particularly important internationally, Danby said, because that in some parts of the world the NIV is used for teaching English as a second language.

A question of process

Most translation revisions are not met with as much fanfare as today's announcement. But most translations have not been on top of the best-seller list for a quarter century. Nor had other translation committees previously announced that they would not update their text. Most importantly, other translations had not been the focus of boycotts, Christian bookstore chain bans, Southern Baptist Convention resolutions, and other outrage that accompanied the TNIV's release.

"We're trying to do this right and be as transparent as possible," Girkins said. The NIV team has already created a website, NIVBible2011.com, to solicit comments from scholars and Bible readers. Moo says the CBT will read and consider every suggestion received by the end of the calendar year.

Is the team's repeated emphasis on transparency and openness an admission that World Magazine was right when called the TNIV a "Stealth Bible" in a 1997 cover story that was the first volley against the translation?

"We're not saying the TNIV was a stealth Bible," Girkins said. "But the ways it was brought to market weren't transparent. We didn't bring people with us and caught people by surprise. ... We made a big press announcement today because want people to get on the page with us. We don't want to imply that we're going to overhaul the NIV. We could be giving the impression that this is a lot bigger than it is."

Best seller

The Evangelical Christian Publishers Association reports the NIV is still the best-selling Bible translation overall, though specific Bibles in other translations are outselling NIV Bibles. Last month, for example, the English Standard Version's Outreach New Testament and the New King James Version's Text Bible outsold the NIV's Adventure Bible. The TNIV is not among the top ten best-selling translations and no TNIV edition is among the best-selling Bibles. One bright spot for the TNIV, however, has been in sales to the Amazon Kindle e-reader, where the TNIV is the third-most popular translation (behind the NIV and King James translation).

The New International Reader's Version, a version of the NIV translated into simpler English in 1996, will stay as it is, Girkins said. The translation has had more commercial success than the TNIV; The NIRV Adventure Bible for Early Readers, for example, was last month's tenth-best selling Bible.

Mormonism & Christianity

My Take: This evangelical says Mormonism isn’t a cult

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/09/my-take-this-evangelical-says-mormonism-isnt-a-cult/?hpt=hp_t2

October 9, 2011

Editor’s note: Richard J. Mouw is President of Fuller Theological Seminary, an evangelical school in Pasadena, California.

By Richard J. Mouw, Special to CNN

Some prominent evangelical pastors have been telling their constituents not to support Mitt Romney’s bid for the 2012 presidential nomination. Because Romney is Mormon, they say, to cast a vote for him is to promote the cause of a cult.

I beg to differ.

For the past dozen years, I’ve been co-chairing, with Professor Robert Millet of Brigham Young University - the respected Mormon school - a behind-closed-doors dialogue between about a dozen evangelicals and an equal number of our Mormon counterparts.

We have talked for many hours about key theological issues: the authority of the Bible, the person and work of Christ, the Trinity, “continuing revelations” and the career of Joseph Smith, the 19th century founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), better known as the Mormon Church.

We evangelicals and our Mormon counterparts disagree about some important theological questions. But we have also found that on some matters we are not as far apart as we thought we were.

I know cults. I have studied them and taught about them for a long time. It’s worth noting that people have wondered whether I belong to a cult, with a reporter once asking me: “Evangelicalism, is that like Scientology and Hare Krishna?”

Religious cults are very much us-versus-them. Their adherents are taught to think that they are the only ones who benefit from divine approval. They don’t like to engage in serious, respectful give-and-take dialogue with people with whom they disagree.

Nor do they promote the kind of scholarship that works alongside others in pursuing the truth. Jehovah’s Witnesses, for instance, haven’t established a university. They don’t sponsor a law school or offer graduate-level courses in world religions. The same goes for Christian Science. If you want to call those groups cults I will not argue with you.

But Brigham Young University is a world-class educational institution, with professors who’ve earned doctorates from some of the best universities in the world. Several of the top leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have PhDs from Ivy League schools.

These folks talk admiringly of the evangelical Billy Graham and the Catholic Mother Teresa, and they enjoy reading the evangelical C.S. Lewis and Father Henri Nouwen, a Catholic. That is not the kind of thing you run into in anti-Christian cults.

So are Mormons Christians? For me, that’s a complicated question.

My Mormon friends and I disagree on enough subjects that I am not prepared to say that their theology falls within the scope of historic Christian teaching. But the important thing is that we continue to talk about these things, and with increasing candor and mutual openness to correction.

No one has shown any impulse to walk away from the table of dialogue. We do all of this with the blessing of many leaders from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, some of whom have become good friends.

While I am not prepared to reclassify Mormonism as possessing undeniably Christian theology, I do accept many of my Mormon friends as genuine followers of the Jesus whom I worship as the divine Savior.

I find Mormons to be more Christ-centered than they have been in the past. I recently showed a video to my evangelical Fuller Seminary students of Mormon Elder Jeffrey Holland, one of the Twelve Apostles who help lead the LDS church. The video captures Holland speaking to thousands of Mormons about Christ’s death on the cross.

Several of my students remarked that if they had not known that he was a Mormon leader they would have guessed that he was an evangelical preacher.

The current criticisms of Mitt Romney’s religious affiliation recall for many of us the challenges John Kennedy faced when he was campaigning for the presidency in 1960.

Some well-known Protestant preachers (including Norman Vincent Peale) warned against putting a Catholic in the White House. Kennedy’s famous speech to Houston pastors clarifying his religious beliefs as they related to his political leadership helped his cause quite a bit.

But the real changes in popular attitudes toward Catholicism happened more slowly, as Catholic Church leaders and scholars engaged in a new kind of dialogue with each other and representatives of other faith groups, most dramatically at the Second Vatican Council during the early years of the 1960s.

Cults do not engage in those kinds of self-examining conversations. If they do, they do not remain cults.

Those of us who have made the effort to engage Mormons in friendly and sustained give-and-take conversations have come to see them as good citizens whose life of faith often exhibits qualities that are worthy of the Christian label, even as we continue to engage in friendly arguments with them about crucial theological issues.

Mitt Romney deserves what every politician running for office deserves: a careful examination of his views on policy and his philosophy of government. But he does not deserve to be labeled a cultist.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Richard J. Mouw.

**********

Mitt Romney Responds To Anti-Mormonism:
‘Poisonous Language Doesn’t Advance Our Cause’
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/mitt-romney-responds-to-anti-mormonism-poisonous-language-doesnt-advance-our-cause/

by Frances Martel | 1:02 pm, October 8th, 2011

After half a weekend where the top news story was a debate whether his own religion was a “cult,” Mitt Romney took the stage at the Values Voter Summit today and shot back at those who would undermine his political prowess based on his religion, decrying “poisonous language” and, particularly, “one of the speakers who will follow me,” referring to anti-Mormon American Family Association representative Bryan Fischer.

RELATED Anti-Mormon Pastor To Anderson Cooper: Romney May Belong To A ‘Cult,’ But He Is Better Than Obama

Romney, preceded by a speech in which Bill Bennett explicitly shamed pastor Robert Jeffress for calling the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints a “cult” and hurting the Rick Perry campaign by proxy, thanked Bennett for his speech– “talk about hitting it out of the park,” he joked, a comment Perry had made about Jeffress. During his speech, Romney took a respite from political issues to remind the crowd that “decency and civility are values, too” and to note in particular that “one of the speakers who will follow me today has crossed that line, I think.” Attacking his “poisonous language,” he argued that it “does not advance our cause; it’s never softened a single heart or changed a single mind.” While he did not mention Jeffress, Fischer has made similar comments about the LDS church.

A report on Romney’s comments Fox News below:

**********

Bill Bennett: Jeffress comments on Mormonism 'bigotry'

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65475.html

By ALEXANDER BURNS | 10/8/11 9:40 AM EDT Updated: 10/8/11 6:58 PM EDT

Conservative commentator Bill Bennett, speaking at the Values Voter Summit, rebuked the Texas pastor who described Mormonism as a “cult” here Friday afternoon.

Bennett, the former education secretary and conservative author, said that Baptist church leader Robert Jeffress had given “voice to bigotry” in his remarks.

Jeffress gave a fiery speech endorsing Rick Perry for president and later told reporters he did not believe Mitt Romney is a Christian.

“Do not give voice to bigotry. Do not give voice to bigotry,” Bennett said in his speech Saturday morning. “I would say to Pastor Jeffress: You stepped on and obscured the words of Perry and Santorum and Cain and Bachmann and everyone else who has spoken here. You did Rick Perry no good, Sir, in what you had to say.”

Bennett’s remarks came less than half an hour before Romney was scheduled to take the stage at the Omni Shoreham hotel in Washington.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65475.html#ixzz1aT2zFOYJ

**********

For More Information on Mormonism

Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism

Theopedia - http://www.theopedia.com/Mormonism

MormonInfo.org - http://mormoninfo.org/

Scot McKnight's Website: Comments - http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2011/10/10/romney-a-mormon-is-he-a-christian/#comments

**********

Jeff Goldberg, a Jew: “Mormonism isn’t Christianity”
http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2011/11/02/jeff-goldberg-a-jew-mormonism-isnt-christianity/#more-21854

by Scot McKnight
November 2, 2011

Jeff Goldberg thinks he needs to step into this “is Mormonism Christianity?” issue:

One reason why is that Mormonism isn’t, in fact, Christian. Today’s Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn’t resemble a cult in any meaningful way. But its relationship to Christianity is similar to Christianity’s relationship to Judaism….

Just so we’re clear, I couldn’t care less whether Mormons are Christian, for two reasons: 1) I’m Jewish, so both Christianity and Mormonism (not to mention Islam) are a bit too arriviste for my taste; and 2) religious tests for public office are profoundly un-American. It says so in Article VIof the Constitution: “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”…

Neither does Mormonism offend me aesthetically. I don’t particularly care about what secular culture — on Broadway and off — sees as evidence of its essential ridiculousness: the early dalliance with polygamy; the belief that every righteous Mormon gets his own planet; the sacred underwear; the off-putting absence of both acne and irony among Mormon youths. Christians believe in a virgin birth, after all, and members of my faith remove the foreskins from 8-day-old boys, just as our Bronze Age ancestors did (which bothers me not at all)….

Mormons themselves contend that “Christ is at the center of our worship, study, service and faith,” as a statement released by the church after Jeffress’s comment put it.
But theological honesty demands that we recognize that Romney would be the first president to be so far outside the Christian denominational mainstream.

There is much in Mormonism that stands in opposition to Christian doctrine, including the belief that the Book of Mormon completes the Christian Bible. Christianity had an established creed about 1,500 years before Joseph Smith appeared in upstate New York with a new truth, codified in the Book of Mormon, which he said was revealed to him by an angel named Moroni.

“The Nicene Creed and the Apostles’ Creed settled the basic ideas of Christianity,” said Michael Cromartie, an evangelical who is vice president of the Ethics and Public Policy Centerin Washington. “The canon was closed, and then Joseph Smith comes along and says that there’s a new book, an extra-biblical addition to the agreed-upon canon.”…

Nothing in Mormonism is quite as alien to Christian thought as the core assertion that God and man are of the same species.

“This is a canonical belief of Mormons, and it stands in radical opposition to the beliefs of the monotheistic religions,” Richard J. Mouw, the president of the evangelical Fuller Theological Seminary in California, told me. “Your people” — that is, Jews — “and my people would say that the fundamental sin here from the biblical point of view is that God is God and we’re not. There’s an ontological gap between creator and creation.”

When confronted by such questions about his religion, Romney shouldn’t defend its doctrines. He should defend the right of a Mormon to be president. And those Mormons drafted to defend their faith on the political battlefield shouldn’t argue that they are merely misconstrued Christians, a claim that won’t fly with pivotal Christian constituencies. Instead, they should assert that theirs is a legitimate and moral system of belief, and that a country that elected a black man named Barack Hussein Obama as president is certainly ready to elect an adherent of what [Mr.] Land calls the "Fourth Abrahamic faith." (sic, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Mormonism, as used in this sense - skinhead)

Rob Bell - Sermons on Philippians

Teaching Archives of Rob Bell on Phillippians
http://marshill.org/teaching/past-teachings/

*Each .mp3 file may be found on the Internet but are here linked to their originating source at Mars Hill Church (for a small donation).

*If there are any Google bloggers who are technically proficient and willing to link each .mp3 file below to this site page, this help would be appreciated. Each line will need its own embedded code and a reasonably stable link that will be available for years and years. Or, perhaps there is an Internet channel that can be used. Comments may be made below.

Philippians pt 01: Grace And Peace - Rob Bell
Philippians pt 02: A Good Work - Rob Bell
Philippians pt 03: All Of You - Rob Bell
Philippians pt 04: Abound - Rob Bell
Philippians pt 05: What Has Happened To Me - Rob Bell
Philippians pt 06: But What Does It Matter - Kent Dobson
Philippians pt 07: My Deliverance - Rob Bell
Philippians pt 08: Exalted In My Body - Rob Bell
Philippians pt 09: I Do Not Know - Rob Bell
Philippians pt 10: Progress And Joy - Rob Bell
Philippians pt 11: Boasting Will Abound - Rob Bell
Philippians pt 12: A Worthy Manner - Brian Mucci
Philippians pt 13: Same Struggle - Rob Bell
Philippians pt 14: One Mind - Rob Bell
Philippians pt 15: Others - Rob Bell
Philippians pt 16: Grasping And Giving - Rob Bell
Philippians pt 17: The Crux And The Hyperhypsosem - Rob Bell
Philippians pt 18: God Works In You - David Livermore
Philippians pt 19: Shine Like Stars - Rob Bell
Philippians pt 20: A Life Poured Out - John Ortberg
Philippians pt 21: Examples - Leroy Barber
Philippians pt 22: Beware The Dogs - Rob Bell
Philippians pt 23: Skubalon - Greg Boyd
Philippians pt 24: Blocks And Boards - Rob Bell
Philippians pt 25: I've Got You Hanging Around My Neck - Rob Bell
Philippians pt 26: I Will Say It Again, And Again, And Again - Rob Bell
Philippians pt 27: An Odd But Ancient Way To Live - Tim Brown
Philippians pt 28: The Right Kind Of Contentment - Richard Mouw
Philippians pt 29: Who Doesn't Want In On That? - Rob Bell
Philippians pt 30: Letter On A Letter - Rob Bell

Rob Bell - Sermons on the "Letters to the Seven Churches of Revelation"

Teaching Archives of Rob Bell on the "Letters to the Seven Churches of Revelation"
http://marshill.org/teaching/past-teachings/ ( ~ 2010 - 2011 )

Yet again, an  e-x-c-e-l-l-e-n-t   series. Profound, convicting, motivating. - res

*Each .mp3 file may be found on the Internet but are here linked to their originating source at Mars Hill Church (for a small donation).

*If there are any Google bloggers who are technically proficient and willing to link each .mp3 file below to this site page, this help would be appreciated. Each line will need its own embedded code and a reasonably stable link that will be available for years and years. Or, perhaps there is an Internet channel that can be used. Comments may be made below.

Letters To The Seven Churches pt 1: Rev 2: First Love - Rob Bell
Letters To The Seven Churches pt 2: Rev 2: Lighting The Wick - Shane Hipps
Letters To The Seven Churches pt 3: Rev 2: The Agony Of Explanation - Rob Bell
Letters To The Seven Churches pt 4: Rev 2: Thyatira - Richard Mouw
Letters To The Seven Churches pt 5: Rev 3: Fool's Gold - Shane Hipps
Letters To The Seven Churches pt 6: Rev 3: Sardis - Rob Bell

Rob Bell - Sermons on the Kingdom of God

Teaching Archives  of Rob Bell on the Kingdom of God
http://marshill.org/teaching/past-teachings/

Here is another  e-x-c-e-l-l-e-n-t   series. Profound, convicting, motivating. - res

*Each .mp3 file may be found on the Internet but are here linked to their originating source at Mars Hill Church (for a small donation).

*If there are any Google bloggers who are technically proficient and willing to link each .mp3 file below to this site page, this help would be appreciated. Each line will need its own embedded code and a reasonably stable link that will be available for years and years. Or, perhaps there is an Internet channel that can be used. Comments may be made below.

Kingdom pt 1: Suffer The Kindness - Dan Allender
Kingdom pt 2: Within You - Shane Hipps
Kingdom pt 3: Weeds - Rob Bell
Kingdom pt 4: Sleeping - Shane Hipps
Kingdom pt 5: Returning To The Field - Shane Hipps
Kingdom pt 6: Ten Virgins - Rob Bell
Kingdom pt 7: The Learner - Shane Hipps

Rob Bell - Sermons on the Sermon on the Mount

Teaching Archives of Rob Bell on the "Sermon on the Mount"

http://marshill.org/teaching/past-teachings/   ( ~ 2009 - 2010 )

This is an  e-x-c-e-l-l-e-n-t  series. My all time favorite. Profound, convicting, motivating. - res

*Each .mp3 file may be found on the Internet but are here linked to their originating source at Mars Hill Church (for a small donation).

*If there are any Google bloggers who are technically proficient and willing to link each .mp3 file below to this site page, this help would be appreciated. Each line will need its own embedded code and a reasonably stable link that will be available for years and years. Or, perhaps there is an Internet channel that can be used. Comments may be made below.

Resurrection - Rob Bell

Resurrection Sunday - Shane Hipps

Sermon on the Mount pt 01: Blessed Are The Poor In Spirit - Rob Bell

Sermon on the Mount pt 02: Whistling Past The Graveyard - Father Sirico

Sermon on the Mount pt 03: Blessed Are The Meek - Rob Bell

Sermon on the Mount pt 04: Blessed Are Those Who Hunger And Thirst - Rob Bell

Sermon on the Mount pt 05: Blessed are The Merciful - Ed Dobson

Sermon on the Mount pt 06: Blessed are The Pure In Heart - Kent Dobson

Sermon on the Mount pt 07: Blessed are the Peacemakers - Rob Bell

Sermon on the Mount pt 08: Blessed are the Persecuted - Rob Bell

Sermon on the Mount pt 09: Salt And Light - Rob Bell + Don Davis

Sermon on the Mount pt 10: Anger And Lust - Dan Allender

Sermon on the Mount pt 11: Eye For An Eye - Skye Jethani

Sermon on the Mount pt 12: Love Your Enemies - Rob Bell And Cyprian Nkiriyumwami

Sermon on the Mount pt 13: Intentions - Rob Bell

Sermon on the Mount pt 14: Prayer - Scot McKnight

Sermon on the Mount pt 15: Forgiveness - Rob Bell

Sermon on the Mount pt 16: Treasure In Heaven - Ed Dobson

Sermon on the Mount pt 17: Don't Worry - Ed Dobson

Sermon on the Mount pt 18: Judging - Rob Bell

Sermon on the Mount pt 19: Ask, Seek, Knock - Rob Bell

Sermon on the Mount pt 20: Askesis - Trygve Johnson

Sermon on the Mount pt 21: Fruit - Rob Bell

Sermon on the Mount pt 22: The Two Houses - Don Davis

The Emergent Spectrum of Evangelicalism

Below I have provided a copy of Baker's Book review of the book, The Spectrum of Evangelicalism. One of its authors, Dr. Roger Olson, whom we follow regularly on this site, was a contributor and had notated the absence of an important evangelical position missing in this book, that of paleo-orthodoxy, which he then further explains below in two subsequent articles here copied and wishes that it would have been included. For without it there is a serious gap in the completeness of understanding what evangelicalism is, a completeness that the book misses.

To that observation I would add a sixth, crucial, evangelical view that is also missing... that of Emergent Christianity, which may at first seem more akin to Dr. Olson's post-conservative moniker but is fast outgrowing the old wineskin's of Evangelicalism's theologic boundary markers and ideological sets of containment. Thus stretching it beyond its breaking point with the new wines of its promise from its earlier days of infancy and forwarned by Christ. Let me explain....

Where once the Emergent Church movement was evangelically birthed and considered the unwanted step-child of Evangelicalism (consider its missing chapter in this most recent book), it has now gained a more rapid series of expansion in the hearts and minds of its adherents seeking for a more serious, more rounded form of fellowship that is less restrictive, less dogmatic, less vocal in its evangelical assurances of the faith. To the point of breaking ranks with Evangelicalism altogether by pushing back beyond its defining Reformational theologies begun 500 years ago unto the Early Church era itself. Rebirthing itself as it goes into the studied awareness and conviction of expanding without limit God's Word to all of mankind who are now shunned by Evangelicalism's off-setting dogmas and traditions that go beyond "Jesus as Savior and Lord" beliefs. Causing the Emergent movement to become no longer known as an outgrowth from Evangelicalism but a different kind of movement altogether. Hopefully one more biblical in its diversity and less reliant on dogmatic Christian traditions.

And though at first it felt like a movement that was pushing itself between Protestantism, on the one hand, and Roman Catholicism on the other, declaring itself as an alternative-form of Protestantism more akin to Anabaptism. Now, in reflection, this observation seems to be both inaccurate and not far reaching enough.  Rather, it seems more true that Emergent Christianity is more than a simple outgrowth from modernistic Evangelicalism. More than a movement of believers wishing to delineate themselves from select Reformational Calvinisms and Reformed doctrines (where and when those dogmas remove the Church from careful biblical scholarship and observance). Wishing to reach even further back, reaching all the way beyond the Reformation 500 years ago, beyond pre-Reformational medieval scholarship of a 1000 years ago, beyond even the careful councils of the Early Church Fathers, to the very historic era of the early church itself 2000 years ago. To hear afresh the Word of God in its native constructs and propositions rather than adhering to a set of denominational (and cultural) distinctives and theologies far removed from the Bible's historical settings (cf. sidebar "Pauline Theology").

Statedly, all of biblical scholarship from all over the world - in its universities and seminaries, in its churches and fellowships - is seeking to hear the Bible in its original compositions through newer post-Enlightenment discoveries about ourselves, our epistemologies and philosophies, our form of symbolic communications and forensic language development, our reasoning and psychological makeup, our forms of societal constitutions and conventions. Bringing to bear all the tools of accumulated knowledge at our disposal, amassed over the past many hundreds of years, to create a more complete, a more accurate reflection upon who God is in his cosmogony, who we are in our societies, and what our future can look like when less divided by a multitude of restrictive customs and heritages.

So that Emergent Christianity is not so much a fifth (or even a sixth) view of Evangelicalism but a completely new outgrowth from the pedantic isolationisms of Evangelicalism in its Westernized form unto a new entity globally birthed unformed and pregnant with possibilities. Something which may set a new pace for the entire spectrum of Christianity - whether Protestant, Catholic, Eastern Orthodoxy, etc., - in its promise that all religious barriers may be removed in light of a rigorous desire to return to the Scriptures themselves (sola scriptura). Where the only barriers that could refuse it would be religious fear, uncertainty and pride; denominational money, media and fiefdom; and personal greed, avarice and deceit.

Where, in the process of collaboration and unity, individualism is retained, cultural identity applauded, diversity openly regarded. Where the Church may become strong within the fractals of its faith fellowships; within its very-necessary chaotic quantum environments; and, within its infinite colours and compositions. Swirling around as one living organism complete within its spectrums of regional diversities. The Church is not a call to conform, to blend in, to leaven our institutional and belief structures, but to communicate better with one another, to listen and share our faiths with one another in a richer tapestry of fellowship that only the human spirit can bear out. We are not seeking evangelic, denomination unity but a unity of spirit bent on preserving the varieties of biblical (not cultic) faith-expressions flowing from the Church's ancient Christological heritage unto the wider spectrum of global mankind. In short, diversity is God's gift to us and we should praise Him for it.

And within this evolutionary birthing process, perhaps be more able to reach-out and bring-in those non-Christian, monotheistic religions of Judaism and Muslimism which stand alongside the fold of God's divine flock. For Jesus is both prophet and significant historical personage to both these Eastern religions. And through the promise of Emergent Christianity's broader scope and sense of God's salvation to all men, in all times and places, the barriers to reaching these belief systems seem more possible, more sure. For the focus is on Jesus, the Good Shepherd of man, the Holy Lamb of God, the Incarnate One who makes covenant and by His own covenant cuts it by His blood. Who would be King and Lord, Alpha and Omega, and not simply a historical personage some consider but mere prophet or revolutionary. In Him is the distillation of the Ten Commandments. In Him does Israel find its exilic summation, its exilic rebirth, its flesh-and-blood Messiah who bears the sins of the nation.

And not only Israel, but all nations, be that blood brothers, or half-brothers, or brothers at enmity with one another. Specifically, Islam. In Jesus is there found Peace. For He Himself is that Peace of the New Covenant made with all men; that removes enmity between men and God, between men with each other, and men with themselves, their families and their friends. Jesus is THE Peace Covenant and this is the message of Emergent Christianity and the promise of its message.

...At least that is the promise in light of Inauguration Eschatology's New Testament hope of seeing the Kingdom of God renewed and restored among men. It is a legitimate promise, until that Day when Christ shall come fully in his Parousia. For it is not a day that can come apart from Christ's return lest in its coming man may deceive himself and rise up and call himself g/od almighty to discover himself prophetically within the early days of Revelation so declared.

The Church is not called to remake another temple of Babel in its own image. But it does mean that we can begin to hear God in his Word and seek his holy Being until that Day when in a shout of triumph Christ Jesus shall descend over the kingdoms and fiefdoms of mankind, and bring all men to His final peace. To rule in the hearts and minds of all men everywhere committed to a renewed earth where sin and death have been cast into the fiery lake and His glory and presence rules forth forever more. Amen and Amen.

This then would be the true spectrum of Christianity: one without boundaries and barriers, stateless and universal, color-blind, gender-neutral, disavowing all human limitations to its mission and charter.

RE Slater

September 29, 2011

**********

“Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism”

http://bbhchurchconnection.wordpress.com/2011/09/23/in-store-now-four-views-on-the-spectrum-of-evangelism/

Baker Book House

September 23, 2011

Yesterday we received our first copies of the latest multiple-views book from Zondervan. It is the Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism. The contributors and positions are:

Kevin T. Bauder – Fundamentalism

R. Albert Mohler – Confessional Evangelicalism

John G. Stackhouse – Generic Evangelical

Roger Olson – Postconservative Evangelical

It may appear there is quite a spectrum but Roger Olson has said on his blog that he feels the positions between Bauder and Mohler Stackhouse. With those observations aside he believes the “book is very good as it is.”

As I scanned through it quickly I was struck by Bauder’s comments on Roman Catholicism. He writes:

“Fundamentalists believe that Roman Catholicism also denies the gospel. Catholicism attacks the gospel in at least two ways. First, it undercuts biblical authority by subjecting the Scriptures to an authoritative tradition and magisterium, not to mention an infallible papacy. Second, by confounding justification with progressive sanctification, it attacks the root of a gracious gospel and denies that salvation can be applied through faith alone. The result is a system of religion that mixes faith with works in the application of salvation.

Granted, Roman Catholicism, unlike Arianism or Mormonism, affirms Trinitarian orthodoxy. The Roman gospel, however is false. Catholicism represents an apostate, rather than a Christian, system of religion. Christians cannot rightly extend Christian recognition or fellowship to those who endorse and proclaim the Roman Catholic gospel.” (31-32)

Readers of this blog know how much I have learned and enjoy reading Catholic scholars. This kind of fundamentalism is hard to understand yet I encountered it first hand this week. I had a customer remark that he was just about to buy a book on exegesis but then he noticed the author taught at a Catholic seminary. He said to me, “Catholics are wrong on so much what could they possibly teach us about exegesis? Clearly their exegesis is wrong.” He didn’t purchase the book. I offered a couple of thoughts which he simply brushed aside as mindless gibberish.

I look forward to reading this book. I was once very comfortable with calling myself an Evangelical. I’m wondering if I’ll still be as comfortable after finishing the book.

Four Views on The Spectrum of Evangelicalism is from Zondervan. It is a paperback with 224 pages and sells for $16.99.

**********

Announcement of a new book on evangelicalism

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2011/09/announcement-of-a-new-book-on-evangelicalism/

by Roger Olson

September 4, 2011

It’s just out: Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism published by Zondervan. Edited by Andrew David Naselli and Collin Hansen in the series Counterpoints edited by Stanley Gundry. The authors of the four views are:

Kevin T. Bauder (Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Minneapolis)

R. Albert Mohler, Jr. (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary)

John G. Stackhouse, Jr. (Regents College)

Roger E. Olson (Baylor University)

Bauder writes on Fundamentalism; Mohler writes on Confessional Evangelicalism; Stackhouse writes on Generic Evangelicalism; Olson writes on Postconservative Evangelicalism. Each author responds to the others.

Fireworks.

After participating in this project for the past two years and now reading the entire book (including all the responses) I can only say that this book proves there is no one “evangelicalism.” The continental divide is between Bauder and Mohler, on the one hand, and Stackhouse and Olson, on the other hand.

Yes, of course, there are differences between Bauder (who represents separatistic fundamentalism) and Mohler (who does not push “biblical separationism” as strongly as Bauder). But overall and in general, Bauder and Mohler represent a narrow, exclusivistic brand of evangelicalism that highlights correct doctrine as the essence of what it means to be evangelical.

Stackhouse and I find it difficult to locate our differences. I’m sure we have them, but like Bauder and Mohler, it’s somewhat difficult to see how our visions of evangelicalism are very different. I’m sure John thinks of himself as more conservative than I, but I don’t really think so. I’m pretty conservative; I just don’t think you have to be as conservative as I am (e.g., premillennial) to be an evangelical. John’s evangelical “tent” is just as broad as mine, so far as I can tell.

My biggest complaint is that Mohler just doesn’t get it. And I can’t for the life of me figure out why. He continues to insist that evangelicalism has boundaries. Really? Who sets them? Oh, of course, he does! (Excuse the sarcasm.) He refuses to acknowledge the obvious fact that evangelicalism is a movement and movements CANNOT have boundaries. Yes, of course, we can talk about who’s “in” and who’s “out,” but not in terms of firm, recognizable boundaries. Without a magisterium there cannot be boundaries. All we can do is appeal to the historical center of common conviction and experience and ask whether a person is moving away from it or towards it. I fear if Mohler has his way evangelicalism will be narrowed down to people who believe in a literal six day creation (twenty-four hour days) about six thousand years ago. (Oh, and of course, people who don’t practice yoga in any form!)

This book demonstrates quite conclusively that there are now at least two evangelicalisms (in terms of theology). They are separated by:

1) whether or not biblical inerrancy is necessary for authentic evangelical faith (which even Carl Henry denied!),

2) whether a foundationalist epistemology is necessary for authentic evangelical theology (there would go Calvin!),

3) whether theology’s constructive task is ever ongoing until Christ returns (I might mention here an excellent article by Mohler’s associate dean Bruce Ware in JETS some years ago arguing for a revision of the traditional idea of God’s immutability [but apparently that kind of creative thinking isn't allowed others]) and,

4) whether doctrine or experience (conversional piety) is the sine qua non of authentic evangelical faith and life.

Buy the book. Read it. Decide which evangelicalism you belong to. I don’t think it’s possible to belong to both and I don’t see any middle ground between them.

NOTICE! I am not arguing that Bauder and Mohler and their ilk are not evangelicals! I’m arguing that, demonstrably, there are now two evangelicalisms (at least). Bauder and Mohler and those who agree with them are evangelicals–just of a different kind. John and I are evangelicals of a different order (I won’t even say “higher”). All of us (both types) can trace historical, theological and sociological roots back to the Reformation. But apparently we can’t get along. How sad.

**********

A final comment on Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2011/09/a-final-comment-on-four-views-on-the-spectrum-of-evangelicalism/

by Roger Olson

September 19, 2011

Quick review: Zondervan has just published an excellent new book entitled Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism edited by Andy Nasselli and Collin Hansen. The four authors are:

Kevin Bauder (fundamentalism)

Al Mohler (confessional evangelicalism)

John Stackhouse (generic evangelicalism)

Roger Olson (postconservative evangelicalism)

I hope you will purchase the book and read it; it reveals much about the current state of evangelicalism in America.

Long before the book was written, my editor at Zondervan contacted me about the idea. I gave her some advice and later gave the same advice to the editors. I think the final product is fine, but I think it could be better had they taken my advice.

My advice was to include a chapter by an evangelical proponent of paleo-orthodoxy. Here I use that term to describe theologians such as Thomas Oden (who, I think, coined the term), D. H. Williams and Christopher Hall–all men I highly respect even thought we have our differences of opinion about authority for theology.

Personally, I think their perspective is better called “confessional evangelicalism” than Mohler’s. At least it is different and I think leaving their view of evangelicalism out of the book was a mistake. (However, I admit that it’s possible they asked one or more of these paleo-orthodox theologians to contribute and they declined. So I’m not criticizing the editors or publisher; I’m just saying the book lacks a perspective that I think is a very powerful one among evangelicals today.)

I think Bauder’s view and Mohler’s are too much alike to really represent fundamentally different approaches to defining evangelicalism. I think the same of Stackhouse’s and mine (with apologies to John if he disagrees!). IF you want to fill in the gap, read one of Dan (D. H.) Williams’ books on tradition. Then read my critique of his approach (and Oden’s) in "Reformed and Always Reforming (by Roger Olson)."

Williams, Oden, Hall and company wish to point evangelicals to the ancient Christian consensus as an authority for belief. (I could mention the late Robert Webber as a proponent of this approach as well.) These evangelical theologians think contemporary evangelicalism is doctrinally and liturgically shallow and needs enrichment from the church fathers. For them, this is more than a mere suggestion (as it would be from me). They treat the ancient Christian consensus as THE authoritative lens through which Scripture must be interpreted. For them, we have no right to read Scripture apart from that.

One thing these traditionalists (I use that term in a neutral or positive and not a negative sense) have in common with Mohler is appeal to tradition as authoritative. But the difference is that for Mohler the authoritative tradition is a received evangelical tradition stemming mainly from the Reformation.

The paleo-orthodox theologians reach further back to the church fathers and like to argue that the mainline Protestant (read “magisterial”) reformers did not fundamentally disagree with the church fathers and even relied heavily on them (especially Augustine).

Now, both Mohler and company and the paleo-orthodox theologians seem to me to agree that the constructive task of theology is finished. All that remains is to express the tradition in ways that make it relevant to contemporary culture without in any way accommodating it to contemporary culture. I argue that in matters of theological controversy among evangelicals tradition gets a vote but never a veto. I think they give it a veto.

However, there is a richness and depth to Oden’s, Williams’, Hall’s and Webber’s approach to evangelical theology that I find missing in Mohler’s. Mohler seems to me to be a simple biblicist who interprets the Bible through the lens of, say, Charles Hodge (and his student Boyce who founded SBTS and wrote its Abstract of Principles). The paleo-orthodox traditionalists, on the other hand, plumb the depths and riches of the ancient church fathers and bring those riches to us today. The only area where I disagree with them is the level of authority they invest in them.

One thing that bothers me about these paleo-orthodox evangelicals is a certain inconsistency that I think I recognize in them. For example, in my reading of Augustine’s theology (e.g., his doctrine of predestination), it departs radically from anything that went before. When did the constructive task of theology end? Some would say with the seventh or eighth ecumenical council. But why? That seems so arbitrary. The magisterial reformers seemed to end it with the Council of Chalcedon (the fourth ecumenical council).

I regard the church fathers as guides rather than guards (e.g., of a chain gang).

Anyway, the book is very good as it is, but I think it would be better with a chapter by one of these paleo-orthodox evangelicals. But then it would be “Five Views” and maybe that’s too many for most people; it might hurt sales of the book. If I were given the opportunity to change it, I would combine Bauder’s and Mohler’s chapters into one and add a chapter by Williams.

**********

September 28, 2011 at 11:00 am
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2011/09/a-final-comment-on-four-views-on-the-spectrum-of-evangelicalism/#comments

Russ says,

[Dr Olson,] I love your humor! Thanks for the insights. One question I have is over something I recently read… It relates to Sanders, Dunn, Wright’s discussions on the New Perspectives of Paul (NPP) vs. the Reformational Church’s apprehension of Augustine by Lutheran and Reformed theologians who saw Paul in legal justification terms. When comparing the two (one a biblical approach, the other a Church Fathers approach) it seemed to me that Augustine’s understanding of the New Covenant (NC) in Christ was hijacked by the Reformers. That is, his doctrines of grace and love were re-interpreted into doctrines of sin and depravity. That the NC was extrapolated into terms of man first, not God first… so that it bent all previous theistic interpretations (such as Augustine's) of the NC into terms of anthropology and harmatology. And thus words like election and foreordination are revised away from their covenantal understanding to a soteriological understanding. And it seemed that this all began for the Reformers from their revisionism of Augustine’s conceptions of God’s love to man.

As reference, see Scot McKnight’s review in vanguard under Section V (Augustinian Anthropology and Criticism of New Perspective) – http://www.vanguardchurch.com/mcknight_npp.pdf. If correct, I found this early example of paleo-Orthodox revisionism by the early Reformational Fathers quite formative in their impact on Church History over the last 500 years. Which gives subsequent need for theologians to examine the original biblical texts through early extant Jewish sources (and other tools) to re-right popular mis-understandings of the “Gospel of Paul” as presented by the evangelical church today, as is being done through the NPP. Thanks.

Andrew Reynolds Stay Gold & Busting It !

Andrew Reynolds:
Emerica Stay Gold B-Side

For more vids go to -

KKSM Konnect Skateboard Ministry

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/09/httpwww.html

KKSM Elijah Moore

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/06/httpwww.html

KKSM.org

http://www.kksm.org/