Open Theism Discussion Board

I can tell you, what he would say D. That it is out of love that he has to "antagoniz." He said this to me yesterday:

Here ya gooo Brandon, little "it is written" documentation. Post this on the Open Theism board. Tell em all what ur former prof is up to by giving em this verse in Jude: 23 Rescue others by snatching them from the flames of judgment. Show... mercy to still others, but do so with great caution, hating the sins that contaminate their lives. Is that applicable or what! I love to hate what God loves to hate! Daaaaa...winnnning! hahahahahaha

I'm not really all the willing to go into theological debate on his fb page for a couple of reasons but my "little, 'it is written' documentation has to do with the fact that I asked him about his reading the book first before making any judgments. He then wants to go off on rabbit trails about inerrancy and infallibility. Here is what was said:

RGH: Rob Bell has a unique gift for "undermining the absolutes of scripture" by presenting questions that make his heresy plausible. Listen for yourself. Before he is through, you will find yourself questioning whether truth is even knowable.ahhhhh..noooooow that is really what he is trying to do. Truth isn't definable,knowable or transfe...rable...unless you buy his CD's and his books.
Me: I see you have clearly read his book before its even out. Way to do scholarly work. LOL!

RGH: Brandon. guess you skipped reading my post to simply make an off the cuff goofy statement. Here is what i said: The Verdict for many of us concerning Rob bell came in a loooooooog time ago. Lets see, that means until hepublicly repents for... his hersy,confesses that scripture is in fact "Gods very words, personally "OWNS" THE GOSPEL of Christs exclusivity and declaresl that all must confess personal saving faith in him solely as the one and only way torelationship with God, he ever remains a heretic..who is "Rejected". [pay close attention and you may recognize some of those terms and phrases as being biblical] By the way, I haven't read the morman bible or the Koran. There is a Kingdom principle that guides my life:" Whoever doesn't abide in the doctrine of Christ,does not have God. If there comes "anyone" who doesn't have [the historic-Apostolic]doctrine of Christ,receieve them not into your house, neither bid him God speed...If you do,you will be a partaker of his deeds. 2 John 9-10.So, I trust the schoalrs who have audited bells doctrine just like i trust those who have audited the Koran,Islam, buddhism and Bell!. ephesians 4 decalres it is their job to navigate the church thru the deceptive winds of heretical teachings. but then, that is the inerrant,infallible, absolute "word of God" which you personally reject right?

Me: Richard, why is it a goofy statement to ask if you have read the book first? Professional scholarship doesn't rely on the blogsphere but usually goes to the primary sources. That's goofy??? So what you have in effect done is judge what Rob Bell says about this particular issue based on everything else you don't like about him or his theology. I'm not saying I would necessarily agree with Bell, but from my understanding there ares evangelical views of universalism that are not as you portray--without acknowledgment of Christ. Again, I don't know what Bell would say, I usually wait till I've read the material for myself. That's not too much to ask is it?

RGH: thanks Brandon, how scholarly of you to address the scripture and my question as to it being Gods absolute inerrant word so you deflect it and speak about my scholarship. Your thoughts,ideas,perspective and opinion is most irrelevant until you take a stand and address the issue. Read THE BOOK before you read Bells book.One saves,the other leads to hell. good counsel eh?

Me: I just asked a simple question and you found it fit to respond simply by asking about other issues such as inerrancy and infallibility none of which has to do with my specfic question. So you respond by saying, "I've already made up my mind" which is fine, but it still really doesn't address my specfic question, "Why comment on this if you haven't even read the book?" One should still go to the primary source. So I asked a specfic question, I'm expecting a specfic response. Can you do that?

------------------

So do you see why it is very difficult arguing with my former prof? It's like:

RGH: Rob Bell says we can't know truth, etc. He's a heretic.

Brandon: Did you read the book?

RGH: Let's not skirt what the real issue is: inerrancy and infallibility. Your goofy.

Brandon: I'm just asking a simple basic question and you want to talk about other issues.

RGH: We made up our minds looong ago. Now about inerrancy and infallibility.

Brandon: But I didn't make mention of those questions. I know they are important but I'm asking if you read the book first before going off on it!

RGH: I've made up my mind about Rob Bell. And the video explains it all. So again, about inerrancy and infallibility.

Me: I'm just asking if maybe you should read the book as a primary source before anything else. Is that too much to ask?

------------------

As we know from Greg's and Galli's piece, the book isn't about universalism per se. Yet, I still would go to it first! So I question my former prof's sincerety concerning his research and he wants to go on bunny run. He really should listen to Galli on this. Because this is his tactic. It's like theological ADD. biggrin

Ugh...very frustrating.

Brandon

It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.

To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa