Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by JesusFan, Dec 23, 2011.
IF you had only One answer from the Bible to refute bell on hell and Universalism...
Rev. 11:15-18 (ESV)
Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever."  And the twenty-four elders who sit on their thrones before God fell on their faces and worshiped God,  saying,
"We give thanks to you, Lord God Almighty,
who is and who was,
for you have taken your great power
and begun to reign.
 The nations raged,
but your wrath came,
and the time for the dead to be judged,
and for rewarding your servants, the prophets and saints,
and those who fear your name,
both small and great,
and for destroying the destroyers of the earth."
There are others... :smilewinkgrin:
My first scriptural reference here is Matthew 22:1-14. Not only are all saved people not members of the Bride, some are cast into Hell.
Bill help me out here. Are you sayiing that some saved people will be in hell?
I'll allude to the fact that Jesus spoke of hell, and the Bible has many examples of the lost making their permanent abode there.
Any doctrine teaching otherwise is to say God is not telling the truth here. This is a blasphemous teaching.
Bill where did you go? Can you explain what you meant by what you said? Are you saying some of the saved will be in hell? Also who are you referring to as saved and not being part of the bride? How does that work?
Not 'biblical refuting' but just three points in regards to Rob Bell's claim that he is 'just asking questions that Christians have been asking for many years':
1. Rob Bell was trained at Fuller Theological Seminary. He did well there. Whether he has honest questions about these issues or not is not the issue. He DOES know the orthodox doctrine of salvation. So even if he honestly doubts that doctrine, the way he poses his questions (in his video)…contorts and distorts that doctrine in such a way as to turn it into an absurdity. That is not accidental as it might be for someone who has only a vague idea what Christians believe. He knows very well what Christians believe and he twists it. No accident.
2. If his questions are honest ones, then he needs to resign or ask them on his own time. The duty of the pastor is not to invite his congregation (and certainly not the general public) to join him as he meanders through his own personal journey of self discovery. His duty is to lead people to Jesus Christ.
3. Now that the book is out, his orthodox defenders are rightly embarrassed by the rank heresy therein. It is a profound failure of discernment not only on the part of leaders but also on the part of people in the pews. We have lost the willingness or the ability to do as Jesus commands and “beware of wolves”.
A guy like Bell can worm his way into the Church and deceive whole swaths of believing leaders and people and even people like us. It is very sad and I'm afraid it does not bode well for our future.
Well said, and bears a repost!
wasn't Fuller once known as being conservative in biblical doctrines/teaching, but moved to being 'Evangelical" in the sense of accepting as valid some "critical" thoughts on bible being limited in its inerrancy/authority etc?
They accomadated "scholarship" that watered down the OT/NT texts as being fully inspired by God?
Fuller is evangelical. Period. Give me a school that identified itself as being "evangelical" over "conservative" any day. "Evangelical" means they affirm orthodoxy. "Conservative" means they approach the Bible with an agenda.
It is a fantastic school that fosters first rate Christian scholarship.
Please stop making these asinine assertions.
Check out Fuller's statement of faith here.
And, seriously, stop saying things like that.
have you ever bothered to read Dr harold Lindsell "Battle for the Bible?"
I have read theri OT intro that was written by Fuller profs...
Denied full inerrancy of the OT, bought in multiply sources, had 2-3 isaiahs as authors, took critical dating for books etc
NOT saying Fuller was denying Christianity, just that they had bought into bible having "limited" inerrancy/authority, and that had decided to go with critical "modern scholarship" in some areas!
Oh my soul. What a huge mess.
Seriously, man, you're way out in left field. So far you're slashing tires in the parking lot.
Fuller did have a leftward drift during the 80s and 90s. That is fairly well documented. But they are not the radical institution that some here would make them out to be. Most theological seminaries had a leftward drift during their time at one point or another -- some recovered with a renewed emphasis on a scriptural basis for their doctrine (SBTS for example) while others continued leftward. Others still turned so far rightward in their fundamentalistic backlash that they are really of no true value to the kingdom any longer, for what they preach and teach is so archaic as to be culturally irrelevant and biblically Pharisaical.
did Fuller reecover from their following of critical modern scholarship that turned especially the OT into Multiple sources, later datings, and had taken a modernistic view on how it was compiled and whose really authored the books?
Did they recant from trying to go limited inerrancy in NT also, buy not having Bible fully accurare, just infallible as regarding salvation texts?
Have they stopped trying to intergrate science to faith, to try to blend say evolution and bible?
somthey did recant of their bent towwards denying the full inerrancy/infallibility of the Bible?
Quit trying to interhrate science to faith?
Quit trying to bring into especially missionary outreach "third wave of pentacost"
IF they have recanted and gone back to fully honoring the Bible....
Wow. Just wow.
Many sincere, inerrantist, fundamentalist Christians see no problem holding with both the Scriptures and science.
We just may have problems holding with some folks interpretations of both Scripture and science.
No it doesn't. Folks from the far left and right all refer to themselves as "Evangelical" and that term once affirmed a conservative or Orthodox view. It no longer does as the left works to hide itself from site.
Wrong it means Orthodoxy which is the opposite of folks like Bell, Campolo, Schuller, and Mclaren.
It has swung to the far left.
As long as we bases 'science" upon the truths of the Bible, and that we observe the natural laws God placed into His creation, no problem!
Taking the naturlistic view of science regarding evidence, buying into things like evolution, big problem!