Bell V The Baptist Confession of 1689

26 Sep

Historical Persective, we don’t need no historical persective…

When you hear people say they are just going to tell you what the Bible means, it is not true. They are telling you what they think it means. They are giving their opinions about the Bible”-Rob Bell

Vs.

“The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, depends not on the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God it’s author (Who is Truth itself) Therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God.” – The Baptist Confession of Faith 1689

Advertisements

4 Responses to “Bell V The Baptist Confession of 1689”

  1. curt September 27, 2006 at 10:22 am #

    so what you are saying is that rob and the baptist confession agree that God is the authority of scripture and not what a man says about the bible. it’s cool that there are people like you, especially pastors, all over the world that support other pastors and people who are your fellow brothers and sisters in christ…

  2. poopemerges September 27, 2006 at 10:48 am #

    If that is indeed what he is saying then I certainly am. But if God is the authority, how can we know the scripture? Is the Holy Spirit the guide and if he is then is it opinion? This is a big issue for me.

    BTW Curt it is not an issue of supporting another brother. It is interesting how abhorrent the Emergent Movement finds critique when it is by it very nature a reactionary critique of other ways of doing church. When Mark Driscoll says something about the Emergent movement all the hand go up and the tongues wag, if Tony Jones writes something equally critical of “traditionalist” not an eyebrow is raised. If I am wrong I am wrong, then stone me like a false prophet, however if I am indeed right and this teaching represents a diversion from Biblical Christianity, then I believe that must be said as well. See C. I believe that much of the E.M. teaching is a diversion from Orthodox, Biblical Christianity, and as such, if one decides that historic Christianity is preferable, is dangerous. It is not a personal attack on RB as much as an attack on those beliefs.

    Now if one choose to follow these teachings so be it, my concern is that they be recognized as something other than historic Christianity. Let people choose between Historic Christianity and New Christianity. But let’s not continue to obscure the argument as minor differences. We disagree, I suspect that we both know that RB is not saying the same thing as the Baptist Confession. If you disagree with the confession (and I myself disagree with some aspects of it) that is fine, but argue the primacy and value of your view, don’t pretend we are saying the same thing. I don’t think we are.

  3. curt September 27, 2006 at 6:17 pm #

    if you were to put the quote in the rest of it’s context you would see that he is referring to people using the bible support and mean what they want it to mean, such as using the bible to support slavery.

    i would say that the holy spirit is the guide, but as to how we know if we are being guided by the spirit or making it up ourselves (as rob is referring to) it can be difficult to tell the difference.

    concerning the emergent church diverting from orthodox christianity i think that is pretty clear, but do you think it is comparable to the reformation diverting from orthodox christianity of its day?

    i don’t know how much first hand experience you have with rob or mars hill that he teaches at but i would argue that they are not choosing to be part of the emergent movement nor claim to be but are labeled that by others.

    and i agree with you that the emergent church does not deal well with criticism. i am not specifically defending the emergent movement and i would be saying something if an emergent pastor was trashing traditional christian beliefs as well. what i find abhorrent is brothers and sisters in Christ tearing each other apart over little differences instead of working together, how is that being the light to the world?

    sorry for this being completely random and not extremely well thought out.

  4. poopemerges September 27, 2006 at 6:34 pm #

    That makes a lot of sense and gets closer to the heart of what I am saying…To completely expose my bias I will say that I accept the Reformation, and am very reformed in theology, so yes there was a diversionby the Reformers, though we would say not from orthodoxy but a return to it…

    Here in lies my point, will the EM be the new reformation or will we choose to reject it?

    I think that sometimes wrangling over doctrine is necessary…but so is charity.
    I have found Tony Jones (whom i have major differences with) to be very charitable at times. Sometimes I will admit that I am not. If it helps you though think of these discussions as a bunch of buddies sitting around arguing about football, at times it will get heated but it will not affect their friendship (unless they are complete dorks)…The EM ask for dialogue, that is what this is, sometimes in an irreverent way (cause it’s funnier)…

    On Rob Bell: I have heard him speak many times, i have read his book…I think he is a genius communicator, but i also think he is dangerously divergent from scripture. Which we could get into but it would just be a wild quote fest…This does not mean that he is not a great guy, but i genuinely believe that things like Redemptive Movement, over emphasis on Rabbinical teaching, and a reticence toward saying Jesus is the only way to God is a scary.
    Oh well I could be wrong…but I will keep seeking.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: