OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 28, 2014, 10:25:07 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Rob Bell vs. John piper  (Read 3540 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Timon
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,490



« on: August 27, 2011, 10:11:15 AM »

It seems like in the protestant world (one that I still spend a lot of time in) you have to choose your side.  You are either on the more conservative side with Piper, or the more liberal side with Rob Bell.

Its always funny to me to see people argue over who is right.  Its as if they think these guys have thought of something "new" or "profound."  Then it hit me.... For protestants, some of this IS new and profound.  For the most part, they completely ignore pre-reformation church history. 

Rob Bell has been labeled as a "universalist" because of his new book "Love Wins."  I do not label him as that, however.  I dont think he is a universalist.  But if you studied history that happened before the reformation, you would know that this "new and radical idea" has already been addressed in the 5th ecumenical council.  Not to mention, some of the church fathers were considered universalists. 

But anyways, here is an interesting question. As an Orthodox, (protestants, catholics, or anyone else are welcome to answer too) which side would you take? Piper, or Bell? I realize your answer is probably "neither," but just pretend that you HAVE to choose!!
Logged

Even if we have thousands of acts of great virtue to our credit, our confidence in being heard must be based on God's mercy and His love for men. Even if we stand at the very summit of virtue, it is by mercy that we shall be saved.

— Chrysostom

BLOG
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #1 on: August 27, 2011, 10:42:09 AM »

I'm not Orthodox so won't respond, but just wanted to point out that one of the threads listed in the "Related Topics" section below is "The Supremacy of Peter Piper Pizza". Which may turn out to be the correct answer here, too. Cheesy
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Timon
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,490



« Reply #2 on: August 27, 2011, 10:44:55 AM »

anyone is welcome to respond! id love to know your thoughts!!
Logged

Even if we have thousands of acts of great virtue to our credit, our confidence in being heard must be based on God's mercy and His love for men. Even if we stand at the very summit of virtue, it is by mercy that we shall be saved.

— Chrysostom

BLOG
KBN1
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: EO
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 888



« Reply #3 on: August 27, 2011, 10:48:08 AM »

I would pick Rob Bell.  He probably knows how to party.
Logged
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #4 on: August 27, 2011, 10:55:50 AM »

Well, thanks!

I agree with your assessment, that these Protestants are discovering "new" things that have always been there.  But that's what makes sincere Protestants so appealing: sometimes they remind us on the historical churches of things we may have forgotten or taken for granted.

As for the two, I guess i would tend to agree more often with John Piper, though he is a bit too Calvinist for my taste.

I don't agree with that much of Bell's work but he is appealing, and I can see why some might prefer his style.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2011, 10:56:18 AM by theistgal » Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Timon
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,490



« Reply #5 on: August 27, 2011, 10:59:59 AM »

I would pick Rob Bell.  He probably knows how to party.

I would agree.  He definitely seems like a better hang.  And I do like how he focuses more on the love and grace of God, rather than the wrath of God like Piper seems too.  (note that I am not trying to be very deep theologically here.  this is based on tweets/blogs that I read from these guys, as well as other blogs about them.)

I think focusing on the love of God is more consistant with the overall theme of the Gospel.  These types of posts from Piper just rub me the wrong way. http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/the-tornado-the-lutherans-and-homosexuality I would blame the tornadoes on the fact that warm and cool air often meet in the central areas of the U.S., creating a circular motion. I just have a hard time believing or suggesting that God sent a tornado because the Church was talking about gay people.

And Theistgal, good points.  piper is definitely too calvinist for me too!
Logged

Even if we have thousands of acts of great virtue to our credit, our confidence in being heard must be based on God's mercy and His love for men. Even if we stand at the very summit of virtue, it is by mercy that we shall be saved.

— Chrysostom

BLOG
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,768


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #6 on: August 27, 2011, 02:33:15 PM »

It seems like in the protestant world (one that I still spend a lot of time in) you have to choose your side.  You are either on the more conservative side with Piper, or the more liberal side with Rob Bell.
Only young emergent-type evangelicals and rock concert worship reformers care about either of them.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Old Calendar)
Posts: 6,789



« Reply #7 on: August 27, 2011, 03:01:54 PM »

I'm not cool enough for Rob Bell and I'm not sappy enough for John Piper.
Logged
KBN1
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: EO
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 888



« Reply #8 on: August 27, 2011, 03:02:39 PM »

It seems like in the protestant world (one that I still spend a lot of time in) you have to choose your side.  You are either on the more conservative side with Piper, or the more liberal side with Rob Bell.
Only young emergent-type evangelicals and rock concert worship reformers care about either of them.

Comforting.
Logged
Agabus
The user formerly known as Agabus.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Pan-American Colloquial Convert Hybrid Orthodoxy.
Jurisdiction: We are all uncanonical now.
Posts: 2,109



« Reply #9 on: August 27, 2011, 03:43:23 PM »

I'm not hipster enough for Rob Bell and I'm not sappy enough for John Piper.
Fixed.

My anecdotal experience is that real devotees to Piper tend to be grade-A a-holes.
Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL ORTHODOX CHURCH
theo philosopher
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 315



« Reply #10 on: August 29, 2011, 09:18:33 AM »

If I follow Rob Bell then I have to believe that our free will is non-existent as all of us will eventually be forced into Heaven because "God always gets what God wants." If I follow John Piper then I have to believe that our free will is non-existent as some of us will eventually be forced into Heaven because "God always gets what God wants."

So where's the difference?
Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,287


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 29, 2011, 09:43:53 AM »

If I follow Rob Bell then I have to believe that our free will is non-existent as all of us will eventually be forced into Heaven because "God always gets what God wants." If I follow John Piper then I have to believe that our free will is non-existent as some of us will eventually be forced into Heaven because "God always gets what God wants."

So where's the difference?
You misunderstand Bell, I believe -- or at least, you misunderstand what Bell is trying to say. God will not force anyone into heaven. But, if God's Love is more attractive than anything else, is it reasonable to believe that any one human's resistance to that Love will remain in force for all of eternity? Bell suggests that Love, in the end, will win, when the last person freely wills towards God.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2011, 09:45:10 AM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
theo philosopher
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 315



« Reply #12 on: August 29, 2011, 09:51:13 AM »

If I follow Rob Bell then I have to believe that our free will is non-existent as all of us will eventually be forced into Heaven because "God always gets what God wants." If I follow John Piper then I have to believe that our free will is non-existent as some of us will eventually be forced into Heaven because "God always gets what God wants."

So where's the difference?
You misunderstand Bell, I believe -- or at least, you misunderstand what Bell is trying to say. God will not force anyone into heaven. But, if God's Love is more attractive than anything else, is it reasonable to believe that any one human's resistance to that Love will remain in force for all of eternity? Bell suggests that Love, in the end, will win, when the last person freely wills towards God.

I'm not misunderstanding him at all. What I stated is 100% accurate. We will all be forced into Heaven. At least, that's the logical underpinning of Bell's argument that Bell is reluctant to admit.

Essentially, he's taking the argument of "irresistible grace" (which is a Calvinist doctrine) and applying it on the universal scale. All of Chapter 6 is about how God always get what God wants and that nothing can stand in His way. From there he goes on to discuss how God wants all of us to be saved - therefore, all of us will be saved.

If I put chocolate cake in front of you and tell you to eat it, then tie you to the chair and refuse to feed you anything else, at some point you're going to eat the cake. If I force the cake down your throat, then I've removed any possibility for your choice. This is essentially what Bell is saying (whether he wants to or not); "You can't outlast the love of God, you will eventually succumb to it." Well, if that's the case, then how can I claim free will?

If love will eventually overpower us to the point that we choose God, then how can we say we have a choice in the matter? Fact is, we don't, thus we're forced into Heaven. That's why he's no different than John Piper on that regard. The only difference between the two is on limited atonement; other than that, both are working from a Calvinist foundation.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2011, 09:55:51 AM by theo philosopher » Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus
Timon
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,490



« Reply #13 on: August 29, 2011, 10:05:37 AM »

If I follow Rob Bell then I have to believe that our free will is non-existent as all of us will eventually be forced into Heaven because "God always gets what God wants." If I follow John Piper then I have to believe that our free will is non-existent as some of us will eventually be forced into Heaven because "God always gets what God wants."

So where's the difference?
You misunderstand Bell, I believe -- or at least, you misunderstand what Bell is trying to say. God will not force anyone into heaven. But, if God's Love is more attractive than anything else, is it reasonable to believe that any one human's resistance to that Love will remain in force for all of eternity? Bell suggests that Love, in the end, will win, when the last person freely wills towards God.

I'm not misunderstanding him at all. What I stated is 100% accurate. We will all be forced into Heaven. At least, that's the logical underpinning of Bell's argument that Bell is reluctant to admit.

Essentially, he's taking the argument of "irresistible grace" (which is a Calvinist doctrine) and applying it on the universal scale. All of Chapter 6 is about how God always get what God wants and that nothing can stand in His way. From there he goes on to discuss how God wants all of us to be saved - therefore, all of us will be saved.

If I put chocolate cake in front of you and tell you to eat it, then tie you to the chair and refuse to feed you anything else, at some point you're going to eat the cake. If I force the cake down your throat, then I've removed any possibility for your choice. This is essentially what Bell is saying (whether he wants to or not); "You can't outlast the love of God, you will eventually succumb to it." Well, if that's the case, then how can I claim free will?

If love will eventually overpower us to the point that we choose God, then how can we say we have a choice in the matter? Fact is, we don't, thus we're forced into Heaven. That's why he's no different than John Piper on that regard. The only difference between the two is on limited atonement; other than that, both are working from a Calvinist foundation.

never thought if it like that. man, i have some friends who are huge Bell supporters and they are NOT going to be happy to hear that perspective. haha!

i think you make a good point. and its ironic because Piper and Bell are supposed to be opposites. like i said, youre either a Piper guy or a Bell guy.  its unfortunate that people think that way, but for some reason it sure seems to be the case!

Logged

Even if we have thousands of acts of great virtue to our credit, our confidence in being heard must be based on God's mercy and His love for men. Even if we stand at the very summit of virtue, it is by mercy that we shall be saved.

— Chrysostom

BLOG
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,371



« Reply #14 on: August 29, 2011, 10:09:42 AM »

I had to look up John Piper, which shows how much Anglican traction he has (none whatsoever, except among the neocon separatist agitators). Rob Bell is obviously more popular with liberal Anglicans, I gather in part because he is reading a lot of Anglican material as well as the same people they are reading.
Logged
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,287


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #15 on: August 29, 2011, 10:23:15 AM »

If I follow Rob Bell then I have to believe that our free will is non-existent as all of us will eventually be forced into Heaven because "God always gets what God wants." If I follow John Piper then I have to believe that our free will is non-existent as some of us will eventually be forced into Heaven because "God always gets what God wants."

So where's the difference?
You misunderstand Bell, I believe -- or at least, you misunderstand what Bell is trying to say. God will not force anyone into heaven. But, if God's Love is more attractive than anything else, is it reasonable to believe that any one human's resistance to that Love will remain in force for all of eternity? Bell suggests that Love, in the end, will win, when the last person freely wills towards God.

I'm not misunderstanding him at all. What I stated is 100% accurate. We will all be forced into Heaven. At least, that's the logical underpinning of Bell's argument that Bell is reluctant to admit.

Essentially, he's taking the argument of "irresistible grace" (which is a Calvinist doctrine) and applying it on the universal scale. All of Chapter 6 is about how God always get what God wants and that nothing can stand in His way. From there he goes on to discuss how God wants all of us to be saved - therefore, all of us will be saved.

If I put chocolate cake in front of you and tell you to eat it, then tie you to the chair and refuse to feed you anything else, at some point you're going to eat the cake. If I force the cake down your throat, then I've removed any possibility for your choice. This is essentially what Bell is saying (whether he wants to or not); "You can't outlast the love of God, you will eventually succumb to it." Well, if that's the case, then how can I claim free will?

If love will eventually overpower us to the point that we choose God, then how can we say we have a choice in the matter? Fact is, we don't, thus we're forced into Heaven. That's why he's no different than John Piper on that regard. The only difference between the two is on limited atonement; other than that, both are working from a Calvinist foundation.
The key difference, of course, being that Calvin rejected that one's free will has any ultimate importance is one's salvation: God has already chosen the elect, even before creation.

For Bell, or at least, for "hopeful universalists", God's Love is not "forced" on anyone. God's Love is "attractive", waiting for each person to find that attractiveness. There's a difference between forcing someone to eat cake, and making the cake available whenever the person wants to choose it.

One could argue that it is, or it should be, possible for someone to continually reject God's Love forever and forever, even if continually given the choice to choose God's Love. Bell allows for this possibility, but considers it contrary to 1 Corinthians 13 "Love never fails" and other verses.

For Calvinism, Love definitively fails, and fails on purpose.

I believe it's more Orthodox to hope for everyone's salvation, rather than to hope for somebody's damnation.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2011, 10:26:46 AM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
theo philosopher
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 315



« Reply #16 on: August 29, 2011, 10:50:05 AM »

If I follow Rob Bell then I have to believe that our free will is non-existent as all of us will eventually be forced into Heaven because "God always gets what God wants." If I follow John Piper then I have to believe that our free will is non-existent as some of us will eventually be forced into Heaven because "God always gets what God wants."

So where's the difference?
You misunderstand Bell, I believe -- or at least, you misunderstand what Bell is trying to say. God will not force anyone into heaven. But, if God's Love is more attractive than anything else, is it reasonable to believe that any one human's resistance to that Love will remain in force for all of eternity? Bell suggests that Love, in the end, will win, when the last person freely wills towards God.

I'm not misunderstanding him at all. What I stated is 100% accurate. We will all be forced into Heaven. At least, that's the logical underpinning of Bell's argument that Bell is reluctant to admit.

Essentially, he's taking the argument of "irresistible grace" (which is a Calvinist doctrine) and applying it on the universal scale. All of Chapter 6 is about how God always get what God wants and that nothing can stand in His way. From there he goes on to discuss how God wants all of us to be saved - therefore, all of us will be saved.

If I put chocolate cake in front of you and tell you to eat it, then tie you to the chair and refuse to feed you anything else, at some point you're going to eat the cake. If I force the cake down your throat, then I've removed any possibility for your choice. This is essentially what Bell is saying (whether he wants to or not); "You can't outlast the love of God, you will eventually succumb to it." Well, if that's the case, then how can I claim free will?

If love will eventually overpower us to the point that we choose God, then how can we say we have a choice in the matter? Fact is, we don't, thus we're forced into Heaven. That's why he's no different than John Piper on that regard. The only difference between the two is on limited atonement; other than that, both are working from a Calvinist foundation.
The key difference, of course, being that Calvin rejected that one's free will has any ultimate importance is one's salvation: God has already chosen the elect, even before creation.

For Bell, or at least, for "hopeful universalists", God's Love is not "forced" on anyone. God's Love is "attractive", waiting for each person to find that attractiveness. There's a difference between forcing someone to eat cake, and making the cake available whenever the person wants to choose it.

One could argue that it is, or it should be, possible for someone to continually reject God's Love forever and forever, even if continually given the choice to choose God's Love. Bell allows for this possibility, but considers it contrary to 1 Corinthians 13 "Love never fails" and other verses.

For Calvinism, Love definitively fails, and fails on purpose.

I believe it's more Orthodox to hope for everyone's salvation, rather than to hope for somebody's damnation.

I must ask if you've read the book, because Bell moves beyond Hope. I, like many other Christians (such as Hans Urs von Balthasar) have hope that everyone will come to Christ, but that's a far cry different from what Bell teaches in his book. He teaches that everyone will come to Christ because God's love is ultimately irresistible. I know that seems like a nuanced difference, but that nuanced difference provides the fine line between loving hope and potential heresy.

What you, I, and many other Orthodox would believe is that we can hope that all will eventually come to Christ. But we would argue that this must occur from the person's choice, not because God's love is irresistible. Bell teaches that God's love is irresistible, meaning that ultimately our will simply doesn't matter.

Furthermore, it seems you're creating a false dichotomy; that we must either hope that all will be saved or hope that some will be damned. This is simply untrue and misconstrues the issue. In teaching that some will be damned, we do not hope this is true. Rather, we are saying that most likely some will be damned due to their own choices, but we hope this is not the case. Either way, the hope rests upon the decisions of those involved, not on the irresistible nature of God's love. And therein lies the problem with Bell - once you make God's love irresistible, you negate free will.
Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,287


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #17 on: August 29, 2011, 11:10:24 AM »

If I follow Rob Bell then I have to believe that our free will is non-existent as all of us will eventually be forced into Heaven because "God always gets what God wants." If I follow John Piper then I have to believe that our free will is non-existent as some of us will eventually be forced into Heaven because "God always gets what God wants."

So where's the difference?
You misunderstand Bell, I believe -- or at least, you misunderstand what Bell is trying to say. God will not force anyone into heaven. But, if God's Love is more attractive than anything else, is it reasonable to believe that any one human's resistance to that Love will remain in force for all of eternity? Bell suggests that Love, in the end, will win, when the last person freely wills towards God.

I'm not misunderstanding him at all. What I stated is 100% accurate. We will all be forced into Heaven. At least, that's the logical underpinning of Bell's argument that Bell is reluctant to admit.

Essentially, he's taking the argument of "irresistible grace" (which is a Calvinist doctrine) and applying it on the universal scale. All of Chapter 6 is about how God always get what God wants and that nothing can stand in His way. From there he goes on to discuss how God wants all of us to be saved - therefore, all of us will be saved.

If I put chocolate cake in front of you and tell you to eat it, then tie you to the chair and refuse to feed you anything else, at some point you're going to eat the cake. If I force the cake down your throat, then I've removed any possibility for your choice. This is essentially what Bell is saying (whether he wants to or not); "You can't outlast the love of God, you will eventually succumb to it." Well, if that's the case, then how can I claim free will?

If love will eventually overpower us to the point that we choose God, then how can we say we have a choice in the matter? Fact is, we don't, thus we're forced into Heaven. That's why he's no different than John Piper on that regard. The only difference between the two is on limited atonement; other than that, both are working from a Calvinist foundation.
The key difference, of course, being that Calvin rejected that one's free will has any ultimate importance is one's salvation: God has already chosen the elect, even before creation.

For Bell, or at least, for "hopeful universalists", God's Love is not "forced" on anyone. God's Love is "attractive", waiting for each person to find that attractiveness. There's a difference between forcing someone to eat cake, and making the cake available whenever the person wants to choose it.

One could argue that it is, or it should be, possible for someone to continually reject God's Love forever and forever, even if continually given the choice to choose God's Love. Bell allows for this possibility, but considers it contrary to 1 Corinthians 13 "Love never fails" and other verses.

For Calvinism, Love definitively fails, and fails on purpose.

I believe it's more Orthodox to hope for everyone's salvation, rather than to hope for somebody's damnation.

I must ask if you've read the book, because Bell moves beyond Hope. I, like many other Christians (such as Hans Urs von Balthasar) have hope that everyone will come to Christ, but that's a far cry different from what Bell teaches in his book. He teaches that everyone will come to Christ because God's love is ultimately irresistible. I know that seems like a nuanced difference, but that nuanced difference provides the fine line between loving hope and potential heresy.

What you, I, and many other Orthodox would believe is that we can hope that all will eventually come to Christ. But we would argue that this must occur from the person's choice, not because God's love is irresistible. Bell teaches that God's love is irresistible, meaning that ultimately our will simply doesn't matter.

Furthermore, it seems you're creating a false dichotomy; that we must either hope that all will be saved or hope that some will be damned. This is simply untrue and misconstrues the issue. In teaching that some will be damned, we do not hope this is true. Rather, we are saying that most likely some will be damned due to their own choices, but we hope this is not the case. Either way, the hope rests upon the decisions of those involved, not on the irresistible nature of God's love. And therein lies the problem with Bell - once you make God's love irresistible, you negate free will.
There's a difference between Bell's and Calvin's ideas of irresistability. For Calvin, God's irresistability is active in this life alone. For Bell, the irresistable Love of God is something that may not manifest in this life, but -- in the space of eternity -- will eventally "win" in the end.

Bell certainly believes that Love will win in the end, but he also believes that God gives us whatever we truly want. If we want Him, then God will give us Himself. If we don't Him, then we won't get Him. Bell never negates that free-will ability. What he negates is the ability of a limited, finite human free-will to continually, eternally, and everlastingly reject the Source of Being, He in whose image and likeness we are all made. If Augustine and Paul were right, that our hearts are restless until they rest in Him, that Love never fails in the end, then, logically, Bell's position holds. On the other hand, pastorally, you may not want to teach that to the unconverted or to neophyte Christians.

I'm not Orthodox, by the way.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2011, 11:13:45 AM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
theo philosopher
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 315



« Reply #18 on: August 29, 2011, 11:56:44 PM »

Quote
There's a difference between Bell's and Calvin's ideas of irresistability. For Calvin, God's irresistability is active in this life alone. For Bell, the irresistable Love of God is something that may not manifest in this life, but -- in the space of eternity -- will eventally "win" in the end.

The difference is a matter of timing, but the central aspect of the belief - that ultimately we have no choice - still holds true. The problem isn't the timing; the problem is the lack of choice.

Quote
Bell certainly believes that Love will win in the end, but he also believes that God gives us whatever we truly want. If we want Him, then God will give us Himself. If we don't Him, then we won't get Him. Bell never negates that free-will ability. What he negates is the ability of a limited, finite human free-will to continually, eternally, and everlastingly reject the Source of Being, He in whose image and likeness we are all made. If Augustine and Paul were right, that our hearts are restless until they rest in Him, that Love never fails in the end, then, logically, Bell's position holds. On the other hand, pastorally, you may not want to teach that to the unconverted or to neophyte Christians.

Logically his position is a contradiction. If you cannot withstand the love of God, i.e. God's love is irresistible, then by necessity you lack free will. You can say, "you have the free will to reject God" all day, but it doesn't change the fact that you don't have the free will to reject God because at some point you will inevitably accept God's love. There's simply not real choice involved in that, hence the potential for heresy.
Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus
ma2000
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: ORTHODOX
Jurisdiction: ROMANIAN
Posts: 287


Saint Anthony The Great


« Reply #19 on: August 30, 2011, 03:56:24 AM »

The answer is obvious!
The Orthodox don't use pipes, but use bells. So a piper is of no use. Rob Bell is the answer!
Logged

Asemănându-te obiceiurilor râvnitorului Ilie şi urmând Botezătorului pe drepte cărări, Părinte Antonie, te-ai făcut locuitor pustiului şi ai întărit lumea cu rugăciunile tale. Pentru aceasta, roagă-te lui Hristos Dumnezeu, să mântuiască sufletele noastre.
Tsavong Lah
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese
Posts: 18


Tá Críost éirithe! Go deimhin, tá sé éirithe!


« Reply #20 on: September 25, 2011, 02:32:32 AM »

Not to drag this off topic, but the whole Rob Bell thing has gotten me thinking lately.

The Orthodox believe that all people are continually moving in a particular direction along the path of theosis, even after death—God is infinite and becoming united with him in his energies is never a process that is "completed". This is, of course, one of the reasons why we pray for the dead: their journey hasn't become static just because their physical body fell asleep in Christ.

I'm wondering how this might relate to the possibility of "postmortem conversion", or whatever you'd prefer to call it. If death doesn't lock us in stasis regarding our salvation, I wonder if that might not also apply to those who have not yet begun to seek God. Any thoughts?
Logged

"The allotted function of art is not, as is often assumed, to put across ideas, to propagate thoughts, to serve as example. The aim of art is to prepare a person for death, to plough and harrow his soul, rendering it capable of turning to good."
–Andrei Tarkovsky
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,532


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #21 on: September 25, 2011, 04:37:20 AM »

Not to drag this off topic, but the whole Rob Bell thing has gotten me thinking lately.

The Orthodox believe that all people are continually moving in a particular direction along the path of theosis, even after death—God is infinite and becoming united with him in his energies is never a process that is "completed". This is, of course, one of the reasons why we pray for the dead: their journey hasn't become static just because their physical body fell asleep in Christ.

I'm wondering how this might relate to the possibility of "postmortem conversion", or whatever you'd prefer to call it. If death doesn't lock us in stasis regarding our salvation, I wonder if that might not also apply to those who have not yet begun to seek God. Any thoughts?
Rather than drive threads off topic with off topic questions, I prefer that you start new threads to ask off topic questions. Thank you.

- PtA
Moderator
Logged
Tsavong Lah
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese
Posts: 18


Tá Críost éirithe! Go deimhin, tá sé éirithe!


« Reply #22 on: September 25, 2011, 05:02:22 AM »

Ah, apologies. Will do.
Logged

"The allotted function of art is not, as is often assumed, to put across ideas, to propagate thoughts, to serve as example. The aim of art is to prepare a person for death, to plough and harrow his soul, rendering it capable of turning to good."
–Andrei Tarkovsky
FountainPen
Is not wasting any more of her ink
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,025



« Reply #23 on: September 25, 2011, 07:06:06 AM »

If I follow Rob Bell then I have to believe that our free will is non-existent as all of us will eventually be forced into Heaven because "God always gets what God wants." If I follow John Piper then I have to believe that our free will is non-existent as some of us will eventually be forced into Heaven because "God always gets what God wants."

So where's the difference?
You misunderstand Bell, I believe -- or at least, you misunderstand what Bell is trying to say. God will not force anyone into heaven. But, if God's Love is more attractive than anything else, is it reasonable to believe that any one human's resistance to that Love will remain in force for all of eternity? Bell suggests that Love, in the end, will win, when the last person freely wills towards God.

I'm not misunderstanding him at all. What I stated is 100% accurate. We will all be forced into Heaven. At least, that's the logical underpinning of Bell's argument that Bell is reluctant to admit.

Essentially, he's taking the argument of "irresistible grace" (which is a Calvinist doctrine) and applying it on the universal scale. All of Chapter 6 is about how God always get what God wants and that nothing can stand in His way. From there he goes on to discuss how God wants all of us to be saved - therefore, all of us will be saved.

If I put chocolate cake in front of you and tell you to eat it, then tie you to the chair and refuse to feed you anything else, at some point you're going to eat the cake. If I force the cake down your throat, then I've removed any possibility for your choice. This is essentially what Bell is saying (whether he wants to or not); "You can't outlast the love of God, you will eventually succumb to it." Well, if that's the case, then how can I claim free will?

If love will eventually overpower us to the point that we choose God, then how can we say we have a choice in the matter? Fact is, we don't, thus we're forced into Heaven. That's why he's no different than John Piper on that regard. The only difference between the two is on limited atonement; other than that, both are working from a Calvinist foundation.
The key difference, of course, being that Calvin rejected that one's free will has any ultimate importance is one's salvation: God has already chosen the elect, even before creation.

For Bell, or at least, for "hopeful universalists", God's Love is not "forced" on anyone. God's Love is "attractive", waiting for each person to find that attractiveness. There's a difference between forcing someone to eat cake, and making the cake available whenever the person wants to choose it.

One could argue that it is, or it should be, possible for someone to continually reject God's Love forever and forever, even if continually given the choice to choose God's Love. Bell allows for this possibility, but considers it contrary to 1 Corinthians 13 "Love never fails" and other verses.

For Calvinism, Love definitively fails, and fails on purpose.

I believe it's more Orthodox to hope for everyone's salvation, rather than to hope for somebody's damnation.

I must ask if you've read the book, because Bell moves beyond Hope. I, like many other Christians (such as Hans Urs von Balthasar) have hope that everyone will come to Christ, but that's a far cry different from what Bell teaches in his book. He teaches that everyone will come to Christ because God's love is ultimately irresistible. I know that seems like a nuanced difference, but that nuanced difference provides the fine line between loving hope and potential heresy.

What you, I, and many other Orthodox would believe is that we can hope that all will eventually come to Christ. But we would argue that this must occur from the person's choice, not because God's love is irresistible. Bell teaches that God's love is irresistible, meaning that ultimately our will simply doesn't matter.

Furthermore, it seems you're creating a false dichotomy; that we must either hope that all will be saved or hope that some will be damned. This is simply untrue and misconstrues the issue. In teaching that some will be damned, we do not hope this is true. Rather, we are saying that most likely some will be damned due to their own choices, but we hope this is not the case. Either way, the hope rests upon the decisions of those involved, not on the irresistible nature of God's love. And therein lies the problem with Bell - once you make God's love irresistible, you negate free will.

Surely, God's love is irresistable. If we say anything else aren't we implying that there is something lacking in His love? This can be a truth as well as the truth that not every heart is open to His love, is also a truth. A bit like a charm offensive, someone could be irresistably charming when they choose to be. I think God allows people to go about their business in the hope that His people will reach out to all they come in contact with and that, through relationship, they will learn about His love and will begin to be drawn by it. They do have a choice not to want to know, everyone does.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2011, 07:08:51 AM by FountainPen » Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #24 on: September 25, 2011, 09:51:30 AM »

I must ask if you've read the book, because Bell moves beyond Hope.

I read it, and I didn't get that impression. Did you read it?
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,287


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #25 on: September 25, 2011, 10:37:28 AM »

Bell doesn't claim to know definitively what will happen to each human, in terms of salvation or damnation, but he makes the argument that the idea that God's Love "wins" in the end, is an idea that cannot be exorcised from the Christian tradition.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: refuse
Posts: 29,318



« Reply #26 on: September 25, 2011, 11:34:01 AM »

Never heard of John Bell or Rob Piper, sorry Smiley
Logged
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #27 on: September 29, 2011, 02:01:11 PM »

Conservative Anglican here. I think Rob Bell is too hipster/emergent and Piper is too Calvinist.  Therefore I am not taken with either. (I prefer NT Wright and the late, great C.S. Lewis  Smiley )
« Last Edit: September 29, 2011, 02:02:38 PM by Doubting Thomas » Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
Timon
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,490



« Reply #28 on: September 29, 2011, 02:04:33 PM »

Conservative Anglican here. I think Rob Bell is too hipster/emergent and Piper is too Calvinist.  Therefore I am not taken with either. (I prefer NT Wright and the late, great C.S. Lewis  Smiley )

Im with ya.  However, ive heard people argue that NT Wright is a Calvinist.  Ive read some of his work, but dont get that impression.  What would you say to that?
Logged

Even if we have thousands of acts of great virtue to our credit, our confidence in being heard must be based on God's mercy and His love for men. Even if we stand at the very summit of virtue, it is by mercy that we shall be saved.

— Chrysostom

BLOG
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,768


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #29 on: September 29, 2011, 02:59:27 PM »

Conservative Anglican here. I think Rob Bell is too hipster/emergent and Piper is too Calvinist.  Therefore I am not taken with either. (I prefer NT Wright and the late, great C.S. Lewis  Smiley )

Im with ya.  However, ive heard people argue that NT Wright is a Calvinist.  Ive read some of his work, but dont get that impression.  What would you say to that?
Calvinists say that Jesus was a Calvinist too.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Timon
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,490



« Reply #30 on: October 01, 2011, 12:33:38 AM »

Conservative Anglican here. I think Rob Bell is too hipster/emergent and Piper is too Calvinist.  Therefore I am not taken with either. (I prefer NT Wright and the late, great C.S. Lewis  Smiley )

Im with ya.  However, ive heard people argue that NT Wright is a Calvinist.  Ive read some of his work, but dont get that impression.  What would you say to that?
Calvinists say that Jesus was a Calvinist too.

good point...
Logged

Even if we have thousands of acts of great virtue to our credit, our confidence in being heard must be based on God's mercy and His love for men. Even if we stand at the very summit of virtue, it is by mercy that we shall be saved.

— Chrysostom

BLOG
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: refuse
Posts: 29,318



« Reply #31 on: October 01, 2011, 01:05:45 AM »

Conservative Anglican here. I think Rob Bell is too hipster/emergent and Piper is too Calvinist.  Therefore I am not taken with either. (I prefer NT Wright and the late, great C.S. Lewis  Smiley )

You gotta start consistently posting here, rather than popping in every few months Wink
Logged
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 519



WWW
« Reply #32 on: October 01, 2011, 05:57:12 PM »

If I follow Rob Bell then I have to believe that our free will is non-existent as all of us will eventually be forced into Heaven because "God always gets what God wants." If I follow John Piper then I have to believe that our free will is non-existent as some of us will eventually be forced into Heaven because "God always gets what God wants."

So where's the difference?
You misunderstand Bell, I believe -- or at least, you misunderstand what Bell is trying to say. God will not force anyone into heaven. But, if God's Love is more attractive than anything else, is it reasonable to believe that any one human's resistance to that Love will remain in force for all of eternity? Bell suggests that Love, in the end, will win, when the last person freely wills towards God.

I'm not misunderstanding him at all. What I stated is 100% accurate. We will all be forced into Heaven. At least, that's the logical underpinning of Bell's argument that Bell is reluctant to admit.

Essentially, he's taking the argument of "irresistible grace" (which is a Calvinist doctrine) and applying it on the universal scale. All of Chapter 6 is about how God always get what God wants and that nothing can stand in His way. From there he goes on to discuss how God wants all of us to be saved - therefore, all of us will be saved.

If I put chocolate cake in front of you and tell you to eat it, then tie you to the chair and refuse to feed you anything else, at some point you're going to eat the cake. If I force the cake down your throat, then I've removed any possibility for your choice. This is essentially what Bell is saying (whether he wants to or not); "You can't outlast the love of God, you will eventually succumb to it." Well, if that's the case, then how can I claim free will?

If love will eventually overpower us to the point that we choose God, then how can we say we have a choice in the matter? Fact is, we don't, thus we're forced into Heaven. That's why he's no different than John Piper on that regard. The only difference between the two is on limited atonement; other than that, both are working from a Calvinist foundation.

Your argument in fact proves too much.  God is our one and supreme good.  The desires of our hearts can find no true satisfaction except in him, and apart from him there is only eternal misery.  In that sense, we are all tied down in our chairs and told that unless we eat the food we are given, we will die of eternal starvation.  This is a given of our creaturehood.  Does this mean that we are not free?  By your logic it would seem that the only people who are free are those who do not need and desire God as the fulfillment of the being.  But who might those people be?  Certainly not anyone I know.  Certainly not anyone who has been created by the Holy Trinity. 

I would also note that both Orthodox and Catholics believe that the redeemed in Heaven cannot reject God, presumably because they now possess their true happiness.  Does this mean that they are not free? 

I have never read Rob Bell's book, but based on what I have read about his book, he seems to belong to the hopeful universalist camp, in which can be numbered many Orthodox believers, including Met Kallistos Ware and Met Hilarion Alfeyev.  A hopeful universalism is a perfectly legitimate Orthodox position.  It is grounded in the conviction that God is absolute and infinite love who will never abandon the creatures he has made in his image.  The Orthodox Church prays for the dead.  She believes that these prayers are heard by God.  The Orthodox Church does not reject, out of hand, the possibility that some of the "damned" might be saved through the prayers of the Church. If one can be saved, why not many, most, all? 

Two of the greatest Church Fathers, St Gregory of Nyssa and St Isaac of Ninevah, were convinced that God would, by his grace and love, bring all human beings to repentance and faith.  Their views have not been dogmatically rejected by the Church.  The 5th Ecumenical Council condemned the Origenist formulation of apocatastasis; but this Origenist formulation must be carefully distinguished from the views of Sts Gregory and Isaac.

One of my favorite books on universalism is The Evangelical Universalist, written by Robin Parry under the pseudonym Gregory MacDonald.  Orthodox Christians will find much of value in this book. 

Fr Aidan           
Logged

That person
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 1,155


Long live Commie Superman


« Reply #33 on: October 01, 2011, 09:05:16 PM »

^I'll look into that. Thank you, Father.
Regarding the Piper/Bell dichotomy, I like to think that if grace truly is irresistible then God isn't being stingy with it, but I really don't like the idea of irresistible grace to begin with.
Logged

"Some have such command of their bowels, that they can break wind continuously at pleasure, so as to produce the effect of singing."- St. Augustine of Hippo

Movie reviews you can trust.
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,287


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #34 on: October 01, 2011, 09:15:11 PM »

^I'll look into that. Thank you, Father.
Regarding the Piper/Bell dichotomy, I like to think that if grace truly is irresistible then God isn't being stingy with it, but I really don't like the idea of irresistible grace to begin with.
I prefer a term like "persisting grace", which allows for human resistance to God's grace, while maintaining the idea of God depicted in the prodigal son parable.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 519



WWW
« Reply #35 on: October 01, 2011, 10:08:09 PM »

I remember when I first fell in love.  I found her quite irresistible. 

Instead of thinking of irresistibility as something that overwhelms our will and compels us against our will, perhaps we should think about in terms of how we naturally respond to love and goodness and beauty.
Logged

FountainPen
Is not wasting any more of her ink
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,025



« Reply #36 on: October 02, 2011, 07:10:14 AM »

I remember when I first fell in love.  I found her quite irresistible. 

Instead of thinking of irresistibility as something that overwhelms our will and compels us against our will, perhaps we should think about in terms of how we naturally respond to love and goodness and beauty.

Now we're really getting into the human condition. Some people are compelled to pee on a beautiful snowy vista, steal from someone who shows them kindness or rape a virgin. Some find quite the opposite or love, goodness and beauty, irresistible
Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,287


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #37 on: October 02, 2011, 10:55:03 AM »

I remember when I first fell in love.  I found her quite irresistible.  

Instead of thinking of irresistibility as something that overwhelms our will and compels us against our will, perhaps we should think about in terms of how we naturally respond to love and goodness and beauty.

Now we're really getting into the human condition. Some people are compelled to pee on a beautiful snowy vista, steal from someone who shows them kindness or rape a virgin. Some find quite the opposite or love, goodness and beauty, irresistible
And, yet, at least while they are still alive, they know deep down that stealing, raping, etc., doesn't fill the 'God-shaped' hole in the Heart.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2011, 10:56:27 AM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: refuse
Posts: 29,318



« Reply #38 on: October 02, 2011, 01:27:13 PM »

And, yet, at least while they are still alive, they know deep down that stealing, raping, etc., doesn't fill the 'God-shaped' hole in the Heart.

Please don't. Please. You are too intelligent for this.  Smiley
Logged
FountainPen
Is not wasting any more of her ink
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,025



« Reply #39 on: October 03, 2011, 07:09:39 AM »

I remember when I first fell in love.  I found her quite irresistible.  

Instead of thinking of irresistibility as something that overwhelms our will and compels us against our will, perhaps we should think about in terms of how we naturally respond to love and goodness and beauty.

Now we're really getting into the human condition. Some people are compelled to pee on a beautiful snowy vista, steal from someone who shows them kindness or rape a virgin. Some find quite the opposite or love, goodness and beauty, irresistible
And, yet, at least while they are still alive, they know deep down that stealing, raping, etc., doesn't fill the 'God-shaped' hole in the Heart.

Mildly amusing, you'll have to be a little more sophisticated if you want a full blown belly-laugh.
Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,287


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #40 on: October 03, 2011, 07:19:40 AM »

And, yet, at least while they are still alive, they know deep down that stealing, raping, etc., doesn't fill the 'God-shaped' hole in the Heart.

Please don't. Please. You are too intelligent for this.  Smiley
I mean really, really, really, deep down. Wink
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,287


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #41 on: March 30, 2012, 10:38:17 PM »

Quote
[Q:] You famously tweeted, "Farewell Rob Bell" in response to his promotional video for his book Love Wins. Is there a place for theological reconciliation in the body of Christ?
....
[John Piper:] I don't mind addressing the Rob Bell issue. When I watched the video of Rob Bell that was put up on Justin Taylor's website, which was, I think, a link to his book on hell, my issue there was not primarily his view of hell. It was his cynicism concerning the Cross of Jesus Christ as a place where the Father atoned for the sins of his children and dealt with his own wrath by punishing me in his son. Rob Bell does not admire that. He doesn't view the Cross that way, as a penal substitution. I consider that the essence of the Cross and my salvation, and the heart of God for me, and that ticked me off royally. I didn't say all that, so probably everybody thought "Farewell Rob Bell" was kind of like "I don't like his view of hell, so there." Well, I don't like John Stott's view of hell either, and I never said anything about John Stott. I kept learning from John Stott. I would have sat at John Stott's feet until the day he died.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2012, 10:38:32 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #42 on: April 02, 2012, 11:55:05 AM »

Conservative Anglican here. I think Rob Bell is too hipster/emergent and Piper is too Calvinist.  Therefore I am not taken with either. (I prefer NT Wright and the late, great C.S. Lewis  Smiley )

Im with ya.  However, ive heard people argue that NT Wright is a Calvinist.  Ive read some of his work, but dont get that impression.  What would you say to that?


If Wright is Calvinist (and I've read that about him as well), it doesn't come through in his writings.
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #43 on: April 02, 2012, 12:01:54 PM »

I'm not cool enough for Rob Bell and I'm not sappy enough for John Piper.

i'd have to go with this.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #44 on: April 02, 2012, 01:09:48 PM »

I think that one of the ways in which one can begin to break out of the circle of absolute freedom versus absolute providence, which is what is being described here in fact, is to begin by thinking:

When I choose the good: when I align myself with the divine: then and only then am I truly free.

When I choose evil: I am without doubt not free but enslaved in that moment of choice.

So...it is said that Jesus came to release the captives and that is where you start to unravel this Gordian Knot... Wink

How much of you must be stuck in the mire before Jesus can no longer pull you out and set your foot upon the rock?
Logged

Tags:
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.165 seconds with 74 queries.