Lately I have been drawing from a whole host of people I have never done so before. Most notably: Craig Keener and Ben Witherington III. They are fast becoming influences in my life.
Witherington is in the midst of critiquing Rob Bell's Love Wins chapter by chapter; not in a condescending way, but in a way that is gracious, yet firmly set in a deeper understanding of Scripture. He raises dozens of solid points.
One of the best points BW3 has made (imo) is on the issue of Bell's use of selected Church fathers to support his universalistic (I don't even know if that's a real word ?!) theology. It is said much better on his own blog, so for the sake of clarity I'll quote it in full:
"Again the problem is that he is citing theological speculation of this or that church father, not the settled convictions of the church as revealed in their creeds, councils, confessions. There is a difference. The creeds, councils, and confessions are the result of the body of Christ reasoning together and coming to some consencus on what orthodoxy looks like. They are not isolated shots fired in the dark by one or another church father. I hope no one holds me to every speculative thought I have put into writing at some point.
The point is - neither in the Catholic nor the various Orthodox, nor the various Evangelical traditions has there ever been a statement of faith by any such church suggested in this chapter in this book. Rob wants to suggest that the stream of Orthodoxy is broad and includes those who at some point advocated universalism. This can only be said to be true if you ignore the importance of churches collectively, and sticks with speculating individuals. It can only be said to be true if you ignore the nature of the NT canon. Where did it come from? Did it drop from the sky? No. It was assembled by various Christian groups, and then there was agreement of whole churches in the east, and in the west, and in north Africa in about 367 A.D. that 'these 27 books and no others' are our NT scriptures. This was not decided by Constantine, it was agreed upon and recognized by church synods and councils.
Why am I pointing this out? You wouldn't even have the NT to argue about were there no churches and church decisions, and you had best not ignore what the church writ large has said about the interpretation of the Bible along this way, not just cherry pick this or that church father's momentary entertainment of some idea. In short your theology and soteriology are interconnected with ecclesiology, and you cannot and should not try to decide theological or ethical issues just on the basis of your very selective reading of the Bible or church fathers." (Ben Witheringon III)
I think he makes an excellent point. We have so many today who hold to a 'personal revelation/interpretation' of the Bible who rebel against established teaching. Not to say that this is wrong in itself, but when we rebel against the majority, claiming our subjective interpretation is as valid as the Church's collective interpretation, then we are on shaky ground. Majority consensus may just have arrived at that decision for a reason.
Witherington is in the midst of critiquing Rob Bell's Love Wins chapter by chapter; not in a condescending way, but in a way that is gracious, yet firmly set in a deeper understanding of Scripture. He raises dozens of solid points.
One of the best points BW3 has made (imo) is on the issue of Bell's use of selected Church fathers to support his universalistic (I don't even know if that's a real word ?!) theology. It is said much better on his own blog, so for the sake of clarity I'll quote it in full:
"Again the problem is that he is citing theological speculation of this or that church father, not the settled convictions of the church as revealed in their creeds, councils, confessions. There is a difference. The creeds, councils, and confessions are the result of the body of Christ reasoning together and coming to some consencus on what orthodoxy looks like. They are not isolated shots fired in the dark by one or another church father. I hope no one holds me to every speculative thought I have put into writing at some point.
The point is - neither in the Catholic nor the various Orthodox, nor the various Evangelical traditions has there ever been a statement of faith by any such church suggested in this chapter in this book. Rob wants to suggest that the stream of Orthodoxy is broad and includes those who at some point advocated universalism. This can only be said to be true if you ignore the importance of churches collectively, and sticks with speculating individuals. It can only be said to be true if you ignore the nature of the NT canon. Where did it come from? Did it drop from the sky? No. It was assembled by various Christian groups, and then there was agreement of whole churches in the east, and in the west, and in north Africa in about 367 A.D. that 'these 27 books and no others' are our NT scriptures. This was not decided by Constantine, it was agreed upon and recognized by church synods and councils.
Why am I pointing this out? You wouldn't even have the NT to argue about were there no churches and church decisions, and you had best not ignore what the church writ large has said about the interpretation of the Bible along this way, not just cherry pick this or that church father's momentary entertainment of some idea. In short your theology and soteriology are interconnected with ecclesiology, and you cannot and should not try to decide theological or ethical issues just on the basis of your very selective reading of the Bible or church fathers." (Ben Witheringon III)
I think he makes an excellent point. We have so many today who hold to a 'personal revelation/interpretation' of the Bible who rebel against established teaching. Not to say that this is wrong in itself, but when we rebel against the majority, claiming our subjective interpretation is as valid as the Church's collective interpretation, then we are on shaky ground. Majority consensus may just have arrived at that decision for a reason.
