The Gospel According to Bart
98 comments | Permalink
Tonight a friend passed along to be an article by Bart Campolo (son of Tony). Entitled The Limits of God's Grace, it was published in Youth Specialties' The Journal of Student Ministries, promoted by Youth Specialties.
I don't often link to "bad theology" articles in order to bash them, but I'm making an exception here. It is rare for a writer to be this honest about the functional sovereignty of his own mind in determining the object of his worship. In other words, Bart Campolo is an idolater of the first-order. (Something tells me, though, that there won't be any "protests" planned against his views.)
Here's an excerpt:
May God grant Campolo repentance for disdaining the only true God, exalting himself, and hating his neighbor (by refusing to tell them the gospel of Jesus but only the deceitful and untrue Gospel According to Bart). And may God likewise grant YS repentance for publishing such nonsense.
I don't often link to "bad theology" articles in order to bash them, but I'm making an exception here. It is rare for a writer to be this honest about the functional sovereignty of his own mind in determining the object of his worship. In other words, Bart Campolo is an idolater of the first-order. (Something tells me, though, that there won't be any "protests" planned against his views.)
Here's an excerpt:
Some might say I would be wise to swallow my misgivings about such stuff [like God's sovereignty, wrath, hell, etc.], remain orthodox, and thereby secure my place with God in eternity. But that is precisely my point: If those things are true, then God might as well send me to Hell. For better or worse, I simply am not interested in any God but a completely good, entirely loving, and perfectly forgiving One who is powerful enough to utterly triumph over evil. Such a God may not exist, but I will die seeking such a God, and I will pledge my allegiance to no other possibility because, quite frankly, anything less is not worthy of my worship.
Please, don’t get me wrong. I am well aware that I don’t get to decide who God is. What I do get to decide, however, is to whom I pledge my allegience. I am a free agent, after all, and I have standards for my God, the first of which is this: I will not worship any God who is not at least as compassionate as I am.
May God grant Campolo repentance for disdaining the only true God, exalting himself, and hating his neighbor (by refusing to tell them the gospel of Jesus but only the deceitful and untrue Gospel According to Bart). And may God likewise grant YS repentance for publishing such nonsense.
posted by JT at Wednesday, November 15, 2006
98 Comments:
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Bart sounds likes many of the internet atheists and others such as Dan Barker. "I will not worship any God who is not at least as compassionate as I am."
I've heard the same thing come from the mouth of those atheists.
This is a good critique, but it illustrates a danger that the orthodox can fall into as well - that the only God worth worshipping is one who is completely sovereign, completely merciful and completely just, etc.
Even suggesting that "Campolo's God is too small" is dangerous - that suggests that we have a right to decide what sort of God we worship.
Justin, The Journal is not owned by Youth Specialties.
"The Journal is not owned by Youth Specialties."
...and yet it's hosted on their website and the article "is brought to you FREE by YouthSpecialties" (see top of page).
Moreover, the article is also currently the top link on the front page of the YS website.
Don't YS have to take some responsibility for the article?
Holy Holy Holy....molely.
Astonishing!
This is what is so astonishing about what Bart Campolo is saying. He offers not the slightest indication that he has any sense that in the act of blaspheming God, God is extending mercy to him by not striking him dead instantly, not merely for thinking but for publishing his severe and awful thoughts concerning God.
Astonishing!
"It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Hebrews 10:31).
Bart's post will be hailed by some in the post-conservative, evangelical world as "bold, courageous and daring!" Tragically, it represents an arrogant spirit that is not only adolescent but angry. Where does this anger originate? Is it from a dysfunctional home? Why does he despise God? Was the truth not modeled before him? The words of Flannery O'Connor are instructive. "One of the tendencies of our age is to use the suffering of children to discredit the goodness of God, and once you have discredited his goodness, you are done with him...In this popular pity, we mark our gain in sensibility and our loss in vision. If other ages felt less, they say more, even though they saw with the blind, prophetical, unsentimental eye of acceptance, which is to say, of faith. In the absence of this faith now, we govern by tenderness. It is a tenderness which, long since cut off from the person of Christ, is wrapped in theory. When tenderness is detached from the source of tenderness, its logical outcome is terror. It ends in forced-labor camps and in the fumes of the gas chamber." Maybe we should footnote this paragraph in her work "Mystery and Manners" with Campolo's article as an example of such thinking.
I wonder what his dad thinks of his sons rejection of the Triune God, for a god of his own imagination?
I hope Tony is saddened.
Nice prayer for Bart. Amen.
Oh Snap! Nice midrash and an informative article.
I cannot imagine a better illustration of Romans 1:18-23 at work:
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles."
Whether they own it or not, YS is promoting it.
Send comment to
Youth Specialties
Um, if I remember right, bastard means “fatherless.” So technically he is right. God has no father. But since God is Father and he sets the rules for his household, Bart (in that he claims the title son) should be held accountable.
So how does the evangelical church deal with heretics? I see it is finally time we figure this out.
Youth Specialties and other such organizations (like Compassion International, whom it appears Bart is a kind of spokesman for) must feel the heat on this. And since they all seem to bow to the almighty dollar, might I suggest …?
Bart Campolo is the product of his environment. However, he is not as intelligent as his dad. This excerpt makes me wonder how old Bart is; he seems very juvenile. At any rate, his theological teaching must have been seriously neglected along with common sense and logic.
1. How can one "remain orthodox" when one has never been orthdox?
2. Where does Bart get the idea that by being orthodox he will "secure my place with God in eternity?" Could this idea have come from dad?
3. While he states that he is "not interested in any God but a completely good, entirely loving, and perfectly forgiving One...," he contradicts himself by saying "I am well aware that I don't get to decide who God is." In reality, that is precisely what Bart is doing; he is creating a god of his own imagination.
4. In his blindness or just plain stupidity, he says "Such a God may not exist, but I will die seeking such a God." Wow! And some organization actually published this tripe.
5. Bart is seeking a god who may not exist and this god who may not exist is the only one who is "worthy of my worship." So now god has to be worthy of Bart's worship? These are the ramblings of an idiot.
6. "I am a free agent, after all, and I have standards for my God, the first of which is this: I will not worship any God who is not at least as compassionate as I am." I wonder if Bart is "absolutely compassionate" with no moments whatsoever of being mean or ill-tempered or childish. Will Bart's God also have to be as humble as he is? Would a god who fits Bart's standards be worth worshipping since Bart insists on him being on Bart's level? If Bart sets "the standards" for his god then he should go out into the woods and cut down a tree and make an idol and declare it god.
7. "Please, don't get me wrong." Don't worry, Bart, anyone who reads this shouldn't have any problem with that.
8. With Bart being "a free agent, after all" should this concern Arminians everywhere? Does anyone recognize the problem here with the idea of "free will" being a good thing in unbelievers?
9. Does anyone at "Youth Specialties" know anything about the Word of God? Did no one there have a problem with publishing this blatant heresy?
This is tragic. I've blogged on it (with a link here) and I'll be using this as a sermon illustration this Sunday. I'm preaching Jude and plan on naming names and pointing out the heresy. Not to be mean or to be a heresy hunter, but because the Campolos are considered evangelicals. We need to be warned about those who have snuck in.
John, you're right brother, it is Romans 1 at work. It is also the very thing Jude and other epistles warn us against.
They don't own it. Pardon me, but holy cow. That is defense attorney work at it's best! Brought to you by....chasebowers.typepad.com
You would be hard pressed to find a bolder or clearer admission of heresy. Heresy, of course, is not merely the choice of wrong theological ideas it is also the embracing of them by the heart and will, as the article tragically illustrates.
When the Bible has become a subordinate authority you are left with the worst kind of position to be in. In God's mercy this kind of boldness is at least obvious and abrasive, instead of subtle and deceptive.
Heresy exists even when people start to misplace the label for it.
Honestly, I enjoyed reading the article and agree with most of it. I support a child through Compassion International, too. Bring on the stones, I guess.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Laura, I don't think it's a matter of bringing on the stones so much, more one of grieving over the embracing of an extremely poor understanding of God, and the holding up of that understanding by a group who has a ton of influence over many student pastors. I think it's dangerous to throw the stone card when someone tells you you're wrong.
Laura, good works cannot compensate for heretical views of God. He has revealed himself as sovereign and Jesus spoke more about hell than anyone else. To tell God that you refuse to believe his word, especially about his character and deeds, turns any good works to ash.
Do the works of compassion but believe God.
Umm... exactly what is incorrect with what Bart has said? As I understand him he's entirely correct. He argues that God is entirely good. Now, you can say that his definition of 'good' might need tweaking (particularly for those of you who don't like open theism), but certainly you can't say that he's wrong, can you?
Cheers,
-Daniel-
This is a sad and fearful statement for someone to make. It reminds me of a book that was written several years ago titled Creating God in Our Image. May the Lord have mercy on Bart and bring him to repentance and salvation. YS wants to be relevant, so they print this garbage and feel like they are really making a connection with the youth guys. What can we expect when this young man has been taught a bunch of garbage by his dad.
"I will believe the bits of the Bible that agree with my ideas and ignore, deny, belittle and hate the bits that conflict with my own ideas of God."
Is that fair description of his principle of authority and interpretation?
The Following was sent in an e-mail to Youth Specialties:
"Included in your “Important Stuff YS Believes (a.k.a. Statement of Faith)” the following statement is made:
“We believe in the Bible. We're awed by it, inspired by it, and believe it is Truth. We're also terrified of it. We don't understand all of it, but we believe it. All of it. That's the important part, because if you only believe some of it, if you try to edit out the parts you don't like, then you don't believe it.”
However, in the recent article The Limits of God’s Grace written by Bart Campolo and posted on your website, when commenting on how he arrived at his position he says, “This is my first article of faith. I required no
Bible to determine it, and—honestly—I will either interpret away or ignore altogether any Bible verse that suggests otherwise.” (http://www.youthspecialties.com/articles/topics/theology/limits_gods_grace.pdf)
So, which is true? Must you believe “all of it” or are you permitted to “edit out the parts you don’t like?”
Your guidance will be greatly appreciated."
I am curious to find their response. Justin, thanks for the link.
Please forgive me for the "throwing stones" comment. I probably should have said tomatoes. I meant that I was ready to be called everything that Mr. Campolo had been called (atheist, heretic, etc...) because I agree with the article. I still think it was a very good article, but the "throwing stones" comment may have been inappropriate. I'm sorry.
I think the bracketed material in JT's Campolo quote is a little unfair. Campolo isn't (in his own mind, at least) rejecting the concepts of "God's sovereignty, wrath, hell, etc." per se, but is referring back to his previous paragraph. I think he is specifically saying that he can't believe that
"God’s sovereignty is such that although God could indeed prevent little girls from being raped, God is no less just or merciful when they are raped, and those children and we who love them should uncritically give God our thanks and praise in any case."
Granted, he may be guilty of everything JT is associating him with, but that's not what he's saying in this article.
I don't see Campolo as doing anything other than engaging in natural theology -- which I would tend to reject, but which seems pretty popular on this blog. This quote sounds like something from someone groomed in soundbite creation from a young age, but the article as a whole is pretty standard for the world outside of reformed theology.
I should add that I don't agree with Bart Campolo -- his gospel sounds pretty shallow. I just wouldn't go so far as to call him a heretic.
Surely whether he is a heretic depends on his persistence in wrong belief. The first issue to determine is whether his views are heretical.
Justin,
Are you defending Mark Driscoll's recent comments about women? Or are you just trying to divert attention to something else controversial? Is anyone in the Reformed camp going to hold their brother Driscoll accountable for what he's said?
I'm just wondering, because if you're going to bring Driscoll into this particular discussion of Bart Campolo that seems like a strange way to address the firestorm that is shaping up around Driscoll.
{joke}Why can't anyone in the conservative Reformed evangelical world give a straight answer about Mark Driscoll?{/joke>} ;-)
Seriously, I'm waiting to see someone either stand up and defend Driscoll's post-Haggard comments or to give him some public scrutiny and correction.
Thanks for listening,
Steve K.
Martin -- Good point. I'll call the Pope at once. His men will get to the bottom of this.
Umm... exactly what is incorrect with what Bart has said? As I understand him he's entirely correct. He argues that God is entirely good. Now, you can say that his definition of 'good' might need tweaking (particularly for those of you who don't like open theism), but certainly you can't say that he's wrong, can you?
Daniel, the issue with Bart's position isn't his assertion that God is entirely good, and it isn't that his definition of Good needs tweaking (it needs rewriting) it's that Bart has claimed the authority to define what "good" means and then apply that definition as a straitjacket upon God.
To me, it's like when a parent says, "I love my child too much to spank him", they've decided that they (or society, or the government, or whoever) get to define love, but Proverbs 13:24 says that in actuality, they hate their child too much to spank them. Bart has said that the God described in many placed in Scripture is not as loving as the god he is willing to serve.
This is a very modern approach to theology - the worst sort of foundationalism (my own mind).
"Enlightenment is man’s release from his self-incurred tutelage. Tutelage is man’s inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another...Have the courage to use your own reason! That is the motto of enlightenment." - Kant
"I found myself utterly unable to accept doctrine on the ground of authority...I had nowhere to go but directly to the Bible, and to the philosophy or workings of my own mind. I gradually formed a view of my own mind, as revealed in consciousness." - Finney
"This is my first article of faith. I required no Bible to determine it and - honestly - I will either intepret away or ignore altogether any Bible verse that suggests otherwise." - B. Campolo
Gymbrall, thanks for the input. In my view, Campolo is just being honest about something that we all do. I see Reformed folk as unable to acknowledge anything in Scripture that would contradict either EDF (exhaustive definite foreknowledge) or TULIP. Clearly here there is an interpretive grid which allows some opinions but not others.
Campolo is being honest in that his admittedly flawed concept of goodness is a minimal limit on what he is willing to believe. If someone were to give a very persuasive argument that God and the devil are one (for example), I would reject it out of hand. Why? Because of my fundamental conviction that God is good.
It's essentially a version of presuppositionalism. Instead of assuming that the Bible is inerrant (as many of my Reformed brothers and sisters do), Campolo is assuming that God is not and cannot be evil. The latter proposition seems more defensible than the first to me...
My two cents.
-Daniel-
Daniel,
What would be Campolo's basis for making that latter proposition?
Daniel, you are grossly oversimplifying it.
What Bart has done is to give the Scriptures the bird and tell God that he is going to define what is good or bad.
As far as Reformed "unable to acknowledge anything in Scripture that would contradict" foreknowledge or TULIP, it is again a huge generalization. I fought election tooth and nail. I didn't want it to be true. But I was confronted by Scripture and I had to either, like Campolo, flip off the Scripture or accept it as God's revelation.
What Campolo has done sounds nice but he's denied who God says He is and told him that he will not worship him. Period. Why he ends by pleading that we trust God is beyond me. If He's as impotent as we are then why should I trust him? What can he do for me? Second, by denying hell, it "saves" the raped girl and then denies her justice. Because she and the gang that raped her are all glory bound! Sin is never punished for neither the victim nor the perpetrator.
Campolo's view of God offers no one any hope or help.
Chase, I don't speak for Campolo, but I do speak for myself. My answer to your question is: the Holy Spirit.
Tim, I realize I'm grossly oversimplifying. I think more or less everyone on this thread has been guilty of that though.
You talking about fighting 'tooth and nail' again the doctrine of election. As a general rule of thumb, I usually ask the question "why am I fighting?" when I find myself in a similar situation. If I am fighting because I don't want to be held accountable for a behavior or because acknowledging something as true would force me to change a behavior I'm comfortable with... then there's reason to believe that I should succumb.
If, on the other hand, I'm fighting because I feel that God's reputation is being tarnished, regardless of what it means for me, then perhaps there's something there worth fighting for.
I feel that certain strands of hyper-Calvinist thought (and I mean no one on this site) damage God's reputation by associating him to closely to the devil. I reject those views out of hand, not because I can quote 30 Scripture passages against them (though I probably could) but because they go against my picture of God.
My picture of God has been informed by the Holy Spirit through Scripture, through experience and through reason. I think Bart's point is analogous to this, and so I see no reason to reject it.
Cheers,
-Daniel-
Bart said that his view of God was arrived at:
a) independently from Scripture
b) is not open to correction from Scripture, just confirmation
So if this isn't an admission to being unsubmissive to biblical authority I don't honestly know what else he would have to say.
He knows what kind of god he wants to believe in and it is just too bad if the God of the Bible doesn't square with that view. On these criteria how could he ever be corrected by a genuinely Christian view of God?
Early on in my Christian life (I did not come to Christ until 26) I encountered what I called dalmatianists (the Bible is inspired...in spots). They are breeding well! One can argue a bunch of "stuff," but to deny hell is, bottom line, to call Christ a liar.
If, on the other hand, I'm fighting because I feel that God's reputation is being tarnished, regardless of what it means for me, then perhaps there's something there worth fighting for.
Yea, that's where I was. It was fair that God would elect some to salvation and not all.
I feel that certain strands of hyper-Calvinist thought (and I mean no one on this site) damage God's reputation by associating him to closely to the devil.
Hyper-Calvinism is wrong. Period. It doesn't matter what stripe it is. It denies God's use of means which His Word clearly teaches.
Now, if by hyper-Calvinism you mean TULIP, then I totally disagree. Depends on the terms. I know Geisler called himself a Calvinist, though he isn't, and called Calvinsist Hyper-Calvinists. Redefining the terms doesn't help.
My picture of God has been informed by the Holy Spirit through Scripture, through experience and through reason. I think Bart's point is analogous to this, and so I see no reason to reject it.
Man. I just don't see Jesus reasoning like that. I don't see Paul arguing that way. What experience and reason can reveal about God is only partial. And since sin has corrupted all of our faculties, our reason is not flawless nor reliable. Since sin has corrupted others the same way and the world we live in experience does not speak without a huge speech impediment.
You can't put them on par with Scripture and call it a deal. Can experience and reason tell you that not only is Jesus man but he's God? Can reason and experience tell you that there is one God who exists in three Persons? Scripture does far more than "influence" our understanding here, it provides it. So what happens if my experience leads me to believe that Jesus is not God or that God is not Trinity?
Then you're no longer a Christian.
Also, since you you didn't mention it, I want to bring up again the point that to deny God's sovereignty and the doctrine of hell does nothing to help the victims Bart mentioned.
Chase, you wrote to Laura: I don't think it's a matter of bringing on the stones so much, more one of grieving over the embracing of an extremely poor understanding of God.
Yet here is a sampling of the comments already posted when Laura wrote:
I've heard the same thing come from the mouth of those atheists … Don't YS have to take some responsibility for the article? ... Holy Holy Holy....molely … Astonishing! ... it represents an arrogant spirit that is not only adolescent but angry … I cannot imagine a better illustration of Romans 1:18-23 at work … So how does the evangelical church deal with heretics? ... he is not as intelligent as his dad … he seems very juvenile…some organization actually published this tripe … these are the ramblings of an idiot … We need to be warned about those who have snuck in … this kind of boldness is at least obvious and abrasive
Some apt feeling there, maybe, but not grief. If that’s grieving, this would be a < ahem > stony < /ahem > crowd to come to with actual grief expecting someone to grieve with us.
Please, let's respond to Mr. Campolo with all our hearts. But let's not pretend that we were doing that already.
KP
i found it comical that he admits his theology did not originate from the Bible, he would ignore verses that contradicted his own belief, and he believes in the God he wants to believe HOWEVER he still feels his position is biblical.
i was thinking about the little girl he talks about ... i would despair if she (being unsaved) went to heaven to discover her unsaved rapists right there beside her. OHH what a God of LOVE and COMPASSION! (sarcasm)
Daniel, Thank you for a straight-forward answer. We would simply be in disagreement over the nature of the Holy Spirit. I believe a view of the Holy Spirit that would believe He would contradict Scripture is erroneous.
Man. I just don't see Jesus reasoning like that. I don't see Paul arguing that way. What experience and reason can reveal about God is only partial. And since sin has corrupted all of our faculties, our reason is not flawless nor reliable.
What about Peter's revelation (and Paul's teaching) that the Jewish dietary requirements no longer needed to be kept? Or Paul's insistence on eating with Gentiles? The Torah didn't teach him that.
What about Peter's revelation (and Paul's teaching) that the Jewish dietary requirements no longer needed to be kept? Or Paul's insistence on eating with Gentiles? The Torah didn't teach him that.
Neither did experience or reason!
It's true, I am interpreting Campolo charitably. I am assuming that when he talks about rejecting what Scripture says out of hand, he means rejecting what he is currently understanding Scripture to be saying out of hand (perhaps with the hope that he will someday understand it better--in a way that doesn't tarnish God's character). The fact is, though some would like to say 'we trust in Scripture, not reason or experience', there is no access to Scripture apart from reason or experience. When we read Scripture, that is an experience, one which we hopefully reason about. The so-called 'sola scriptura' folks here have no higher ground than Campolo's.
A side note, when I said 'hyper-calvinist', I meant hyper-calvinist (viz. way beyond TULIP).
Anyway, I guess my thought here is that Campolo is being more intellectually honest than many of us (primarily myself) tend to be. How many of us have thought "that can't be what it means!" when reading a particularly difficult chunk of Scripture (and I don't mean Romans 9)?
My two cents,
-Daniel-
Daniel
I think that he is saying much more than that. Your interpretation is not so much charitable as selective. His view of God was arrived at independently of Scripture and is above correction from Scripture, that's what he says.
This reminds me of an evangelist, Charlie Templeton, who said he could not love a God that condemned people to hell.
Martin, to be fair, he says that parts of his view of God are not open to correction. The same is true of mine. God's goodness, love, mercy and justice are, as far as I'm concerned, not open to correction. Even if I were to encounter a Bible passage which seemed to be saying that God is not good or not loving, I wouldn't 'submit' to its authority. Call it picking and choosing if you will, but I contend that it's something we all do. I've heard others call it "letting Scripture interpret Scripture," but it's essentially the same thing.
Debbie: depending on your definition of hell, Templeton's view doesn't seem unwarranted to me. Justifying the doctrine of hell at the very least requires something like CS Lewis' take on it (or perhaps Boyd's take, in his appendix on Hell in Satan and the Problem of Evil) in the Great Divorce. But everlasting punitive conscious torment? Hmm... not so sure about that one.
My two cents.
-Daniel-
Daniel,
He says that he "required no Bible" to determine his first article of faith and that, honestly, he will either "interpret away or ignore altogether any Bible verse that suggests otherwise."
Being interpreted: the Bible did not give me my belief in universalism and the Bible cannot take it away.
Daniel I think that what you are saying about your own belief is a little different to this.
Of course no Bible verse will say that God is not loving or good. But the question is whether we will allow the Bible, if I can put it that way, to define the content of those words or whether we would prefer to go with our own definitions.
Tim -- I disagree. How did Peter confirm the message of the vision he received? I would assume that he used his experience with the earthly Jesus, coupled with his rational facilities, to interpret the trance vision. Notice how Peter interpreted the vision differently than a modern Christian would have: we read it and think "this vision is about dietary law," but Peter interprets it to mean that he can now associate with Gentiles.
Your comments only make me wonder what sort of god YOU worship. I see absolutely NOTHING wrong with what Bart has written. God himself says that if you .. being human, give good gifts to your children, how much more your Father who is in heaven. I wouldn't want to serve a god who is less compassionate than I, either. If we are formed in His image, and I believe we are, any compassion or goodness we have is merely reflective of His own compassion or goodness, with the condition that ours is tainted with human experience and the nature of those who have lived according to our knowledge of good and evil rather than the Spirit of LIFE in Christ Jesus. To be willing to settle for a God who is less compassionate than we are, is being willing to settle for a god of our own making .. and that god is not worthy of our worship or any claim to us. With all your knowledge of fundamentalist dogma, do you have no idea whatsoever of the heart of Christ ... of the heart of our Father God?
John Dekker ... What in the world do you mean tht its a danger to worship such a God? Is not our God all those things .. or, again, perhaps the fundamentalist God is different than the Orthodox God. I don't know about that. If God is Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent .. then where does He fall short in being completely sovereign, merciful or just? I honestly don't understand your reasoning.
A.B. Caneday .. Please point out the blasphemy in Bart's article? Are you people just looking for something to criticize, as the manner of fundamentalists most often is?
LAURA .. FINALLY someone who posted to whom I can say amen. I was about to get disgusted with the pettiness of Fundamentlism as I usually do, until I saw your post. I see absolutely nothing wrong with Bart's article, and I have a feeling that he knows the compassionate heart of God far more clearly than these whose pettiness and foolhearty embrace of fundamentalist dogma prevents them from seeing that heart.
Daniel .. RIGHT ON!! No one can say that Bart's article is not right on, unless they are looking to be petty and of that critical mindset of which fundamentalism is made. I am thinking right now of Jesus' words in John 5:39,40 as I think of those who hold their man made dogma with such high esteem, and utterly miss knowing the heart of God.
episcowill,
Those are fighting words. Yet you claim to be compassionate. I trust you do not see yourself as bi-polar. When God declares himself to be a man of war and compassionate, he is not being bi-polar either.
fight the good fight.
"Please point out the blasphemy in Bart's article?"
---------------------------------------
"This is my first article of faith. I required no Bible to determine it and - honestly - I will either interpret away or ignore altogether any Bible verse that suggests otherwise."
---------------------------------------
do you need more???
he obviously knows that there is plenty of Scripture that does not agree with his "article of faith." and yes there is plenty. we cannot pick at scripture and use what we want, and dismiss the rest. that in itself is blasphemous.
Christopher .. HUH?????? Talk about Bi-Polar. Yike.
Will
Musgraves, Perhaps it's what we are looking to see. I am very well aware of the suspicious, fearful, reactionary prism through which fundamentalism views things, and I frankly think you are viewing Bart's comments through that lens. I am just a bit younger than Bart's parents, and I frankly view his writing as a young man who is developing, growing, and certainly on his way to figuring it all out because, rather than the typical fundie who swallows everything he/she hears, he is seeking to own his faith. I think that "Blashpheme" is such a strong and reactionary word, but then, it doesn't surprise me to see it either. I read these posts and wonder how in the world I EVER grew up and lived in the fundamentalist world for over 40 years before I finally "saw the light" and fully embraced Christianity.
Will
Will
It is a shame that you haven't engaged with any of the arguments. It seems that you have just attacked the persons and dismissed them as fundamentalists. Words like heresy and blasphemy are strong, but whether they are appropriate depends on the validity of the doctrinal conclusions and criticisms that they follow.
By denying of God's exhaustive foreknowledge, eternal hell and the supreme authority of the Bible in matters of faith and practice, one has not departed from fundamentalism but from 2000 years of Christian believing.
We are not more compassionate than God but whether we like it or not there are many passages in Scripture that show that God doesn't behave as we would (take the opening of Malachi for starters). When we hit those texts we are better off questioning ourselves than God's holy, loving, and infinitely wise acts don't you think?
Simply standing in shock over Bart's barf. Romans 1:18-23 hits it on the head indeed.
Blasphemous Bart... may God shake him free of the deception he is under and my Bart repent.
Spot
Eric/Spot, Bart Campolo is your brother in Christ. Calling him 'Blasphemous Bart' and referring to his work as 'barf', though it may give you an initial tingle of self-righteousness, does not reflect the God that is in both of you. I've always held that Reformed folk are at their strongest when they talk about themselves in humility. I'm sad that I haven't seen very much of that lovely self-effacing attitude here.
I think it's ironic that folks are quoting Romans 1, because Romans 1 support Bart's point. Allow me to quote:
"For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made." (Romans 1:20a, NET)
This is general revelation folks, and this is exactly what Bart is using as his 'first premise'. Note that Paul doesn't say God's nature has been understood through Scripture, but rather he says they are understood through Creation. Isn't that what Bart is saying? That God's goodness and love and justice were obvious to him apart from Scripture?
He's not trying to glorify himself here, but rather his intuition glorifies God because it recognizes the work of his Spirit in the whole world (the Spirit is not confined to Scripture my friends).
My two cents.
-Daniel-
Bart says, "Such a god may not exist"
That's scarey, to say the only god he will have is this one, and he may not exist.
Scarey.
Daniel,
How do you know Bart is a Christain?
Daniel,
In the YS article Bart says that he is a universalist, and that this view was neither derived from Scripture nor can be overturned by Scripture.
So in answer to your question, no Bart isn't using general revelation as his first premise. Is a belief in universalism derivable from creation?
Daniel, at this point I have no reason to believe that Bart is my brother in Christ. He has so distorted the character of God as he has revealed himself as to put himself outside the pale of Christian orthodoxy. He admits this himself when he says "Some might say I would be wise to...remain orthodox...But that is precisely my point" He knows that he has gone beyond orthodoxy.
I do hope that he might return. It is my desire that he do so and I have prayed for him. But at this point his theology is sub-Christian and he knows it.
Donsands, you asked how I know Bart is a Christian. I know Bart is a Christian the same way I know you or anyone else is a Christian: you claim to be and so does he. And since I have no failproof way to verify that you or Bart are in fact yielding to the Spirit and being made in the likeness of Christ (the internet provides ample epistemic distance), I leave that judgment up to God.
Martin, universalism was an illustration about Bart's wider point that God is good. I think he is correct that certain understandings of hell are incompatible with God's goodness. I don't think that warrants universalism, but I don't see Bart's view as any more problematic than Origen's. Would you rather he cling to God's goodness and reject the doctrine of hell, or would you rather he embrace hell and have his vision of God terribly skewed?
Tim, if you did believe that Bart was your brother in Christ, I hope you would speak the truth in love to him. But since you do not think he is your brother in Christ, that is all the more reason not to treat him disrespectfully. John the Baptizer and Jesus never spoke a word against Caesar, precisely because they had no shared covenantal ground with him.
I find it ironic that you say Bart has "distorted the character of God," Tim, when Bart's point is precisely that he refuses to do so.
Anyway, I see that this conversation isn't going much of anywhere, so it's probably time for me to bow out.
Cheers, and the best to all of you,
-Daniel-
Tim, if you did believe that Bart was your brother in Christ, I hope you would speak the truth in love to him.
I have done nothing but.
John the Baptizer and Jesus never spoke a word against Caesar, precisely because they had no shared covenantal ground with him.
That's true but I don't think the reason is what you suppose. Jesus had extremely harsh words for the Pharasees and John the Baptist blasted people. There is a time and a place for that kind of thing.
I have made an effort to carefully point out Bart's errors.
I find it ironic that you say Bart has "distorted the character of God," Tim, when Bart's point is precisely that he refuses to do so.
But he has. Since he has rejected God's self-revelation in the Scriptures and subjected them to his own standard of right and wrong, he is distorting God into his own image. What he refuses to do is to conform his image of God to the one revealed in Scripture. That puts him outside the group that is called Christian.
Anyway, I see that this conversation isn't going much of anywhere, so it's probably time for me to bow out.
Well, if you feel that is the right thing to do. Personally, I have enjoyed the discussion with you. Though we disagree you've been a gentleman and you're articulate.
Thanks Tim. And same to you. I think we have different views on Scripture and pneumatology, hence our disagreements.
Thanks to you for the conversation, and thanks (as always) to JT for hosting it.
:-)
As one who is a youth worker, I have been concerned about Youth Specialties for a while. It is a place where more and more liberal theology is seen as on the "cutting edge." It is especially scary, because they influence the youth worker, who influences the youth in our churches, who become the so called "Christians" of the next generation. I think if we want to be on the cutting edge today we should teach the Scriptures, verse by verse to youth, and even preach! Yes, today in youth ministry circles, that would be considered radical and against the grain. Why? Because it is not "relational" enough, and we aren't at the center: God is.
Well said, Nick. I've been in youth ministry for almost three decades, and the dumbing down is astonishing. I speak in a variety of churches and camps (though I'm older than dirt), and all too often at a youth group meeting, class, "rally," I am the only one with a Bible. To see the biblical illiteracy of youth (and often parents)is indicative that many/most wouldn't have the slightest qualm with what started this whole string...Campolo's article. It is sad, scary, and, though trite, "a sign of the times."
In the meanwhile, I'll just keep relying on the Spirit of God to use His infallible Word to impact lives, starting with mine. My best "recommendation" in all these years is a big camp in the middle of teh country that won't bring me back anymore because I use "too much Bible."
Jack,
May God richly bless you for your continued faithfulness in preaching the gospel to youth. I am thankful for people like you. I came from a non-Christian home, yet heard the gospel and came to Christ after hearing someone like yourself. It is sad that you were not invited back to that camp for using the Bible too much! I wish there were more like you. Have a great day,
Nick
I feel like (sometimes) we lick our chops as hungry reformed blog dogs for an excerpts such as this anticipating, salivating to devour and in this article, we obviously got it. Heretical statements are a dime a dozen these days (I suppose in other days as well), and though this doesn't mean we should allow them to permeate, I feel that correcting these like Campolo is like trying to nail jello to a wall.
This article makes God into something we'd pull out of our pocket, look at Him and then put Him back for safe keeping. Any stipulation or conditional statement put on God is ludicrous but are ALL OVER THE PLACE. SO, that makes me wonder several things, how many 'nonconformist professing Christians' are out there are saying, "I'm a rebel. I'm going to write/say this to see if I can get reformed people's panties in a wad?" (I think mine are)
Also, HOW MUCH TIME and energy should be spent battling such babble? Would a whole life spent opposing this garbage be a worthy calling?
FINALLY, how does one humbly dissect the misconceptions that are out there from any rando that will write anything? When do you ignore it?
Would someone please shed some light here?? I'm young in the faith and thus could use some insight...
brandon
Brandon,
The questions that you ask at the end of your post are very, very important. Justin gave an indication about it in the original post when he said that he doesn't normally link to "bad" theology.
Given that I am a UK resident I have no idea how influential Youth Specialties is, but perhaps that is relevant to your concerns.
I think you are right that there can be a dangerous preoccupation with error which sidetracks churches and ministers from important positive gospel work.
Have a look at the first post on this link http://against-heresies.blogspot.com/2006_07_01_against-heresies_archive.html
It is about dealing with false teaching when it is a "clear and present danger" to churches.
Good questions Brandon, and good comments Martin.
"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but tests the spirits, whether they are of God" 1 John 4:1
We are in a violent contention for the truth. We need to be on our guard, and contend for the faith. And of cour