Rob Bell and relative theology...

Here are some notes and thoughts from the inquirer's class a couple of weeks ago. It is so great to hear the creed explained in the same context that it was formed.

Creed: The Son of God, the Only-begotten
• John 1:18, 3:16
• Christ is not a creature
• However, the Father is the source, who is unoriginate
• Father and Son share the same life and love: perfectly.
• The only difference between Father and Son is that the Father is the Father and the Son is the Son
• He is the Word of God. This is synonymous with Begotten
• Speech is a symbol of our uniqueness. Matt 12:34. We speak out of the abundance of our hearts. It is wonderful to think that God wanted us to communicate not only with each other, but also with Him

• He is the perfect icon of the Father (icon of the Father). The uncreated Light (the transfiguration)
• He exists in the eternal NOW of the Father. Consubstantial. One Essence. Homoousias.
• Col 1:15

St. Athanasius has become more and more interesting and important to me. It is amazing to read about his life. Here are a couple of bullet points about him:
• Bishop in Alexandria
• Strong opponent to Arianism: Arius was a priest
• Often it was him against the “world”
• Martyred by being eaten alive by lions


An interesting thought that has been popping up in my mind is the unity of the Church. We know the passage in John when Jesus prays for the unity of all believers. I recently noticed something that seemed important to me in this prayer. He asks for all believers to be one as He and the Father are one. This makes me think that the "unity" of the Church should reflect the unity shared between Christ and the Father.

What is the nature of Their relationship? They are unified not just in thought and expression, but also in doctrine. Christ only did and said what he saw and heard the Father do and say. This makes me think that the Church should be unified in doctrine and worship! This also makes ask, "If there is no unbroken doctrinal chain back to the apostles, how do we decide what is essential doctrine that unifies?" There is a HUGE difference between oneness pentecostalism and trinitarian theology. Can these two groups truly be unified?

Who decides what are the essentials of the Christian faith? Let me leave you with a quote from Rob Bell. You decide if it's important or not. We can't sit by while people teach relativism and a social justice gospel:
“What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archeologists find Larry’s tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of the Mithra and Dionysian religious cults that were hugely popular at the time of Jesus, whose gods had virgin births? But what if, as you study the origin of the word ‘virgin’ you discover that the word ‘virgin’ in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew language at that time, the word ‘virgin’ could mean several things. And what if you discover that in the first century being ‘born of a virgin’ also referred to a child whose mother became pregnant the first time she had intercourse? What if that spring were seriously questioned? Could a person keep on jumping? Could a person still love God? Could you still be a Christian? Is the way of Jesus still the best possible way to live? Or does the whole thing fall apart?…If the whole faith falls apart when we reexamine and rethink one spring, then it wasn’t that strong in the first place, was it?"

Lord have mercy