“The Bells started questioning their assumptions about the Bible itself¡ª”discovering the Bible as a human product,” as Rob puts it, rather than the product of divine fiat. “The Bible is still in the center for us,” Rob says, “but it’s a different kind of center. We want to embrace mystery, rather than conquer it.” “I grew up thinking that we’ve figured out the Bible,” Kristen says, “that we knew what it means. Now I have no idea what most of it (the Bible) means. And yet I feel like life is big again¡ªlike life used to be black and white, and now it’s in color.”
OK, then. Fine. Let us be sectarians.
Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson
The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The following excerpt is from “Broad Rivers and Streams,” a sermon on Isaiah 33:20-23, delivered Sunday morning, 18 January 1863 at the Met Tab in London.
very day produces some improved divinity. Every now and then, to suit the times, a new edition of the Gospel is issued. Young gentlemen at college are taught not to preach the common ordinary 
doctrines, such as John Calvin, St. Augustine, and the Apostle Paul preached; they must go to Germany and muddle their own heads, and then come forth to muddle other people’s, they must have some philosophical divinity, some novelty, something more refined than that which would attract the mob and gather together the common people.
Thinking people must be cared for; sermons must be full of intellectual matter; the old apostles were but fishermen, and of course they could not preach more than fishermen’s education would enable them to comprehend, but these gentlemen have taken their degrees, and can climb to far greater heights and descend into far profounder depths than plain Peter or illiterate John.
Well, dear friends, we are content with the old wine since it is the best; Christ’s gospel is no new gospel; and moreover, we are old-fashioned enough to believe that not one doctrine is to be altered, nor half a doctrine, nor the thousandth part of a doctrine, no nor yet the form of a doctrine. We would “hold fast the form of sound words”¡ªnot only the principle mark, but the words; and not only the words, but the very form in which the words were moulded.
“Words, words, words,” says somebody; “what is the use of words, and forms, and creeds? Why, these are old musty crusty documents, only sectarians care about them.”
Ay, then let us be sectarians; let us hold with force and strength of mind the very form of sound words which has been delivered unto us. Not one of the stakes shall be removed, nor one of the cords thereof be loosened.
how is what spurgeon says different from what the bells say?
I don’t think you understood Spurgeon correctly. In the 1st, 2nd, and 4th paragraphs, he is speaking rhetorically.
‘Rhetorically’- I think this is the word I want to use. I have been overseas long enough that there are many English words that I haven’t heard, read, or used in years!
Yes, I understand, but are the Bells specifically calling in to question any specific doctrine, or is that just your interpretation?
did you read that whole article at CT? it’s interesting…
The doctrine of the innerrancy and infallibility of the Bible seems to be a bit under fire.
“discovering the Bible as a human product,” as Rob puts it, rather than the product of divine fiat.
Which opens the door for a “new understanding” of almost any doctrine in scripture, because it all becomes relative. It is no longer “God-breathed”.
Or am I missing something?
Yes, I read the whole article a while back. But I can’t remember how it ended, so I am re-reading it now.
But along the way, I am seeing so much that could and should be commented on.
Here are a few places that make me want to scream:
“According to Newbigin, the greatest heresy in monotheism is a misunderstanding of the doctrine of election,” McLaren says. “Election is not about who gets to go to heaven; election is about who God chooses to be part of his crisis-response team to bring healing to the world.”
(It sounds nice, but its a twisted understanding.)
“I don’t think we’ve got the gospel right yet. What does it mean to be ‘saved’? When I read the Bible, I don’t see it meaning, ‘I’m going to heaven after I die.’ Before modern evangelicalism nobody accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Savior, or walked down an aisle, or said the sinner’s prayer.”
(He diagnoses the problem right. None of the above is what true biblical Christianity has ever taught. But his “answer” to the problem is way off the mark.)
It’s not that McLaren is interested in joining the liberal side of modern Protestantism. “I don’t think the liberals have it right. But I don’t think we have it right either. None of us has arrived at orthodoxy.”
(Is he honestly telling us that none of the Reformers were truly orthodox? That Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Wesley, Spurgeon, etc… did not have their theology straight?)
I finally got to the end again, and this is what I found:
At least that’s what Rob Bell hopes. “People don’t get it,” he told me. “They think it’s about style. But the real question is: What is the gospel?”
That question, of course, is not new. It was asked by, among others, a devout young German monk named Martin Luther who found church increasingly dissatisfying. His answer, rooted in Scripture, changed the direction of Christian history at a moment of epochal cultural change.
Is it possible that a compelling new answer could emerge from McLaren’s “conversation”? If so, Bell may have a head start, with props to the apostle Paul.
“Weak is the new strong.” The emerging church, and evangelicalism, could do a lot worse.
– All I can say is, “unbelievable”, and as nicely as possible, “what a load of crap”.
(I agree it was a very interesting article overall. It written in a very attractive way. But it is full of misconceptions, misrepresentations, and straw-man arguments in favor of the emerging point of view.)