Kindle People: Rob Bell is Giving Away His First Book
John on February 5, 2010 at 10:13 am
If you’re a Kindle/Nook person you might be interested in downloading a free copy of Rob Bell’s first book, Velvet Elvis. He announced the giveaway a few days ago and I’ve been meaning to mention it. I’ve read it twice myself and have given away several copies to friends.
I’ll be seeing Rob in about two weeks when his latest speaking tour makes a stop in Los Angeles at the Wiltern. Based on past experience, I have high expectations for the event.
FYI, if you’re not someone who keeps up with this sort of thing, Rob is a very popular, young pastor out of Grand Rapids, MI. He is perhaps best known for a series of excellent short films he made under the heading Nooma (meaning spirit), but as many as 50K people a week listen to his sermons on the web. He is also considered a dangerous theological liberal by more conservative elements within Protestant circles. In this case, I urge undecided readers to ignore the nay-sayers and pick up the book. It’s an excellent alternative to the rigid, humorless John MacArthur-esque presentation of Christianity.
Category: Books |
A) MacArthur is not a Protestant by any reasonable standard or definition of Protestantism. Read “Recovering the Reformed Confession”.
B) If your choices are limited to Bell’s version of Christianity and MacArthur’s, something is seriously wrong with your thinking. You’ve presented a false dichotomy if there ever was one.
C) Bell’s exegesis of the term “pneuma,” from my own browsing through the concordance, was retrofitted into his “rediscovery of Christianity as an Eastern religion.” Don’t take my word for it.
Have fun giving Bell your money! No doubt he’s giving away his book because he can afford to.
February 5, 2010 @ 12:17 pmI attend a Methodist church but listen to Podcasts of a variety of pastors and apologetics experts. I have listened to literally hundreds of MacArthur sermons and would never have classified his views on Christianity as rigid or humorless. I don’t agree with him on everything but he is the best I’ve heard.
February 5, 2010 @ 1:14 pmPR,
I shudder at the thought of any sect that is so narrow as to consider John MacArthur insufficiently doctrinally pure. MacArthur is a five point Calvinist. I’m not sure what else you want for him to be a real Protestant. In any case, I’m using the word to mean any of the variety of non-Catholic religious groups that were formed in the wake of the Reformation, up to and including Rob Bell.
My vision of Christianity isn’t limited to those choices at all. On the contrary, I’m open to the wisdom of Catholics, Orthodox, Methodists, Anglicans and Baptists both those now living and those long gone. I do think that Rob Bell is the vanguard of something positive that is happening. I don’t expect you to agree, but that’s my considered opinion.
I’m not sure what definition of spirit you’re citing here. Where does he lay out his exegesis of the word in a way that you disagree with?
February 5, 2010 @ 2:57 pmNeil,
I haven’t listened to many of his sermons, but I’ve read several essays and excerpts from his books. I do find his faith extremely rigid and humorless. In fact he has written dismissively of sermons that employ humor and personal anecdotes. He literally believes that anyone who disagrees with him on his interpretation of Genesis 1 or Revelation is a danger to the faith. I also find his views of music absurd and un-biblical.
In addition, I’m not a big fan of his fan club. I guess we’ll just have to agreeably disagree on this one.
February 5, 2010 @ 3:04 pmYou have no idea what you’re talking about.
Protestants subscribe to the Reformed confessions. TULIP does not a Protestant make, nor is it even an accurate summary of the Canons of Dort, which are just a rejection of errors in the first place, not a positive statement of faith.
I don’t know what MacArthur is, but it’s definitely something else.
That reminds me of this:
Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant doctrines are contradictory over the very nature of justification – the thing that saves you from hell.
Protestants define what it is to be Protestant, not you. You’re making up definitions.
It’s like I said, grab a concordance and listen to his sermons on “pneuma.” See if the words he’s exegeting actually have the same definitions in the concordance or if he has retrofitted his definitions into the text in order to fit them to his “rediscovery of Christianity as an Eastern religion.”
It surprises me that a man of your intellect hasn’t graduated to the Big Boy books yet, John. Bell is not exactly a good writer. Everything he has written has already been said more eloquently and intelligently by the higher critics of the 19th century. At least do yourself the service of reading something better than third-grade pedestrian trash if you’re going to read this stuff.
I think the unbelievers are right when they speak of evangelicalism with contempt. What is it? It’s pretty much everything and nothing at the same time. It’s an idiotic religion. Why not become a Buddhist? At least in that religion, you’ll try to find some inner peace and mental clarity. You won’t be at war with the Dems over minute differences between them and Republicans.
If evangelicalism is to become like Bell wants it to be – that is, living like Jesus – the Mormons do a far better job of that than evangelicals ever could. Why not join that religion? If you can’t see the doctrinal differences between what Bell teaches and what historic, Protestant Christianity is, how can you begin to say that you think Buddhism and Mormonism are wrong, especially considering both religions offer far more of what Bell’s religion offers in a much better, more thought-out way?
February 5, 2010 @ 6:25 pmSystematic theology had reached the zenith in asininity to me (i.e.read Finney) until I discovered Reformed theology. And Mr. Calvin and his mighty contributions to the faith opened the gospels to me in a way I never thought possible.
February 5, 2010 @ 7:31 pmPR,
I don’t want you to take this the wrong way…but dude there is something seriously wrong with your attitude and I dare say with the lens through which you view the Christian faith. In fact, in some regard I dare say that your spiritual cheese has slid off your spiritual cracker.
I have not done much writing or commenting on the blog for the last year or so because I’ve had other “stuff” going on that required most of my attention. John is more than able to defend himself but will typically let pot shots like the ones you threw out pass by but when I read this thread I just had to say something.
I don’t know what is more distressing, your confrontational attitude where one isn’t necessary, your judgmental and obnoxious rudeness, or your narrow-minded inability to see that your brand of Christianity is not the sum total of the Christian faith. Even if you hold to an absurdly narrow-minded belief that only a small fraction/remnant of the Church is actually and legitimately saved, you should be able to see that the way that you see things may not be the ONLY way to see them.
Realize that John was speaking in general terms, so GENERALLY SPEAKING John MacArthur is considered to be on the conservative to very conservative side of the Christian faith. For the sake of this post and this comment thread, it doesn’t MATTER that you (laughingly) think that MacArthur isn’t conservative enough and it doesn’t MATTER if you have disagreement with some of his theology. In general terms and in the broad continuum that is Christianity, MacArthur is WAY right of center and if you can’t see that you need glasses…the kind Mr Magoo wears with the big thick lenses.
Your definition of “Protestant” might be YOUR definition, but you don’t get to turn around and say that since the “general” definition of protestant doesn’t mesh with yours, then the general definition must be thrown out. Spend 30 seconds on the web and you’ll find stuff like this or like this or this. In general terms John is spot on and you are wrong. MacArthur IS part of the Protestant Church just like Billy Graham, Rob Bell, or Mike Erre (my pastor). If MacArthur isn’t Protestant then he is either Catholic or Orthodox, and since he most certainly isn’t one of those things that brings us back to Protestant.
You seem to think that you “caught” John at something when you said:
But John NEVER said he simultaneously agreed with the Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant positions on Justification. He simply said that he was open to the wisdom found in Catholics, Orthodox, Methodists, Anglicans and Baptists.
Are you so entrenched that you can’t see that? Or are you so narrow minded that you can’t see that there IS wisdom to be find in branches of the Christian faith with which you might not fully agree? Just because Roman Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants disagree on justification doesn’t mean that there aren’t other areas of wisdom-agreement. You do SEE that, right, or you so stubborn and/or prideful that you can’t/won’t admit that wisdom about relationships, child-rearing, helping orphans and widows in distress, ministering to the “least of these,” etc can be found in any of the branches of Christianity?
Your comment about John graduating to the “big books” made me laugh…and then pissed me off. How dare you! Who do you think you are to come off so snarky and condescending? “Big boy book?” Really? PR, I don’t know you except for these past few years on the blog, but in the grand scheme of things on this blog John has evidenced a far deeper, far broader and far more nuanced understanding of Christianity, faith, philosophy, etc than you have ever shown. Not that he can’t be wrong at times, and there are things about which he and I may not agree, but I count myself blessed to be blogging with someone of such intellectual and spiritual depth. You would do well to try and be more like John and less like Ken Silva.
February 6, 2010 @ 12:23 amCalling people “narrow minded” is for gays and hippies.
It’s not that I can’t see that, it’s that you guys have no means by which to evaluate what is true or false.
I think you’re mistaking “terse” for “confrontational.”
We can now try to see who can pee further up a rope. I was merely trying to point out a naked emperor. The guy can’t write at all. The chapters are double-spaced, wide-margin with some kitschy ordering system. If his writing passes for quality these days, then something is seriously wrong. Like I said, the higher critics said everything Bell is saying a long time ago, and with far better writing. This idea of reading ancient Jewish rabbis back into Christian texts is at least 150 years old. The idea of Christianity being all about living like Jesus is far, far older and the Mormons are way better at it. And if you want to rediscover Christianity as an Eastern religion, why just not join the Buddhists?
February 6, 2010 @ 8:50 amPR,
We disagree about a lot of things. I think your condescending attitude doesn’t help clarify or shed any light on those differences.
I have read the “big boy” books on quite a few topics, though certainly not all topics nor all the books. My interest has been more the intersection of faith and science, than straight theology. In any case, I have taken masters level classes in theology, historical theology, New Testament, Old Testament and so on.
Generally, the point of this post was to interest people who haven’t taken those sort of classes. To offer them an introduction to the faith that I feel to be superior to many alternatives. But I’ll grant that his understanding of the faith is very different than yours. In case it wasn’t clear, I agree with him more than you.
Bell is a popularizer, not a specialist, but I disagree with you about his writing. He has written quite a few outstanding sermons. If it were easy to do, more pastors would do it. His books are written in a clear and simple style. It doesn’t surprise me that you are put off by the packaging or that you see him as offering nothing new. This is the same line peddled by every one of his critics. You, I’m afraid, are offering nothing new either in making this critique.
C.S. Lewis, whom I also love and whom you no doubt feel to be a heretic of dubious value, wrote similar kinds of books for people who were interested in the big picture. If someone were giving away Lewis’ books, I would put up a post recommending people get those as well.
I am indeed open to the wisdom of different faith traditions. There are in fact many non-Protestant writers and thinkers who I find superior to Calvin and Luther both in word and in deed. One of my favorite living theologians is N.T. Wright, who I think has shed a lot of light on Paul and Jesus. Have you read any of his books or essays?
As for the definition of Protestantism, I think you’re the one who is being silly here. The word has an everyday meaning, which I already alluded to, and that is the meaning I had in mind. Claiming that we must all use your narrow definition in everyday conversation is a losing battle. Funny, but I had a similar argument with someone recently who claimed that I could not describe atheists as “militant” unless they had formed an armed militia. What do you say to someone who insists on making up their own definitions for common words?
February 6, 2010 @ 11:23 amThis is the problem. He’s like a Thomas Friedman of evangelicalism: whatever he writes ends up as a part of the conventional evangelical wisdom by virtue of the fact that he’s popular whether or not it’s right or good.
Again, there are books on this subject as well, but you’re confusing “good” sermons (the idea that they put forth an argument and attempt to defend it clearly) with “orthodox” sermons. Preaching is all-around bad nowadays because no one reads, hardly anyone writes, and when people do read, it’s just to scan for information. Most people these days are functionally illiterate because we live in a visual culture. This has nothing to do with orthodoxy or heterodoxy.
But is my critique untrue or not? Were there people living 150 years ago who already wrote what Bell has written, and better? Don’t punt on this one.
Being “superior in word and deed” does not save one from hell (if you even believe in such a thing). Like I said, I’m sure there are plenty of Mormons (even Atheists!) out there who are better than all of us at acting like Jesus. They’re absolutely fabulous people. There are more clever writers than Calvin and Luther, I’m sure. I’m not even suggesting you become a Protestant or read them. I’m just suggesting that if you’re going to subscribe to Bell-like teachings, at least do it in a manner that doesn’t make you look uncritical. The higher critics were saying things better than Bell a long time ago.
I actually don’t even think you necessarily need to identify as a Christian with the road you’re on. I think there is much to commend Buddhism, Mormonism, Roman Catholicism. Buddhists, for example, will always be hipper, cooler, and more relevant than evangelicals in every way. Bell is never going to be more popular than Bono, the Dalai Lama, and other Buddhists.
Roman Catholicism has way better intellectual chops than evangelicalism. It’s a far more intellectually serious movement that commands much more respect.
Mormons are way better at living like Jesus.
Like these? Yes. He has misrepresented the Reformed view of the Law, which is in no way antinomian.
I’ve got a question for you, John, since you’ve punted on all of my other points. What critiques have you read of either Bell or NT Wright? Has Wright even read his critics and responded? Has Bell? Of course not. You all just form your opinions and say everyone is being a “narrow minded” meanie. It’s partisanship, nothing more. Partisans follow their own guiding light and their pet movements through to the end, no matter what that end is.
The way is narrow, John! Be sure you’re on the narrow way by reading all sides of the argument. The broad way leads to destruction.
Like I said, the frustrating thing is to the degree these popular religious writers have their thoughts seep into the conventional wisdom. It has done so to the degree that I can’t be sure what my own parents and siblings believe regarding salvation and justification, and the churches they attend leave me with no small discomfort. The most my own mother was able to say regarding her liberal PC(USA) church was that the minister “calls sin ‘sin’.”
Since Rob Bell is all about relevance, I’ll put this question to you. Based on Bell’s appearance and mannerisms, who do you think Bell appeals to? Blue collar guys will think he’s a homosexual and with good reason. He looks like a twink in his photos and I fear we may have another Ted Haggard on our hands. I understand you like his exegesis, but back up for a minute and consider if he himself is even on the path of his own stated goals. I’m sure, based on his impeccable fashion sense (big red flag), lilting voice (another big red flag0, and way of carrying himself and his mannerisms (big red flag) that he’ll definitely appeal to 2 narrow categories (gay men and feminist women), but not much beyond that. Also, like I said, he’ll never be able to be hipper than the Dalai Lama.
Brian McLaren is a virtually identical case. Take away his smug, self-satisfied look and fashion sense and you’re not left with much else that isn’t being done better elsewhere.
February 6, 2010 @ 12:50 pmBut just about nobody reads them anymore. Bell brings teh message to the people, like nobody has done for a long time. Jesus’ message wasn’t just for people who had an appetite for long, close type, single spaced text books. There is no IQ bar to being a Christian, and most of God’s people are a whole lot less intellectual than everybody on here, even people like me who don’t have a taste for the big boy books.
The message of Jesus is for everyone, and so it stands to raeson that it should be possible to put it in a way that ‘everyone’ can understand. Necessary, in fact, I would say.
Ain’t that the truth.
February 6, 2010 @ 3:06 pmI just disagree. It’s not a problem in my view. The Gospel isn’t a thesis paper or a systematic theology quiz, it’s a simple story. Bell is right about that and MacArthur is wrong.
Orthodoxy is not always the same as truth. Wasn’t that the whole point of the Reformation? Modern case in point: John MacArthur’s view of Genesis. I say he’s wrong. I believe Bell is right or much closer to right on the issue. I believe I can prove it. Same for eschatology. MacArthur is clueless from my point of view. And it won’t surprise you to know that my view of hell is not orthodox (unless you’re a Seventh Day Adventist), since I am an annihilationist. I hope to post something on this soon. Suffice it to say, the soul is not innately immortal. Those who say otherwise are both orthodox and demonstrably wrong.
Surely there were, just as there were surely people writing the same things John MacArthur is writing, only better.
Yes, and the pre-Socratic philosophers raised many interesting dilemmas too. Most people aren’t familiar with Plato and Democritus today. They read Deepak Chopra and Richard Dawkins instead. But again, when it comes to current writers, I think Bell represents his camp very well.
Jesus said you would know them by their fruit, not by their doctrine. Was he wrong too? If other religions uniformly produce better people, then the church is a failure. Personally, I don’t believe they do.
I can tell you that he appeals to about 10K people every week at his church and another 50-100K each week online. This is his third speaking tour, many dates of which have sold out. He appeals to a wide variety of people, far more than your pastor does apparently.
Insinuating that he’s gay? I think that shows that this isn’t an argument about substance, but about style. You don’t like his clothes or the way he formats his books. The rest is just high sounding backfill.
February 6, 2010 @ 3:53 pmIs there another PRCalDude on here defending John MacArthur? Why is it that every time I make some point, you start bringing him up? You’ve set up this imaginary dialogue between yourself defending Bell and me defending MacArthur. I don’t even know what MacArthur has to say about Bell and I don’t care.
Do you have a demographic breakdown of who listens to his sermons to support the idea that he appeals to “a wide variety of people?” So far, I can only find evidence that his following is upper Midwest white people.
I don’t know if I agree with that statement. You’re being narrow-minded. Do you know many of these other people? I think, for the most part, they produce way better people than evangelicalism does, MOrmonism especially. Mormons are absolutely fantastic people. I find atheists to be very pleasant people when they’re not being harried and otherwise battered by Evangelicals. Buddhists are great. On the other hand, we have people like one of the Real Housewives of OC, JOhn and Kate, Ted Haggard, etc representing evangelicalism. Don’t forget Rick Warren trying to tamper with our political process. Whoops! I don’t like a lot of Roman Catholics, though.
You’re forgetting, John, that I came from evangelicalism. My wife and I just got finished living next to some evangelical leaders in a prominent Los Angeles church. They were manipulative, fake, and mostly unfriendly to people outside their group. I went to Bel Air Prebyterian in college for about a year and can say pretty much the same thing about the people there. There was a lot of emphasis on being hip and relevant, but not much on actually being genuine and friendly.
Then, there were the people I grew up in evangelical church with. I’d say most of them don’t even go to church anymore. A few deal drugs. One leader in the high school group got arrested for filming the high school boys naked with secret cameras. Another guy molested his own daughters. The head pastor got forced out through some intrigue by the elders.
I seem to recall a story of your head pastor being a pretty shady guy as well. Would you say he’s better than most of the Mormons you know?
If this is good, give me bad. BTW, remember the scandal with all the Roman Catholic priests molesting boys? Yeah, we Christians have got it really figured out.
…
I’m not insinuating as much as I’m outright saying it. Is your gaydar broken? The open-shirt look of studious longing in the photo and the gay voice weren’t enough to tip you off? Would you pose for a photo like that? LOL.
There is no way that a) blue collar guys will like his schtick, so he’s irrelevant to them. Mexicans will agree with what I’ve written above about his sexuality, so that rules out America’s Fastest Growing Demographic in terms of relevance.
His appeal is narrow – like the gate to heaven!
February 6, 2010 @ 5:44 pmHe’s emblematic of the kind of ultra-conservative viewpoint I think is wrongheaded.
Well, his latest speaking tour has hit at least a dozen cities around the country and a dozen more in Europe. He’s going to sell out the Wiltern in LA, so I’d say his drawing power is a bit bigger than you appreciate.
I guess we’ve both had some bad experiences. I’ve had some good ones too though. But I stand by my statement. If the church isn’t good, then it isn’t worth our time. I’m pretty confident Paul, James and Jesus would all agree with me on that.
Uh, no, not really. But I guess I don’t spend as much time in gay bars as you do.
February 6, 2010 @ 11:46 pmFor what it’s worth, I work with young people, and most of them in the UK, at least (we’re talking 14-25 year olds, mostly) are no more interested in his sexuality than in whether he has his coffee black or with milk, sugar, sweetener, whatever. They don’t care, and they’d find it weird if you even asked whether they cared, like what would be wrong with you that would make you ask.
They do care about messgaes that speak to them in a way they understand, which Rob Bell most definitely does.
By the way – the whole gay as an insult thing doesn’t sit well with the big boy theology books thing. Like polka dots and plaid, they just don’t go, darling!
February 7, 2010 @ 7:13 amPR is a smart guy. I’m not sure why he feels the need to go there. I’m sure he thinks this is making some kind of valid point. It just isn’t coming across for most of us.
February 7, 2010 @ 9:44 amOh, I know that! But anyone reading the gay insult stuff would assume he was still in grade school.
February 7, 2010 @ 9:50 amCute, but I think you’re just being obtuse. One hardly needs to spend time in gay bars to have a gaydar, esp. given the numerous ways in which gay culture is promoted and celebrated. One would have to be living in some sort of a vacuum not to notice. Surely you noted the fallout from the Prop 8 vote 2 years ago? I’m sure I don’t need to get into it too much – this blog is about the culture war after all.
Do keep me posted on your trip to see Bell at the Wiltern. Pay a lot of attention to the demographic – I’m interested. Having a token black or hispanic there does not mean that Bell has an ethnically diverse, broad following btw.
February 7, 2010 @ 2:19 pmPR,
Why does it matter? Name a pastor who has a perfectly uniform appeal to all races? Does your pastor?
If Rob mainly appeals to young, urban white folks, so be it. There are a lot of those people in this country. In fact, they’re probably a majority of the country.
Just to reinforce it, your insinuation that he’s secretly gay is beyond pathetic. I don’t think you really even believe it. It’s just a cheap shot at someone you don’t like. Obviously, you’re having trouble articulating any sensible reasons why, so you resort to this. It’s not helping your case.
February 7, 2010 @ 2:53 pmYes. He’s not even white/European. Actually, I think whites might be a minority at our church. It’s actually pretty amazing to watch people outside traditional WEstern ethnicities do a better job of championing the Reformation than white people. It just proves the universality of the Reformation and its validity as the true faith delivered to the saints.
Well, see, that’s a problem. One of the stated goals of the Emergent movement is to be relevant. If he’s only relevant to urban SWPL hipsters, he’s not really relevant. He’s failing to meet his own criteria. Also, since Jesus’ goal was to gather in people from all the nations, he’s failing to walk like Jesus, which is another main goal of Emergentism. Then again, Jesus spent a lot of time walking around telling people they were going to hell apart from Him, to believe in him alone, proclaiming his exclusivity, etc.
Negative. Most of the children (>50%) under 5 are nonwhite. I think the only city in the US with a white population greater than 50% is Portland. If by “urban,” you mean “suburban,” you might be right though.
I think a spade is a spade. Look at his mannerisms and emotionalism in this video. I don’t know any men who act like that who aren’t gay. I don’t have $190 to fork out for the rest of the series, but I think his sexuality is pretty dubious. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
February 7, 2010 @ 7:30 pmPR, we’re both Reformed and in the minority here at VS. I do have to say that I know nothing about this Bell guy other than he went to the same cemetery (seminary) I went to. I don’t find the guy gay at all. He even talks about his son in the video. Maybe he’s one of those metrosexual guys but he doesn’t come across to me as a homosexual.
By the way, if he’s not Reformed and he’s in the Emergent crowd, I would imagine that there is little we can agree on with this dude. Maybe we could find common ground on the earlier creeds (Apostles, Nicene).
February 7, 2010 @ 8:50 pmPR,
So this whole long tangent was so you could say that your pastor does a better job reaching minorities. Okay, great. Glad to hear it. I don’t think that makes him right theologically (as you apparently do) and I certainly don’t think Rob Bell appealing to a mostly white urban/suburban demo means he’s wrong. The point is, he appeals to a lot of those people. In fact, if blacks and hispanics make up 1% of his audience, he still probably appeals to more of them in real numbers than does your church.
The video you linked to is a masterpiece in my opinion. There’s nothing remotely gay about it.
February 8, 2010 @ 9:35 amHardly my point, John.
He comes off as very feminine, will you agree? I thought the whole metrosexual trend went out after the South Park episode where metrosexuality was equated with homosexuality.
Anyways, I tend not to put too much stock into the fact that he’s got a family. Doesn’t Ted Haggard have 5 kids? What about Larry “Wide-stance” Craig?
At the hospital where my wife used to work, the CEO just got forced out due to ‘indiscretions’ with his male secretary. The CEO is married with 3 kids. I used to debate a gay guy on another forum awhile back who used to be married to a woman and had 3 daughters with her. He basically said that he could perform with women (some gay guys can’t) and he wanted to try to live a straight lifestyle because the Mormon church told him to.
I’ve heard too many stories like that to put a lot of stock into the fact that a man may be married with children.
February 8, 2010 @ 6:59 pmSo what was your point? That his appeal to hundreds of thousands of mostly white people makes his ministry illegitimate somehow?
Oh, and he’s secretly gay…
Did you say anything else of substance. I think I must have missed it.
February 8, 2010 @ 11:43 pmI’ve always liked Rain, although not seen it for a while. Watching it again, now, I do see something not ‘natural’ about his presentation, but I notice that it is no. 1 in the series. He’s got a lot more natural in his presentation as the series progresses. See no. 11, Rhythm, or later installments.
February 9, 2010 @ 5:27 amWho knows, maybe John (Reformedispy) MacArthur is right and the greatest Greek scholars (Google “Famous Rapture Watchers”), who uniformly said that Rev. 3:10 means PRESERVATION THROUGH, were wrong. But John has a conflict. On the one hand, since he knows that all Christian theology and organized churches before 1830 believed the church would be on earth during the tribulation, he would like to be seen as one who stands with the great Reformers. On the other hand, if you have a warehouse of unsold pretrib rapture material, and if you want to have “security” for your retirement years and hope that the big California quake won’t louse up your plans, you have a decided conflict of interest – right, John? Maybe the Lord will have to help strip off the layers of his seared conscience which have grown for years in order to please his parents and his supporters – who knows? One thing is for sure: pretrib is truly a house of cards and is so fragile that if a person removes just one card from the TOP of the pile, the whole thing can collapse. Which is why pretrib teachers don’t dare to even suggest they could be wrong on even one little subpoint! Don’t you feel sorry for the straitjacket they are in? While you’re mulling all this over, Google “Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty” for a rare behind-the-scenes look at the same 179-year-old fantasy.
February 9, 2010 @ 12:59 pm