Sunday, March 06, 2011

Picking sides

Picking sides is one way of revealing your theological affinities.

Who are Rob Bell’s critics? Well, off the top of my head, they seem to be the God-forsaken Calvinistas like Justin Taylor, James White, John Piper, Albert Mohler, Timmy Brister, Ken Silva, Kevin DeYoung, TeamPyro, &c.

On the other hand, his defenders include (open theist) Greg Boyd, (Arminian) Peter Lumpkins, (Arminian/anti-“fundamentalist”) Roger Olson, (Arminian/Anabaptist) Ben Witherington, (Arminian/Anabaptist) Scot Knight,  (universalist) Jason Pratt, ("progressive") Randal Rauser, &c.

Or take the spectacle of Arminian Peter Lumpkins defending Bell by favorably citing open theist Greg Boyd defending universalism.

I’d suggest that if “Evangelical” universalists wish to make deeper inroads in the SBC, they should sweeten the pot by promoting teetotalist universalism. That would win over Paige Patterson, Jimmy Draper, and Richard Land–among other grand mufis in the SBC satrapies.  Teetotalist universalism would sweep the SBC, except for insurgent Founders in the Hindu-Kush.

They could also promote vegan-green universalism for hippie/skin-dippy progressives like Randal Rauser and Glen Peoples.   


  1. This is just a question from a curious Catholic of the byzantine right.

    These (important) disputes aside, surely both sides here have a lot of common ground, don't they?

  2. Crude: >> ...surely both sides here have a lot of common ground, don't they?<<

    Answer: Uh, not so much. Surely.

  3. "Picking sides is one way of revealing your theological affinities."

    Even not picking a side is picking a side.

    Like refusing to make a decision is making a decision.

    Have you ever talked to someone who says that they refuse to make a decision about Jesus. I.e., they say they can't be labeled as Christian or non-Christian because they refuse to make a decision.

    IMHO, they're not a Christian. But the "Love Wins" crowd of Rob Bell and his "ilk" would criticize such a discernment as mine.

  4. Answer: Uh, not so much. Surely.

    How? They're both Christian views. It seems both uphold the apostles' creed and so on.

    I don't mean common ground on the point of dispute in particular, but in the broader sense.

  5. Crude, absolutely. Both Calvin and Arminius had many more agreements then controversies. The doctrines of Scripture, God, Jesus Christ, the need of salvation, the role of the Church, and much more doctrines and even social issues of their day both theologians were in agreement.