The first is from Greg Boyd:
The tricky part of this review is that Mr. Boyd doesn't use any scripture to defend Pastor Bell. Instead he focuses on four factors of why it's ok for Pastor Bell to raise the questions he does without actually answering them fully. It seems that if you're going to argue that someone is correct, then using scripture would be the right way to do it. But I guess not everyone holds scripture in as high regard as Jesus did.
You can guess from my analytical, and I hope mostly logical, postings that I prefer a linear argument. Excusing a pastor's questioning of what should be rock-solid truth, because the questioner is an artist doesn't sound like a reasonable defense to me. If draw pictures on my calculus exams and illude or call into question the pythagorean theorem, the math teacher is going to fail me, any defense of artist not withstanding...
The second review is from Tim Challies:
This review is much easier for me to understand because Mr. Challies uses scripture throughout his review to rebut and point out the problems in Mr. Bell's implications and arguments. I appreciate where Mr. Challies points out where orthodox evangelicals would agree with Pastor Bell. It feels like he tried to be fair in his review, even though Mr. Challies clearly doesn't agree with Pastor Bell's conclusions.
Where do you stand in this debate?
