What Do You Know About Tony Campolo?

[TCGreek]

1. Well, I got a chance to listen to him in person and I even shook his hand. A pastor friend from the Desert Vineyard, an offshoot of Calvary Chapel, invited to hear Dr. Campolo. He was solid and scriptural.

2. Somewhere in his introduction he said he was a Baptist and that threw me for a loop. I have read Campolo before and used some of his illustrations, but I never thought that he was a Baptist.

3. What stripe is he? Is he SBC?

 

[npetreley]

I used to watch some show with both Campolo and Steve Brown, debating from the liberal vs. conservative views (respectively). It was very interesting. I can't say I agreed with everything Campolo said, but I don't recall him being unscriptural.

I have no idea what his Baptist affiliation may be. I think Steve Brown is Presbyterian.

 

[Joseph M. Smith]

Campolo is American Baptist. I rather suspect, however, that the church of which he is a member is Progressive National Baptist or one of the other historically African-American groups, as he often refers to his being a member of a black church.

I have heard Campolo several times and have some of his writings on my shelves. He is passionate, articulate, challenging, and funny all at the same time. He will puncture our pious pretensions in a heartbeat!

 

[Bob Alkire]

If I recallcorrectly, Tony Campolo has made clear his belief in the openness of God as has Clark Pinnock , that God does not know the future, and that God is reacting to our actions, and not in control. Of what I remember about him is he is way to the left, but a great speaker.

Below is what Al Mohler has to say about him. I use Al because I have it in my mind that you that you and Al would agree on most theology. If I wrong, please for give me, I'm not real high on Brother Al.

http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=259

 

[just-want-peace]

--but I don't recall him being unscriptural.

I used to watch these "debates" also, but TC was way too liberal for my SBC background.

Yes, he is a great speaker, BUT, I did not find him as scripturely based as you did, in general, but specifically once when discussing homos.

He & Steve were discussing the "Christian treatment" of same, & Tony was so far left as to espouse virtual total/unconditional acceptance of them - totally contrary to what Scripture says. The logic was nothing more than a twisting of God's word to declare that "God says it's wrong, BUT what God really means---". No different than you hear today.

Just one more instance of the old come-on, "DID GOD REALLY SAY---"!

 

[npetreley]

I used to watch these "debates" also, but TC was way too liberal for my SBC background.

Yes, he is a great speaker, BUT, I did not find him as scripturely based as you did, in general, but specifically once when discussing homos.

He & Steve were discussing the "Christian treatment" of same, & Tony was so far left as to espouse virtual total/unconditional acceptance of them - totally contrary to what Scripture says. The logic was nothing more than a twisting of God's word to declare that "God says it's wrong, BUT what God really means---". No different than you hear today.

Just one more instance of the old come-on, "DID GOD REALLY SAY---"!

Yeah, he's much too liberal for me, too. I don't really recall him saying anything unscriptural in those debates, but maybe I just have a short memory. I didn't realize he denies the omnipotence of God, which should shock me, but it really does sound like something he would say.

I always enjoyed Steve Brown, though. I used to listen to his radio show.

 

[Baptist Believer]

If I recall correctly, Tony Campolo has made clear his belief in the openness of God as has Clark Pinnock , that God does not know the future, and that God is reacting to our actions, and not in control.

Open Theism does not teach that God is not in control, although to a Calvinist it probably seems that way. But that's more of a reflection of the Calvinist "all or nothing" approach to sovereignty than anything.

 

[TCGreek]

If I recallcorrectly, Tony Campolo has made clear his belief in the openness of God as has Clark Pinnock , that God does not know the future, and that God is reacting to our actions, and not in control. Of what I remember about him is he is way to the left, but a great speaker.

Below is what Al Mohler has to say about him. I use Al because I have it in my mind that you that you and Al would agree on most theology. If I wrong, please for give me, I'm not real high on Brother Al.

http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=259

Now, Open Theism has been called a new H..... and that's not good for Tony Campolo.

 

[TCGreek]

1. Here's Tony Campolo: "Perhaps we would do well to listen to the likes of Rabbi Harold Kushner, who contends that God is not really as powerful as we have claimed. Nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures does it say that God is omnipotent. Kushner points out that omnipotence is a Greek philosophical concept, but it is not in his Bible. Instead, the Hebrew Bible contends that God is mighty. That means that God is a greater force in the universe than all the other forces combined." (emphasis mine).

2. For Campolo to quote the likes of Rabbi Kushner, you know something is wrong.

3. But here is where I don't get Campolo: at the lecture I went to, Campolo describes the horror of Aids in Africa and how he told about a dump where the bodies of orphans, who had lost their parents to Aids, were dumped when found on the streets dead from starvation and other such things.

4. Then Campolo asks: "Why God?" Why would he asked God why if God is not imnipotent?

5. Campolo's theology is terribly screwed up.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

5. Campolo's theology is terribly screwed up.

Aw...but he is such a good speaker, charismatic personality, and he CARES!!!

 

[TCGreek]

Aw...but he is such a good speaker, charismatic personality, and he CARES!!!

Yes, I must admit that he is all of what you just pointed out, but somehow if he were to take his Open Theism to it logical end, the care he has wouldn't mean much.

 

[Baptist Believer]

1. Here's Tony Campolo: "Perhaps we would do well to listen to the likes of Rabbi Harold Kushner, who contends that God is not really as powerful as we have claimed. Nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures does it say that God is omnipotent. Kushner points out that omnipotence is a Greek philosophical concept, but it is not in his Bible. Instead, the Hebrew Bible contends that God is mighty. That means that God is a greater force in the universe than all the other forces combined." (emphasis mine).

What is the source of this quote?

2. For Campolo to quote the likes of Rabbi Kushner, you know something is wrong.

I'm not concerned about who is quoted, I'm concerned about what is promoted. It is a good thing to pay attention to people we don't agree with. We generally learn something, even if we don't agree with their conclusions.

3. But here is where I don't get Campolo: at the lecture I went to, Campolo describes the horror of Aids in Africa and how he told about a dump where the bodies of orphans, who had lost their parents to Aids, were dumped when found on the streets dead from starvation and other such things.

4. Then Campolo asks: "Why God?" Why would he asked God why if God is not imnipotent?

Makes me think that someone is mistaken regarding what Campolo actually believes. For years, I've heard people misreport Tony Campolo's position on homosexuality... apparently not realizing that advocating compassion toward homosexuals is not the same thing as endorsing homosexual relations.

5. Campolo's theology is terribly screwed up.

I disagree with Campolo regarding a number of things, but I also know that he is routinely misquoted, slandered, and misunderstood. To understand Campolo, you need to read his books and essays instead of trying to piece together his theology based on the accusations from his critics.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Yes, I must admit that he is all of what you just pointed out, but somehow if he were to take his Open Theism to it logical end, the care he has wouldn't mean much.

What do you believe is the "logical end" to Open Theism?

 

[TCGreek]

What is the source of this quote?

1. Source of the quote: http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=259

I'm not concerned about who is quoted, I'm concerned about what is promoted. It is a good thing to pay attention to people we don't agree with. We generally learn something, even if we don't agree with their conclusions.


Makes me think that someone is mistaken regarding what Campolo actually believes. For years, I've heard people misreport Tony Campolo's position on homosexuality... apparently not realizing that advocating compassion toward homosexuals is not the same thing as endorsing homosexual relations.


I disagree with Campolo regarding a number of things, but I also know that he is routinely misquoted, slandered, and misunderstood. To understand Campolo, you need to read his books and essays instead of trying to piece together his theology based on the accusations from his critics.

2. According to the quote, those are Campolo's own words. And a responsible scholar and mind like Al Mohler would not misquote Campolo, IMO.

 

[TCGreek]

What do you believe is the "logical end" to Open Theism?

1. We still can't find a cure for Aids. Do you think the god of Open Theism knows of a cure?

2. Most are still baffled by the atrocities of life, Do you think the god of Open Theism can help? Does he have any answers?

 

[Baptist Believer]

1. Source of the quote: http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=259

Okay, there was a link off of Mohler's blog to the article.

FYI, I disagree with Campolo's response. I don't think Campolo is asking the right questions, so he's getting the wrong answers.



EDITED to fix formatting.

 

[Baptist Believer]

1. We still can't find a cure for Aids.

We can't fix or control a lot of things. That doesn't mean that God is not sovereign.

Do you think the god of Open Theism knows of a cure?

Absolutely yes. But I think an Open Theist would say that God has most important priorities than making us healthy, comfortable and happy on earth through His direct action. Instead, God wants His people to act in a selfless way to comfort and redeem those who suffer and, in the process, transform their own character and lives through service.

All of us are terminal cases (from a physical perspective) and our bodies are wasting away. God (including the "God of Open Theism") has promised that He will one day make all things new.

2. Most are still baffled by the atrocities of life,,,

Yep.

Do you think the god of Open Theism can help?

Certainly. In the Open Theist view of things, many to most of the calamities of this world are caused by the sinful actions of humankind over the years. Sometimes it is the direct result of the sins of the one who is suffering, but more often it is the result of the sins that other people commit that unleash destruction on large groups of people. Free will has tremendous consequences, yet God is still working in the world to bring about his ultimate will. And God still intervenes from time to time eliminating possible choices to ensure that history will run along the general course He intends.

Does he have any answers?

The answer is that God is working with us (or against us) for ultimate good and will certainly bring about redemption for those who will turn their lives over to Him.

 

[preachinjesus]

I appreciate Tony Campolo's insight, heart, honesty, and humor.

I heartily disagree with the Open Theist position, but don't see it as heresy. My personal journey growing up in a fairly rigid, slightly fundamentalist SBC church never got me close to Tony Campolo's teachings. I can say I have, since, used his research, stats, and some illustrations.

For what it is worth, I remember Dr. Jerry Falwell cornering Campolo on CNN (Larry King or something) and asked him to answer "yes" or "no" to a question. Here is the question: Is Jesus Christ the only way to heaven?

Campolo couldn't answer. That has certainly affect my view of him.

 

[TCGreek]

We can't fix or control a lot of things. That doesn't mean that God is not sovereign.

1. But how can an Open Theist maintain the sovereignty of God, when his God doesn't know the future. The absolute sovereignty of God necessitates complete knowledge of the future.

Absolutely yes. But I think an Open Theist would say that God has most important priorities than making us healthy, comfortable and happy on earth through His direct action. Instead, God wants His people to act in a selfless way to comfort and redeem those who suffer and, in the process, transform their own character and lives through service.

2. How can an Open Theist be so sure about God, since God can change his mind any time, because he's still adjusting to what comes next. I'm not too sure that this God is worthy of our trust.

All of us are terminal cases (from a physical perspective) and our bodies are wasting away. God (including the "God of Open Theism") has promised that He will one day make all things new.

3. Is the God of Open Theism going to achieve the necessary knowledge? Is the God of Open Theism able to deliver on his promises since he's still being processed. Maybe he will never figure out what to do with our bodies.

Certainly. In the Open Theist view of things, many to most of the calamities of this world are caused by the sinful actions of humankind over the years. Sometimes it is the direct result of the sins of the one who is suffering, but more often it is the result of the sins that other people commit that unleash destruction on large groups of people. Free will has tremendous consequences, yet God is still working in the world to bring about his ultimate will. And God still intervenes from time to time eliminating possible choices to ensure that history will run along the general course He intends.

4. What about natural disasters?

5. It seems like you have a more concrete and optimistic knowledge about the will of the God of Open Theism. Remember, as this God acquires knowledge of the future, he can change at any time.

6. So his will tomorrow can be something completely different than what it is today. Such God of Open Theism is not worthy of trust. He vacillates too much.

 

[TCGreek]

I appreciate Tony Campolo's insight, heart, honesty, and humor.

I heartily disagree with the Open Theist position, but don't see it as heresy. My personal journey growing up in a fairly rigid, slightly fundamentalist SBC church never got me close to Tony Campolo's teachings. I can say I have, since, used his research, stats, and some illustrations.

For what it is worth, I remember Dr. Jerry Falwell cornering Campolo on CNN (Larry King or something) and asked him to answer "yes" or "no" to a question. Here is the question: Is Jesus Christ the only way to heaven?

Campolo couldn't answer. That has certainly affect my view of him.

1. Open Theism attacks the very nature of God.

2. Open Theism, a philosophy of finite minds, somehow, has been able to climb into the chambers of God and figure out the MIND of an INFINITE God.

3. Open Theism has reduced an incomparable God to a God, all of a sudden, whom can be figured out. What every happened to Romans 11:33-36:

Oh, the depth of the riches
both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God!
How unsearchable His judgments
and untraceable His ways!

34 For who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been His counselor?

35 Or who has ever first given to Him,

and has to be repaid?

36 For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things.
To Him be the glory forever. Amen. (HCSB, emphasis added).

4. It seems like this transcendent God is no longer transcendent of the Open Theist is correct.