So, there you have it: two “Bell” video linked posts.
Somethings are coincidence.
Or, perhaps, a valuable thought: time is better spent contemplating Billy Graham, what he said at his wife’s funeral, and what his and her legacy are more than just reading blogs.
Rob Bell has, for so long, actually refused to clarify what he believes on any subject so well that he had raised ambiguity to a high art. At least he is finally actually saying what he really believes.
And, now that he is actually saying what he believes, it gives all of us who have been saying that he was a heretic for years a chance to say, “See? Told ya!” (Not that I ever would, of course. I’m saving up all my “I told you so”s to say to all my amillennial friends during the rapture…)
I never had a doubt about that heretical snake in the grass. May his mouth be stopped!
Louis
I don’t even know who Rob Bell is, so I really don’t care about his opinion. Doesn’t sound too different from lots of people in our culture.
We don’t have some vested interest in who goes to heaven, who goes to hell, why, and whether there are even such places. We have no way of knowing that because all of that knowledge is beyond our grasp.
But we do have Jesus’ teaching in the Gospels, and he squarely addresses these matters. These issues must be important. Jesus thought they were important. Jesus does not seem to present universalism in the Gospels. He clearly talks about a judgment. He clearly talks about belief in him and his work.
Putting everything together that Jesus had to say and reconciling the different statements is not always easy. But however one interprets the various passages, the text does not support the idea that Jesus taught that everyone is fine, that everyone goes to heaven etc. I am not going to name a person who goes to heaven or goes to hell. That seems like a judgment to me. I will repeat what Jesus said, and tell people that he will be their judge.
Finally, I looked at some of the posts on Denny Burke’s blog and saw that Christiane frequents that blog, too. I have concluded that Christiane is really a made up internet persona for B. Cole, or that she is really a member of an SBC church. I fully expect to see her at an upcoming convention!
As I understand it, Ben now works in DC. If that is so, then I can tell you by the IP address, that Ben is not Christiane. She does not reveal her identity and I will not reveal her location.
I’ve only met Ben once, and I think he would get a kick out of assuming a false identity and blogging on a Baptist blog. But I doubt he cares enough about Baptist life now to take the time to do that.
There was a rumor that Ben had become Catholic, but Ben told me that I should not believe most of what other people had said about him.
Louis
Thanks, Dave.
I was joking about it being Ben, but thanks for the info.
Louis
Dave:
I heard now that Judd Gregg from New Hampshire has retired, that B. Cole is working for Congressman Darrell Issa (sp?, California, I think).
Issa is going to be leading the investigatory charges in Congress that are expected to be brought against the Obama Administration.
If what I heard is accurate, he probably has an interesting job over the next few months.
Frank L.
“I told you so” — or at least, I meant to.
Chief Katie
I didn’t know there was any doubt about Bell. Perhaps Bell and John Shelby Spong have been collaborating. After all, why should they let issues of the virgin birth, the resurrection and hell make any difference in their theology.
Bell: How could that God ever be good? How could that God ever be trusted? And how could that ever be good news?
Rob Bell finally enlightens us that Jesus was lying in Matt. 7:13-14. Disgusting.
I will pray for the members of his church, that they be given the knowledge of the truth and come out from his heresy.
Jim G.
Hi all,
I’m probably going to start a controversy. It won’t be the first time. :0)
First, the disclaimer: I’m no Rob Bell fan (Not because I don’t like him…I honestly know little about him), and I’m definitely not a universalist. There is too much about hell in the Bible to ignore it. But, and I’ve only read Denny Burk’s account linked above, Mr. Bell brings up some really good points. I don’t think he answers them well, but the questions – at least some of them – are excellent. More on that below.
The task of theology is interpreting the meaning of biblical data in a coherent way in a contextualized manner. The good theologian must be aware of the questions being asked by culture and must work diligently to answer them fully and biblically. If we are not answering the questions the world is asking, we run the risk of becoming culturally irrelevant in the midst of working for the gospel.
Bell, in my opinion, asks the right question about God. He asks “How could that God ever be good? How could that God ever be trusted? And how could that ever be good news? This is why lots of people want nothing to do with the Christian faith.” Like him or not, he has his finger on the pulse of our world with this question. Burk’s reply, on the other hand, leaves something to be desired. He writes, “You are asking how can God be good if He sentences sinners to eternal damnation, but I think you have the question backwards. The real question is how can God be good if He doesn’t send sinners to judgment. How can God be good and forgive sinners?”
Here is the heart of the problem, and why Bell has a voice. Burk subtly shifts the question in such a way that protects the standard Evangelical party line, but it does not answer Bell’s (or the world’s) question. Burk is quick to defend the holiness of God. Bell is quick to defend the goodness of God. Burk takes a question about God’s goodness and shifts it to a question of God’s holiness.
Unless and until we can give a meaningful and biblical answer to Bell’s question, we leave ourselves open to dealing with incorrect answers, such as universalism. A friend of mine once said that cults and heresies are the unpaid bills of the church. He is right. The Southern Baptist world needs to be able to defend God’s goodness as well as it defends God’s holiness. If we cannot do so, we are in danger of distorting God in the opposite direction of Bell. We will find ourselves in the ditch on the other side of the road, just as stuck as Bell.
I’m not proposing that we reach the same conclusions as Bell. I disagree with them completely. What I am proposing is that we listen to his questions. Reframing them to suit our pre-existing theological paradigm does not help the ones who are asking them. I think the character of God lies behind the universal/conditional salvation debate, and the Calvinism/Arminianism debate. We need to be able to equally and ably defend both the goodness and the holiness of God.
Ready…. aim…. :0)
Jim G.
Chase
Jim,
I agree that we must answer the questions that our culture asks.
1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear.
However, we must also root out the false presuppositions of those questions, especially of Bell’s sort. When Bell asks how such a God could ever be good, he presumes that a good God would not send people to Hell. Bell confines God’s goodness to his own opinion of what “good” is, rather than to what the scripture tells us. Burk is justified in shifting the question.
Do you think that we can ever overemphasize the holiness of God? Does his love and goodness not extend from his holiness?
Isaiah 6:3 And one cried to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; The whole earth is full of His glory!”
Jim G.
Hi Chase,
With all due respect, I think you just overemphasized it, if it can be overemphasized.
I do not agree that God’s love extends from his holiness. I don’t think that point can be shown from Scripture. I think that if anything, Scripture might lean toward God’s holiness as a function of his love, since the Bible says God is love. But I am willing to hold the two truths in tension.
Although I do think we can agree that it would be good to provide a better definition of “good,” reframing the question does not answer the original one. I just think it is not good to shuffle the goodness question under the rug. It will always come back and bite us.
Jim, how can God’s holiness be a “function of His love?” What does this mean?
Louis
And could God’s love be a function of His holiness?
Chase
Jim,
I would say that God’s love extends from his holiness because God loves that which is in accord with his holiness, and hates that which is contrary to it (Prov. 3:32, 11:5, 15:26).
I don’t think we’re shuffling the question under the rug, because the question is erroneous. Pointing out the flaws of the question answers the question. “Good” is defined by God; what God is, good is. He is not subject to an external definition of “good,” especially one created by humans.
Chase
Typo on the scripture citations. They should be Prov. 3:32, 15:26, and Psalm 11:5.
Christiane
You can only say:
‘God IS love’
‘God IS holy’
He IS His traits.
Jim G.
Hey Chase,
“Good” is indeed defined by God but if it cannot be understood by us, then the term is meaningless to us. God has accommodated himself to humanity, most notably in the incarnation. If “good” does not have some sort of meaningful reflection in our understanding, it becomes a meaningless term.
What about “God commends his love toward us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us?” When I was a sinner, God still loved me. I was against his holiness, and yet Christ loved me enough to die for me. I think this text is a really strong counterexample to your first paragraph.
Jim G.
Chase
Jim,
I don’t mean that humans can never understand what good is, but rather that humans should understand what good is through what God has revealed to us in his Word. He isn’t subject to our definition, because our definition should be created by what he has revealed to us, both by his attributes and his law. I apologize if I was ambiguous.
Ephesians 1:3-6 sheds some light on how God loves us while we are sinners:
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.”
God loves us, because in the covenant of redemption, we were chosen to be justified by Christ’s blood; and by Christ engaging as a surety on behalf of the elect, God essentially has a guarantee of our justification, thereby allowing him to love us with an everlasting love, rather than hating us; as such, “all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose” (Ro. 8:28).
I clicked through, read it and the comments and discovered—
Joe Blackmon and Christiane argue on other blogs too. And here I thought we were special at SBC Voices, especially now that Wade Burleson’s not really blogging anymore.
Not much else to say. Given Burk’s response to the appropriate question of “Should we wait until we’ve actually seen the book?”
For those of you that don’t read through, his response was “I’ve seen the preview copy of the book.”
And the whole discussion about Ghandi? I had this conversation with a person that posted a question on my blog 2 years ago. Please forgive the self-promotional linking:
So, I’m at least as mean as Denny Burk. Not having met Denny Burk (in fact, I’ll go back in a few minutes to determine why he’s important enough that people quote him and not Dave Miller), but it’s nice to be in the same camp as some famous people.
Who knows, maybe Burk reads Hibbard on the weekends. Nah, I doubt it.
Universalism is not Christian doctrine – it is a false gospel and Paul had some harsh words about those.
But I don’t know the state of Rob Bell’s eternal soul. From what Denny Burk reported, I’ve got a pretty good idea of his current fundamental theological error.
Why would a Universalist bother with being a Christian?
Louis
Bill Mac:
That is a great question, and one that I think we should not try to answer.
Here’s what we can say, that being a Christian means that one trusts in Christ for salvation and believes that Christ is who he said he is and did what he said he came to do.
Universalism is a theological error of mammoth proportions. We simply do not have the support for that in Jesus’ teachings. It is a construct of various aspects of God’s character plus our own notions and conjecture.
To your question, I am sure that there are thousands of people who accept Christ every year, but upon doing so have no idea of whether Jesus taught universalism or not, and they may hold on to that out of notions of God’s kindness or something. The same is true of other doctrines that are important to the Christian faith.
Certainly, if one constructs a Jesus that does not faithfully represent who Jesus and the apostles claimed him to be, one would not be a Christian in the orthodox sense. One has basically changed the definition of being a Christian in that case. One can believe in the ethical teachings of Christianity, but that does not make one a Christian. Most people who do that have enough integrity to say that are NOT Christians. Some who have grown up in the church, however, find it hard to be so realistic. They are arguing to change the nature of Christianity and I suppose want to hold on the label so as to appear to be genuine.
But when it comes to various doctrines, such as universalism, I don’t think that we are in a position to declare such persons to be or not to be Christians. I think that is a slippery slope, and before we know it, we are declaring all sorts of people to be Christians or not based on various and sundry doctrinal beliefs.
I believe the best way to handle that is to say to people who believe in Universalism that they are not being true to what Jesus taught. As Jesus’ followers we should be true to what Jesus taught.
And then we are discussing what needs to be discussed – what did Jesus teach.
Not declaring certain persons to be Christian or not, or saved or not. That is a tempting trap. But it is a trap.
Louis
Doug:
You might read John Paul I on this.
He believed that the grace of Christ and love of God was so vast and the work on the cross so effective that at the end of the age people would see Christ for who he is and receive him.
He extended this to sincere people of other faiths. I am not sure he extended to Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin etc.
But you get my drift. He was not denying anything about Christ, he was actually increasing the scope of Christ’s power and forgiveness. He increased it beyond where Christ said it went, true.
A person like that, though in error, could still want to consider themselves a Christian.
I think my question was a perspective matter. I can see how a Christian might drift toward universalism, and have to deal with that: Can a Christian be a Universalist?
From the other side: if one is already a Universalist (all paths lead to God who says we’re all ok), why would they bother being a Christian?
I’m familiar with some of the questions regarding CS Lewis, John Stott, and a few others.
I think that might have been more in a snark-mode than a real question.
It’s a “which comes first” question. A Christian could proceed into that error, but from the starting point of universalism, why are you coming to Christ? Not for salvation, not because you need atonement…so could you become a Christian?
The whole idea of merciful annhila….(spelling bad) God destroying rather than eternally punishing or even eventually releasing from Hell into Heaven, while I don’t see those in Scripture, I can see a Christian person coming to those views. I’d think they were wrong, but not unsaved, depending on the rest of how they got to that point and whatever else they were preaching/teaching with it.
Many people with aberrant theology “consider themselves” to be Christian. Then again, I could “consider myself” to be a millionaire, but that wouldn’t change my bank balance one iota.
This is why we need to let the Bible define our beliefs. Our fallen minds will “consider” just about anything, because, in our fallen state, we suppress the truth in our unrighteousness.
I read part of a book in Barnes and Nobles and didn’t buy it written by Pope John Paul II. It’s one of several times in my life that I’ve regretted not buying a book or taking a pamphlet. The other time was the brochure I saw in Lifeway where they admitted the reason they created the Holman Christian Standard Bible was because they were tired of paying royalties to use the NIV in Sunday School literature. Now their marketing folks say “Oh, every generation needs it’s own translation of God’s word….”
Anyway, I wish I had bought that book so I could quote from the page what he said. However, in the book he said all religions lead to the same place. Particularly, I remember he said “For insatance, Buddhists have a wonderful perspective on the concept of ‘being saved’.”
I’m gonna call “Not a Christian” on that one. Just like Rob Bell is not a Christian.
I do not remember the name of the book. It is unfortunate that I didn’t go ahead and buy it so I could quote page numbers, publication date, yadda, yadda, yadda, or even scan in a copy of the page so that everyone could see that what he believed and what Jesus taught are two different, diametrically oppossed things.
Chase
John Paul II could consider himself to be whatever he liked, but papists are not Christians. There are undoubtedly some true believers who are members of the synagogue of Satan, but only through ignorance, of not knowing and believing the Roman church-state’s damnable heresies.
Christiane
Hi CHASE,
What is your opinion of Rev. Billy Graham?
Is Dr. Graham still considered a Southern Baptist, or has the SBC dis-owned him in any way?
For me, Dr. Graham represents the best in evangelical Christian servants of Our Lord, but I understand that not all Southern Baptists approve of him. What are your feelings on reading the following article? Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
“When Karol Wojtyla stepped out on the Vatican balcony on October 16, 1978, as the new Pope John Paul II, waving to the crowds in St. Peter’s Square on the first day of his auspicious papacy, the person preaching for him in his home pulpit back in Krakow, Poland, was none other than Billy Graham. Behind that fact is a surprising story of the late pope’s personal involvement with American evangelicals. With his passing, it is time to tell that story.
In the mid-1970s, American mission organizations like the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association began taking the gospel behind the Iron Curtain to Eastern Europe. After Graham’s first “communist” crusade in Hungary in 1977, he was invited to the predominately Catholic country of Poland by the tiny Protestant community there, which amounted to less than 1 percent of the population. Just as in his 1957 New York City crusade, Graham wanted to work with as many Catholics as possible.
Initially, the Polish Catholic church rebuffed him. Wojtyla was the exception, giving Graham the invitation he needed for his crusade in a country where evangelicalism was considered cultic. The two men made plans to meet for tea, but by the time Graham arrived, Wojtyla had been summoned to Rome. ”
I don’t have time to read the entire article right now, but I will try to later tonight.
Regarding Graham, I think that it is very sad that he compromised and worked together with Catholics later in his life. Preaching the Gospel is of little effect if those whom you reach are turned over to the Catholic church and their Satanic doctrine of justification by works.
God used Billy Graham in drawing me to Himself, as I came to Christ at a Billy Graham Crusade in Atlanta Fulton County Stadium in 1973. However, his ecumenical stance regarding Romanism is troubling to me. I have also read statements of his where he seems to flirt with annihilationism, and that also is troubling to me.
I do not believe that Karol Wojtyla was a true Christian, but a false teacher who preyed on the ignorance and superstition of many – as is Joseph Ratzinger now.
I also disagree with Luther’s positions on many issues, such as his anti-Semitism, his views on Baptism and on Eschatology.
Now, having said that, I believe that Martin Luther was, and Billy Graham is, truly Christian.
Squirrel
Smuschany
I realize this is off topic (but in reality so too is this anti-catholic bigotry that is going on), but I have to speak up.
If it was not for the “papists” we would still have some “damnable” heresies floating around (or at least more so than they are). Off the top of my head; Arianism, Gnosticism, Pelagianism, Donatism, Modalism, ect. You see it was CATHOLICS like Augustine, Tertullian, Irenaeus, POPE Gregory I, ect that fought against these heretical beliefs. It was these “papists” who solidified and codified doctrines such as the trinity and the deity of Christ Jesus. I could add High middle age scholars like Thomas Aquinas to this list, I challenge the anti-catholic bigots to read his work “Summa Theologica” and see how “orthodox” he truly is. Did/have you attended college/university? Thank the RCC! As it was Catholics who started the modern university system in the middle ages.
BTW, for those who like to quote and lift up Luther for what he says about the RCC, do you do the same for what he says about the Jews?!?!?!?! I should hope not!
“Papists” didn’t solidify the doctrines of the Trinity or the Deity of Christ. The Church did, well before the Pope begin to claim he could speak without making errors or that he was to be trusted absolutely in things without comparing his words to Scripture.
Religious thoughts change. The RCC of today isn’t the same as the RCC of Aquinas and certainly not of Augustine. The SBC isn’t the same as the SBC of either Boyce, Broadus, Elliot or Pinnock. And that’s just 150 years—the Catholic Church has been around much longer.
And Luther made several mistakes—his condemnation later in life of the Jews was certainly one of them. His adherence to paedo-baptism would be another. Labeling the Pope, who had condemned the reading of Scripture by lay people, as “The AntiChrist” is one, though as “an antiChrist” might not be too far.
Christiane
Hi DOUG HIBBARD,
Your help is needed:
“The RCC of today isn’t the same as the RCC of Aquinas and certainly not of Augustine.”
DOUG, someone needs to tell the Catholic Church to take St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine off of their list of ‘Doctors of the Church’, the special title given to the twenty-three individuals (three of them women) who are considered to have greatly increased the Catholic Church’s understanding of theology.
The church has changed since then. Aquinas and Augustine are certainly known and respected, and yes are on the “Doctors of the Church” list.
Yet Augustine wrote before the schism with the East, Aquinas before the Reformation, and the RCC made changes in response to both of those actions. Likewise various councils and Popes since then—unless they’ve gone back to Mass in Latin. In Augustine’s time clerical celibacy wasn’t the official rule though it may have been common. There are a plenty of differences, both practical and theological.
That they added to the the understanding of theology isn’t in doubt. It’s just that if Augustine walked into a modern church, RCC or Baptist, he would find it quite different.
Or do you actually think nothing has changed in Catholicism in 2000 years?
Chief Katie
No doubt Luther did have some issue with Jews, but if you follow his writings, you’ll find that was not the case initially. Luther sincerely thought Jesus would be coming soon and he wanted the Jews to accept Christ without delay. There is also evidence, that he made sure they had safe travel out of Wittenberg. His frustration and anger grew as the Jews did not accept Christ. There is a great website ‘BeggarsAll’ that has a pretty extensive list of Luther’s writings and commentary. I highly recommend Jim Swan on Luther. I found it very helpful.
I believe what I remember is that Luther’s viewpoints on the Jews changed somewhat, but that the biggest part of why he gets labeled anti-Semitic came later in life.
There are a few opinions on it, one of which was that he reached a point that he thought the Jews were working against him. Also a few hints that some medical issues were involved. I think Metaxas highlighted some of the issues in his biography on Bonhoeffer, pointing out that Hitler misused those statements to persuade the German people at the beginning of the Nazi era. That may not be where it was, but I think so.
In all, I think Luther’s statements on the Jews are somewhat different from his (and many other Reformers’) views on the Pope.
Chase
Smuschany,
Doug already said most of what I would have, but I must note that I do not see how speaking the truth about Catholics is bigotry. The Roman church-state is an enemy of Christ, and works constantly against him. Jesus certainly didn’t pull punches when dealing with his enemies:
Mt. 12:34 You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.
Mt. 23:33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?”
Mt. 23:27 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean.”
Jn. 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do.
Neither did Paul:
1 Tim 4:1-3 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
Try vindicating Catholics from Paul’s warning. It isn’t possible.
Certainly we must pray that the souls who have found themselves in the Catholic church will be saved, and become members of a Christian church; they are not beyond hope and we must work towards bringing them the Gospel. But we must have nothing but contempt for the organization itself, and its chief heretics, and pray for its destruction.
For every “good” deed the Catholic church has done, how many Christians has she persecuted, tortured, and murdered? Thank God that they no longer have political power.
Anti-catholic bigotry, huh? When the Catholic church repents of its unbiblical, heretical stances on (a) salvation (b) the Lord’s Supper (c) pergatory (d) the perpetual virginity of Mary (e) the sinlessness of Mary (f) inclusivism (all religions lead to the same place) then I’ll be happy to issue an apology for my “anti-catholic bigotry”. Until then, I hope you don’t expect me to feel even an ounce of remorse.
“You see it was CATHOLICS like Augustine, Tertullian, Irenaeus, POPE Gregory I, ect that fought against these heretical beliefs…”
Smuschany, wow. Anachronism much?
Squirrel
Bill Mac
What prompted my question was the mention of Bell and Spong together. Whatever errors Bell might embrace (and I don’t know too much about him), I would be reluctant to lump him with Spong, who although seeming to retain the label of Christian, has by all accounts abandoned nearly all essential Christian doctrines. I agree that a Universalist has no reason to become a Christian, but I would not characterize a Christian who has embraced universalism as an apostate (without other evidence).
Chief Katie
Bill, I accept your statements about Spong and Bell. But let’s be honest here. Bell is so far our of the Christian boat, that it’s hard to even believe he is even in the same Navy. Bell is a heretic, and Spong, perhaps has gone right past heresy into full-blown apostasy.
Some of Bell’s thoughts on the Christian faith (From Velvet Elvis):
On the Virgin Birth:
“What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archeologists find Larry’s tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of the Mithra and Dionysian religious cults that were hugely popular at the time of Jesus, whose gods had virgin births? But what if, as you study the origin of the word ‘virgin’ you discover that the word ‘virgin’ in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew language at that time, the word ‘virgin’ could mean several things. And what if you discover that in the first century being ‘born of a virgin’ also referred to a child whose mother became pregnant the first time she had intercourse? What if that spring were seriously questioned? Could a person keep on jumping? Could a person still love God? Could you still be a Christian? Is the way of Jesus still the best possible way to live? Or does the whole thing fall apart?…If the whole faith falls apart when we reexamine and rethink one spring, then it wasn’t that strong in the first place, was it?”
On Heaven and Hell:
“Heaven is full of forgiven people. Hell is full of forgiven people. Heaven is full of people God loves, whom Jesus died for. Hell is full of forgiven people God loves, whom Jesus died for. The difference is how we choose to live, which story we choose to live in, which version of reality we trust. Ours or God’s.” – p. 146
“When people use the word hell, what do they mean? They mean a place, an event, a situation absent of how God desires things to be. Famine, debt, oppression, loneliness, despair, death, slaughter–they are all hell on earth. Jesus’ desire for his followers is that they live in such a way that they bring heaven to earth. What’s disturbing is when people talk more about hell after this life than they do about Hell here and now. As a Christian, I want to do what I can to resist hell coming to earth.” – p. 148
“The goal of Jesus isn’t to get into heaven. The goal is to get heaven here.” – p. 148
On the Fall:
“I can’t find one place in the teachings of Jesus, or the Bible for that matter, where we are to identify ourselves first and foremost as sinners. Now this doesn’t mean we don’t sin; that’s obvious. In the book of James it’s written like this: ‘We all stumble in many ways.’ Once again, the greatest truth of the story of Adam and Eve isn’t that it happened, but that it happens. We all make choices to live outside of how God created us to live. We have all come up short.” – p. 139
On Doctrine:
According to Mr. Bell there are two ways to approach doctrine: as a brick or a spring. The brick approach to doctrine is solid, unmoving and unchanging. It has no life. It is the wrong approach. A spring has life; it is flexible, and it is constantly changing. Rob Bell believes all doctrines are springs. By embracing such a view of doctrine and truth Mr. Bell drives a wedge between reality and doctrinal truth. He creates a paradox where there isn’t one. Bell views doctrines as ‘statements about our faith that help give words to the depth that we are experiencing.'”
Spong denies the virgin birth, and even the bodily resurrection of Jesus. He also denies the existence of Hell.
You may think that Bell still has some redeeming qualities, but I do not. I’d even go further. Take a look at his church website. Notice, their so-called doctrinal statement is just a lofty ‘story’ about what he thinks the faith should be about. Bottom line to him, it’s just ‘try to use Jesus as your example’. Then go and listen to a bit of Spong. Same lesson.
Of course, I respect your right to see things in keeping with your own convictions. I’ve been following Bell for awhile, and it’s very hard to find the salvation message in any of his writings.
God Bless.
I’ll be happy to send you the links if you’d like to see them.
Lydia
Bell was all the rage in seeker mega circles about 6 years ago. Staffers would sit enthralled before their computers watching Nooma DVD’s. I admit many were very well done and the messages were penetrating. But there was one tiny problem: What he left out was was too obvious for anyone who knew the full Gospel that makes the Good News, good. This was before he did his Mars Hill sojourn, I think. It was around the time Velvet Elvis became quite big in some seeker circles.
I remember one particular video, “Bull Horn Guy” which made fun of people who engaged in street witnessing…right down to portraying the guy doing the witnessing like a disgruntled postal worker ready to massacre the masses. The Bull Horn Guy “did not love people” because he spoke of hell.
I could never figure out what Bell thought we were saved from or saved to.
Bell’s current place in his journey does not surprise me. But, I was hoping he was only a fad that would many would tire of easily like Donald Miller.
Louis
Lydia,
If Chief Katie’s quotes are correct, I am not only not interested in Rob Bell, I also find him pretty vacuous.
I took the quotes from his book, Velvet Elvis. I try to make sure that what I put out is accurate and can be backed up with some evidence. I still make mistakes however. Plus, lot’s of people take quotes out of context, or even resort to ‘quote-mining’. That’s dishonest, but sadly many people resort to it. I’ll be happy to provide quotes, and links if you’d like to see them. YouTube also has many videos of Bell being… well, Bell.
I don’t know what Christian people are thinking to look up to Bell as any kind of purveyor of Biblical truth. I’m reminded of Dave’s articles about establishing places where Brick Walls are necessary. Dave was absolutely on target and I really appreciate him.
Bell and McLaren teach something that I do not recognize as the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
God Bless Louis.
Louis
Chief Katie – you are great!
John Fariss
I’m like Louis: Rob Bell is so far off my radar, I had to google him to know who he is. I have never read anything of his, and I probably won’t buy this book. Like Jim G., I think he asks some good questions, even if I do not agree what what seems to be his answers. Maybe we should be quicker to focus on the people–the presubmably unsaved people–who ask such questions and/or to whom these questions appeal than to jump in with our answers. My experience, starting with myself before I was saved as an adult, is that the unsaved are not interested in our answers (be they Biblical or otherwise) so much as they are interested in knowing a savior, i.e., seeing our relationship with Him and how to have that themselves. After that, the answers can come, and will be better if they discover them themselves. They cannot interpret the written Word (nor do most want to) until they know the living Word.
If anyone wonders how popular Bell is, just consider the 974 comments on Justin Taylor’s blog. That is a lot of commenting!
bill
Well, then let me be the one that raises some points then:
1. This is based on supposition of what he’ll write rather than what he wrote in this upcoming book. If you go back to Velvet Elvis, Bell was roundly castigated for “questioning the virgin birth” where if you read it in context to the entire chapter, he wasn’t doing that at all. He writes very much in the style of stream of consciousness (contact your local English/Reading teacher for examples and explanations) which really works against him because he may throw out a question and answer it literally two chapters later.
2. Bullhorn Guy is widely panned and largely misunderstood because despite taking a swipe at street preaching, it’s really taking a swipe at the shallowness that we display to people when we’re trying to get them “saved” because we treat them as targets rather than as people worth getting to know and love. He puts an emphasis on knowing people, developing relationships with them, and investing your life in people before and after leading them to Christ.
3. You would have to really go back a few years into some of his sermons, but he has distanced himself from the likes of Doug Pagitt and Brian McLaren. Now, I’ll be the first to concede that he hasn’t moved far enough yet, but I’m willing to listen to what Rob Bell has to say more than I would listen to someone akin to Ed Young, Jr. or Rick Warren, both of whom are SBC ordained. I do go all Berean on what Bell says and there is much that I disagree with, but there are positions that he has taken that I am very much in favor with and I love how much Mars Hill in Grand Rapids is Missions minded both locally and abroad.
4. I happen to think that the Nooma series is a wonderful teaching tool. It’s designed more to generate discussion and study but people have been using it to teach doctrine. Then again, people have done this with many secondary sources ranging from Love Dare to I kissed Dating Goodbye to Experiencing God. They are wonderful resources but hardly the main source needed for study.
5. I have been to every one of Rob Bell’s speaking tours. I have found them to be very compelling for their presentations and they have generated a ton of desire within me to go back to the scriptures for even more study. One tour, Everything is Spiritual, is probably the single best argument that I’ve heard for Creationism using scripture, science, and history to prove his point.
6. I am a huge fan of his methodology when delivering sermons. I love his creativity.
7. I can say so far that to my knowledge he has not attacked any of his critics. He hasn’t insulted anyone with a blog yet either.
I know that since I’m a pro-Rob Bell person, I’m going to get attacked on this.
That’s fine.
I’ll read the entire book first.
Then I’ll comment.
And yes, if people would like to have a go back and forth, I’ll do the best to my ability to do so. This could be a learning opportunity for all of us.
Bill, it is inaccurate to say that the opinions given were made in anticipation of what was going to be written.
Those who have reviewed the book were given sample chapters, and they made their reviews from a part of the book, not the whole thing.
For your position to be true you would have to assert that the rest of the book corrects that which was released. Odd that publishers would release parts of a book that would mislead the reviewers.
Rob Bell has been abandoning orthodoxy for some time. It should not surprise anyone that he has more completely denied the gospel now.
bill
Dave,
Rob Bell was castigated about a paragraph lifted with zero context talking about the virgin birth. A little sentence, and the entire premise of the chapter, roundly refute the castigation. Yet no one cares…
Do you believe that Rob Bell holds to the biblical gospel?
What I have read, seen and heard leads me to believe that he is an infidel, a false teacher, and that his heresy needs to be exposed.
Are you saying that my impression is not true?
bill
I think that Rob Bell could definitely phrase some things better to avoid controversy. Sometimes I think that he likes to be controversial to spark discussion and create attention.
I can name several SBC pastors that fit that same mold.
Dave, let’s do this via email off the board because I want to know what areas you think he’s strayed and let me take that, research, and I’ll respond with either an agreement with you per topic or I’ll give you some links and quotes.
I’m definitely willing to learn here.
anon
A few thoughts:
First, it certainly appears that Rob Bell IS moving in this direction. But I think everyone owes it to him to actually READ the book first. In my experience Rob’s go to technique is to ask provocative questions, appear to be headed into straight heresy and then pull back and give an answer that is usually Biblical.
For instance, I re-read the first part of Velvet Elvis last night. And in the very quote that Chief Katie (accurately) gave on the virgin birth the very NEXT sentence that she didn’t quote is something like “I affirm the virgin birth.” So, he asks something provocative and then affirms the traditional truth. (Now, the merits of this kind of teaching can be debated).
Again, it LOOKS like the writing is on the wall here….but before anyone “condemns” Rob- that is a very strong word afterall- don’t they at least owe it to him to read the book?
Chief Katie
anon,
Seriously, Bell knows the dividing line. Do you seriously think that he can write an entire paragraph regarding the virgin birth, try to associate it with paganism and then ask the question if it REALLY MATTERS? You can’t give a one liner “I affirm the Virgin Birth” after spending a bunch of words doing his best to marginalize it and expect to taken seriously. What was the purpose of that paragraph? He’s intellectually dishonest, and he knows it. If you believe in the virgin birth than you don’t try to weave doubt or make excuses for people who don’t believe in it. It’s a FUNDAMENTAL issue of the Christian faith. It’s the same as saying, that you don’t believe Christ could be risen from the grave because science claims it’s impossible. Or saying their are resurrection accounts in paganism, and then… finishing with saying “I affirm the resurrection”, but does it REALLY MATTER?
Bell is a compromiser. Like the RCC’s (no not all of them) he’ll say anything to be politically correct.
I think that the Bible offers profound wisdom when we are told to watch our hearts and MINDS in Christ Jesus.
anon
CK:
I don’t disagree with anything you said there…and don’t get me wrong. I am NOT trying to defend RB. I think we probably all know what we will read in his book….but the fact remains we should take the idea of condemning someone as a heretic seriously enough to wait 30 days, read the book for ourselves, and then present the arguments. Blogs/Twitter do us a great disservice here!
And I was simply pointing out that you happened to have “quote-mined” Velvet Elvis in your above post at least as it relates to the Virgin Birth. Believe me: I HATE how he handled the topic- I think it was WRONG. I am NOT defending it…but he DID affirm his belief in the Virgin Birth in the very next sentence…that is a fact and you did not include it.
bill
The entire premise of that entire chapter is about the strength of your faith.
He was basically asking, “What would happen to your faith if…” and went into the virgin birth. He wasn’t questioning the virgin birth at all. That is what everyone is forgetting.
The entire chapter is asking the question what would happen to your faith if something came along and destroyed it. The best example I can come up with is what would happen to your faith if evolution is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Would your faith in Christ be shattered or would Jesus Christ still be Lord and Savior? I remember thinking to myself, “No, I’d still follow Christ.” It was a great point that he made and it got lost in the pages and controversy.
Your paragraph isn’t just discounted when Rob Bell does come back and affirm the virgin birth. The entire premise of the chapter discounts your quote. Rob Bell writes not like we would write in a clearly delineated cut and dry like a dissertation. He writes in a stream of consciousness style that’ll read very controversial on one page and two pages later he brings it all home. People decry it as confusing and I can see their point, but I get it. I’m married to a wife who is ADD to the posterchild level. She’ll say something that’ll either confuse or infuriate me only to come back ten minutes into the conversation and it’s been alright the whole time. I have gotten used to it.
However, the virgin birth fiasco is everyone’s favorite goto chopping block when talking about Rob Bell and it’s not even in context to the chapter that it has been pulled from in the first place!
We know that without the Virgin Birth our faith is useless.
bill
I think that’s a relevant question to ask, particular if you are trying to prove a point about a person’s faith.
What would happen if Jesus’ body was found?
For me, for everything that I know, everything that I’ve seen, and everything I believe, I’d still follow Christ without question. I asked that question when I was in college and had a BCM Director that encouraged me to search for the answer. He provided me with a reading list of both scriptures and books discussing different facets of my question.
I found it and it strengthened my faith.
Had someone come along and told me that we don’t ask those questions, then I’m fairly certain that my faith would not be near as strong.
I’ll state this again: There are some stances that Rob Bell has taken that I do not agree with in any shape, form, or fashion. However, I am not one to discount everything that someone teaches just because I disagree with something.
What would happen if Jesus’ body was found? I asked that question when I was in college and had a BCM Director that encouraged me to search for the answer.
Considering when you probably went to college and what passed for “Baptist” on a college campus then, I’m not at all surprised what you were told.
The only answer that matters to that question is: if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.
I Cor 15:14 (NASB)
bill
That was the scripture he led with me.
He also was very patient with me and my questions.
He was very much the antithesis of you.
I’m very thankful to have had him in my life because had it been you, I would have walked away from the faith completely because I can’t see why anyone would want what you have.
And a Christian would have started with that scripture and stopped with that scripture. Of course, he didn’t stop there–the Bible isn’t sufficient. After all, it’s just a book of fairy tales.
Let’s not go down this path. One of the best things that has happened here is that we have started talking things over instead of arguing and insulting.
We just are not going there.
Discuss the subject, but I believe we can have an adult discussion without insults – even when the subject is volatile like this one.
bill
So it’s wrong that this BCM Director gave me scripture to study and then some books written by some scholars explaining why they had the conclusions that they had looking at the same scriptures?
Wow.
And I thought Ken Silva was a lunatic…
Chief Katie
anon.
Do you know what quote-mining is? It doesn’t appear that you do. Quote-mining is taking one part of a persons statement and purposely attaching it to something else they said, to try to prove a point. Or try to make it look like someone said something they didn’t. Gail Riplinger is a pro at that. I posted the quote exactly as I read it. His brief, “I affirm the virgin birth” cancels out everything he said previous. If he didn’t believe that, then why say it? Bell has a bad habit of doing this. Ever hear his 11 minute video about “Caesar is Lord”? He spends a good deal of time trying to convince people that the early Christians were simply modeling something being done in the 1st century, but then he tries to turn that into yet another statement about the TRUE gospel. Bell PURPOSELY creates doubt and tries to eat away at the foundation of people’s faith, but using this tactic over and over. His affirmation of the virgin birth can’t be taken seriously after he had already tried to undermine the truth of the gospel. But you are right. I should have made sure that statement was there. But did it add anything to the context? Or did he just confuse it? It would have been a good object lesson to show how Bell operates this way in almost everything he does. He does it with heaven, hell, and even the precious gospel. Bell can’t possibly believe in the Virgin birth if he goes to such lengths to make it sound like a fable that people believed in prior to the birth of Jesus. In fact, Bell takes away from the majesty of the birth of Jesus. He’s shameful.
Piper has it right. “Farewell Rob Bell”. I’m only sorry he didn’t do it sooner.
bill
I watch evangelists coming into churches all the time eroding people’s faith in order to trump up the numbers of salvations, rededications, etc.
We keep inviting them back.
Did you even read Velvet Elvis?
bill
Anyone familiar with the White Bucket?
Look it up and ask yourself if your church could do something similar to this.
Our church sponsers full time missionaries in some of the poorest parts of the world–Bangledesh, Mozambique, etc. We support homeless ministries in the area and volunteer at a crisis pregnancy center. We have at least 3 teams per year of volunteers taking time off their jobs to go to different countires to provide medical aid and food to people who need it while sharing the gospel. Don’t you blather to me about what my church does or doesn’t do.
The point IS doctrine. Rob Bell’s church may be doing something for poor people but since he is preaching a false gospel IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT HE DOES. Give somebody a sandwich and their belly might be full for a few hours but if they haven’t trusted Christ to save them or if they’ve believed Rob Bell’s false gospel (all Christians acknowledge he is a heretic) then they’ll go to hell for all eternity–regardless of the fact that Rob Bell says that hell doesn’t exist.
Quite obviously if we do other stuff as noted above we could…oh, and WE DID. About a year ago when things were particularly harsh in this economy, we not only worked through the benevolence fund to help folks in our church out, but we set up boxes in the sanctuary for people to bring non-perishable food items to share with folks who had need.
Now, what does it matter what RB and his church are doing if they’re spreading a false gospel? So spreading a false gospel is ok as long as you help poor people? I’m glad I’m not gonna have to answer for that one.
bill
No, it’s not okay to spread a false gospel at all. If you want it said, then considered it said.
Please, Ctrl+C this so you can put it in your folder of things that I’ve said despite you trying to look like you’re boxing me into a corner.
However, it’s easy to go off somewhere far off and do missions and it’s easy to bring canned goods.
It’s not easy to leave cash in buckets knowing that you have no idea whether the person taking from the bucket has a legitimate need or just wants a new cellphone. It’s not easy to go down to that bucket and pull out enough to buy your family some food.
What struck me about the white bucket is that there is nobody determining whether or not the church will pay someone’s bill. The money is there in the bucket or it’s not. You can’t just write a check and say it’s for X cause. You’re just letting that money go and it’s the motives of someone else that determines what happens next.
I don’t know of a church in my part of the country that could do something like that. All the churches that I know would want that money either dumped into the general fund or into an earmarked account with someone running the account, deciding who gets what.
That’s why I’m asking the question: Could your church do something like that?
Oh, so since it wasn’t exactly the same PROCEDURE it’s not good enough for you? Whatever, dude. No Christian would be writing an apologetic for some who spreads a false gospel like Rob Bell does because they used white buckets.
BTW, I answered your question. Now, you answer this one. So they did this white bucket thing, which is infinitely superior to anything any other church is doing—so what? Why does that matter? How does that offset the fact that he preaches a false gospel?
Is leaving a bucket of cash around for anyone to use for any purpose whatsoever without any accountability really good stewardship of the resources that God has given us?
Squirrel
bill
Again, you just don’t get it.
I’m asking whether or not your church could implement something like this which is inherent contrary to how they operate currently. This is nothing to do with doctrine. This has everything to do with control.
You can’t separate the two which is why we’re at this impasse.
And no, you haven’t answered the question. You keep dodging which is ironically what you accuse me of doing.
Now, squirrel, bill has spoken. Rob Bell gets a free pass as a heretic because bill says this makes him good enough. Since bill has told us that this is the real way to do ministry, we have no choice but to go and do likewise.
(/sarcasm)
bill
Squirrel,
I hope that you find my response appropriate. If you want, I may be able to email you the audio file directly. Please give it a listen and then we can dialogue from there.
I don’t think I’d want my church doing something like that. I suppose I could put a bucket of money at the intersection where the “homeless” guy sits. But that seems really stupid.
I suppose my giving him the Burger King #5 instead of cash was a bad idea. Personally, I think giving him food is better stewardship than giving him $6.00 to spend on booze. (Granted, I don’t know for sure he’d spend it on booze, but I didn’t give him the option.)
Now, could your church go around handing out food to homeless guys at various intersections, and is that somehow worse than this “White Bucket” thing?
I’m with Squirrel on this one – first, someone would have to show how a “White Bucket” ministry is even proper.
It used to be that when people in the church had needs, they could go to the elders (or pastors, whomever is aware of such things) and request aid.
It is a sorry state that churches are too strapped to do that anymore because their money is tied up in construction debt, payroll, etc.
I’m not at all saying that giving money as needs arise is a bad idea – I am saying that being a good steward demands some sort of accountability.
If a church wants to have a “white bucket” line item in the budget as a % of the general fund to be used for REAL needs, more power to them.
But should we allow anybody to take money from the bucket for any reason, valid or invalid? I don’t think so.
bill
Squirrel,
I’ll have to get home to my home pc and I’ll post either a link to the sermon which implemented the white bucket or I’ll upload the sermon audio file for you.
By the way you distilled it, then it’s obviously not.
However, if you phrased it as: Leaving gifts so that others can be blessed and fulfill needs as they arise…
I believe in the total depravity of man. I’m not going to give my hard-earned money away to just anybody to be used for just anything, trusting in their goodness to only take money for real needs. People don’t have intrinsic goodness. People are not “basically good”.
As my Daddy used to say while I was growing up, “Locks just keep honest folks honest, son. They don’t stop a real thief.” Leaving a bucket of money around, unlocked, is just setting temptation before others. That’s the way I see it.
Squirrel
bill
So you’re not even interested in giving this particular sermon a listen to provide some context?
I’m just trying to provide you with what I have that has so far formed my opinion of this practice. It would seem the best practice to continue this conversation.
Why would ANYONE be interested in a sermon by a man who preaches a false gospel? So what if people left money in a bucket and people took money from the bucket and people were helped. I answered your pendantic question, but you seem to be avoiding mine. Why on earth would it matter if a church did this if that church and its pastor preached a false gospel? What is the gain?
bill
I didn’t realize that you had asked a question.
All I was reading was insults not only to me, but a kindly man of God who helped me through a crisis of belief when I was in college.
There really wouldn’t be a gain there to be honest in the long term. Short term, needs are met.
Then again, if there is NOT a false gospel present, then there is much to gain.
But because Rob Bell presents a false gospel (all Christians recognize that) then he might as well have been playing in traffic. In fact, that would be pretty fun to watch. Like a live action version of Frogger.
On the White Bucket Project’s Facebook page, I noticed that they use Acts 2 as a justification for their actions. I presume that they are referring to this passage specifically:
Acts 2:44-45 “Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need.”
You may find John Gill’s commentary valuable:
“as every man had need: the rich sold their estates, and divided them among the poor, or gave them such a portion thereof as their present exigencies required. This was done by Jews, and by Jews only; who, when they embraced the Gospel of Christ, were informed that the destruction of their city, and nation, was at hand; and therefore they sold their estates before hand, and put them to this use; which was necessary to be done, both for the support of the Gospel in Judea, and for the carrying and spreading of it among the Gentiles: but is not to be drawn into a precedent, or an example in after times; nor is ever any such thing proposed to the Christian churches, or exhorted to by any of the apostles.”
bill
This is very interesting.
Thanks for this, I’ll definitely look into it further.
It seems that you are quoting a section. Do you have a link and/or reference so that I may look at the entire commentary?
Chase
Bill,
You can download a .pdf of his commentary on Acts here:
And if anyone wonders why doctrinal standards matter, Rob Bell’s descent into heresy is a compelling example.
DAVID,
why is this given as a ‘related post’ ?:
video – Billy Graham speaking at the funeral of his wife, Ruth Bell Graham
I can’t see the significance or the connection of it to Denny Burk’s post on Rob Bell.
I think the WordPress system auto-generates those. And both contain video links, so it’s assuming that video linked posts are related.
It’s just computers being dumb. This isn’t the one that won Jeopardy, it’s more like his dumb cousin.
Doug is right – it was likely classified as a ‘related post’ because the word “Bell” was used in both titles.
“This isn’t the [computer] that won Jeopardy, it’s more like his dumb cousin.” – ROFL 😀
Squirrel
Good point on the “Bell” as well.
So, there you have it: two “Bell” video linked posts.
Somethings are coincidence.
Or, perhaps, a valuable thought: time is better spent contemplating Billy Graham, what he said at his wife’s funeral, and what his and her legacy are more than just reading blogs.
He had to go with Harper to publish it. I was half-expecting a Christian publisher when I looked it up.
Rob Bell has, for so long, actually refused to clarify what he believes on any subject so well that he had raised ambiguity to a high art. At least he is finally actually saying what he really believes.
And, now that he is actually saying what he believes, it gives all of us who have been saying that he was a heretic for years a chance to say, “See? Told ya!” (Not that I ever would, of course. I’m saving up all my “I told you so”s to say to all my amillennial friends during the rapture…)
Squirrel
I never had a doubt about that heretical snake in the grass. May his mouth be stopped!
I don’t even know who Rob Bell is, so I really don’t care about his opinion. Doesn’t sound too different from lots of people in our culture.
We don’t have some vested interest in who goes to heaven, who goes to hell, why, and whether there are even such places. We have no way of knowing that because all of that knowledge is beyond our grasp.
But we do have Jesus’ teaching in the Gospels, and he squarely addresses these matters. These issues must be important. Jesus thought they were important. Jesus does not seem to present universalism in the Gospels. He clearly talks about a judgment. He clearly talks about belief in him and his work.
Putting everything together that Jesus had to say and reconciling the different statements is not always easy. But however one interprets the various passages, the text does not support the idea that Jesus taught that everyone is fine, that everyone goes to heaven etc. I am not going to name a person who goes to heaven or goes to hell. That seems like a judgment to me. I will repeat what Jesus said, and tell people that he will be their judge.
Finally, I looked at some of the posts on Denny Burke’s blog and saw that Christiane frequents that blog, too. I have concluded that Christiane is really a made up internet persona for B. Cole, or that she is really a member of an SBC church. I fully expect to see her at an upcoming convention!
As I understand it, Ben now works in DC. If that is so, then I can tell you by the IP address, that Ben is not Christiane. She does not reveal her identity and I will not reveal her location.
I’ve only met Ben once, and I think he would get a kick out of assuming a false identity and blogging on a Baptist blog. But I doubt he cares enough about Baptist life now to take the time to do that.
There was a rumor that Ben had become Catholic, but Ben told me that I should not believe most of what other people had said about him.
Thanks, Dave.
I was joking about it being Ben, but thanks for the info.
Dave:
I heard now that Judd Gregg from New Hampshire has retired, that B. Cole is working for Congressman Darrell Issa (sp?, California, I think).
Issa is going to be leading the investigatory charges in Congress that are expected to be brought against the Obama Administration.
If what I heard is accurate, he probably has an interesting job over the next few months.
“I told you so” — or at least, I meant to.
I didn’t know there was any doubt about Bell. Perhaps Bell and John Shelby Spong have been collaborating. After all, why should they let issues of the virgin birth, the resurrection and hell make any difference in their theology.
Bell: How could that God ever be good? How could that God ever be trusted? And how could that ever be good news?
Voddie says that these are the WRONG questions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD1yv4J6ohE&feature=player_embedded
Rob Bell finally enlightens us that Jesus was lying in Matt. 7:13-14. Disgusting.
I will pray for the members of his church, that they be given the knowledge of the truth and come out from his heresy.
Hi all,
I’m probably going to start a controversy. It won’t be the first time. :0)
First, the disclaimer: I’m no Rob Bell fan (Not because I don’t like him…I honestly know little about him), and I’m definitely not a universalist. There is too much about hell in the Bible to ignore it. But, and I’ve only read Denny Burk’s account linked above, Mr. Bell brings up some really good points. I don’t think he answers them well, but the questions – at least some of them – are excellent. More on that below.
The task of theology is interpreting the meaning of biblical data in a coherent way in a contextualized manner. The good theologian must be aware of the questions being asked by culture and must work diligently to answer them fully and biblically. If we are not answering the questions the world is asking, we run the risk of becoming culturally irrelevant in the midst of working for the gospel.
Bell, in my opinion, asks the right question about God. He asks “How could that God ever be good? How could that God ever be trusted? And how could that ever be good news? This is why lots of people want nothing to do with the Christian faith.” Like him or not, he has his finger on the pulse of our world with this question. Burk’s reply, on the other hand, leaves something to be desired. He writes, “You are asking how can God be good if He sentences sinners to eternal damnation, but I think you have the question backwards. The real question is how can God be good if He doesn’t send sinners to judgment. How can God be good and forgive sinners?”
Here is the heart of the problem, and why Bell has a voice. Burk subtly shifts the question in such a way that protects the standard Evangelical party line, but it does not answer Bell’s (or the world’s) question. Burk is quick to defend the holiness of God. Bell is quick to defend the goodness of God. Burk takes a question about God’s goodness and shifts it to a question of God’s holiness.
Unless and until we can give a meaningful and biblical answer to Bell’s question, we leave ourselves open to dealing with incorrect answers, such as universalism. A friend of mine once said that cults and heresies are the unpaid bills of the church. He is right. The Southern Baptist world needs to be able to defend God’s goodness as well as it defends God’s holiness. If we cannot do so, we are in danger of distorting God in the opposite direction of Bell. We will find ourselves in the ditch on the other side of the road, just as stuck as Bell.
I’m not proposing that we reach the same conclusions as Bell. I disagree with them completely. What I am proposing is that we listen to his questions. Reframing them to suit our pre-existing theological paradigm does not help the ones who are asking them. I think the character of God lies behind the universal/conditional salvation debate, and the Calvinism/Arminianism debate. We need to be able to equally and ably defend both the goodness and the holiness of God.
Ready…. aim…. :0)
Jim G.
Jim,
I agree that we must answer the questions that our culture asks.
1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear.
However, we must also root out the false presuppositions of those questions, especially of Bell’s sort. When Bell asks how such a God could ever be good, he presumes that a good God would not send people to Hell. Bell confines God’s goodness to his own opinion of what “good” is, rather than to what the scripture tells us. Burk is justified in shifting the question.
Do you think that we can ever overemphasize the holiness of God? Does his love and goodness not extend from his holiness?
Isaiah 6:3 And one cried to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; The whole earth is full of His glory!”
Hi Chase,
With all due respect, I think you just overemphasized it, if it can be overemphasized.
I do not agree that God’s love extends from his holiness. I don’t think that point can be shown from Scripture. I think that if anything, Scripture might lean toward God’s holiness as a function of his love, since the Bible says God is love. But I am willing to hold the two truths in tension.
Although I do think we can agree that it would be good to provide a better definition of “good,” reframing the question does not answer the original one. I just think it is not good to shuffle the goodness question under the rug. It will always come back and bite us.
Jim G.
Jim, how can God’s holiness be a “function of His love?” What does this mean?
And could God’s love be a function of His holiness?
Jim,
I would say that God’s love extends from his holiness because God loves that which is in accord with his holiness, and hates that which is contrary to it (Prov. 3:32, 11:5, 15:26).
I don’t think we’re shuffling the question under the rug, because the question is erroneous. Pointing out the flaws of the question answers the question. “Good” is defined by God; what God is, good is. He is not subject to an external definition of “good,” especially one created by humans.
Typo on the scripture citations. They should be Prov. 3:32, 15:26, and Psalm 11:5.
You can only say:
‘God IS love’
‘God IS holy’
He IS His traits.
Hey Chase,
“Good” is indeed defined by God but if it cannot be understood by us, then the term is meaningless to us. God has accommodated himself to humanity, most notably in the incarnation. If “good” does not have some sort of meaningful reflection in our understanding, it becomes a meaningless term.
What about “God commends his love toward us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us?” When I was a sinner, God still loved me. I was against his holiness, and yet Christ loved me enough to die for me. I think this text is a really strong counterexample to your first paragraph.
Jim G.
Jim,
I don’t mean that humans can never understand what good is, but rather that humans should understand what good is through what God has revealed to us in his Word. He isn’t subject to our definition, because our definition should be created by what he has revealed to us, both by his attributes and his law. I apologize if I was ambiguous.
Ephesians 1:3-6 sheds some light on how God loves us while we are sinners:
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.”
God loves us, because in the covenant of redemption, we were chosen to be justified by Christ’s blood; and by Christ engaging as a surety on behalf of the elect, God essentially has a guarantee of our justification, thereby allowing him to love us with an everlasting love, rather than hating us; as such, “all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose” (Ro. 8:28).
I clicked through, read it and the comments and discovered—
Joe Blackmon and Christiane argue on other blogs too. And here I thought we were special at SBC Voices, especially now that Wade Burleson’s not really blogging anymore.
Not much else to say. Given Burk’s response to the appropriate question of “Should we wait until we’ve actually seen the book?”
For those of you that don’t read through, his response was “I’ve seen the preview copy of the book.”
And the whole discussion about Ghandi? I had this conversation with a person that posted a question on my blog 2 years ago. Please forgive the self-promotional linking:
http://www.doughibbard.com/2008/11/ghandi-and-beatitudes.html
So, I’m at least as mean as Denny Burk. Not having met Denny Burk (in fact, I’ll go back in a few minutes to determine why he’s important enough that people quote him and not Dave Miller), but it’s nice to be in the same camp as some famous people.
Who knows, maybe Burk reads Hibbard on the weekends. Nah, I doubt it.
Doug
Can a Universalist be a Christian?
Universalism is not Christian doctrine – it is a false gospel and Paul had some harsh words about those.
But I don’t know the state of Rob Bell’s eternal soul. From what Denny Burk reported, I’ve got a pretty good idea of his current fundamental theological error.
That needs to be exposed publicly and rejected.
Why would a Universalist bother with being a Christian?
Bill Mac:
That is a great question, and one that I think we should not try to answer.
Here’s what we can say, that being a Christian means that one trusts in Christ for salvation and believes that Christ is who he said he is and did what he said he came to do.
Universalism is a theological error of mammoth proportions. We simply do not have the support for that in Jesus’ teachings. It is a construct of various aspects of God’s character plus our own notions and conjecture.
To your question, I am sure that there are thousands of people who accept Christ every year, but upon doing so have no idea of whether Jesus taught universalism or not, and they may hold on to that out of notions of God’s kindness or something. The same is true of other doctrines that are important to the Christian faith.
Certainly, if one constructs a Jesus that does not faithfully represent who Jesus and the apostles claimed him to be, one would not be a Christian in the orthodox sense. One has basically changed the definition of being a Christian in that case. One can believe in the ethical teachings of Christianity, but that does not make one a Christian. Most people who do that have enough integrity to say that are NOT Christians. Some who have grown up in the church, however, find it hard to be so realistic. They are arguing to change the nature of Christianity and I suppose want to hold on the label so as to appear to be genuine.
But when it comes to various doctrines, such as universalism, I don’t think that we are in a position to declare such persons to be or not to be Christians. I think that is a slippery slope, and before we know it, we are declaring all sorts of people to be Christians or not based on various and sundry doctrinal beliefs.
I believe the best way to handle that is to say to people who believe in Universalism that they are not being true to what Jesus taught. As Jesus’ followers we should be true to what Jesus taught.
And then we are discussing what needs to be discussed – what did Jesus teach.
Not declaring certain persons to be Christian or not, or saved or not. That is a tempting trap. But it is a trap.
Doug:
You might read John Paul I on this.
He believed that the grace of Christ and love of God was so vast and the work on the cross so effective that at the end of the age people would see Christ for who he is and receive him.
He extended this to sincere people of other faiths. I am not sure he extended to Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin etc.
But you get my drift. He was not denying anything about Christ, he was actually increasing the scope of Christ’s power and forgiveness. He increased it beyond where Christ said it went, true.
A person like that, though in error, could still want to consider themselves a Christian.
True—
I think my question was a perspective matter. I can see how a Christian might drift toward universalism, and have to deal with that: Can a Christian be a Universalist?
From the other side: if one is already a Universalist (all paths lead to God who says we’re all ok), why would they bother being a Christian?
I’m familiar with some of the questions regarding CS Lewis, John Stott, and a few others.
I think that might have been more in a snark-mode than a real question.
It’s a “which comes first” question. A Christian could proceed into that error, but from the starting point of universalism, why are you coming to Christ? Not for salvation, not because you need atonement…so could you become a Christian?
The whole idea of merciful annhila….(spelling bad) God destroying rather than eternally punishing or even eventually releasing from Hell into Heaven, while I don’t see those in Scripture, I can see a Christian person coming to those views. I’d think they were wrong, but not unsaved, depending on the rest of how they got to that point and whatever else they were preaching/teaching with it.
Doug,
“Annihilationism”
I can’t spell either — had to google it…
Maybe there’s a Swiss Army Knife with spell-check?
Squirrel
I think the $900 one had a spell checker. Or the size of the knife persuades others your spelling doesn’t matter.
Doug
Many people with aberrant theology “consider themselves” to be Christian. Then again, I could “consider myself” to be a millionaire, but that wouldn’t change my bank balance one iota.
This is why we need to let the Bible define our beliefs. Our fallen minds will “consider” just about anything, because, in our fallen state, we suppress the truth in our unrighteousness.
Squirrel
I read part of a book in Barnes and Nobles and didn’t buy it written by Pope John Paul II. It’s one of several times in my life that I’ve regretted not buying a book or taking a pamphlet. The other time was the brochure I saw in Lifeway where they admitted the reason they created the Holman Christian Standard Bible was because they were tired of paying royalties to use the NIV in Sunday School literature. Now their marketing folks say “Oh, every generation needs it’s own translation of God’s word….”
Anyway, I wish I had bought that book so I could quote from the page what he said. However, in the book he said all religions lead to the same place. Particularly, I remember he said “For insatance, Buddhists have a wonderful perspective on the concept of ‘being saved’.”
I’m gonna call “Not a Christian” on that one. Just like Rob Bell is not a Christian.
“I feel much freer now that I am certain the pope is the Antichrist.” – Martin Luther
JOE, do you remember the name of his book?
And circle May 1st on your calendar, this year. You will find out why.
BTW, next time you are browsing, examine ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ by Benedict XVI. You might actually like it.
I do not remember the name of the book. It is unfortunate that I didn’t go ahead and buy it so I could quote page numbers, publication date, yadda, yadda, yadda, or even scan in a copy of the page so that everyone could see that what he believed and what Jesus taught are two different, diametrically oppossed things.
John Paul II could consider himself to be whatever he liked, but papists are not Christians. There are undoubtedly some true believers who are members of the synagogue of Satan, but only through ignorance, of not knowing and believing the Roman church-state’s damnable heresies.
Hi CHASE,
What is your opinion of Rev. Billy Graham?
Is Dr. Graham still considered a Southern Baptist, or has the SBC dis-owned him in any way?
For me, Dr. Graham represents the best in evangelical Christian servants of Our Lord, but I understand that not all Southern Baptists approve of him. What are your feelings on reading the following article? Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
“When Karol Wojtyla stepped out on the Vatican balcony on October 16, 1978, as the new Pope John Paul II, waving to the crowds in St. Peter’s Square on the first day of his auspicious papacy, the person preaching for him in his home pulpit back in Krakow, Poland, was none other than Billy Graham. Behind that fact is a surprising story of the late pope’s personal involvement with American evangelicals. With his passing, it is time to tell that story.
In the mid-1970s, American mission organizations like the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association began taking the gospel behind the Iron Curtain to Eastern Europe. After Graham’s first “communist” crusade in Hungary in 1977, he was invited to the predominately Catholic country of Poland by the tiny Protestant community there, which amounted to less than 1 percent of the population. Just as in his 1957 New York City crusade, Graham wanted to work with as many Catholics as possible.
Initially, the Polish Catholic church rebuffed him. Wojtyla was the exception, giving Graham the invitation he needed for his crusade in a country where evangelicalism was considered cultic. The two men made plans to meet for tea, but by the time Graham arrived, Wojtyla had been summoned to Rome. ”
The article continues here:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/may/13.34.html
Christiane,
I don’t have time to read the entire article right now, but I will try to later tonight.
Regarding Graham, I think that it is very sad that he compromised and worked together with Catholics later in his life. Preaching the Gospel is of little effect if those whom you reach are turned over to the Catholic church and their Satanic doctrine of justification by works.
God used Billy Graham in drawing me to Himself, as I came to Christ at a Billy Graham Crusade in Atlanta Fulton County Stadium in 1973. However, his ecumenical stance regarding Romanism is troubling to me. I have also read statements of his where he seems to flirt with annihilationism, and that also is troubling to me.
I do not believe that Karol Wojtyla was a true Christian, but a false teacher who preyed on the ignorance and superstition of many – as is Joseph Ratzinger now.
I also disagree with Luther’s positions on many issues, such as his anti-Semitism, his views on Baptism and on Eschatology.
Now, having said that, I believe that Martin Luther was, and Billy Graham is, truly Christian.
Squirrel
I realize this is off topic (but in reality so too is this anti-catholic bigotry that is going on), but I have to speak up.
If it was not for the “papists” we would still have some “damnable” heresies floating around (or at least more so than they are). Off the top of my head; Arianism, Gnosticism, Pelagianism, Donatism, Modalism, ect. You see it was CATHOLICS like Augustine, Tertullian, Irenaeus, POPE Gregory I, ect that fought against these heretical beliefs. It was these “papists” who solidified and codified doctrines such as the trinity and the deity of Christ Jesus. I could add High middle age scholars like Thomas Aquinas to this list, I challenge the anti-catholic bigots to read his work “Summa Theologica” and see how “orthodox” he truly is. Did/have you attended college/university? Thank the RCC! As it was Catholics who started the modern university system in the middle ages.
BTW, for those who like to quote and lift up Luther for what he says about the RCC, do you do the same for what he says about the Jews?!?!?!?! I should hope not!
“Papists” didn’t solidify the doctrines of the Trinity or the Deity of Christ. The Church did, well before the Pope begin to claim he could speak without making errors or that he was to be trusted absolutely in things without comparing his words to Scripture.
Religious thoughts change. The RCC of today isn’t the same as the RCC of Aquinas and certainly not of Augustine. The SBC isn’t the same as the SBC of either Boyce, Broadus, Elliot or Pinnock. And that’s just 150 years—the Catholic Church has been around much longer.
And Luther made several mistakes—his condemnation later in life of the Jews was certainly one of them. His adherence to paedo-baptism would be another. Labeling the Pope, who had condemned the reading of Scripture by lay people, as “The AntiChrist” is one, though as “an antiChrist” might not be too far.
Hi DOUG HIBBARD,
Your help is needed:
“The RCC of today isn’t the same as the RCC of Aquinas and certainly not of Augustine.”
DOUG, someone needs to tell the Catholic Church to take St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine off of their list of ‘Doctors of the Church’, the special title given to the twenty-three individuals (three of them women) who are considered to have greatly increased the Catholic Church’s understanding of theology.
Christiane,
The church has changed since then. Aquinas and Augustine are certainly known and respected, and yes are on the “Doctors of the Church” list.
Yet Augustine wrote before the schism with the East, Aquinas before the Reformation, and the RCC made changes in response to both of those actions. Likewise various councils and Popes since then—unless they’ve gone back to Mass in Latin. In Augustine’s time clerical celibacy wasn’t the official rule though it may have been common. There are a plenty of differences, both practical and theological.
That they added to the the understanding of theology isn’t in doubt. It’s just that if Augustine walked into a modern church, RCC or Baptist, he would find it quite different.
Or do you actually think nothing has changed in Catholicism in 2000 years?
No doubt Luther did have some issue with Jews, but if you follow his writings, you’ll find that was not the case initially. Luther sincerely thought Jesus would be coming soon and he wanted the Jews to accept Christ without delay. There is also evidence, that he made sure they had safe travel out of Wittenberg. His frustration and anger grew as the Jews did not accept Christ. There is a great website ‘BeggarsAll’ that has a pretty extensive list of Luther’s writings and commentary. I highly recommend Jim Swan on Luther. I found it very helpful.
Blessings
I believe what I remember is that Luther’s viewpoints on the Jews changed somewhat, but that the biggest part of why he gets labeled anti-Semitic came later in life.
There are a few opinions on it, one of which was that he reached a point that he thought the Jews were working against him. Also a few hints that some medical issues were involved. I think Metaxas highlighted some of the issues in his biography on Bonhoeffer, pointing out that Hitler misused those statements to persuade the German people at the beginning of the Nazi era. That may not be where it was, but I think so.
In all, I think Luther’s statements on the Jews are somewhat different from his (and many other Reformers’) views on the Pope.
Smuschany,
Doug already said most of what I would have, but I must note that I do not see how speaking the truth about Catholics is bigotry. The Roman church-state is an enemy of Christ, and works constantly against him. Jesus certainly didn’t pull punches when dealing with his enemies:
Mt. 12:34 You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.
Mt. 23:33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?”
Mt. 23:27 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean.”
Jn. 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do.
Neither did Paul:
1 Tim 4:1-3 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
Try vindicating Catholics from Paul’s warning. It isn’t possible.
Certainly we must pray that the souls who have found themselves in the Catholic church will be saved, and become members of a Christian church; they are not beyond hope and we must work towards bringing them the Gospel. But we must have nothing but contempt for the organization itself, and its chief heretics, and pray for its destruction.
For every “good” deed the Catholic church has done, how many Christians has she persecuted, tortured, and murdered? Thank God that they no longer have political power.
Anti-catholic bigotry, huh? When the Catholic church repents of its unbiblical, heretical stances on (a) salvation (b) the Lord’s Supper (c) pergatory (d) the perpetual virginity of Mary (e) the sinlessness of Mary (f) inclusivism (all religions lead to the same place) then I’ll be happy to issue an apology for my “anti-catholic bigotry”. Until then, I hope you don’t expect me to feel even an ounce of remorse.
“You see it was CATHOLICS like Augustine, Tertullian, Irenaeus, POPE Gregory I, ect that fought against these heretical beliefs…”
Smuschany, wow. Anachronism much?
Squirrel
What prompted my question was the mention of Bell and Spong together. Whatever errors Bell might embrace (and I don’t know too much about him), I would be reluctant to lump him with Spong, who although seeming to retain the label of Christian, has by all accounts abandoned nearly all essential Christian doctrines. I agree that a Universalist has no reason to become a Christian, but I would not characterize a Christian who has embraced universalism as an apostate (without other evidence).
Bill, I accept your statements about Spong and Bell. But let’s be honest here. Bell is so far our of the Christian boat, that it’s hard to even believe he is even in the same Navy. Bell is a heretic, and Spong, perhaps has gone right past heresy into full-blown apostasy.
Some of Bell’s thoughts on the Christian faith (From Velvet Elvis):
On the Virgin Birth:
“What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archeologists find Larry’s tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of the Mithra and Dionysian religious cults that were hugely popular at the time of Jesus, whose gods had virgin births? But what if, as you study the origin of the word ‘virgin’ you discover that the word ‘virgin’ in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew language at that time, the word ‘virgin’ could mean several things. And what if you discover that in the first century being ‘born of a virgin’ also referred to a child whose mother became pregnant the first time she had intercourse? What if that spring were seriously questioned? Could a person keep on jumping? Could a person still love God? Could you still be a Christian? Is the way of Jesus still the best possible way to live? Or does the whole thing fall apart?…If the whole faith falls apart when we reexamine and rethink one spring, then it wasn’t that strong in the first place, was it?”
On Heaven and Hell:
“Heaven is full of forgiven people. Hell is full of forgiven people. Heaven is full of people God loves, whom Jesus died for. Hell is full of forgiven people God loves, whom Jesus died for. The difference is how we choose to live, which story we choose to live in, which version of reality we trust. Ours or God’s.” – p. 146
“When people use the word hell, what do they mean? They mean a place, an event, a situation absent of how God desires things to be. Famine, debt, oppression, loneliness, despair, death, slaughter–they are all hell on earth. Jesus’ desire for his followers is that they live in such a way that they bring heaven to earth. What’s disturbing is when people talk more about hell after this life than they do about Hell here and now. As a Christian, I want to do what I can to resist hell coming to earth.” – p. 148
“The goal of Jesus isn’t to get into heaven. The goal is to get heaven here.” – p. 148
On the Fall:
“I can’t find one place in the teachings of Jesus, or the Bible for that matter, where we are to identify ourselves first and foremost as sinners. Now this doesn’t mean we don’t sin; that’s obvious. In the book of James it’s written like this: ‘We all stumble in many ways.’ Once again, the greatest truth of the story of Adam and Eve isn’t that it happened, but that it happens. We all make choices to live outside of how God created us to live. We have all come up short.” – p. 139
On Doctrine:
According to Mr. Bell there are two ways to approach doctrine: as a brick or a spring. The brick approach to doctrine is solid, unmoving and unchanging. It has no life. It is the wrong approach. A spring has life; it is flexible, and it is constantly changing. Rob Bell believes all doctrines are springs. By embracing such a view of doctrine and truth Mr. Bell drives a wedge between reality and doctrinal truth. He creates a paradox where there isn’t one. Bell views doctrines as ‘statements about our faith that help give words to the depth that we are experiencing.'”
Spong denies the virgin birth, and even the bodily resurrection of Jesus. He also denies the existence of Hell.
You may think that Bell still has some redeeming qualities, but I do not. I’d even go further. Take a look at his church website. Notice, their so-called doctrinal statement is just a lofty ‘story’ about what he thinks the faith should be about. Bottom line to him, it’s just ‘try to use Jesus as your example’. Then go and listen to a bit of Spong. Same lesson.
Of course, I respect your right to see things in keeping with your own convictions. I’ve been following Bell for awhile, and it’s very hard to find the salvation message in any of his writings.
God Bless.
I’ll be happy to send you the links if you’d like to see them.
Bell was all the rage in seeker mega circles about 6 years ago. Staffers would sit enthralled before their computers watching Nooma DVD’s. I admit many were very well done and the messages were penetrating. But there was one tiny problem: What he left out was was too obvious for anyone who knew the full Gospel that makes the Good News, good. This was before he did his Mars Hill sojourn, I think. It was around the time Velvet Elvis became quite big in some seeker circles.
I remember one particular video, “Bull Horn Guy” which made fun of people who engaged in street witnessing…right down to portraying the guy doing the witnessing like a disgruntled postal worker ready to massacre the masses. The Bull Horn Guy “did not love people” because he spoke of hell.
I could never figure out what Bell thought we were saved from or saved to.
Bell’s current place in his journey does not surprise me. But, I was hoping he was only a fad that would many would tire of easily like Donald Miller.
Lydia,
If Chief Katie’s quotes are correct, I am not only not interested in Rob Bell, I also find him pretty vacuous.
Yeah, and he’s a pretty shallow thinker, too. 🙂
Louis,
I took the quotes from his book, Velvet Elvis. I try to make sure that what I put out is accurate and can be backed up with some evidence. I still make mistakes however. Plus, lot’s of people take quotes out of context, or even resort to ‘quote-mining’. That’s dishonest, but sadly many people resort to it. I’ll be happy to provide quotes, and links if you’d like to see them. YouTube also has many videos of Bell being… well, Bell.
I don’t know what Christian people are thinking to look up to Bell as any kind of purveyor of Biblical truth. I’m reminded of Dave’s articles about establishing places where Brick Walls are necessary. Dave was absolutely on target and I really appreciate him.
Bell and McLaren teach something that I do not recognize as the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
God Bless Louis.
Chief Katie – you are great!
I’m like Louis: Rob Bell is so far off my radar, I had to google him to know who he is. I have never read anything of his, and I probably won’t buy this book. Like Jim G., I think he asks some good questions, even if I do not agree what what seems to be his answers. Maybe we should be quicker to focus on the people–the presubmably unsaved people–who ask such questions and/or to whom these questions appeal than to jump in with our answers. My experience, starting with myself before I was saved as an adult, is that the unsaved are not interested in our answers (be they Biblical or otherwise) so much as they are interested in knowing a savior, i.e., seeing our relationship with Him and how to have that themselves. After that, the answers can come, and will be better if they discover them themselves. They cannot interpret the written Word (nor do most want to) until they know the living Word.
John
If anyone wonders how popular Bell is, just consider the 974 comments on Justin Taylor’s blog. That is a lot of commenting!
Well, then let me be the one that raises some points then:
1. This is based on supposition of what he’ll write rather than what he wrote in this upcoming book. If you go back to Velvet Elvis, Bell was roundly castigated for “questioning the virgin birth” where if you read it in context to the entire chapter, he wasn’t doing that at all. He writes very much in the style of stream of consciousness (contact your local English/Reading teacher for examples and explanations) which really works against him because he may throw out a question and answer it literally two chapters later.
2. Bullhorn Guy is widely panned and largely misunderstood because despite taking a swipe at street preaching, it’s really taking a swipe at the shallowness that we display to people when we’re trying to get them “saved” because we treat them as targets rather than as people worth getting to know and love. He puts an emphasis on knowing people, developing relationships with them, and investing your life in people before and after leading them to Christ.
3. You would have to really go back a few years into some of his sermons, but he has distanced himself from the likes of Doug Pagitt and Brian McLaren. Now, I’ll be the first to concede that he hasn’t moved far enough yet, but I’m willing to listen to what Rob Bell has to say more than I would listen to someone akin to Ed Young, Jr. or Rick Warren, both of whom are SBC ordained. I do go all Berean on what Bell says and there is much that I disagree with, but there are positions that he has taken that I am very much in favor with and I love how much Mars Hill in Grand Rapids is Missions minded both locally and abroad.
4. I happen to think that the Nooma series is a wonderful teaching tool. It’s designed more to generate discussion and study but people have been using it to teach doctrine. Then again, people have done this with many secondary sources ranging from Love Dare to I kissed Dating Goodbye to Experiencing God. They are wonderful resources but hardly the main source needed for study.
5. I have been to every one of Rob Bell’s speaking tours. I have found them to be very compelling for their presentations and they have generated a ton of desire within me to go back to the scriptures for even more study. One tour, Everything is Spiritual, is probably the single best argument that I’ve heard for Creationism using scripture, science, and history to prove his point.
6. I am a huge fan of his methodology when delivering sermons. I love his creativity.
7. I can say so far that to my knowledge he has not attacked any of his critics. He hasn’t insulted anyone with a blog yet either.
I know that since I’m a pro-Rob Bell person, I’m going to get attacked on this.
That’s fine.
I’ll read the entire book first.
Then I’ll comment.
And yes, if people would like to have a go back and forth, I’ll do the best to my ability to do so. This could be a learning opportunity for all of us.
Bill, it is inaccurate to say that the opinions given were made in anticipation of what was going to be written.
Those who have reviewed the book were given sample chapters, and they made their reviews from a part of the book, not the whole thing.
For your position to be true you would have to assert that the rest of the book corrects that which was released. Odd that publishers would release parts of a book that would mislead the reviewers.
Rob Bell has been abandoning orthodoxy for some time. It should not surprise anyone that he has more completely denied the gospel now.
Dave,
Rob Bell was castigated about a paragraph lifted with zero context talking about the virgin birth. A little sentence, and the entire premise of the chapter, roundly refute the castigation. Yet no one cares…
Everyone loves a good pile on…
Do you believe that Rob Bell holds to the biblical gospel?
What I have read, seen and heard leads me to believe that he is an infidel, a false teacher, and that his heresy needs to be exposed.
Are you saying that my impression is not true?
I think that Rob Bell could definitely phrase some things better to avoid controversy. Sometimes I think that he likes to be controversial to spark discussion and create attention.
I can name several SBC pastors that fit that same mold.
Dave, let’s do this via email off the board because I want to know what areas you think he’s strayed and let me take that, research, and I’ll respond with either an agreement with you per topic or I’ll give you some links and quotes.
I’m definitely willing to learn here.
A few thoughts:
First, it certainly appears that Rob Bell IS moving in this direction. But I think everyone owes it to him to actually READ the book first. In my experience Rob’s go to technique is to ask provocative questions, appear to be headed into straight heresy and then pull back and give an answer that is usually Biblical.
For instance, I re-read the first part of Velvet Elvis last night. And in the very quote that Chief Katie (accurately) gave on the virgin birth the very NEXT sentence that she didn’t quote is something like “I affirm the virgin birth.” So, he asks something provocative and then affirms the traditional truth. (Now, the merits of this kind of teaching can be debated).
Again, it LOOKS like the writing is on the wall here….but before anyone “condemns” Rob- that is a very strong word afterall- don’t they at least owe it to him to read the book?
anon,
Seriously, Bell knows the dividing line. Do you seriously think that he can write an entire paragraph regarding the virgin birth, try to associate it with paganism and then ask the question if it REALLY MATTERS? You can’t give a one liner “I affirm the Virgin Birth” after spending a bunch of words doing his best to marginalize it and expect to taken seriously. What was the purpose of that paragraph? He’s intellectually dishonest, and he knows it. If you believe in the virgin birth than you don’t try to weave doubt or make excuses for people who don’t believe in it. It’s a FUNDAMENTAL issue of the Christian faith. It’s the same as saying, that you don’t believe Christ could be risen from the grave because science claims it’s impossible. Or saying their are resurrection accounts in paganism, and then… finishing with saying “I affirm the resurrection”, but does it REALLY MATTER?
Bell is a compromiser. Like the RCC’s (no not all of them) he’ll say anything to be politically correct.
I think that the Bible offers profound wisdom when we are told to watch our hearts and MINDS in Christ Jesus.
CK:
I don’t disagree with anything you said there…and don’t get me wrong. I am NOT trying to defend RB. I think we probably all know what we will read in his book….but the fact remains we should take the idea of condemning someone as a heretic seriously enough to wait 30 days, read the book for ourselves, and then present the arguments. Blogs/Twitter do us a great disservice here!
And I was simply pointing out that you happened to have “quote-mined” Velvet Elvis in your above post at least as it relates to the Virgin Birth. Believe me: I HATE how he handled the topic- I think it was WRONG. I am NOT defending it…but he DID affirm his belief in the Virgin Birth in the very next sentence…that is a fact and you did not include it.
The entire premise of that entire chapter is about the strength of your faith.
He was basically asking, “What would happen to your faith if…” and went into the virgin birth. He wasn’t questioning the virgin birth at all. That is what everyone is forgetting.
The entire chapter is asking the question what would happen to your faith if something came along and destroyed it. The best example I can come up with is what would happen to your faith if evolution is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Would your faith in Christ be shattered or would Jesus Christ still be Lord and Savior? I remember thinking to myself, “No, I’d still follow Christ.” It was a great point that he made and it got lost in the pages and controversy.
Your paragraph isn’t just discounted when Rob Bell does come back and affirm the virgin birth. The entire premise of the chapter discounts your quote. Rob Bell writes not like we would write in a clearly delineated cut and dry like a dissertation. He writes in a stream of consciousness style that’ll read very controversial on one page and two pages later he brings it all home. People decry it as confusing and I can see their point, but I get it. I’m married to a wife who is ADD to the posterchild level. She’ll say something that’ll either confuse or infuriate me only to come back ten minutes into the conversation and it’s been alright the whole time. I have gotten used to it.
However, the virgin birth fiasco is everyone’s favorite goto chopping block when talking about Rob Bell and it’s not even in context to the chapter that it has been pulled from in the first place!
Is that akin to asking the question “What would happen to your faith if they found Jesus’ body in a tomb?”
Asking those kinds of questions are just stepping stones on the path of denying biblical truth.
I think Jeff is right.
We know that without the Virgin Birth our faith is useless.
I think that’s a relevant question to ask, particular if you are trying to prove a point about a person’s faith.
What would happen if Jesus’ body was found?
For me, for everything that I know, everything that I’ve seen, and everything I believe, I’d still follow Christ without question. I asked that question when I was in college and had a BCM Director that encouraged me to search for the answer. He provided me with a reading list of both scriptures and books discussing different facets of my question.
I found it and it strengthened my faith.
Had someone come along and told me that we don’t ask those questions, then I’m fairly certain that my faith would not be near as strong.
I’ll state this again: There are some stances that Rob Bell has taken that I do not agree with in any shape, form, or fashion. However, I am not one to discount everything that someone teaches just because I disagree with something.
What would happen if Jesus’ body was found? I asked that question when I was in college and had a BCM Director that encouraged me to search for the answer.
Considering when you probably went to college and what passed for “Baptist” on a college campus then, I’m not at all surprised what you were told.
The only answer that matters to that question is:
if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.
I Cor 15:14 (NASB)
That was the scripture he led with me.
He also was very patient with me and my questions.
He was very much the antithesis of you.
I’m very thankful to have had him in my life because had it been you, I would have walked away from the faith completely because I can’t see why anyone would want what you have.
And a Christian would have started with that scripture and stopped with that scripture. Of course, he didn’t stop there–the Bible isn’t sufficient. After all, it’s just a book of fairy tales.
He was very much the antithesis of you.
Thank you for the compliment.
Let’s not go down this path. One of the best things that has happened here is that we have started talking things over instead of arguing and insulting.
We just are not going there.
Discuss the subject, but I believe we can have an adult discussion without insults – even when the subject is volatile like this one.
So it’s wrong that this BCM Director gave me scripture to study and then some books written by some scholars explaining why they had the conclusions that they had looking at the same scriptures?
Wow.
And I thought Ken Silva was a lunatic…
anon.
Do you know what quote-mining is? It doesn’t appear that you do. Quote-mining is taking one part of a persons statement and purposely attaching it to something else they said, to try to prove a point. Or try to make it look like someone said something they didn’t. Gail Riplinger is a pro at that. I posted the quote exactly as I read it. His brief, “I affirm the virgin birth” cancels out everything he said previous. If he didn’t believe that, then why say it? Bell has a bad habit of doing this. Ever hear his 11 minute video about “Caesar is Lord”? He spends a good deal of time trying to convince people that the early Christians were simply modeling something being done in the 1st century, but then he tries to turn that into yet another statement about the TRUE gospel. Bell PURPOSELY creates doubt and tries to eat away at the foundation of people’s faith, but using this tactic over and over. His affirmation of the virgin birth can’t be taken seriously after he had already tried to undermine the truth of the gospel. But you are right. I should have made sure that statement was there. But did it add anything to the context? Or did he just confuse it? It would have been a good object lesson to show how Bell operates this way in almost everything he does. He does it with heaven, hell, and even the precious gospel. Bell can’t possibly believe in the Virgin birth if he goes to such lengths to make it sound like a fable that people believed in prior to the birth of Jesus. In fact, Bell takes away from the majesty of the birth of Jesus. He’s shameful.
Piper has it right. “Farewell Rob Bell”. I’m only sorry he didn’t do it sooner.
I watch evangelists coming into churches all the time eroding people’s faith in order to trump up the numbers of salvations, rededications, etc.
We keep inviting them back.
Did you even read Velvet Elvis?
Anyone familiar with the White Bucket?
Look it up and ask yourself if your church could do something similar to this.
Oh, so if you give to the poor and do charity then it doesn’t matter if you preach heretical doctrine? Wow, glad I’m not in your church.
No.
You missed it entirely.
Could your church do something like this is what I asked.
I doubt your church could do something like this.
And this has zero to do with doctrine.
Our church sponsers full time missionaries in some of the poorest parts of the world–Bangledesh, Mozambique, etc. We support homeless ministries in the area and volunteer at a crisis pregnancy center. We have at least 3 teams per year of volunteers taking time off their jobs to go to different countires to provide medical aid and food to people who need it while sharing the gospel. Don’t you blather to me about what my church does or doesn’t do.
The point IS doctrine. Rob Bell’s church may be doing something for poor people but since he is preaching a false gospel IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT HE DOES. Give somebody a sandwich and their belly might be full for a few hours but if they haven’t trusted Christ to save them or if they’ve believed Rob Bell’s false gospel (all Christians acknowledge he is a heretic) then they’ll go to hell for all eternity–regardless of the fact that Rob Bell says that hell doesn’t exist.
Answer the question.
Could your church do something like this?
Quite obviously if we do other stuff as noted above we could…oh, and WE DID. About a year ago when things were particularly harsh in this economy, we not only worked through the benevolence fund to help folks in our church out, but we set up boxes in the sanctuary for people to bring non-perishable food items to share with folks who had need.
Now, what does it matter what RB and his church are doing if they’re spreading a false gospel? So spreading a false gospel is ok as long as you help poor people? I’m glad I’m not gonna have to answer for that one.
No, it’s not okay to spread a false gospel at all. If you want it said, then considered it said.
Please, Ctrl+C this so you can put it in your folder of things that I’ve said despite you trying to look like you’re boxing me into a corner.
However, it’s easy to go off somewhere far off and do missions and it’s easy to bring canned goods.
It’s not easy to leave cash in buckets knowing that you have no idea whether the person taking from the bucket has a legitimate need or just wants a new cellphone. It’s not easy to go down to that bucket and pull out enough to buy your family some food.
What struck me about the white bucket is that there is nobody determining whether or not the church will pay someone’s bill. The money is there in the bucket or it’s not. You can’t just write a check and say it’s for X cause. You’re just letting that money go and it’s the motives of someone else that determines what happens next.
I don’t know of a church in my part of the country that could do something like that. All the churches that I know would want that money either dumped into the general fund or into an earmarked account with someone running the account, deciding who gets what.
That’s why I’m asking the question: Could your church do something like that?
Oh, so since it wasn’t exactly the same PROCEDURE it’s not good enough for you? Whatever, dude. No Christian would be writing an apologetic for some who spreads a false gospel like Rob Bell does because they used white buckets.
BTW, I answered your question. Now, you answer this one. So they did this white bucket thing, which is infinitely superior to anything any other church is doing—so what? Why does that matter? How does that offset the fact that he preaches a false gospel?
Is leaving a bucket of cash around for anyone to use for any purpose whatsoever without any accountability really good stewardship of the resources that God has given us?
Squirrel
Again, you just don’t get it.
I’m asking whether or not your church could implement something like this which is inherent contrary to how they operate currently. This is nothing to do with doctrine. This has everything to do with control.
You can’t separate the two which is why we’re at this impasse.
And no, you haven’t answered the question. You keep dodging which is ironically what you accuse me of doing.
Own your words there, Joe.
Now, squirrel, bill has spoken. Rob Bell gets a free pass as a heretic because bill says this makes him good enough. Since bill has told us that this is the real way to do ministry, we have no choice but to go and do likewise.
(/sarcasm)
Squirrel,
I hope that you find my response appropriate. If you want, I may be able to email you the audio file directly. Please give it a listen and then we can dialogue from there.
Thanks.
I don’t think I’d want my church doing something like that. I suppose I could put a bucket of money at the intersection where the “homeless” guy sits. But that seems really stupid.
I suppose my giving him the Burger King #5 instead of cash was a bad idea. Personally, I think giving him food is better stewardship than giving him $6.00 to spend on booze. (Granted, I don’t know for sure he’d spend it on booze, but I didn’t give him the option.)
Now, could your church go around handing out food to homeless guys at various intersections, and is that somehow worse than this “White Bucket” thing?
I’m with Squirrel on this one – first, someone would have to show how a “White Bucket” ministry is even proper.
Actually, let me reply to my own post:
It used to be that when people in the church had needs, they could go to the elders (or pastors, whomever is aware of such things) and request aid.
It is a sorry state that churches are too strapped to do that anymore because their money is tied up in construction debt, payroll, etc.
I’m not at all saying that giving money as needs arise is a bad idea – I am saying that being a good steward demands some sort of accountability.
If a church wants to have a “white bucket” line item in the budget as a % of the general fund to be used for REAL needs, more power to them.
But should we allow anybody to take money from the bucket for any reason, valid or invalid? I don’t think so.
Squirrel,
I’ll have to get home to my home pc and I’ll post either a link to the sermon which implemented the white bucket or I’ll upload the sermon audio file for you.
By the way you distilled it, then it’s obviously not.
However, if you phrased it as: Leaving gifts so that others can be blessed and fulfill needs as they arise…
bill,
I believe in the total depravity of man. I’m not going to give my hard-earned money away to just anybody to be used for just anything, trusting in their goodness to only take money for real needs. People don’t have intrinsic goodness. People are not “basically good”.
As my Daddy used to say while I was growing up, “Locks just keep honest folks honest, son. They don’t stop a real thief.” Leaving a bucket of money around, unlocked, is just setting temptation before others. That’s the way I see it.
Squirrel
So you’re not even interested in giving this particular sermon a listen to provide some context?
I’m just trying to provide you with what I have that has so far formed my opinion of this practice. It would seem the best practice to continue this conversation.
Why would ANYONE be interested in a sermon by a man who preaches a false gospel? So what if people left money in a bucket and people took money from the bucket and people were helped. I answered your pendantic question, but you seem to be avoiding mine. Why on earth would it matter if a church did this if that church and its pastor preached a false gospel? What is the gain?
I didn’t realize that you had asked a question.
All I was reading was insults not only to me, but a kindly man of God who helped me through a crisis of belief when I was in college.
There really wouldn’t be a gain there to be honest in the long term. Short term, needs are met.
Then again, if there is NOT a false gospel present, then there is much to gain.
But because Rob Bell presents a false gospel (all Christians recognize that) then he might as well have been playing in traffic. In fact, that would be pretty fun to watch. Like a live action version of Frogger.
My e-mail is at my blog site, bill
Squirrel
Squirrel,
I’ll have that file to you by Wednesday, Tuesday night at the earliest. This is the end of the month at my work so it’s a little hectic.
bill, you might find this helpful, too.
Does The Bible Teach Socialism?
Squirrel
Thanks for that one, Squirrel.
I see you’re a Williams fan too.
Bill,
On the White Bucket Project’s Facebook page, I noticed that they use Acts 2 as a justification for their actions. I presume that they are referring to this passage specifically:
Acts 2:44-45 “Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need.”
You may find John Gill’s commentary valuable:
“as every man had need: the rich sold their estates, and divided them among the poor, or gave them such a portion thereof as their present exigencies required. This was done by Jews, and by Jews only; who, when they embraced the Gospel of Christ, were informed that the destruction of their city, and nation, was at hand; and therefore they sold their estates before hand, and put them to this use; which was necessary to be done, both for the support of the Gospel in Judea, and for the carrying and spreading of it among the Gentiles: but is not to be drawn into a precedent, or an example in after times; nor is ever any such thing proposed to the Christian churches, or exhorted to by any of the apostles.”
This is very interesting.
Thanks for this, I’ll definitely look into it further.
It seems that you are quoting a section. Do you have a link and/or reference so that I may look at the entire commentary?
Bill,
You can download a .pdf of his commentary on Acts here:
http://grace-ebooks.com/library/index.php?dir=John%20Gill/JG_New%20Testament%20Commentary/
Or you can read it online, but the formatting is terrible:
http://www.freegrace.net/gill/