One of the contributors of pulpit.com (Pulpit Magazine), attended Rob Bell’s The Gods are Not Angry tour stop in Hollywood. His review is pretty interesting.
Here are some excerpts:
I am convinced that the emerging church is largely early 20th century liberalism, with cooler hair…
This was a one-man show. It was all Rob, for all 90 minutes. No music (except for an awkwardly-mixed conclusion), no notes, no Bible, no lectern, no breaks…
There were more dark rimmed glasses in the room than bibles. The entire night was an illustration of style-over substance…
But Bell went from there into what can only be described as careful and planned ambiguity. It was obvious that he is a smart person. When he rattled off the Mesopotamian and Sumerian gods by memory, he established that he is no dummy. So when he ended the night without explaining why the sacrifice of Christ appeased God’s anger, without explaining atonement, without even touching substitution, I can’t help but note the effort that took. He spoke for over 90 minutes on the sacrifice of Christ without explaining sin, or the resurrection—which is the same as not speaking about the sacrifice of Christ…
Instead, he walked around an alter for 90 minutes, without talking about the wrath of God against sin being poured out on Christ. He did not say, “Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you.” He did not say, “It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”…
He did not tell them “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” Instead he said, “The gods are not angry anymore.”
And this is the fundamental problem with Bell’s message. The Bible says that the wrath of God is continually being revealed against ungodliness. In other words, God is still angry. And Bell did an enormous disservice because the people did not hear the gospel, and they were not told to flee the wrath to come.
Filed under: Apologetics, Emergent Church, Evangelism, Purpose Driven Madness, Seeker Sensitive
Excellent. I think a lot of people don’t understand the subtle but serious errors that Rob Bell presents at times. Thank you for getting the word out brother. Thanks also to Ken for posting the link here.
You too Jim, thanks brother.
One thing Rob Bell seams to very good at is getting us off the
fence and taking a stand with our faith in God!!
Kinda makes you wonder where the anger comes from?
Thease are very sad times we are in , Can we not find GOD in
all his works my Brothers.
I’m reading Rob’s book, Velvet Elvis, in my college-aged small group. I often feel dumb-founded and stupid when i read it because i just don’t understand his style of writing. I did an internet search to see if anyone could shed some light on my dilemma, and this article in particular helped tremendously. It exactly pinpointed my trouble with the book: Rob Bell is just really ambiguous. I think it’s great that he brings a new perspective – and i wholeheartedly agree with Doug’s comment about Rob getting us off the fence and taking a stand with our faith – but i feel that sometimes all the good stuff is interspersed with some questionable assertions, and it’s frustrating because he doesn’t really explain what he means by it. Anyways, thanks for the help! I’ll be looking to this site to help me with the book.
Doug,
The Bible teaches that the reason and purpose that Christ was crucified was to satisfy God’s wrath and anger towards sin. That is what makes God’s grace so amazing, that while we were sinners, under God’s wrath, storing it up each day, shaking our fists at Him, He came and died on our behalf. That’s love!
But to give the story and only emphasize the love part, excluding the anger towards sin part, is distorting the gospel message. At its best, it is unclear, at its worse it is heretical teaching.
As Ravi Zacharias puts it, ““It is because God’s wrath is real that His mercy is relevant. Unless you have a real wrath, a real anger, the Biblical concepts of long-suffering, of mercy, and of grace are robbed of their meaning.”
Perhaps the photos at this link will help:
http://galatiansc4v16.wordpress.com/2006/09/20/what-are-we-saved-from-god/
Rob Bell not only goes out of his way to be ambiguous as he appeals to his postmodern philosophy, but he also teaches clear error when he can be understood. Many of his teachings are unbiblical and simply wrong. The fact that he sometimes teaches correctly, or gives people correct motivations does not undo the dangerous errors he propagates, and thus he should be avoided as a serious Bible teacher and demonstrated to be a false teacher.
For more information on Rob Bell you can see the following links:
http://www.apprising.org/archives/rob_bell/index.html
http://galatiansc4v16.wordpress.com/2006/08/31/the-emergent-cult-listen-to-pastor-ken-silvas-warning-to-the-church/
http://galatiansc4v16.wordpress.com/2006/10/23/video-response-to-rob-bells-bullhorn-guy-excellently-done-todd/
Grace,
Personally I’d put down Velvet Elvis. Here is a site that has a very fair review of the book:
http://sites.silaspartners.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID314526|CHID598014|CIID2249688,00.html
Also, here are some other reviews of the book:
http://www.apprising.org/archives/2007/07/critique_rob_be.html
http://www.apprising.org/archives/2007/07/critique_rob_be_1.html
“One thing Rob Bell seams [sic] to [sic] very good at is getting us off the fence and taking a stand with our faith in God!!”
I’m one who has thoroughly researched Rob Bell for over two years:
http://www.apprising.org/archives/rob_bell/index.html
I’d sure have to differ with that above statement. What stand? Other than his “Jesus” as social worker, what stand is Bell making? It certainly isn’t for the historic orthodox Christian faith.
In fact, you get a glimpse right here from Grace’s comment: “Rob Bell is just really ambiguous.” He has to be if he wants to keep his home in the nebulous neo-liberal cult of the Emergent Church.
So in a sense Bell “brings a new perspective”. It’s a repainted and vague version of the old social gospel of modern theology – now called postmodern – but, in the end, it’s the same centered on man blether which can’t save anybody.
And as you’ll see here in the below piece Bell is almost as much as a universalist as another emerging church pastor Doug Pagitt.
ROB BELL SAYS “ALL-EE IN FREE…ALMOST”
I read the velvet elvis too and i also read some book of a conversation between brian mcclaren and tony campolo and it’s as if rob bell took the words right out of their mouths… he’s like their little clone… and i agree, he doesn’t take a stand regarding anything… when i read these books, i felt like all these guys like to do is talk for the sake of talking, but they aren’t saying anything… gave me a headache, it was so circular and ambiguous…
Micey,
Postmodern philosophy denies absolute truth, but asserts the “community” as authoritative, if there is any authority at all.
Therefore, “community” decides what is true and false. Hence, blogs are very popular for postmoderns and emergents.
What I find is that they worship the conversation, not the conclusion. I think that is what you are describing as your experience.
The goal is the eternal conversation, not the Eternal God.
“What I find is that they worship the conversation, not the conclusion.”
Hits the nail on the head. In describing a skeptic he was debating Paul Washer put it well when he said they love the “noble” idea of searching for the Truth.
However, they don’t really want to discover or know the Truth because then they would have to act upon it. And is why the Emergent Church is so popular, this is exactly what men such as Rob Bell and Brian McLaren are like.
Rob Bell writes as he does because it is subtle deception…the kind where, you know, even the elect could be deceived. This is the worst kind of deception for it takes TRUTH and with a sly wink, style, tone of voice or turn of a phrase DOUBT has been planted. That same deadly doubt was presented to Eve by the evil one. And then came the fall. Flee the Rob bell tours and teachings. I hear a hiss.
What do you do with a church who shows Rob Bell’s video’s to unknowing church people, and then many of Rob Bell’s video’s and breathing techniques to the youth group and then you confront the youth pastor about it…and he defends Rob Bell. He says that everything that Rob Bell says lines up with the bible and refuses to investigate him further (read his detractors) because they are just jealous of Bell’s large churches and successes. All the elders and faithful in Christ are gone from the church, just baby Christians and unbelievers left. Its awful.
Tina, that is a sad situation you describe. I would try to witness to them and share the truth, but if you are in “competition” or are undermining the authority of the pastor, I would flee as far as fellowship goes.
There are times when leaving a church is not sinful. When they completely abandon Christian doctrines and run out the faithful, its time.
It is one thing to be confused, its an entirely other thing when the error is defended and the truth is refused to be considered.
wow, there have been so many helpful posts on here so far. galatians4v16: thanks, i will definitely check out those links. it was exactly what i was looking for. i also wholeheartedly agree with micey’s view of the book – they’re absolutely right it is often circular and ambiguous. and i’m definitely seeing TJ’s point regarding deception through subtle means the more i read the book. and ken silva’s analysis is right on. i was also piqued by tina’s comment. this is exactly what i thought when i started watching the NOOMA videos and reading velvet elvis. i would never give this book to my unsaved friends. i think they would be horribly confused by it. the way i understand his teaching, he almost encourages us to remain in doubt, to always question. but the beauty of a mystery is that there is always a solution, which i believe is found in God. Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” (sorry i don’t remember the exact reference) and quite honestly I believe it with all my heart. I don’t see how i can keep on questioning that verse – it’s so simple to understand. the words speak for itself. i don’t need to question the verse; i need to question my heart, to see if i am willing to believe what it says and incorporate it into my life.
fortunately it looks like all of us here have strong faiths which enable us to be perhaps more wary and discerning when questionable topics come up, but as ken said even the elect can be deceived sometimes. i would like to think that rob isn’t out there to deceive us, but after doing some research i’m starting to question a lot of what his book says. thanks for the insight to all who posted.
Bless you Grace. You seem to have the right perspective and attitude towards Scripture, truth, and the meaning of words (author determines them,not the reader).
Your words here are music to my ears.
In Matthew 22:29, Jesus answered them and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.” As I read Velvet Elvis (a group in our church is doing a book study), my pen was so busy marking up my copy and highlighting. I could not believe what I was reading. It is so close to Biblical truth but not quite right. On further examination, I find that many of his quotations of Scripture are way off. So it makes me ask, why is this message so quickly embraced by ‘churched’ people. Bell’s springs and bricks discussion cause me to realize that again, we are trapped in a debate about what someone (doctrine) says about God instead of talking about what God says. Bell goes after doctrine so we should respond by going to the Biblical basis for doctine. Bell advocates taking the spring out of the trampoline and investigating it. Wouldn’t it be better if we take the Bible out and investigate Scripture to understand the basis of doctrine?
Peter, I would say that it is worse than “so close to Biblical truth but not quite right.” I would say that any resemblances error has to the truth makes it all the more dangerous. Unless of course the error is abandoned for the truth.
I think the trampoline example is a direct attack on doctrines, and you are right, we do need to emphasize to the culture the importance of doctrines.
It matters, Biblically, which gospel we preach, which Christ we exalt, and which God we worship. Those are doctrines that much be clear and clung to, and we should speak that truth, in love, in no uncertain terms, and expose those that attempt to do the opposite.
galationsc4v16, I agree that we must cling to Biblical doctrine, but in the face of this attack, we should change the conversation from doctine to the Biblical basis for doctrine. Bell’s attack on doctinue is based on how man, in his wisdom, has put words around these mysterious concepts such as the Trinity. I think his supporters have seen doctrine as a creation of man, rather than looking through it to the Biblical words of God. We combat this by discussing God’s revelation in the Bible that is the basis for doctrine. He is luring people through creating the straw man. In his view, doctrine may be filled with mystery, but there is much that is not mysterious in the words of Christ. Bell says that Doctrine becomes a wall that keeps people divided. In the construction metaphor, I rather see Doctine as the foundation on which we can understand a right relationship between ourselves, God, and the world.
Your admonishment in these words Peter are spot on. This is a good word for us and the church indeed. We need to not only do what you say, but also lift up the Bible as the authority in all that we believe and do. I think you’ll find that the root of the problem you describe is a lack of Biblical authority and a low view of Scripture, which also permeates the culture and has overtaken the church.
Timm has a good post on Rob Bell here:
http://timmrees.blogspot.com/2007/11/rob-bells-view-of-jesus.html
i take offense that “Jesus as social worker” is inherently bad. could there be an ounce of truth in that identity? he is, afterall, healer.
I don’t know why you would be offended. Disagree maybe, but not offended.
The point is, that Jesus did not come to fix social issues, he came to seek and save the lost. The issue is the temporal vs. the eternal.
He said specifically that “the poor will always be with you,” and when he ran into people like soldiers, he didn’t condemn their profession. When he was asked about taxes is didn’t start a revolution against corrupt governments. Christianity was never meant to eradicate social ills, especially as a primary goal. Some people have turned the gospel of salvation into the gospel of fix all social ills. That is not Biblical.
People who think it is, spend all their time trying to solve temporary problems while the eternal ones go unattended.
Don’t get me wrong, we are to love our neighbor and help the widows and orphans. We are to do all we can, but ultimately our motive is to use these means to reach people with the gospel.
If we feed the homeless week after week, and we never witness to them, we are only addressing their temporary needs and not their eternal ones. I am not saying don’t feed them, we should, but we should do it in “Christ’s name” while sharing His message.
Jesus came to “fix” our eternal problem, not to setup social groups to fix temporary ones. When Jesus fed people with food, it was in order to preach the good news to them, not just fill their bellies. We should be like Him in that endeavor, and when someone turns the glorious gospel of Amazing Grace into a social program as the main goal, the error should be pointed out and fixed.
Many of the mainline churches have this very problem. They spend all kinds of energies and resources “doing good,” which is good, but they never share the gospel. One time I was even told by a Methodist pastor at a soup kitchen, that I should not be witnessing to the people we were serving. Duh, that’s the point!
That’s exactly my issue with Rob Bell. Too much focus on social issues. Don’t anyone get me wrong, I’m concerned about these issues just like the next guy, but it’s a concern derived from my faith.
Rob Bell presents a gospel where you are led to believe that if you do these good things, you will be helping to make the world more fit for God’s Kingdom. When we finally get the world fit for the Kingdom, Jesus will return. At that point you will be rewarded for the work you did towards getting the world this way.
galations nailed it here. We do need to help the poor and the hungry, but they will always be there. We will not be able to “fix” the problem. We can, however, be vessels used by God to preach the gospel to lost souls. What better way is there to help the lost, then to tell them how to find their way?
I’ve never heard Rob Bell preach the way.
I agree Timm. Bell is preaching Brian McLaren’s “Kingdom Theology” which you have accurately described here. It is getting the cart before the horse in the Christian walk.
We do good works because we are saved, in order to spread the gospel. We don’t do the good works to gain merit with God or to make the earth a better place. In the end it will all be sticks and rubble, except for those who are “in Christ.” THAT is the goal!
tr
Greetings,
I just recently attended Rob’s tour this past weekend and thought it was great. I’ve had only a conservative evangelical church experience, college and now serve as youth pastor at one. I find that Rob speaks of the Scriptures in a fresh way. I like it. Areas that I’ve had trouble connecting the dots… or just look like words on a page, I have greater clarity and understanding. I ask myself “what does this really mean or relate?” Some of his teachings piece it together… resulting in a deeper knowledge and commitment to Christ with my whole life because it makes morse sense.
I do not see the Scriptures as merely a system… I’ve grown in my faith by seeing the whole picture and redemptive story of Scripture. When I attended his tour this past week… their were a few moments when I really did not hear Rob… a “cool, trendy, hipster pastor.” I hear a dude who loves God and loves people and longs for people to step out of the dark into the reality that is found when we trust Christ. I hear the Spirit whispering the very things my soul has been aching for.
Moments when I’m reminded that I have been set free. That things have been reconciled. That in Christ’s death on the Cross… there is another way to live. Humans no longer have to live with the guilt and weight of failing at all these pressures or expectations of pleasing the “gods” of today.
I took my friend who believes in God but has not really trusted what Christ did on the Cross. But, he doesn’t go to church. He doesn’t really have warm fuzzies about a church service or Christianity. But after the Tour we went and debriefed. We had good conversations about all the Truth Rob shared. But it is discussed in different ways that we understand it. IF my buddy is thinking about Jesus more today than two weeks ago I say praise God.
I think Rob is skilled at narrating or telling the Truth in ways that are not locked into a certain word choice. This is helpful to me. It’s practical. It’s simple. At the heart of the tour… I took away that Rob’s heart was to push us to simply TRUST what Christ did on the Cross. In that… we don’t have to carry all our sin, or failures, or pressures, or junk… because it’s been taken.
I ask you kind sir… do you still have areas that you struggle to TRUST that Christ has fully redeemed all of you? I know I fail to every day. But I’m learning and growing. But I fall short. I doubt at times. But isn’t that you too? Isn’t that all of us? Trust you are growing too man.
Peace and Blessings
Thanks Rhett for your comments. I would like to ask you a couple of things about your post.
The first thing I’d like to ask you is if you would read the book “The Cross Centered Life” by CJ Mahaney and tell me what you think about that compared to Bell. If you don’t have access to one I’ll buy you one and send it to you if you’ll send me your address in email.
The second thing I’d like to ask you, is what is your understanding of the gospel? You mentioned in on paragraph about being reminded of being set free, and then in a later paragraph you ask about struggles to trust Christ has fully redeemed all of you. I’m curious, what do you think Christ has set you free from?
tr
Here is the book I am recommending.
http://www.amazon.com/Cross-Centered-Life-Keeping-Gospel/dp/1590520459/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196821217&sr=1-2
tr
TR,
Legitimate question. What has Christ set me free from? Sin, Bondage, My own flawed ways. The shape of this sin has varied… because as I understand it, sin is essentially independence of God. Disobedience. My own way which is not in sync with Gods.
So, I believe in this gospel of Jesus. Life, Death and Resurrection. And the incredible moment of His death on the Cross. Which if one is awakened by the Holy Spirit to this reality… then there is an opportunity for faith, to trust this moment in history when God opened the doors for all people to enter into fellowship with Him.
The truth of that incredible act of Christ… allows, I believe all people under the sun to find a reconnection with God the Father. The freedom from bondage, freedom from a way of life that works towards pleasing these different Gods of today. Pleasing a man-made system or method. The reality is that I’m justified through my faith, my trust in Jesus’ position on the Cross.
HOWEVER… I believe the Spirit continues to show me ways in my life that I have walked independently of God. POST my enlightened moment of gospel truth. I no longer have to be held captive by sin or a past or pleasing a system. But sometimes I’ve still been guilty of boasting more of myself than Christ. Following a system rather than Christ. Sometimes I do realize I’m way off and must confess of my wronging. Sometimes God shows me MY ways… which are not His and I must trust at a deeper more vulnerable level.
I look forward to this process increasing for the rest of my life. Don’t you know and trust and experience greater intimacy and freedom in Christ than you did when you were 23? (which is how old I am, and I’m assuming you knew Christ then).
Romans 3:21-26 shines some good light on this freedom, redemption, blood, justified business that I refer to. As well as Romans 7… in regards to being fully redeemed but not always living as I am. That’s the truth… I am. But… my faith and trust in that truth increases and deepens over time. Bumps along the way. Valleys and peaks as my mentor told me before.
So, when I listen to Rob… I’m not looking for him to say or use the same exact words I’ve always heard the Cross or gospel or Jesus. I trust that the Spirit is the one that enlightens us to Truth eh? In James… the Word is planted within. Have I always humbly accepted in every situation?? Truthfully no… have any born-again believers? I would trust they have not.
I appreciate anyone who loves God and shares as they believe God has laid on their heart from the good Word. Whether it be Rob, Swindoll, CS Lewis, Augustine, Spurgeon, or even this gentlemen CJ. All have the opportunity to be helpful in grasping a more holistic understanding of God.
I’m cautious when I see Christians throwing the heretic card around. I think God makes it clear who’s responsible for making that judgment call in James 4:11-12. I ask myself if I trust the Spirit of Discernment that God has given me in Christ. When I look at all the thousands of teachers of the Word… what draws me to any of them is whether I gain greater insight into God’s Word, what God’s doing right now, in this place in history, and clarity about my own life becoming more in sync with Christs.
Last Saturday… listening to what Rob was sharing… I gained a more clear, explainable picture of God’s relationship with mankind. I was personally moved. Hearing again Truth that I’ve been reminded of again and again as of late.
Anyways man, hope this is helpful to get an idea of where I’m coming from.
Many Blessings to you
R
it is impossible to feed the poor over and over again WITHOUT witnessing to them. the action in and of itself is a witness. to limit god to a list of words or a certain rhetoric that must be spoken in order to “live christ” is arrogant. perhaps the reformed worldview with which i live makes agreement impossible when it comes to issues of social justice. my belief is that i am to re-form, re-create in this world. my belief is that i am to be a part of god’s re-demption. it is possible to extract any one piece of scripture to support/prove any one idea on social action, change, etc. god’s story is that of redemption, and to be socially active means to live with hope and a sense of value for all human life. what if the scripture that says the poor will always be with you is actually a call to action… not permission to live passively. my career is work with prostitutes. each day i work with them to seek re-demption in their lives. each day i deal with their poverty, their criminality, their addictions. for ten years i worked in “ministry” in one of the largest youth camps in the nation. i verbally told kids about jesus christ and watched these conversions first hand. but i have never been more deeply immersed in god’s work than i am today. this is my story. i am sure you have your own.
in addition, both dl moody and pavlov agree that one is not able to hear the gospel with a rumbling stomach.
Rhett,
I asked you the following question,
and you replied,
Those things you mention are certainly true; Christ does save us from those things, and more. But the most important thing that God saved us from is not these things. These are the results of what God has saved us from, consequences of our freedom taking place. But the main thing that God has saved us from….. is…
GOD!
The reason I asked you was because it is very important to understand what exactly took place on the cross. God took God’s punishment, for us. Wow!
Until we come to realize that, the gospel is not clear to us or efficacious for us. If we think it was so we could live better lives, not be in bondage, or anything that has to do with us and our circumstances, we’ve missed it.
The issue is that God took God’s wrath for us so that we could be free. But not so that we would have better circumstances or earth or in eternity, but to bring Him glory for such Amazing Grace!
Do you understand that?
I wanted to get that cleared up before I responded to the rest of your response regarding Rob Bell.
Thanks,
tr
Different,
Surely feeding and doing good works like this witnesses and shares Christ’s love, but it does not share the gospel message. In order to share the gospel message, words must be spoken to communicate the gospel.
People don’t get saved because we filled their belly and they have felt the love of Christ. People get saved because they’ve been communicated the gospel message and have understood it, repented, and believed.
Giving food alone can’t accomplish that, but it can give one the door, or permission to speak to the person as to “why” we are sharing the love of Christ, in order to share the message of Christ.
We do what we do, because of the gospel, I order to share the gospel.. for the glory of God.
tr
Also,
And I don’t disagree with that. My point is that once the stomach grumbling has stopped, a temporary goal has been met, and if we leave it at that and say “Christ loves you,” we have left the eternal goal untouched.
After we’ve earned the right to speak by dealing with the temporary, the eternal should be our focus, and the gospel message complete.
tr
if it were true that words, repentance, commitment lead to salvation, then we would be essentially excluding the mute, the handicapped, and the mentally ill. please. arrogance is unattractive. and how in the world would you, a mere human being EVER be able to judge whether or not a person has heard and understood the message of jesus christ? the women with whom i work… the prostitutes, may not articualte an understanding of the christ, but they certainly say, “I have been loved”. this, my friend, is jesus. and if you deny this, i have no more to say to you.
where there is truth there is god. where there is love there is god. if you deny this, you choose to deny christ’s very words. who are you to judge christ’s abundance? i become very frustrated with those who believe they can define the saved and the unsaved. truly, only god has this gift.
and my suggestion would be to give rob bell a break. he is a man who loves god. why do you consider your truth superior to his? have you sat down with this man? have you talked to god about his words? if i have drawn closer to chirst because of his gifts, it seems to me that he is fulfilling some sort of calling.
please, for a moment, study the brain. the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain that you would say makes a “decision” for christ, is largely undeveloped in most human beings. in fact, in children, ie those under the age of 21, it is entirely underdeveloped. would that, by pure definition, mean that a child cannot possibly make a decision for christ? or does the grace of christ transcend this? if so, what more could the grace of christ transcend? you are trying to judge the saved and the unsaved, and what makes him or her as such. give me a break. love christ. do not remain sefish in your riches. there is never a place or a time when social justice is irrelevant. give to the poor because you are called to do so. give up your privilage because you have none. the limbic system of the brain is central to the functioning of a large portion of our population. this includes our soldiers, our abused, and our traumatized. by your definition, they cannot make a “decision” for christ… and perhaps, their only way of knowing jesus is through the “works” that your jesus as social worker meets follower of christ who is obsessed with social justice can deliver.
diff,
No one said anything about commitment leading to salvation nor discussed the mentally handicapped.
God alone judges, and defines how and whom He judges, as well as what salvation is, in His Word alone.
We just read it, believe it, and proclaim it; or not.
tr
Different,
Regarding your suggestion to “give Rob Bell a break”… May I suggest that you give this very concise video a quick view and then perhaps you will have a tiny bit more insight as to why some of us who actually read the Scriptures and believe them to be the Word of God take issue with others like Mr. Bell who misrepresent them not unlike the deceiver who made his way through the garden.
Mr. Bell is certainly free to speak his mind on any subject, and I do not deny his passion for what he preaches, but for him to misrepresent the words of Christ to suit his own personal ideals is heresy and anyone who knows this fact would be committing a sin of omission to not voice that truth for what it is once they figure it out.
What others do with that information is, of course, their choice, but at the very least, people should be granted the right to see both sides of the coin before deciding whether it is a counterfeit or not. I suggest to you that Mr. Bell is, indeed a counterfeit, or at least what he preaches is.
Please, I do hope you will consider the following, and conduct some additional research, comparing what Bell has to say against the actual words of our Lord, Jesus.
Tony,
Perhaps the reason that so many “reformed” folks were upset with Bell’s talk is that a) they were pre-conditioned to be looking for fault before they even walked in the door; and b) they wanted to hear about penal substitutionary atonement, but instead heard a very engaging talk on salvation through faith not works (sacrifice).
Bell’s talk about God not being “angry” dealt with the fact that we no longer are required to try to find ways to please God so that He will bless us. Rather, He blesses us so that we will bless others , that we will be light to give light. Rather than stop at the penal atonement aspects of Jesus’ death and resurrection (in which Bell has confirmed his belief in MHBC sermons), Bell also delved into aspects of Christus Victor – the primary substitutionary atonement understanding in the first 1000 years of the church.
People should just ignore Silva, whose material is pretty much all self-referential and dubious.
Chris L.
It wasn’t due to preconceived thoughts and expectations that some didn’t like what Bell said; it is due to the fact that he contradicts Scripture in his teachings.
i would disagree that the reformed folks take issue with rob’s talk. i would say that those from an arminian perpsective are more likely to disagree with him. rob is quite reformed in his theology.
i continue to address the issue that rob bell has been used by god in my life. it is unfortunate to me that slandering him and labling him a heretic is such a compelling hobby for some… perhaps we should just stand back, and know that where there is truth, there is god, where there is not truth, there is not god. i have had the benefit of studying the scriptures both in english and the original text, as well as studying in israel, so for me to watch a brief video and be convinced that rob does not speak from a knowledge base is ridiculous, and a bit insulting. sure, there is a ton that a person can disagree with in relationship to rob’s interpretation of scripture…. but to say that it is without integrity is arrogant in every way.
Different,
I do not wish to insult you in any way. Forgive me if that appears to be my intent. I assure you my heart is heavy on this matter and I speak with a sense of urgency, not with a sense of hostility or disrespect.
“Faithful are the wounds of a friend and deceitful are the kisses of an enemy.” –Proverbs 27:6 I am willing to offend in love if it should, in the end speak to the glory of our Lord, but I pray that I do not offend you.
You have shared that Rob Bell has been used by God in your life. I do not doubt that is possible. God also used Pharaoh in all the Hebrew slaves’ lives. God used Satan in Job’s life. God used Joseph’s brothers in Joseph’s life when they threw him into a well and sold him as a slave.
God is using everyone and everything in ways that are beyond our comprehension (Isaiah 55:9) to bring about His glory in the sight of all mankind, that one day every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that He is Lord.(Philippians 2:10) I cannot say that Mr. Bell was not used by God to draw you closer to Him. It is indeed possible.
However, I can say with 100% certainty that Rob Bell has preached heresy against the very word of God. Bell is simply preaching a different Gospel, a different Jesus and a different God than what is declared in the Holy Bible. The video I shared was merely a sampling of the sort of misrepresentations that slip from Bell’s lips and finger tips.
Please do not let your extensive studies afford you too much confidence, when clearly your discernment is lacking when it comes to the teachings of Bell and the likes of him. The Pharisee’s too declared themselves to be well schooled, yet when Jesus was standing before their very eyes, they failed to recognize Him.
I know that what I just wrote was quite harsh. I assure you that I wrote it in love and with a deep concern for the way you now defend Bell in spite of his false teachings, and his dangerous influence over young believers and those currently searching for the saving grace of our Father.
Please, please, please, be careful with regards to Bell’s teachings. I ask this with the sincerest concern for your Christian walk. That Bell has misrepresented our Lord on some of the most basics of Scripture more than suggests that he is capable of deceiving even the elect on the more complicated of Scriptural concepts. He is a dangerous man.
I am praying earnestly for you to receive the gift of discernment on this matter.
In Him
~el
i appreciate your opinions, and value them as just that. opinions. i guess i have a hard time understanding why you believe your own discernment to be superior to my own. “what if” i am the one who is accurate, and you are spreading false teachings? you obviously belive very much in your own ability to discern… although i suppose you would say that you are believing in god to show you the way. rob would say the same, i would say the same. each man, woman, and child must discern for him or her self, and god’s grace will touch each of us as god chooses. beware of arrogance, my friend. i do not see rob bell as dangerous, although i see you as such. again, an opinion. where there is truth, there is god.
Different,
I am not asking that you consider or believe my opinion, because my opinion is nothing against the Word of God which stands alone.
If you review what I have shared, you will not find anything contrary to Scripture where as Rob Bell, speaking with authority on the Word has indeed misrepresented our Lord on many occasions. This and this alone is what you are called to discern, and this alone is what I am imploring you to do.
I seek no approval of yours and do not consider myself any better or worse than yourself, but when I see a brother or sister being led astray it is my duty to cry out and this I have done on your behalf.
That you are failing to see a man as dangerous while he speaks lies about the Word of God breaks my heart, because not only are you being deceived, but you are promoting this heresy and perhaps leading others astray as well.
You keep stating that “Where there is truth, there is God.”
Please consider that Satan is the master of mixing TRUTH with LIES. Just because Bell is able to weave some truth around his lies does not mean that Bell is working on the side of our Father in heaven, rather he appears to be a tool of the enemy.
Even Satan believes, (Knows), that Jesus is Lord.
May our Lord bless you and keep you in His loving care.
~el
Loving The Word, I love what you have said here. Fantastic stuff, well said. Truly humble, no false humility evident. I hope Different will take it to heart. God bless you.
Loving,
Thanks for your kind words.
Different,
I’d encourage you to consider Loving’s kinds words.
Moreover, you said,
I would encourage you to be careful with such language. When you accuse someone of slander you should give examples to support your claims. I do not believe anyone has slandered Bell here.
“Slander” and “liable” are terms that get slung around a lot, without evidence to support them. When someone posts a video of someone with the words coming from their lips, and then explains how those words contradict Scripture, that is not slander.
The postmodern mindset of “ ‘what if’ you’re wrong and I’m right,” and that type of language leaves out two considerations: The first is that absolute truth exists, regardless of if anyone believes in it or not. And the other is that it leaves out what that objective truth is; namely the Scriptures.
We can’t live in the land of ‘what if’ when it comes to Scriptural truths. Either the doctrines therein are substantial and necessary for faith, or they are not. Both can’t be true. When Rob Bell says that the virgin birth is not an essential doctrine and we can replace the brick for the spring, that is either right or wrong. Scripture, not me, nor Loving The Word, says so.
I encourage you to consider the words of Loving The Word.
tr
Bell didn’t contradict scripture in anything during the talk. I’ve reviewed it here.
it is highly interesting that all of the whiners are hard-core “reformed” folks who seem to mistake “contending for the faith” to be defending a particular brand of systematic theology that is about 1500 years younger than the church…
“whiners?”
i wonder if you truly believe that there is only one accurate interpretation of scripture. i am not at all contradicting scripture, i am expressing my belief that “man” (mostly) and some women, have interpreted, translated, and otherwise tried to derive meaning from scripture over the course of time and space. and the reason that i am saying where there is truth, there is god is because JESUS IS THE TRUTH. by definition, where there is truth there is god. and it is an “an untruthful oral statement” that does impact the reputation of rob bell for you to say that he is leading people astray through his false doctrine. this is slander. i realize that we will not agree on the interpretation of scripture, the translation of scripture, or the context of scripture, but it is simply wrong for you to make the statement that i am leading people astray and that i am ignoring “truth.” i am not ignoring jesus, and jesus is the truth.
Diff,
Absolutely. When someone writes a letter, they do not mean multiple and contradicting things, they mean one thing for each point. Our responsibility is to find out what the author’s original meaning was to his original hearers.
This is a major problem with our postmodern cultural mindset.
It is the difference between “reader response” and “authorial intent.” Who gets to determine the meaning of the written text, the reader, or the author?
If I took the words in your last paragraph for example, and said that it meant that I should go to Toledo, OH and find a guy name “Jim” and tell him to wear red pants tomorrow, you would question, “What? That’s not what I said or meant! You can’t do that to my words.” This is I, the reader; determine the meaning of your, the author’s words. It is a wrong approach to interpreting your letter, and it is the wrong approach to interpreting the Bible.
When God inspired the writing, He had one meaning in mind, and it is the reader’s reasonability, not to determine the meaning, but to discover the meaning the author had in mind.
John MacArthur said it like this, “the meaning of the Scripture IS the Scripture.” If we come up with any meaning that is not what the author intended, we do not have the right meaning and it is not an inspired meaning.
The process in which we interpret to find the author’s original meaning is called “hermeneutics,” the science of Biblical interpretation. This process is ridiculed in higher-critic liberal circles, but it is the process in which we determine the author’s meaning, not ours.
If you would like to learn more about this, I’d highly recommend this DVD, which is a good and clear way to get started in understanding.
Herman Who? (DVD)
http://galatiansc4v16.wordpress.com/2007/06/29/herman-who/
The postmodern mindset of “you believe what you believe/interpret” and I believe what I believe/interpret” and we both are right, is wrong. We both could be wrong, but not both right. The issue isn’t what we believe the text says, but rather, what God means the text to be saying. Our goal is to properly discover that meaning and change our belief/interpretation/meaning to what God’s is. This is a fundamental misunderstanding and foundational issue with those like Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, and other emergents.
tr
as i stated, i do not think we will come to agreement, and i suppose my only outcome based on your chosen logic is that we are both wrong… since i belive i am right and you believe you are! woops. why did we ever start talking?
i am very knowledgeable regarding hermeneutics, but yet again a variety of biblical “scientists” have come to differing conclusions using this scientific approach. as much as you apparently despise “postmodernism”, which i would be interested in understanding from your definition, it is evident that you are comfortable with one of the very foundational principles/tools of it: deconstructionism.
I am in complete opposition to deconstructionism. Hermeneutics isn’t a “scientific” approach. The fact that you talk about what I have said in such manner s demonstrates you do not understand what I am talking about. If you are interested in what you ask, I encourage you to get the CD.
Chris L,
I think you misunderstood my statement to ‘different’ regarding my words,
First of all, my point was regarding his flinging around the “slander” word and not so much a specific video. However, I was referring to the video link posted by ‘Living By The Word’ a few posts earlier, where Cam played a video of Bell, and then explained how Bell’s teaching in that video did indeed contradict Scripture. If you missed it, here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wSAEezBc3s
My point to ‘different’ being that this was not “slander.”
You must have not watched that before you replied:
Bell says in the video: Peter wasn’t losing faith in Jesus when he was sinking; he was losing faith in himself.
That is contradicting Scripture my friend. Cam, the speaker in the video, explains that the text not only doesn’t say that, but that the Greek says specifically, “lacking faith in Christ.”
He also demonstrates that there is not one commentary or commentator that agrees with Rob in this view. The issue he says is that Peter had too much faith in Peter, not too little.
Also, Bell says: God believes in us. God has faith in us? What about Jesus’ faith in us?
Cam also explains how this is contradicting the Scriptures. Watch the video to see his Biblical explanation.
He concludes that this is dangerous because it is “humanism masquerading as Christianity.”
I agree. Bell clearly does contradict Scripture, in his videos, books, and teachings. Cam also explains in the video the importance of pointing this out.
tr
sorry to confuse you with my comment on hermeneutics. YOU were the one who called it the “science” of Biblical interpretation. i was actually implying sarcasm by using the term science…. of course it is not science. and my reference to deconstructionism refers to your willingess to “deconstruct” my words in order to falsify them.
yet again, we are not going to disagree, and therefore must both be wrong. funny how that works.
excuse me… i meant we are not going to agree.
Right. I’m decontructing your words. Yeah that’s what is going on.
I tell you what, why don’t you get the DVD and watch it, and then let’s talk. It is easy to condemn something you haven’t seen.
tr
i actually have seen the dvd. thanks, though.
“Sanctify them by Your truth. your word is truth.” (John 17:17)
Jesus prays for His disciples: “I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth.”(John 17:14-19)
In mercy and truth atonement is provided for iniquity; and by the fear of the Lord one departs from evil. –Proverbs 16:6
O Lord, are not Your eyes on the truth? You have stricken them, But they have not grieved; You have consumed them, But they have refused to receive correction. They have made their faces harder than rock; They have refused to return. –Jeremiah 5:3
So you shall say to them, ‘This is a nation that does not obey the voice of the Lord their God nor receive correction. Truth has perished and has been cut off from their mouth. –Jeremiah 7:28
“And like their bow they have bent their tongues for lies. They are not valiant for the truth on the earth. For they proceed from evil to evil, and they do not know Me,” says the Lord. –Jeremiah 9:3
Really? You’ve seen the DVD and know the answers, but you still speak the way you do and ask what you ask?
That’s interesting.
tr
it is interesting that we both love jesus, and we both have different opinions.
Makes you think if we are talking about the same Jesus huh?
no, i am pretty certain we are talking about the same jesus. i am talking about the jesus who is truth, who is love, who is life…. same?
I suppose it depends on what your “different opinions” are. If your, or my, opinions are different than those of Jesus in the Scriptures, then, they would be wrong.
Opinions on non-essentials are fine. Opinions on truth are not.
opinions on all things are “fine”, from my perspective…. of course that may not make them right, but healthy dialogue concerning those opinions can always be used productively. i, like you, have confidence in my spirituality BECAUSE of who Christ is. From my perspective, that is the essential. i know, certainly, that Rob Bell has confidence in his spirituality BECAUSE of who Chris is as well. i am blessed to know him, as it sounds like you have been blessed to know some powerful christians in your life as well.
I have NO confidence in MY spirituality. I think that is probably where Bell has led you astray.
Opinions on matter of truth are not “ok.”
how is it that opinions on matters of truth are not “ok”? can we truely threaten god with such ease? god is not fearful of our silly opinions. opinions in matters of truth create growth. mistakes lead to maturity, and the opportunity for mistakes cannot occur without opinions. why do you have so much fear?
and do you not have confidence in jesus? is that not your spirituality? i don’t understand, as i think we are saying much the same thing but not understanding one another’s language. rob has not led me “astray” as you say. he is not my only teacher. i am so pleased to have grown and learned in so many places. i am sure you would be very frustrated to know my ministry history, but i will leave that for another day.
and what are non essentials?
TR,
Hi again.
I’m curious where in Scripture it states clearly that we are to approach the Word looking for the One or Two points that the writer wants to convey? I don’t question there are certainly moments when Paul is writing to different churches for example, that he has specific things in mind with a specific audience in mind. However, it’s a letter and I trust he has a relationship with these people he’s writing to. That seem obvious from Scripture.
Was there culture at the time corporate? Did they convey truth and the Words of Christ with a letter head? Did they say here are the 3 points you need to get, now I’ll describe them for you? I’m not a historian so maybe they did in some cultures.
The thing that troubles me is when we have people who read a passage and see 5 points. All starting with the same letter. And another reads the passage and they see the narrative.. the see the human connection or relationship within the message. I say… we could understand the Scripture better together…
I’m not a linear thinker. So it resonates with me to think of the whole Scripture in story form. Not, text book form. But others see things more text-book like and I’m not going to say that is wrong… but it’s different. Can I learn things from them? Of course. But can that thinker learn from a narrative thinker? Of course?
Where does God make it clear that there are set styles or words or cliches that a Follower must use to convey His words? Maybe God uses us all in the way that only He is aware. Maybe we communicate with different styles… as it appears Biblical authors did too.
I think Rob does a fine job at communicating the context in which some of the Scripture would have been heard. It’s helpful to know how the first Christians took responsibility for the message they heard. Personally… it helps me understand how to rake greater responsibility when I hear Truth.
That’s all for know.
Love in Christ
Ya’ll
Rhett,
A central part of hermeneutics is exactly what you mention:
Recognizing letters as letters, and interpreting them accordingly. Recognizing poetry as poetry, parables as parables, wisdom literature as wisdom literature, historical narratives as historical narratives, and giving them their proper interpretation. That is what is involved in the process of finding the meaning of the Scripture.
I didn’t say there weren’t multiple applications to a passage, but that the author had a meaning in mind when he penned it, and that is the meaning we should seek to find.
But just like in your words here, you had a meaning in mind, and for someone to come up with a different meaning that what you intended, especially one that contradicts it, would be a wrong interpretation of your words. The reader should do due diligence in discovering that meaning, but that meaning is what the meaning is.
In Scripture, that meaning is the Scripture. Anything otherwise, is not.
tr
P.S. You didn’t answer my last question about understanding that we are ultimately saved from God and His wrath, not just our sin, hell, and consequences of sin. Could you respond to that in your next post?
i very much appreciate rhett’s words and ideas. i am very “right brained” and because of that, not much of a linear thinker myself… perhaps this is why the narrative concept of theology creates greater understanding/connection for me.
‘different’
Going back to your “opinions on truth” comment above, it isn’t really clear what you are asking, but I’ll try to explain what I think you are asking.
Truth is truth, regardless of anyone’s opinions. I am not under the impression that truth or God is threatened, nor am I fearful (I don’t really even understand why you asked about fear – nothing I’ve said indicates fear). It isn’t that opinions threaten truth; it is that opinions that are contrary to truth are….wrong.
The Bible reveals truth to us. God became flesh through the virgin birth of a child in Bethlehem. He was the perfect Son of God, lived a prefect life but did not sin. He died on the cross as an innocent man for the propitiation for sin for those who would repent and trust in Him only for their salvation. That is truth. People can believe things that are different than, and that would be their opinions, they have that right, but they are wrong.
If you or I do not define Jesus as God has defined him in Scriptures, then we believe in a “different” Jesus according to Paul in 2 Cor 11:4, and a “different gospel” according to Gal 1:6-9. They are different because, if they aren’t defined as the Scriptures define them, they are not real. The only sacrifice that is efficacious for our sins is the sacrifice that God gave in His Son Jesus on the cross. If we have erroneous views of whom that is, we are wrong and the sacrifice is not applicable. Jesus said He was “The Way, The Truth, and The Life, no one comes to the Father but through Me.” That’s absolute. If you define Jesus as “a good prophet and moral man,” you have the wrong Jesus. If you define Jesus as “the physical offspring of a sexually relation between the virgin Mary and God the Father,” you have the wrong Jesus. These are clear, common, misunderstandings, however, lesser ones are equally damning if they are significant enough to be “another Jesus.”
Jesus said in John 4:24 that worshippers of the true God are worshippers who “must worship in spirit and in truth.” Hebrews 11:6 says that “he who comes to God must believe that He is.” False belief in God is belief in a false God.
The issue is the gospel. You ask what the essentials are. Things about God which God has described Himself, about Himself, that tampers with the gospel, are essentials. Paul says “if Christ be not raised our faith is in vain.” The bodily resurrection is crucial. Things like that are the essentials.
Speaking in tongues, whether we serve wine or grape juice, are non-essential issues. We should never make non-essentials essential, nor essentials non-essential.
Perhaps my more recent post will help with understanding essentials:
On Essential Doctrines and Those Who Deny Them
http://galatiansc4v16.wordpress.com/2007/12/14/on-essential-doctrines-and-those-who-deny-them/
tr
interesting thoughts to consider. i appreciate the time you took to write this… i have encountered so many differing perspectives on “the essentials”, and it is helpful to hear your thoughts on the definition.
Thank you different as well. Your last comment is encouraging.
tr
TR-
You said this to me
“The issue is that God took God’s wrath for us so that we could be free. But not so that we would have better circumstances or earth or in eternity, but to bring Him glory for such Amazing Grace!
Do you understand that?”
My response- Yes. However, I’m curious of God’s wrath. In the NT, post resurrection were there many examples of God’s wrath through flood? Plagues? Being turned into stone? Destroying cities, because of their disobedience?
From what I have grasped in Scripture is that it was a different era, after Christ. What I mean is… God made it possible that people no longer have to try and satisfy His anger. He made it possible that we no longer have to be bound by rituals or sacrifices to feel like we’re ok with God. He made it simple really… Trust, Believe, Have Faith in Jesus. Life, Death, Resurrection.
Aren’t there consequences when we are independent of God? Isn’t there a present day reality found in Christ? Where we are no longer driven by this terror that we might make God upset… but we are DRIVEN by love. Because He first loved us. I’m not sure how to define Gods “Wrath” exactly… but I know what it’s like to not have faith. Be in the dark. Buried by guilt, shame, fears, pride, arrogance, lust, anger… all these things that are not near to the Lord. Perhaps those are part of the present day wrath or consequences of not Trusting or Faith in Christ.
When I described those things in an earlier post, that we are save from. It’s easy to assume that one (me) might believe that Jesus died all because of ME! Well I don’t believe that… I believe He did die because God wants glory and is crazy in love with us. Wants all people to be near to Him… and does want us to experience good fruit from His hand on our life… so that we (the universal church) reflect this incredible Creator. (God’s workmanship???)
God’s Glory?? I’ve heard a lot of people give good lip service of Gods Glory, but speak much with their life. Just words. Talk is cheap. So, God is Glorified when His people are most alive in Him.
People only become alive in God through Christ. Which is done by faith. Which, is required for a person to find victory over the things that keep them from fullness in God. Lust, Pride, Conceit, Anger, Self-Mutilation, Poor Self-Image (which incredibly Christ provides a new one for us). Fill in the blank. These are REAL, present things (specifically) that Christ encounter on the Cross rescues us from. Again… things that people experience when we choose other than God. Natural consequences. Perhaps a present wrath.
In the end… I don’t think we’re all talking different opinionated truths… just different dialect. If the issue was originally Bell contradicting Scripture… maybe so, if you take something out of context. The same with Scripture… people say he doesn’t believe in the Virgin Birth. Well sure take it out of context you can make it say that. Take it within context… I totally got his point. (Just an example).
I got nothing but love for ya bro.
R
Correction— Lots of “glory” with the lips. But DON’T speak much with their life.
Healthy Christians walking in faith and trusting what the Cross really means, totally, today? Seems like a pretty incredible God is glorified and accurately reflected through Christianity.
Sadly, so much has gotten a bad wrap… because we come across like our goal is to make sure everyone knows how right we are and wrong everyone else is.
(That’s for a later time.)
Peace
Rhett,
I’m glad that you understand that God ultimately saves us from… Himself. But your questions concern me a bit in your thinking that God’s wrath is not consistent through the NT as well as the OT.
For example, you answer my question about you understanding salvation by saying,
Actually, yes! Have you read Acts chapter 5 where God strikes down a man and his wife for lying? God has not changed His attitude towards sin “post resurrection,” as you put it. In fact, in the NT Paul says in Romans 2,
The OT tells the purpose for death and predicts what God will do about it. The NT tells us specifically how He did it. The fact that God has dealt with sin on the cross for believers does not mean that He now has a simpler view of sin. He still hates sin. So much He crushed His Son to deal with it.
So it troubles me to hear language you use like this:
I understand what you are saying but I see a bit of a misunderstanding here. It is a different era, or covenant, in that we now know who the Messiah is: Jesus. Whereas in the OT the Messiah is promised prophesied, but in the NT He is identified. But that doesn’t mean that the new era, as you put it, changes God’s view on sin or the relevance of it.
This sentence you used above really troubles me because I am not sure of what you mean by it:
While this is true, that we do not try to satisfy His anger, we still must recognize that His anger towards sin exists, and that Jesus’ death on the cross is the only thing that can satisfy His anger towards sin. My point is that we have to recognize that His anger was dealt with, not done away with.
I know this sounds like I am splitting theological hairs, but I am not. Here is where the rubber meets the road, in that HOW do we go about seeing this properly. And your following sentence leaves something to be desired theologically. Look at what you said,
While this is also true, it is incomplete. The gospel is that we have to repent and believe! (Mark 1:15) Much of the modern gospel message, one that is often promoted by Rick Warren and Rob Bell, etc., leaves out the repentance part.
I’m not trying to be condescending, but these preachers downplay the importance of sin, and therefore the need for the emphasis on repentance (turning from sin) is downplayed. The result is that people think the way you have been writing Rhett: that God is no longer angry at sin, and that the gospel is only to believe and have faith. Well friend, that is an incomplete and unsaving gospel.
A gospel that does not start with a perfect and Holy God who has a perfect law that must be kept, and then moves to the point that we blew it by transgressing his law and He is angry at this sin, and THEN (and only then) ends up with explaining that in his love He made the sacrifice for us – is an unsaving, incomplete, gospel message. Which as Paul says, “is not gospel at all” (Gal 1).
Rhett, I really encourage you to take time to listen to these two messages that will help explain what I am trying to get across to you:
Hell’s Best Kept Secret:
http://www.livingwaters.com/learn/hellsbestkeptsecret.htm
True & False Convertion:
http://www.livingwaters.com/learn/trueandfalse.htm
Please come back and comment after listening to these two messages as I think it will enhance our discussion and clarify the points I am making.
Continuing on in your post, you said,
Again, this type of language indicates that you may not understand my above points completely. For those who have repented and trusted in Christ, there is no continuing terror because we understand that God has dealt with our sin on the cross. We obey God not because we are afraid of future judgment but because we love Him for saving us. For the person who has not repented and trusted Christ, terror is still applicable because they are still “in their sins.” You seem to be confusing the difference between God’s anger towards sin for the believer vs. the unbeliever as well as our attitude towards sin. Perhaps “repentance” being omitted from your gospel understanding is the culprit?
Well the Scriptures are pretty clear about how to define it!
Again, I am very uncomfortable with his type of language. Many false teachers today portray God as this sick puppy dog, or this amatory type of person that is just so in love with us. God does desire for all to come to repentance, but God does not have a man-shaped hole in His heart. Again, I think a low view of sin and a high view of man leads to this error.
Todd Friel talks about this in this article and I think it would be a good idea to see if this type of teaching is influencing you. It seems that it has:
Jesus Just Wants to Give You a Hug? – Todd Friel
http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/2749/Todd_Friel
God is glorified when we repent and trust in the Savior, and live according to his Word as a result. If that is what you mean by being “alive in Him,” then we agree.
I’ve seen that most people who use this “talk and no walk” accusation actually have no idea about the “walk” of those “talkers” they are criticizing. I do not think talking alone is sufficient and am not defending that position. But usually when I am accused of being a talker and not a walker, it is by someone who has never met me and has no idea of my “walk.” I wrote about this here:
Knowing AND (not “or”) Doing… the Christian Life.
http://galatiansc4v16.wordpress.com/2007/12/06/knowing-and-not-or-doing%e2%80%a6-the-christian-life/
Again, what is missing from your language is “repentance,” which is the pre-requisite to these things. When repentance is skipped, downplayed, or ignored, what you say here isn’t possible. There will be a hot place in hell for false teachers who have encouraged people to just “believe in Jesus” and have ignored the necessity to have them repent first.
No. Jesus did not encounter the cross to rescue us from poor-self image. He embraced the cross to pay the price for our sin of transgressing the law of God! The modern gospel teaches that we should “come to Jesus” for the results, the fruits of the Christian life, to have these things/desires you mention met. That is NOT the gospel. We come to Jesus because we are dead sinners unable to make ourselves alive again, and we repent and trust in Him because only He can pay the price for us.
Friend I think we are on very different pages and I am extremely concerned about your understanding of the gospel. I would not be doing my faithful duty if I did not tell you so and that it appears that the teachings of Bell and others who believe these errors have influenced your thinking. Would you please listen to those two messages above and give it your honest and faithful attention and get back to me after hearing them? I would not be telling you the truth if I didn’t stress that eternity could be in the balance if you fail to.
My words on Bell’s view on the virgin birth were not out of context. He didn’t say that he didn’t believe in the virgin birth, but that it was not necessary to believe in it to be a Christian. I categorically disagree with him. Someone may be ignorant of the virgin birth and become a Christian, so I am not saying that the understanding of the doctrine is a necessary pre-requisite to salvation. But one who has the Spirit of God in him does not reject the clear teachings of Scriptures on such important matters when confronted with them. Someone who says that a position of rejection of the virgin birth can be maintained by a Christian does not understand the importance of the doctrine and its implications on the gospel. Bell clearly does this, in context.
Albert Mohler recently had a very good episode and article on this point, I’d encourage it to anyone who believes as Bell teaches, that the virgin birth is simply a “spring” instead of a “brick” and can be removed from the Christian’s doctrinal understanding.
Can a Christian Deny the Virgin Birth? – By Albert Mohler
http://albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2007-12-05
The Necessity of the Virgin Birth
http://albertmohler.com/radio_show.php?cdate=2007-12-18
In closing Rhett, you said,
Likewise brother, and that is why I want to make sure you understand these things I am saying. I hope in our disagreement you understand my sincerity and love for making sure you understand the gospel properly.
tr
Wife: “Rob, how much money is in our bank account?”
Rob: ” Put away your brick and come jump on the trampoline with me…we’ll jump and laugh and converse about finances and the intricate details of balancing a check book and perhaps figure out how much is in there- or maybe not. It ultimately doesn’t matter does it? the only thing that matters is that we have a bank account…and that it is OURS.”