Rob Bell Squirms - "You're Amending The Gospel So That It's Palatable!"

"Rob Bell is one of the leading proponents of the Emerging Church. This view promotes the idea that the Bible needs to be revised and Christianity needs to be re-invented. In the following interview, he is challenged about his beliefs which he is not able to defend. He even squirms in his chair. It is impossible to say you believe in a biblical Christianity and deny the existence of hell or that hell is only a temporary place of judgment. This reveals that Bell who has been promoted by many Christian schools as someone to model their lives after reveals the level of apostasy that we are at, at this time."

*Video & quote from Pastor Jason Barlow*

2011 Resolved conference

2011 Resolved Trailer from Resolved on Vimeo.

Join us for the 2011 Resolved conference, June 24-27 in Palm Springs, CA as we consider what it means to live a life resolved for Jesus Christ.

Visit resolved.org for more information.

He Gave the Sea His Decree

Image Credit

He Gave the Sea His Decree

"When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:" - Proverbs 8:29

Whenever there is a great catastrophe that takes place, such as the one we have recently witnessed in Japan, there are inevitable questions that arise in relation to God's attributes. In their quest to make sense of the world around them, people ask why does God allow bad things to happen to good people? Why does God allow suffering? If God is all knowing and all powerful, then why doesn't He intervene? Surely God could have prevented the tsunami from hitting Japan, why didn't He do it?

God is holy and He is righteous so how do we reconcile the bad things that happen in the world when they appear to be at odds with God's attributes? Exploring this issue can be examined through the theological branch of Theodicy. Apologetically speaking, perhaps one of the strongest objections that we have towards God in regards to the problem with evil comes to us from, the the Greek Stoic Philosopher, Epicurus. He asks us in a paradoxical fashion;

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?"

Given that Epicurus is an atheist, he may not have had the purest motives in the world when he constructed his paradox of doubt. Atheists love and embrace this piece of work that they have inherited from their brother in the Atheist faith and often hit Christians with it as a means to put them on the defense. As Christians, however, we are supposed to have a reason for the hope that we have in Him and be prepared to give an answer. Some responses to the problem of evil in the past, unfortunately, have not always yielded the most appropriate response. 

Hurricane Katrina, for example, has been attributed to abortion. In the aftermath of the 2005 Huricane, Pat Robertson said; 

"We have killed over 40 million unborn babies in America. … Some of the attacks that are coming against us either by terrorists or now by natural disaster, could they be connected in some way?"

In 2007, Robertson continues to offer his apologetic pertaining to the problem of evil. Robertson and Jerry Falwel, for example, claimed that the attacks on 9/11 were a result of God's wrath on America per loose morals. This was not a popular apologetic and in spite of the criticisms that Robertson receives from his explanations, it wouldn't be his last response pertaining to the problem with evil. 

Robertson's latest controversial apologetic came to us in response to the 2010 hurricane that devasted Haiti. Robertson said that the Haitians "made a pact with the devil" and explained;

"They were under the heel of the French, you know Napoleon the third and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said 'We will serve you if you will get us free from the prince.' True story. And so the devil said, 'Ok it's a deal.' And they kicked the French out. The Haitians revolted and got something themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after another,"

Robertson's controversial apologetic is offensive and does not bode well with the world. This, however, is not enough reason to abandon his apologetic. The God of the Bible is offensive to carnal man. The world hates God and is at enmity with Him. The Bible does speak of God's wrath and He has in the past issued it against the world/nations in accordance to His will. He did, after all, flood the world and kill all but eight people. God in His wrath, rained fire out of the sky and destroyed Sodam and Gomorrah. It is well within God's ability to not only control nature but to use it as a means to devastate men.  

Should employing a Robertsonian (yes, I made that word up) apologetic be our template when others ask us about the problem with evil the next time the world witnesses a major catastrophe? I would hope not! Robertson's apologetic lacks the whole Biblical truth as it relates to the problem with evil. It is true that we live in a fallen world that is worthy of God's wrath. It is true that God would be justified in delivering any kind of devastation that He so chooses to deliver for He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy on and He will have compassion on whom He will have compassion on. 

God's ways, however, are a mystery to us. His wisdom is foolishness to us. We don't always know why God does the things that He does. Just because God can wreak havoc on mankind at any time of His choosing per delivering His wrath on a fallen world, it doesn't necessarily mean that He is punishing specific people for their specific sins when we witness a national catastrophe. Please consider what Albert Mohler has to say;

"Nevertheless, Jesus warned his disciples about drawing the conclusion that a natural disaster can be traced to the sins of those who directly suffer its effects (Luke 13:1-5). God causes the rain to fall on both the just and the unjust (Matthew 5:45). We must remember that when we read the headlines and see the images of a disaster wherever it may happen." 

In reality, every nation deserves a devastating catastrophe so we shouldn't be so quick to condemn when it happens to others.  Although, we should avoid condemning nations when they undergo a natural disaster, we should also avoid the error of pacification. Rabbi Harold Kushner, author of “When Bad Things Happen to Good People” - for example, offers a fallacious hermeneutic as a way of providing comfort;

"Whenever a disaster like this occurs, I go back to the Bible, to the First Book of Kings. Elijah, in despair over the situation in Israel, runs to the desert, back to Mt. Sinai to find the God of the Revelation to Moses.
"And lo, the Lord God passed by. There was a mighty wind, splitting mountains and shattering rocks, but the Lord was not in the wind. There was an earthquake but the Lord was not in the earthquake."
To me, that is the key: the Lord was not in the earthquake.
Natural disasters are acts of nature, not acts of God. God cares about the well-being of good people; Nature is blind, an equal-opportunity destroyer."

Rabbi Kushner should have read John Piper's "Japan: After Empathy and Aid, People Want Answers" that he posted recently in response to the events that are transpiring in Japan.  In it, Piper tells us:

"No earthquakes in the Bible are attributed to Satan. Many are attributed to God.1 This is because God is Lord of heaven and earth:


He commands even winds and water, and they obey him (Luke 8:25);
He sends forth His command to the earth. . . . He gives snow like wool; He scatters hoarfrost like ashes. He hurls down his crystals of ice like crumbs; who can stand before His cold? . . . He makes his wind blow and the waters flow (Psalm 147:15-18);
He looks on the earth and it trembles . . . touches the mountains and they smoke! (Psalm 104:32);
[He] shakes the earth out of its place, and its pillars tremble (Job 9:6).
Earthquakes are ultimately from God. Nature does not have a will of its own. And God owes Satan no freedom. What havoc demons wreak, they wreak with God’s permission. And God has reasons for what he permits. His permissions are purposes. That's the point of Job 1-2 and Luke 22:31-32."

Unlike Kushner, Piper does not ascribe personification to nature and rightly acknowledges God as being sovereign over His creation.  Kushner wrongly assumes that only an un-loving God would deliver natural disaster.  It is quite to the contrary, it is in the natural disasters of the world that God reminds us to repent or we too will perish(Luke 13:1-5).  It is in the natural disasters in the world that we are given opportunities to love our neighbor as ourself.  In the empathy that we show and the aid that we deliver, we act as a light to the world and give glory to God through our ministry.  

We should all continue to remember Japan as well as any neighbor that we have that is in need.  Let us pray for God to deliver His gospel throughout the world so that lost men may be saved and not perish the same as those that have fallen prey to the tsunamis of the world. May God continue to be glorified in all things.

May it all be for His glory,

W.  

Bell Denies That He Is A Universalist

Bell Denies That He Is A Universalist

Image  Credit

After all that has been said and written about Bell's new book, “Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived”, Bell denies being a Universalist in a recent CNN piece entitled - "Rob Bell Punches Back at the Claims of Heresy".

How can this be when he clearly meets the guidelines for being one?  Although there are various definitions for universalism, the term is not so elusive that it gives way to ambiguity if it is framed in an appropriate context. In Bell's book, he has claimed that hell is not eternal and that eventually everyone goes to heaven.  This clearly meets an understanding of universalism as it is understood by some in a traditional sense and with that being said, Bell can easily be objectively understood as being a universalist.  

 From the CNN piece, however, Bell only denies the charge of being a universalist and does not expend any effort to provide a defense.  The article, however, references an event where Bell expounds upon the idea of being a universalist.  In the typical Bellesque fashion, Bell does not tell us what he believes and leaves all of the room in the world for ambiguity.  As a means to put us at rest, we are told; "he didn’t believe God reaches down and sweeps everyone to heaven." 

That's fine and all but how about telling us what he specifically believes without asking us (the audience) a million questions the same as he does in his book.  Why doesn't Bell just come out and give an appropriate apologetic where he gives us a traditional definition of "universalism" and explain to us how he is not one because he, instead, believes..., etc.  Bell won't do this though because it is not his style.  He claims that he's not into controversy because it does not honor God.  Bell claims that he is interested in the truth, life and inspiration.  

Before you get all misty eyed about Bell's interest in truth, life and inspiration, never forget that these things do not mean the same to you as they do to him.  Bell has proclivities for altering traditional terms as well as the Gospel account as it is understood in the realm of orthodoxy. For most of us, Jesus is the truth. The "life" is the life He gives us when He saves us and gives us a new heart and a new nature.  For Bell, the truth and life is found in God's plan to restore this world; "God is passionate about rescuing this world, restoring it renewing it."

For most of us, the Bible gives us revelation pertaining to the after-life but for Bell, the Bible provides ambiguity; “I think it’s very very important to point out … [that] we are speculating about after you die,” he said."  This is perhaps why Bell is so surprised to think that anyone could say with a reasonable amount of assurance that Gandhi is in hell.  In Bell's theology, it should be quite the opposite according the the teachings of Christ; "Bell would not be surprised if he saw Gandhi in heaven. “Jesus was very clear. Heaven is full of surprises. That’s central to Jesus teaching."

It's ashame that Bell has such a disdain for orthodoxy.  The Gospel is a beautiful account of the truth that gives life and this is inspiration to all that are found in Christ and to all that Christ is found in.  Bell is so fixated on restoring this world that he is blind to the beauty and the good news that Jesus restores all of those that are found in Him.  It is those that are found in Him that will be found in a New Jerusalem after this world has burned up.  

This is not intended to be a mean spirited post.  We should pray for God to open Bell's eyes to His marvelous truths and that they inspire Bell the same as they inspire us that are found in Him.  We should pray for Bell to be granted repentance and give up futile efforts to re-define a Gospel account that does not need changing because it is perfect as it is told.

May it all be for His glory,

W. 

Moore to the Point of Rob Bell

Moore to the Point of Rob Bell

Image Credit 

I have just finished reading Dr. Moore's "The Blood-Drained Gospel of Rob Bell"  on his blog (Moore to the Point) tonight. 

Rob Bell's disdain for the Gospel runs deeper than I was aware of originally. 

In my "Bells Hell" post, I discussed the corrupted account of Christian history that Rob Bell presents so that he can have an avenue to deliver a non-canonical Gospel account.  In my post, I discussed the way that Bell discounts the significance of the resurrection. Bell claims that resurrection stories, for example, were so common that no one basically would've been impressed with a reiteration thereof.  New Testament era people, as Bell claims, had heard so many resurrection stories that the act of being resurrected would fail to differentiate Jesus from all of the other gods of antiquity that had done as much at earlier dates, etc.

Not being content with corrupting the Gospel account to the degree that he has already done thus far, Bell continues with his heretical campaign in his new book.  As Dr. Moore reports, Bell now has moved on to attack the blood of the Lamb.  


Bell claims that the blood of the Lamb (you know the blood that cleanses us of our sins?), is nothing more than a metaphor that the Bible uses as a literary tool so that the culture at the time would be able to understand sin, guilt and atonement.  Bell goes on to say that most people today do not live in a society that offers blood sacrifices  to gods and therefore, the meaning is lost on us.  


As has been noted on this blog before, Bell is notorious for changing the meaning of terms and with this, we should not be surprised that Bell would try to de-emphasize the blood of the Lamb.  Bell  also has proclivities for changing the history account and therefore, it should not surprise us that Bell claims that the early Biblical account of blood is a rip off from pagan accounts.  


To stand in correction, Dr. Moore rightly points out that the blood atonement of Christ is a prehistoric account and not a metaphor.  Moore continues and reminds us that the blood is the life of the animal and was understood to be so in a reverent account. 


Moore also goes on and continues to give additional significant accounts of the blood as how it is portrayed in the Bible and with this, it is worth reading his blog to get a more detailed description that he is better at providing than I am.  

The main point that I want to emphasize here is how Bell continues to discredit and devalue everything that is orthodoxy.  All of Christianity hinges on the resurrection and for Bell to make any attempts to devalue it as he's done in the past, is an attack upon the very faith itself.  Similar to the resurrection, the blood is also intrinsically linked to the cornerstone of the faith.  Without the blood atonement of Christ, we have no forgiveness of sins.  Bell continues with his attack against Christianity through his attack on the blood.  Bell wants the forgiveness of sins but he doesn't like the judgment that is intrinsically linked with it.  

Perhaps, it is his disdain for all-perfect judgment, that gives Bell reason to attack the blood of the faith;

By removing the blood language, the language of sacrifice, we remove what it means to sing with the redeemed of all of the ages, “for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Rev. 5:9). If you remove the blood from the doorposts of Egypt, all that’s left is judgment. The same thing happens when you remove the blood from the gospel.

Jesus offends us with our own blood, reminding us that what runs through our veins will one day run cold. He tells us then that in order to live, we must be united to the life-blood of another, a blood spilled for rebels like us. Jesus’ blood speaks a better word than Abel’s. It tells us precisely what Bell would like us to ignore: God is just and judgment is sure.  - Dr. Russell Moore

Let us not be ashamed of the Gospel.  Let us embrace the amazing resurrection of Christ that the philosophers in Athens were amazed at hearing about because it was so unique to anything that they had ever heard of before. Let us embrace the blood of the Lamb that cleanses us of our sins and rescues us from the judgment and wrath of God.  

The Gospel is such a beautiful account of God's loving attributes, it's ashamed that Rob Bell fails to see the all perfect love that wins - the all perfect love that redeems us by grace through faith in Christ Jesus!

May it all be for His glory,

W. 

How Do You Account For the Hope That Is In You?

How Do You Account For the Hope That Is In You?

"but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect," -1 Peter 3:15

In addition to having the good fortune of authoring a blog, I also have a YouTube channel listing various videos; sermons, videos that are apologetic in nature, videos that warn of false teaching as well as videos that address the account of creation.  In response to videos, I often have an opportunity to deliver the Gospel to atheists that freely offer their criticisms of God, Jesus, the Bible, Christians, our account of creation, as well as our position as it holds to abortion.  Over the course of time, I hear a whole assortment of questions and arguments that the "well intentioned" atheist keeps in his/her toolbox of rhetoric.

One of the questions I'll occasionally get, addresses the hope that I have in Christ.  I'm asked a variant of the question that asks, how do I know that I am worshiping the true religion and not a false one?  The question of this nature will typically have a post-modern spin on it that presupposes that there is not a way I can be assured of the hope that I have in me because; 1.) there's no way for me to know the truth, or 2.) religion is relevant, the truth of one religion is as valid as the truth in another religion.  Arguments that claim that I can't know the truth will usually take a spin in the direction that claims my information cannot be validated the same as scientific data and therefore is null and void.  


Another argument that I get pertaining to truth is that I can't trust my senses.  Arguments that take on the spin of relevancy will insist that the teachings of Mohammad and Buddha are as relevant as the ones we received from Christ.  Some of this heretical rhetoric will deviate from true historical figures and instead argue in mythical terms; saying that Jesus is a mythical figure that is no different from the Greek gods of Cronos and Zeus.  The truth of Christ, in other words, is no more valid than that of the Greek gods of antiquity (that didn't exist).  


At least with this view of mythical proportion, however, there's not a bias that criticizes the truth of antiquity.  I actually encounter critics that imply Christianity lacks legitimacy, saying that it is a religion that comes from desert tribesmen that lived thousands of years ago.   It's amazing that it does not occur to these critics that their argument is a logical fallacy.  Being a tribesman, for example, has no bearing on a truth that is revealed. Occupation, in other words, has no bearing on the validity of a truth that has been "revealed" by God.  Also, The amount of time that elapses has absolutely no bearing on the validity of truth.  Truth does not have an expiration date the same as you will find on a carton of milk. 

The host of arguments used to question the Christian about the hope that we have in Christ varies in flavor but not in spirit.  At the heart of questions that have been discussed thus far is not one of true academic inquiry but one of judgment.  Atheists are full of condemnation that they wish to bestow upon God and it is in their heart's content to do this through various avenues; one of which is through their inquiry that is performed in the fashion of a trial lawyer.  If you do not believe me, review my encounters that I have had with them and see how they insist to put God on trial with their blind accusations made out of hate. 


The truth found in scripture can save lost men.  Somehow the truth of scripture, however, eludes the atheist.  It is highly improbable that truth is going to be found in attempts to quote mine.  As a result, the atheist remains ignorant and blind of the good news of the Gospel.  In spite of my consistent reiteration of the work that Christ has done on the cross, they insist on putting God on trial for crimes of inhumanity.  In their eyes, they see all of the people that God killed in the Old Testament and are completely oblivious to all of the ones saved in the Book of Acts.  They fail to see that the wages of sin is death and that hell is a just consequence delivered by a holy and righteous God.  They fail to see there's good news in the atonement work of Christ that He fulfilled on the cross so that we may live.  Unfortunately, they also fail to see that the same work of Christ that saved a wretch like me can also save them.


It is my hope that in spite of blindness, that lost men may come to be saved by God's grace.  The most prominent way of fulfilling the Great Commission is to deliver the Gospel.  When delivering the Gospel, however, we are often asked about the hope that we have in us and in this, we should embrace 1 Peter 3:15 and be ready to give our account in any given time.  


I have been recently asked how I know that I can trust my senses and that I'm not worshipping a false religion.


I gave the following response;


1.) I have Moses and the Prophets that announced the coming of my Savior. When my Savior did come, He fulfilled what was prophesied about Him. So, in other words, There was a revelation given in history. The likelihood of one person fulfilling all of the prophesies as accounted by numerous men over considerable periods of time is more than an incidental quark that some desert tribal men got lucky with when they "made it all up".


2.) Unlike all of the false religions in the world, my Savior has an empty grave and a resurrection that has been verified by numerous eye witnesses. This testimony is discounted by scoffers, however, they fail to recognize that the account that we have today would be held admissible in a court of law today. Check out my RC Sproul video - "Why believe Christianity".  Sproul in this video is quite right in his assessment, Muhammad and Buddha are dead. Jesus, however, lives and has left behind an empty tomb.


3.) Jesus' enemies never denied His miracles; one of the things he did, so you would "believe". If anyone had a reason to discount miracles, it would be the Pharisees and Sadducees, in which, they never did deny his verified accounts of his many miracles.


4.) I have the Gospel, the power of God for salvation to anyone who will believe, first to the Jew and also to the Greek. Faith comes by hearing and hearing comes by the word of Christ in which I have heard and believed. When I believed, God renewed my heart. He ripped out my heart of stone and gave me a heart of flesh. He gave me a new nature - that only God can do. I have been changed! Praise God who saves lost men like me.


I by no account profess that this explanation is as comprehensive as it could be, etc.  At the same time, however, this apologetic could be abbreviated or expanded upon in contingency of context.  I also suspect that my explanation will mature as I grow in cognitive and spiritual maturity.  


I would love to hear from you.  Please by all means, give your account of the hope that you have in you if you had to present this to a skeptic with an agenda.

May it all be for His glory,

W. 

David Platt - What Happens to Those Who Never Hear the Gospel

David Platt - What Happens to Those Who Never Hear the Gospel

Commentary on Challies' Review of Rob Bell's "Love Wins"

Commentary on Challies' Review of Rob Bell's "Love Wins"

As promised, here is a response to Tim Challies' book review of Rob Bell's new controversial book; "Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived".  

Most of you know by now, if you are reading this post, Bell's book has been the center of attention since February 26th, when Justin Taylor published a blog post (based on Bell's promotional material) announcing Bell as a universalist.  As a result of this post, the controversy about Bell has been discussed/debated/argued extensively via blogs and Twitter.  Some do so in the name of perserving orthodoxy while some do so in the hope of perserving Bell's name.  Still yet, there are others that do so in a desperate attempt to unravel Bell's discombobulated message and gain a fragment of coherent meaning that might be camouflaged in a mist of ambiguity.  Irrespective of what has been said thus far, Bell has remained silent and has made no public attempt to defend his name, his theology or his book.  Perhaps Challies' review of this controversial work will reveal a brilliant revelation from Bell.

If you haven't done so yet, for the sake of clarity and as a means to gain familiarity, I highly recommend for you to read Challies' review before reading this commentary.

First of all, Tim Challies and Aaron Armstrong are to be commended for writing a well thought out and coherent review of this yet to be released book.  Thank you for clearing up some much sought after information that has been difficult to obtain outside of a review of this nature.

Challies' and Armstrong's review, for me, substantiated a lot of what I have already discussed in previous posts.  Namely, Bell insists on asking a series of questions as a means to instruct.  Unfortunately, however, instead of shedding light on the subject matter at hand, Bell seems to only bring more confusion.  Challies and Armstrong bring out the point that Bell's questions do lead to an end and are more than academic inquiry.  Through Bell's questions, we do see Bell latching onto the concept that God is love and He has good news for us.  Bell's understanding of God and His good news, however, differ from orthodox teaching.  Bell uses orthodox terms but he re-defines them as a way of reconciling unpleasant concepts that are not palpable to him.  Bell, for example, never denies that there is a hell but cannot accept that a loving God would send someone there for eternity.  Bell makes an argument that the Greek word "aion" that is used in the Bible to indicate that hell is for eternity also carries with it the meaning of "age", "period of time" or "intensity of experience".  

With Bell's linguistic yoga that he performs with the Greek word "aion", he seems to neglect the fact that context should be used as a method of deriving correct usage/meaning.  I love Challies' argument stating that we would not be so quick to jump at the alternative meaning, given what the word would yield if we used it in John 3:16;

"For God so loved the world that He sent His only Son so that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have life for a period of time."

I doubt Bell would embrace this interpretation either. Bell has a theology of social justice where we are not God's stewards but His partners. It wouldn't be very encouraging if we were to only enjoy this privilege for a "period of time".  Together, instead, we are going to make the world a better place and in this better place, hell is “a word that refers to the big, wide, terrible evil that comes from the secrets hidden deep without our hearts all the way to the massive, society-wide collapse and chaos that comes when we fail to live in God’s world God’s way” (p. 95).

I'm not going to reiterate Challies' and Armstrong's entire post because they can summarize Bell's book in it's entirety much better than I.  There are, however, two more things I would like to address before I end this post.

First, if you will please recall, in other posts I have published; I discussed Bell's proclivity to alter and re-write history on his terms.  It appears that he has not lost his affinity to corrupt the historical account.  In Bell's book, he continues to insist that history has been altered and differs from the version that we have today.  Please consider Challies' account of this phenomenon; 

Jesus’ story has been hijacked by a number of different stories that Jesus has no interest in telling. “The plot has been lost, and it’s time to reclaim it.” (Preface, vi)

A staggering number of people have been taught that a select few Christians will spend forever in a peaceful, joyous place called heaven, while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better…. This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus’ message of love, peace, forgiveness, and joy that our world desperately needs to hear. (ibid)

Irrespective of being exposed to Bell's irreverence that he has for history, I still have major issues with his criminal assault.  It's almost like the man is a victim of delusions of grandeur in which I don't know if I should feel sorry for him or be mad at him for the act of evil he consistently practices.  If you note from my Bell's Hell post, Bell has an agenda for altering history.  Bell has to alter history as a way of negating the current gospel account so that he can substitute it with his own account.  As previously mentioned numerous times in Bell's gospel, God is great and He wants all men saved; how great would He be, however, if He lost some to hell?  God must, in the end, save all men in order for Him to illustrate His ultimate love and grace that are intrinsically linked to His attributes.

Finally, I'd like to take an opportunity to directly answer the questions that Challies' post on his blog that he doesn't necessarily address in a direct manner;

"The questions you probably want answers to as you read this review are these: Is it true that Rob Bell teaches that hell doesn’t exist? Is it true that Rob Bell believes no one goes to hell? You’ll just need to keep reading because, frankly, the answers aren’t that easy to come by."

1.)  Is it true that Rob Bell teaches that hell doesn't exist?

No, it's not true.  Unfortunately it is widely held that all universalists deny the existence of hell altogether. This is not true.  Some universalists do not deny the existence of hell but deny that it lasts for eternity.  Rob Bell can believe in hell and still be a universalist.  If you read Challies' post, you will see that Bell does not deny hell but re-defines it, the same as he does with most orthodox terms; it's the only way he can pass off his heretical teaching so that it may have a look of legitimacy.

2.)  Is it true that Rob Bell believes no one goes to hell?

No, it's not true the Rob Bell believes that no one goes to hell.  As previously stated, Bell can accept that people go to hell and still be a universalist.  According to Challies, however, Bell's hell is void of God's wrath and fire so it fails to meet the criteria listed in orthodox teaching.

I hope that this post may prove to be somewhat helpful to anyone that reads it.  I may post more responses to Bell's work in regards to his new book, it all depends on where the spirit leads me.  As much as it pleases me to see evangelicals step up to bat and defend doctrine, it also at the same time concerns me that all of the hoopla that has given Bell so much publicity will probably sell an untold volume of books for him.  God is good though and in spite of Bell's insistence to alter history so that he may present a different gospel, I am seeing where others are taking this as an opportunity to post on such topics as hell and universalism.  May these posts be used to glorify God and edify the Saints.  God has an uncanny ability to make good things spring from evil events.  This current event is no different and in no way negates God's sovereignty.  Perhaps this issue will force the churches that have been avoiding the topic of hell like the plague to finally give credence to this biblical teaching that is as much as a part of God's word as the parts in the Bible that are not offensive to our carnality.

Grace and Peace,

W.

What Are Bell's Early Reviews Saying?

What Are Bell's Early Reviews Saying?

With all of the speculation as to what is in Rob Bell's controversial book, "Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived", it will be interesting to see what the early book reviews have to say.  As reported in a previous post, Tim Challies' review will be out by Wednesday or Thursday so this brief summary will be in reference to the reviews that have been posted on Scott Dixon's "The Tenth Leper" blog as well as what Greg Boyd reports in his recent post.  I will probably post a separate post in response to Challies' soon to be released post in the next day or so.

Starting off with a brief summary of what can be surmised from Dixon's posts pertaining to Bell's book can best be viewed in today's post that Dixon has published.  Dixon goes on about how hard it is to interpret what Bell is exactly trying to communicate/advocate.  Although Boyd's post doesn't appear to be as neutral as Dixon's, he agrees with Dixon about Bell being an ineffective communicator but tries to put a positive spin on it;

"First, Rob is first and foremost a poet/artist/dramatist who has a fantastic gift for communicating in ways that inspire creativity and provoke thought. Rob is far more comfortable (and far better at) questioning established beliefs and creatively hinting at possible answers than he is at constructing a logically rigorous case defending a definitive conclusion."

So as it can be seen through these two views, if you are going to read Bell's book as a means to acquire a hard definite theological ideology that will shape your worldview, then you are going to be more than disappointed in Bell's book.  If you are, on the other hand, looking for witty banter that offers a plethora of questions that focus and center on questioning conventional and orthodox teaching then Bell's book is what you've been looking for and will be the ticket.

Bell's book has stirred a lot of controversy.  Some would argue that it isn't Bell's book that has stirred the controversy but instead Justin Taylor's blog piece about a book that hasn't been published yet.  To be fair about it, Taylor didn't really comment on Bell's book but on the promotional literature and video that was put out as an endorsement of Bell's book.  If the literature is accurate then Bell's book should be about putting hell on trial and examining what a loving God would do with the fate of every person that has ever lived.  Boyd, however, says that Bell's book is about the beautiful character of God;

"Rob’s book really isn’t about the population or duration of heaven or hell. It’s mainly about the unfathomably beautiful character of God revealed in Jesus Christ and therefore about the unfathomably good nature of the Good News."

Before you get all too giddy about  Boyd's statement that Bell's book is about the good news, recall my Bell's Hell post where I reiterate Bell's gospel proclamation.  Bell's gospel IS NOT the traditional rendition delivered in orthodox teaching.  Bell has a disdain for orthodoxy and it is seen in not only his rhetorical questions that his book is inundated with but also in his man-centered gospel.  According to Bell, you are the good news as opposed to the biblical teaching that you earned death through your sin and Christ offers propitiation through His crucifixion for anyone who believes and has faith in Him.  According to Bell, all people have to do in order to see the resurrection is to look to you.  Bell's attempt to take our focus off of Christ as a means to put ourselves in the spotlight is blasphemous to say the least.  

I suspect, however, that Boyd was not referring to Bell's definition of the Gospel as he has stated earlier but as to what Bell's "good news" is in this current book.  You see, Bell likes to play with terms and re-define them.  Dixon says that Bell never outright denounces orthodox terms but re-defines it.  Dixon then goes on to talk about Bell's confusion that he has about salvation and how he shows this through yet another plethora of questions that offer more confusion than clarification.  My response to this is shouldn't a minister offer clarity and not leave behind more confusion than one started off with in the first place?  I know Bell gets all sorts of accolades for his brilliant teaching but where is the genius in a pedagogy that breeds discombobulation?

I'm going to wrap this up for now but before I leave; I will say that from the different posts I have read about this book and from the liberal mindset/post modern worldview that Bell's supporters advocate in defense of this book, that Bell would argue (even though he might not outright say it) that a loving God would not send anyone to hell forever.  Rev. Dr. Serene Jones, president of the Union Theological Seminary, had this to say in defense of Bell;

"Jesus' message was that the love of God is stronger than anything we can do -- and the forgiveness of God is stronger -- so why would that God be torturing people in some made up hell?" she said.

Considering that Dr. Jones is a post Professor of Theology at Yale Divinity School, I am astonished at this argument that is void of any real understanding of the issue at hand.  Dr. Tim Keller offers one of the best commentaries about hell than I have ever seen.  This is only a portion of a larger article but in spite of that, it offers insightful considerations that you may want to consider if you are tempted or swayed to argue that sending people to hell is beyond God's nature;

"In Romans 1-2 Paul explains that God, in his wrath against those who reject him, 'gives them up' to the sinful passions of their hearts. Commentators (cf. Douglas Moo) point out that this cannot mean God impels people to sin, since in Ephesians 4:19 it is said that sinners give themselves up to their sinful desires. It means that the worst (and fairest) punishment God can give a person is to allow them their sinful hearts' deepest desire.

What is that? The desire of the sinful human heart is for independence. We want to choose and go our own way (Isaiah 53:6.) This is no idle 'wandering from the path.' As Jeremiah puts it, 'No one repents . . . each pursues his own course like a horse charging into battle. (8:6)' (We want to get away from God-but, as we have seen, this is the very thing that is most destructive to us. Cain is warned not to sin because sin is slavery. (Genesis 4:7; John 8:34.) It destroys your ability to choose, love, enjoy. Sin also brings blindness-the more you reject the truth about God the more incapable you are of perceiving any truth about yourself or the world (Isaiah 29:9-10; Romans 1:21.)

What is hell, then? It is God actively giving us up to what we have freely chosen-to go our own way, be our own "the master of our fate, the captain of our soul," to get away from him and his control. It is God banishing us to regions we have desperately tried to get into all our lives. J.I.Packer writes: "Scripture sees hell as self-chosen . . . [H]ell appears as God's gesture of respect for human choice. All receive what they actually chose, either to be with God forever, worshipping him, or without God forever, worshipping themselves." (J.I.Packer, Concise Theology p.262-263.) If the thing you most want is to worship God in the beauty of his holiness, then that is what you will get (Ps 96:9-13.) If the thing you most want is to be your own master, then the holiness of God will become an agony, and the presence of God a terror you will flee forever (Rev 6:16; cf. Is 6:1-6.)" 

May everything we do be in the honor and glory of God,

W.  

Bell Being Exposed Sooner than Anticipated

Bell Being Exposed Sooner than Anticipated

The criticism, "You haven't even read it yet" that is frequently held against Rob Bell's critics will soon be over with sooner than originally anticipated.  ABC News announced recently that Bell's publisher is releasing the book on March 15th as opposed to the original March 29th scheduled release date.

In addition to this, more and more people appear to have an advance copy of Bell's book and they are releasing reviews in advance of the books release date.  As mentioned in my Bell's Hell post, Scott Dixon of The Tenth Leper blog is periodically releasing reviews of Bell's book.  I read Dixon's blog today and in today's post, he informs us that Greg Boyd also has an advanced copy as well as having a blog post where he discusses the book after having read it.  Last but not least, Tim Challies announced on Twitter today that he will be coming out with a book review of "Love Wins" either on Wednesday or Thursday (this week).  

There is more to come on what these reviews actually have to say in another post.

Grace & Peace,

W.   

Mithra? Attis? Really, Rob Bell?

Mithra?  Attis?  Really, Rob Bell?

Apologist, James White, addresses the charges of one Rob Bell that claims early Christians borrowed or ripped off accounts from Helenistic mystery religions like Mithra and Attis and attributed said accounts to Christ making Mithra and Attis an archetypal Christ.

This video is a wonderful supplement to the recent Bell's Hell post.  I posted that article before I had an opportunity to watch this video.  White reiterates and substantiates a lot of the information that is in the Bell's Hell post and at the same time, provides enough additional information to make this video a must watch.

Bell's Hell

Bell's Hell

A couple of years ago, a friend of mine introduced me to a theological concept that I had never heard of before; Universalism.  I remember reading a link that he sent me written by someone that had embraced this concept and had posted a paper about it on Scribd.  

I remember the paper was a rather lengthy explanation as well as including several biblical passages and rationale for his un-orthodox belief.  For those that do not know, universalism is the belief that, in the end everyone gets saved or receives salvation.  I am by no means an expert and at the time I read my friend's article, I was not even familiar with any variations of this belief.  I do remember, however, the paper that I read on Scribd didn't say that persons wouldn't ever go to hell; only that they wouldn't stay there for eternity.  The paper I read, made a correlation between the symbolic imagery of fire associated with hell in orthodox teaching with the fire that a smelter uses to extract impurities from metal.  It appears, according to this belief from the paper that I read, that sinners have a set amount of sin in them and if said sin could be extracted then an individual would be sanctified.  Through sanctification, the newly cleansed person would be worthy of attaining salvation and gain admittance into Heaven.  


If you really want a more detailed and a more authoritative look into Universalism, I strongly recommend for you to start your search with a visit to the CARM site.   There you will learn the basics about universalism as well as different variations pertaining to it as well.  For the purpose of this article, my reference to universalism is in regards to Christian Universalism.  In Christian Universalism, Jesus died for everyone's sins and in this act salvation is available to everyone.  A just and loving god cannot or would not damn sinners to eternity because this act would be void of love.  God, instead, offers salvation through Jesus irrespective of having faith in Jesus.  For those that have faith, they avoid hell altogether.  For those that do not have faith in Jesus, they go to hell for a period of time.  It is in the afterlife that god eventually brings sinners to repentance, etc.  


If you do not keep up with the current events that take place in Christendom, you may be unaware of the controversy that surrounds Rob Bell and his new book.  Rob Bell is a Wheaton College graduate, the Harvard of Christian schools as CNN puts it, and pastors a non-denominational Christian Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan called Mars Hill .  CNN describes Bell as "a pastor and author who has achieved rock star status in the Christian world".  


Irrespective of attaining the status of a rockstar pastor or not, Bell has stirred up quite a controversy in the land of Christendom with the announcement of his new book that is called "Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived".  In this book, Bell puts hell on trial and examines the afterlife.  The book description from Amazon is as follows;

"Fans flock to his Facebook page, his NOOMA videos have been viewed by millions, and his Sunday sermons are attended by 10,000 parishioners—with a downloadable podcast reaching 50,000 more. An electrifying, unconventional pastor whom Time magazine calls “a singular rock star in the church world,” Rob Bell is the most vibrant, central religious leader of the millennial generation. Now, in Love Wins: Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, Bell addresses one of the most controversial issues of faith—the afterlife—arguing that a loving God would never sentence human souls to eternal suffering. With searing insight, Bell puts hell on trial, and his message is decidedly optimistic—eternal life doesn’t start when we die; it starts right now. And ultimately, Love Wins." 

Shortly after the announcement of Bell's book, Justin Taylor of the Gospel Coalition, responds with a blog piece, "Rob Bell: Universalist?" This blog post, needless to say, has sparked a dialogue and in some cases, a heated debate pertaining to Rob Bell. CNN reports that on the Saturday that Taylor's article was published, Bell reached the status of being the top ten in trending topics on Twitter; a status that is rare for theological debates to reach on Twitter, etc.

Some people argue that it isn't fair to judge a book before it has been released.  To be fair to Justin Taylor, however, his response was mostly directed at a promotional video that Bell has put out for his book and not the book that hasn't been released yet.  It is also presumptuous for us to believe that Taylor, a VP editorial at Crossway, does not have access to the book in its entirety and has read enough of the book that he is indeed qualified to make statements thereof.  

In further defense of Bell, others argue that the promotional video is mostly void of making any authoritative statements in which Bell mostly asks questions for effect.  Proponents of this viewpoint then commonly ask, is it wrong to ask questions?  They purport that Bell is only asking the questions that many others are also asking in hope of finding answers.

It's not wrong to ask questions.  In fact, we know from 1 Peter 3:15 that we are to make a defense and be quick to give a reason for the hope that lies within us.  If we are to be in the position to offer answers then it stands to reason that we should ask questions if it is used to advance our knowledge of the hope that we have in Christ.  Critics of Bell's use of questions in his presentation are quick to point out that it is rhetoric and its intended use is deployed as a method of instruction. I tend to fall, however, in the camp of the critic.  I don't buy for one minute that Bell is simply asking rhetorical questions for the sake of stimulating thought.  For those that want to insist that asking questions in of itself is innocent and has no real consequence or lacks the powers of insinuation then I challenge you to try this with your wife.  The next time you see your wife, rhetorically ask your wife a series of questions that addresses the issue as to if you really love her and examine her reaction.  Tell  her that you ask yourself everyday you come home from work if you love her and that you ask yourself if you are happy and if you should stay committed to this relationship and see if she's just assuming that you are playing the academic devil's advocate or if you're trying to propagate another message altogether.  Let me know how that turns out for you.

Is it possible that all of this hysteria or panic over Bell being a Universalist is premature given that we don't know what is in the book that is yet to be released?  Some skeptics are saying that they suspect that there are going to be a lot of people that are going to owe Bell an apology once the book is released.  This may be true but at the same time I'm at a loss as to why there are so many people that truly appear to be so shocked that Bell could be a Universalist.  It's not as if an assessment on Bell is taking place in a vacuum.  There are numerous reports of Bell and his theology.  There are numerous reports that warn of Bell being a "dangerous false teacher."  

In Rob Bells "Gospel" Presentation Critiqued, Bell not only gives an atrocious and libel account of the history of Christianity but gives a corrupt account as to what constitutes the Gospel.  Bell, in this presentation of deconstructionism, espouses the same lies that is most often heard from atheists as opposed to a pastor from the pulpit.  Bell claims that the early Christians borrowed or ripped off accounts from Helenistic mystery religions like Mithra and Attis and attributed said accounts to Christ making Mithra and Attis an archetypal Christ; accounts such as, being born of a virgin, being born on December 25th, the resurrection as well as dying to pay for the sins of his followers.  Bell goes on to argue that the resurrection story is not unique.  Bell claims that someone giving the account of the resurrection at the time the early Apostles were evangelizing would've been met with, "so what?" because they've heard all of this before, etc.

In contrast to Bell's account of history, renown historian and Christian Apologist, Edwin Yamauchi, explains in Lee Strobel's book, "The Case for the Real Jesus" that Mithraism did not show up as a religion of practice until the middle to late second century. The timing, in other words, is off if the early Christians were to use the account of Mithra as a template for Christ.  As far as Mithra's birth story is concerned, Mithra was born of a rock and not a virgin.  Like Jesus, Mithra was born naked but unlike Jesus, Mithra was born fully grown and posses a cap upon birth.

 As far as being born on December 25th to link Jesus with Mithra, we don't know the date that Jesus was born per the Bible not giving us the date.  Celebrating December 25th is tied into the Roman Emperor Aurelian setting this date for a sun god celebration per the Winter Solstice.  When Constantine came to power, Christians began celebrating Christmas on December 25th circa 336 A.D.  Constantine prior to becoming a Christian was accustomed to celebrating on this date when he participated in sun god worship.  He now set this date for Son God worship.  I highly suspect that if Rob Bell put forth a serious study of the history that he presents his Christian congregation with then he too would have been aware of the historical account that contradicts his teaching.  At the very least, he could have warned his congregation that the historical account he was about to present was refuted by academic scholars as opposed to presenting it as the authoritative truth.  

The Christian faith as a whole rests on the resurrection and Rob Bell carelessly tries to negate its significance by downplaying its unique account in history.  Unlike Christ, Mithra didn't sacrifice himself, he killed a bull.  There is no historical account of Mithra's death.  If Mithra didn't die, then it goes without saying that this mythical god could not even possibly have anything in resemblance of a resurrection story.  According to Ronald Nash, the same goes for Attis.  According to scholars, there is not a resurrection account in any of the Hellenistic mystery religions.  Yet, at the same time, Rob Bell is trying to tell us that there is nothing unique about the resurrection.  If the resurrection account was as common as Bell makes it out to be then it is fair to ask why Paul wasn't challenged with this when he preached to the philosophers in Athens (Acts 17:16-21).  Instead, Paul was said to be a

"proclaimer of strange deities,"--because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection."

Can you imagine why this could have been said of astute philosophers of Athens if resurrection accounts were as common as Rob Bell makes them out to be?

Rob Bell not only has a strange account of history but one of the Gospel as well.  In "Rob Bell's Gospel Presentation Critiqued", as previously mentioned, Bell says the Gospel is the good news that God hasn't given up on the world.  This in of itself is not the best description  I have heard but it's not exactly heretical either.  The Gospel is the good news; the word "Gospel" means good news.  Bell is adding to the definition and although it seems innocent enough, I always have a red flag go up if something is being added to the all sufficient word of God.  Bell, however, is a spin master and it quite frankly wouldn't be his style to say something as conventional as the word "Gospel" means "good news."  No, for Bell, it has to have some extra bit of revelation.  The Gospel is good news and if one wanted to take a loose interpretation of it, I suppose that it is fair enough to say that it is good news because God hasn't given up on the world.  Wouldn't it, however, be more accurate to say that the Gospel is good news because as a sinner, you earned death (for the wages of sin is death) and instead of giving you what you deserved (hell), God gives grace and saves through faith in Christ Jesus that paid for your sin-debt when He was nailed to a tree?  Perhaps Bell wouldn't say something like this because according to Bell, Jesus is not saving us from God's wrath, He is saving us from our sins, our mistakes, our pride, etc. 

 Perhaps Bell wouldn't present a reiteration of the Gospel in a similar fashion as mine because according to Bell, "you" are the good news.  You "are the gospel".  What?  I"m the gospel??  What in the world is Bell talking about?  

According to Bell, when others want proof of the resurrection, all that they should have to do is to look to us.  They should look to us because we are the good news, we are the gospel and we are the resurrection.  Bell saying this with pretty music in the background sounds like he is delivering love to his audience.  Pretty music, however, does not save and Bell's gospel has us exalting ourselves because he would have others looking at our deeds as opposed to the work of Christ performed on the cross.  Bell would have others looking to us instead of Christ.

With all of the background that has been presented in reference to Rob Bell and the controversy pertaining to his new book, please allow me to leave you with an important piece of information.  Scott Dixon, also known as "SaltyDawg" on Twitter has a website called "The Tenth Leper".  Somehow, Mr. Dixon has received an early copy of Rob Bell's book and in response to all of the controversy in regards to Bell's book, has decided to publish an early book review.  It was my intention to address the content of this book review in this post.  I had not, however, anticipated that this piece would be as long as it has turned out to be, etc.  In light of additional information that still needs to be examined, I will end this post here with the hope of addressing the content of Mr. Dixon's review in an upcoming post.

For the meanwhile, please visit The Tenth Leper and read the book reviews that have been posted thus far and by all means please return to this blog for a follow up post.  

In the love of our Heavenly Father, 

God bless.

W.