Steve Lawson's impromptu Gospel presentation.

There's simply nothing to add to this presentation.  Steve Lawson answering a  question about the Gospel in an interview prompted this impromptu Gospel presentation.  May it be used to open eyes, ears and hearts of unbelievers in desperate need of salvation. 

Soli Deo Gloria!
Wade

Faith Is Like A Roller Coaster...But More Exciting

Faith Is Like A Roller Coaster...But More Exciting

As Christians, we are commanded to go out into the world and spread the Gospel.  We are to give a reason for the hope that is in us and be prepared to give an answer.  Not all Christians are, however, theologians that live and breathe apologetics and when faced with tough questions, they give a somewhat obligatory answer in an effort to get their backs off of the ropes.  They simply tell their inquisitor to read the Bible and assure them that they'll find their answer.  

This week, I've been talking with a friend that is searching for answers and she tells me that Christians never really answer her questions and just keep telling her to read the Bible.  She says that this would be the equivalent of someone asking her why she likes Star Trek and telling them to watch an episode to find out.  After they watch the episode, they come back and ask her the same question again and she repeatedly gives the same answer each and everytime the anti-Star Trek enthusiast asks about the appeal of the show.  

I admit that my friend is onto something.  Sometimes we all need further clarification and for someone to tell you to go back over and over again to find the answer when you've failed to see it all of the other times, seems to be an exercise in futility.  This is not to discourage anyone from reading the Bible nor is it an attempt in any way to suggest that we can't find the answers to our inquisition from reading scripture.  In fact, if we are ever to know anything about God, it is through His word that we find in scripture that contains His revelation.  

As a way to encourage my new friend, I suggested that even if the advice from Christians has failed to satisfy her inquisition then for her to consider that it all hasn't been for nothing.  In an attempt to find answers, my friend claims that she has read the book from cover to cover.  In an earlier exchange, she very eloquently tells me; 

"The whole story of the Bible is like a metaphorical story of someone growing up. Adam and Eve is seen as infancy, the whole Old Testament is like childhood and adolescence, struggling to find out what is good and what's wrong while trying to live by their parent's rules (often messing up and getting "grounded"). The New Testament is adulthood. The age of true discovery and love towards others and the need to make a difference in not only ones own life but the life's of the people around them."

Assuming that I'm not being duped and my friend came up with this revelation all on her own, then I would say that her efforts spent reading the Bible has not been a wasted effort by any means.  Although Christians' default answer to read more scripture may not be as helpful as it could be, they may be nevertheless yielding fruit in a greater yield than you or I could ever produce from our own explanations.  It could be that a suggestion to read scripture may not produce immediate answers for today's questions but nevertheless be providing a foundation of faith. 

We live by faith and not by sight (2 Corinthians 5:7). But how do we get this faith? Paul tells us that faith comes by hearing and hearing comes by the word of God (Romans 10:17). How can hearing give faith though? Someone can obviously have faith without ever having picked up a Bible and without ever having read the first verse of scripture. Paul, however, isn’t talking about a generic faith that anyone can have that could just as easily be applied to a golden calf as it could be given as an expression of love for Yahweh. Paul is talking about a God saving faith. Paul is talking about the the kind of faith that makes us heirs in Christ. Paul is talking about the faith that we have when we believe the gospel. This faith in God that we have through the Gospel, however, isn’t always a popular practice and is often ridiculed by others. This is why Paul tells us, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek..” (Romans 1:16 NASB).

I can sit here and tell you about faith and talk about it all day long. It isn’t, however, the same as you having a first hand knowledge of it. You, for example, can read about roller coasters and your friends could tell you about riding a roller coaster but you are never going to really know the power and exhilaration of a roller coaster until you do what?

You are really never going to know the power and exhilaration of riding a roller coaster until you ride one. All descriptions and summations of riding a roller coaster will pail in comparison to your actual experience. Similarly, all descriptions and summations of faith will pail in the actual experience of living it and in the actual experience of practicing it. God saving faith, in other words, isn’t something that you put up and store in a box once you have it. God saving faith is something that must be lived in order grow and exacerbate spiritual maturity. God saving faith is a living thing that must be practiced so that it will bear fruit. It is the fruit that reveals the nature of the tree. Apple trees don’t produce peaches. Just the same, a good tree doesn’t produce bad fruit and a bad tree doesn’t produce good fruit (Matthew 7:16-18), God saving faith will produce the fruit of life and all other kinds of faith will leave idolaters dead in their sins. 

As spectacular as it may be to ride a roller coaster, to compare it to God saving faith is an un-fair comparison - an injustice, if you will.  Even the acrobatics of a roller coaster that produces excitement and exhilaration for the passenger, can't compare to the inexhaustible grace that our Father in Heaven displays to us when we are in the faith that gives eternal life.  Both, however, produce an experience that you can't know if you aren't a participant.  As Christians, we need to press forward, continue on with the good fight as we actively live in our faith and not by our sight and I promise that you'll be on a ride that is infinitely more exciting than any roller coaster.

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. 

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.

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.

The Offense of the Gospel in Alabama

The Offense of the Gospel in Alabama

Alabama Governor Robert Bentley made controversial remarks that some people are not happy about.  On Martin Luther King Day (1/17/11), the governor made a speech at the Dexter Avenue King Memorial Baptist church shortly after he was sworn into office.  Two days later, Bentley’s director of communications released a statement on his behalf - “The governor had intended no offense by his remarks. He is the governor of all the people...”

The contents of Bentley’s speech have Bill Nigut, the Southeast regional director of the Anti-Defamation League, stating that Bentley should not only apologize but also release a full retraction of his declaration.  According to Nigut, there is no excuse for making the kind of mistake that Bentley is charged with making - “The governor does not have to be a seasoned politician to understand the impact of remarks like that,” Nigut, said. “Joey Kennedy of The Birmingham News also adds “He is not a civilian anymore; he is not a private person anymore. He is the governor of Alabama every day, 24-hours a day.”

With such a reaction from Governor Bentley’s speech, what could he have possibly said that was so offensive?  Governor Bentley under an official capacity said that Alabamians should ''love and care for each other."  He said that he was color blind but if they did not have the same daddy as he did, then they were not his brothers and sisters; ''But if you have been adopted in God's family like I have, and like you have if you're a Christian and if you're saved, and the Holy Spirit lives within you just like the Holy Spirit lives within me, then you know what that makes? It makes you and me brothers. And it makes you and me brother and sister."

To differentiate one American from another American on the sole basis of being a believer in Jesus Christ is an offense.  In the economy of the world, all beliefs are equal and to declare one as to being superior to the other is to illustrate a lack in civility, it is to show one’s ignorance and presumption, it is to rob the god of diversity his homage that he demands as a blood sacrifice from a world that is all too eager to feed him.  In the economy of the world, it is unimaginable to suggest that one may find favor with God while another is lost and blind without Jesus Christ.  Nigut expresses his offense; “These are remarks of a man who truly believes what he said, apparently. This seems to be quite clear that Christians are part of an exclusive relationship he has with his brothers and sisters and the rest of us are not.”  Nigut would have, however, preferred Governor Bentley to say something more along the lines of; “I realize I was wrong that we are all brothers and sister, and not single out only the ones who believe in Jesus Christ,”

Is it reasonable to believe that Nigut has a point?  Even after taking First Amendment rights into consideration, is it possible that Bentley is in the wrong? According to Gene Policinski, the executive director of The First Amendment Center, Bentley is a public official and like all public officials, his office “represents all faiths.”  Policinski adds, “Religion is a part of many peoples’ lives, but there is an implication when a particular faith receives favorable or disfavorable treatment. It is a very difficult line to draw, but it is one any politician has to be aware of.”

Polincinski is right, all politicians need to be aware of favoring one group of people over another group of people.  Kennedy is also right; Governor Bentley is the governor of Alabama 24 hours a day, seven days a week.  Nigut is also right, it appears that Governor Bentley believes the statements he made during his speech.  Bentley’s critics have concerns but are they valid concerns?  Did Bentley say he was going to favor one group over another?  Did Bentley say that he wasn’t governor 24 hours a day so that he can act differently when he’s not in the office?  Does Bentley’s beliefs force him to treat Christians and non-Christians with different measures of justice?  Does Bentley’s beliefs force him to discriminate and disenfranchise one group of people over another group of people?

In none of Bentley’s remarks that have been reported as being offensive in the piece that is referenced in this post did Bentley say that he was going to do anything illegal.  In none of Bentley’s remarks did he say that he was going to disenfranchise one group of people over another or that he was going to use his office to promote one faith over another.  It is a secularized belief that promotes using a political office to represent a faith.  It is Policinski that said that Bentley’s office “represents all faiths” when in reality it is unique doctrine that differentiates one faith from another and therefore represents said faith.  I wouldn’t call Frankfort, for example, and ask my governor, senator or congressman about infant baptism.  It is not the government’s job to represent any faith but to preserve men’s rights so that they can practice their faith on their own accord.  Jesus said that His kingdom is not of this world as well as, "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.”.  It was never commanded of us to adopt the world into God’s family.  This world is going to burn up and it is men’s lost souls that we fight for, not anything of this world.  Christ doesn’t want our governments; He wants to save the lost so that God may be glorified.

It is only through a lack of understanding of Christian teaching that one could even presume that Bentley’s remarks were any sort of indication that he intended to favor one group of people over another.  It is true that God differentiates Christians from non-Christians and one day He will separate the sheep from the goats but at the same time, however, it is God’s children (Christians) that are given the Great Commission – to share the Gospel of Christ so that salvation may be obtained and lost men may be saved.  If we follow the greatest commandments given to us, we are instructed to love our neighbor as ourselves and later we find out that it is the one that shows mercy to another that is the one that is acting like a neighbor.  With any real sincerity when examining Christian teaching and doctrine, one reasonably has to conclude that if one were to follow Christian beliefs while he/she governs a state that others from other faiths would not be in any kind of danger.  We are never commanded to harm others even when we find it necessary to rebuke false teachings and teachers.  Render to Caesar that is Caesar’s is the rule of law that Governor Bentley needs to take heed of; meaning that he needs to act appropriately within his office of governor while at the same time giving all allegiance, faith and confidence to God.  By remaining true to Christian teaching, there is no conflict of interest – Bentley can be loyal to the gubernatorial office as well as to the convictions of His beliefs.  We should pray for Governor Bentley to make an example of his office by exuding a blameless execution of his faith unto God in praise of Jesus Christ all the while he governs the state of Alabama with authority without any guilt of wrong doing.  Meanwhile, perhaps we can make our own contribution to the testimony of the Christian faith by living exemplary lives.  Contrary to the beliefs of Bentley's critics, we should not live one life while we are in office and live another life when we are off the clock as if our faith was an accessory in our lives that we can put on and take off the same as an expensive watch.  It is the false converts that pretend to be sheep on Sunday all the while they are living like goats throughout the rest of the week.  Bear the fruit of the vine by remaining to be in Him that gives life.

In the love of our Heavenly Father,
W. 

What is the Gospel

David Platt - Radical Risk, Radical Reward Highlights