!-- Beacon Ads Ad Code -->

Sponsor Ad:

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Biblical Inerrancy Piggy-back thread: ROB BELL (don't be hatin')

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Biblical Inerrancy Piggy-back thread: ROB BELL (don't be hatin')

    Because we have a pastor on the way who is a fan of Rob Bell's, many of us in the church have been studying, reading, and really doing our research. Someone found this most excellent and theologically sound article about his new book. This is not a bitterness or anger driven thread meant to pick him personally apart. Picking humans apart should be off limits (and it is, so respect that); their theology is a different story, as we should take our cue from the Bereans in Acts, who studying the Scriptures diligently, verified that which Paul preached. Though I'm certain on a forum such as this there will be those who disagree and could still hold to Bell's false doctrines, let us remember not to pick one another apart personally in like manner. Everyone is entitled to their own belief. But everyone is not entitled to their own truth. SOLA SCRIPTURA!

    http://www.crosswalk.com/news/rob-be...-a-candle.html
    Last edited by Moosicman; 04-29-2011, 02:46 PM.

  • #2
    Good stuff. Hate the sin, not the sinner. It is easy to tear people apart if they have one bad bit of thinking isn't it. thanks for reminding us of what is important.

    Comment


    • #3
      The article claims Bell's 'god' doesn't give us a choice to love or not, which after actually reading the book myself differs from the conclusion I got. I'm definitely no theologian or professor but from what I gathered Bell thinks we have a choice and God honors it, it just doesn't necessarily have to be made before you die. Essentially you're given a second chance to choose God's way and if you choose not to follow Him, you are free to do so. Not saying I agree with Bell, but to me, it seemed like the article was a little unfair in that respect. If anyone else has read the book and has an opinion, I'd love to hear.

      Comment


      • #4
        In all honesty, I have not read the book nor do I have the desire to. My small group went through the Nooma videos a while back. They weren't packed with revelation but it did provide some sort of discussion piece for our group. When we got to "Bull Horn Guy," something seemed odd. The entire piece degraded another man depicting him as one who does nothing with God at home yet yells in a bull horn on the street corners preaching the gospel. It seemed like a swipe at people who preach the gospel in unconventional ways. Bell's point was that even though we preach the gospel, there are better ways to do it. It was because of that video, our small group leaders did extensive research into who Rob Bell is, what he believes and if we should we welcome his teaching. Needless to say, the result was not in Bell's favor. His material was removed from our library.
        Melanie Siewert, Christ's Servant
        BLOG: http://www.worshipvanguard.blogspot.com

        Comment


        • #5
          I guess that if after reading an entire book people still have questions about what i believed or said i either was misleading them or trying to come up with my own theology. i have watched many of his youtube videos and i don't think i want to read his book. I am NO fan of MSNBC but watching him squirm under questioning made me dig deeper.

          Comment


          • #6
            That's definitely a trite little article, in my opinion. Whoever wrote it talks in circles and doesn't say much. I'm not a Rob Bell fan, but increasingly I appreciate his frustration with the way the Gospel is presented. Anyways, if you want to hear someone talk about Bell's book in a intelligent, unbiased way, Click the link here YouTube - Community of Learners - May 6, 2011This is one of my professors. He's got three Master's and a PhD, so set aside 50 minutes or so, dust off your theological dictionary and check it out.

            Comment


            • #7
              Wow. I'm gonna have to ask if you mind backing up your opinion with a few details supporting why you say what you say. While I think there could be facts to back up the idea that he is most definitely refuting and offering a warning against Bell's unsound, unscriptural theology (and you are from that perspective using the word "unbiased" in your post about your professor), I'm having a more difficult time of your characterization of John Mark Reynolds as unintelligent or talking in circles and not saying much. I don't know him from Adam's house cat but feel I need to ask you to support your opinion with a few examples, as I feel the author has made a most excellent statement against Bell (better than most who seem to merely make him out to be the bogey man) and I can't see any circularity in his article whatsoever.

              Last thing, can you give us your professor's name and such? I'm looking on the youtube link you've posted but can't find it and after watching it, I may want to share it. I'd like to know who I'm sharing. Thanks for your input!

              Comment


              • #8
                1st reply

                I'm having to make this reply in three posts, because it was too long :-(

                I don't mind. Actually, I'm quite guilty of doing the exact same thing the author of the article did, which is form an opinion of something someone else wrote, and share that opinion without really stating why I disagree with it. I'll give you my opinion of John Mark Reynolds piece, and then I'll put a few comments here and there (below) to help justify why I have that opinion.
                In my summary here, I'm going to be stingingly concise. First, I feel that most of what Reynolds wrote is simply his opinion. In the few places he attempts to make a theological statement about Bell's beliefs, he doesn't do it in a scholarly way (backing his arguments with something other than his opinion). While doing all of this, what he does write is shrouded in enigmatic speech to the point that it's almost like poetry, where one must try and sort through the flowery language to see what the man is actually trying to say. Truth be known, that’s the biggest thing I personally have against this article; in my heart I feel that Reynolds thinks that we’ll be so enamored with the language he uses that we will fail to see that the language is simply cloaking his opinion.

                ~Shahan

                Comment


                • #9
                  2nd reply

                  I’ve been taught by my theology professors that doctrine falls into four categories, and they are:
                  Dogma = a belief that is essential to Christianity; all Christians must believe it to be “Christian”.
                  Doctrine = highly important belief that has strong biblical basis yet may be disputed by other Christians on the basis of other Scripture.
                  Opinion = non-essential to Christian core beliefs; open to various interpretations, some to little biblical evidence.
                  Heresy = a teaching that is incompatible with or directly contradicts essential Christian dogma or practice.
                  While Reynolds doesn’t explicitly call Bell a heretic, he certainly does implicitly. One simply can’t go around calling folks heretics because they have a different opinion on a non-essential belief about Christianity. Not so long ago a man would’ve been burned at the stake for being a heretic, not simply figuratively as Bell has been lately.
                  Below is Reynolds article, and I’m going to make a few observations about what he says within the text below. Mind you, I’m not engaging this article in the sense that I intend to shoot down Reynolds theology, because he hasn’t made any argument to deconstruct. This is mostly my opinion about his opinion, but I’m telling you that up front.

                  “Love moves the heavens and the stars. Love created the universe and love will win in the end. Rob Bell did not say this—Dante did—and Dante believed in Hell. Dante also thought all of us, including himself, in danger of going there for all eternity. #1 Who cares what Dante thought? Was Dante a theologian or a poet? I prefer to leave him in the poet category. #2 Reynolds implies here that Bell doesn’t believe in hell. That’s not true, but because he doesn’t have the same opinion about hell that Reynolds does, Reynolds implies that Bell doesn’t believe in hell. Bad form.

                  Dante believed in Hell, because of reason, reading the Bible, and because of love. If love is to win, then Hell must exist. Sadly, Rob Bell has chosen the culturally sterile, ethically bankrupt, and unloving position of denying love’s demand: hell exists and love built it. #1 Bell doesn’t claim hell doesn’t exist. Bad form. #2 Talk about some character assassination. If words were weapons, Bell would be dead. Bad form.

                  It would be easier to disagree with Bell, if he were not so likable and also right about so many other things. Bell is admirable in being open to possibilities. Socratic questioning is a good thing and nobody should deny Bell the right to speculate. #1 Ok, here he sarcastically puts a little salve on the gaping wounds he inflicted in the previous paragraph. Isn’t that nice? (sarcasm) #2 I don’t think Bell uses the Socratic Method as much as pure rhetoric. There’s a difference Reynolds should learn about.

                  Sadly, speculation can substitute for rigor and Rob Bell is not a very careful thinker. One could accuse Bell of many things, but to accuse him of not being a thinker is simply ridiculous. I mean, come on. Really?

                  Old books like the Bible require rigorous exegetical skills or they end up saying what we wish they said. Bell’s god ends up looking suspiciously like Rob Bell, never a good sign in a theologian. #1 notice the “small g” Reynolds uses here before the word “god?” Here he’s suggesting in a subtle way that Bell doesn’t worship the “true” God. Now Reynolds has put himself right up there WITH God, as he seems to know Bell’s heart and has judged him in the way only Jesus can. #2 Bell isn’t a theologian. #3 If Reynolds possesses the exegetical skills he’s touting here, he surely isn’t showcasing them.

                  Bell’s god will not take “no” for an answer. Like some cosmic lounge lizard, He follows you for eternity until you give Him a sympathy date. Bell’s god has more in common with Zeus, whose “love” always got what it wanted, than the Triune God of Scriptures. The good news about the God of the Bible is that He is nothing like Homer’s Zeus: God will let you love somebody else. See below.
                  Love will win, but true love does not always get what it wants. If the beloved gets what he demands, love will accept the choice, even if that means rejection of the beloved. Our God knows our “no” means “no.” See below.

                  Christianity has always been clear: if you don’t like God’s paradise, then you get to live someplace else. If you don’t like God’s rules, then God loves you enough to let you live by the rules you have chosen. This paragraph logically goes with the two preceding. #1 Not all Christians see things as clearly as Reynolds. #2 What Reynolds is saying here is that if you don’t have the same opinions he has, that you don’t worship the true God and you aren’t a Christian. I don’t know what Reynolds does for a living, but I hope his influence doesn’t extend very far, like past his dog for instance. The more I look at this article the more it reveals about what his convictions are, and they are poison if you ask me.

                  Bell struggles, it seems, with the notion that human choice counts for eternity. Lots of people do. So what? There are many who believe that those who go hell will be completely annihilated and cease to exist based on Matthew 10:28 (Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. NIV). They believe this way because they have a hard time reconciling an all loving God with a God who would torment a person forever. However, based on the way we should sort out doctrine (those ideas I presented previously) the beliefs one holds about hell are not a dogma, and therefore do not affect salvation. One could argue that one’s beliefs about hell could/does affect one’s soteriology (doctrines of salvation), but if one’s view of biblical salvation doesn’t extend outside of being saved from hell, then more study is needed by that person.

                  This either ignores or discounts the possibility that human existence in the next life is outside of time. If humankind exists with God in Heaven or in Hell outside of time, then there is no “enduring” punishment. If time does not exist in Paradise, then there is literally no time to repent and change course. Like the angels, a person after death is fixed. The dead are literally out of time. Here is a circular argument. A circular argument is an argument that commits the logical fallacy of assuming what it is attempting to prove. Here Reynolds assumes that eternity exists outside of time, because it suits his (weak) argument, and that he knows the condition of the people there. Based on some scripture (1 Peter 3:18-20), we know that Christ went to hell and at the very least preached to some “spirits” who had waited patiently since the times of Noah. Using Reynolds assumption that eternity is outside of time (which I don’t suggest, by the way) couldn’t we assume that those who died outside of Christ last year were already in hell when Christ went there to preach?

                  If the new heaven and new earth are inside of time, Bell ignores our experience of sin or any bad choices. We are most free at the moment we choose to love something we should not, but as we continue in that path we often become more addicted to our choice. Hatred grows and consumes until no will is left. Huh??

                  Turning away from bigotry and hatred requires intellect, but hatred and bigotry consume the intellect. God Himself cannot unmake time and if a man destroys his will and his intellect, then repentance is no longer possible. There is nothing left of the man who will not give up his petty loves or has turned his hatreds into himself. This is weird. But, at the very least one can safely say that a man can’t destroy his own soul, only God can do that. (Mt 10:28)

                  Sin can be so rooted in a man that it becomes the man. Wow. Opinion. Or something, I'm not sure

                  Bell assumes that “death” is merely a stage of human existence and does not mark an ontological change. The very substance of a person changes at death, if for no reason than he exists for a moment bodiless. This marked difference ends a phase of our existence, but Bell does not respect that division. More opinion.

                  He demands that the afterlife look a great deal like this life, though without the nasty bits, but the life of the world to come is almost nothing like this life. This life, marred as it is by our failure to love, is only a dim shadow of the world to come. If we are not changed in this life, the very pleasures of Heaven will be greater pain than the fires of Hell. Hmmm.

                  Bell claims he is saying nothing new and this is true. He has taken the road of so many who will not love the “other” enough to hear “no.” He demands that everyone think, in the end, as he thinks. He demands his god wins, but his god is a tyrant and not the Lover of Sacred Scripture. If Bell is right, love hasn’t won… a nagging, harassing, hectoring god has. If nothing else, Reynolds is the one who demands everyone thinks as he thinks.

                  ~Shahan

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    3rd reply

                    Please know that I'm not advocating for Bell in this post. I simply wanted to challenge your belief about this article, which you stated this way "Someone found this most excellent and theologically sound article about his new book." I find this article anything but excellent and theologically sound. Too much of this kind of crap is floating around the internet, and people are being seduced into believing that it has good content when it doesn't, but people think it does because the guy knows enough theological terms to throw around and make himself look legit. It makes me quite mad, actually.

                    ~Shahan

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Moosicman View Post
                      Wow. I'm gonna have to ask if you mind backing up your opinion with a few details supporting why you say what you say. While I think there could be facts to back up the idea that he is most definitely refuting and offering a warning against Bell's unsound, unscriptural theology (and you are from that perspective using the word "unbiased" in your post about your professor), I'm having a more difficult time of your characterization of John Mark Reynolds as unintelligent or talking in circles and not saying much. I don't know him from Adam's house cat but feel I need to ask you to support your opinion with a few examples, as I feel the author has made a most excellent statement against Bell (better than most who seem to merely make him out to be the bogey man) and I can't see any circularity in his article whatsoever.

                      Last thing, can you give us your professor's name and such? I'm looking on the youtube link you've posted but can't find it and after watching it, I may want to share it. I'd like to know who I'm sharing. Thanks for your input!
                      Alright sir, I've answered your request. Would you possibly return the favor and tell me which theological statements made by Rob Bell are "unsound" and "unscriptural?"

                      Thanks!

                      ~Shahan

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I am in the process of constructing a response to your critiques. It is presently three pages long and I am not finished. It is not my wish to stoop to the level of internet message board zinging or bickering, therefore I will be PM'ing you the final product. If you wish, we can carry on between ourselves in the knowledge that it isn't a peeing contest of theological wits for the public or our pride. Seminary students such as we are apt to bore others to death. I would imagine the average board member would cringe at the sight of such lengthy posts as may be possible. But you should also know that I have far more significant matters in life to deal with (as I'm certain you do too) and at the end of the day our banter is mere rubbish and will for all practical purposes count for next to nothing. This is not my upmost priority is what I'm getting at and I would hope that it isn't yours. Otherwise, we are in need of social media addiction counseling.

                        I'll be in touch.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          BTW, I dig your guitar link!

                          YouTube - White Lion - "Wait"

                          YouTube - Stryper's "Reach Out"

                          Happy strummin'!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Moosicman View Post
                            I am in the process of constructing a response to your critiques. It is presently three pages long and I am not finished. It is not my wish to stoop to the level of internet message board zinging or bickering, therefore I will be PM'ing you the final product. If you wish, we can carry on between ourselves in the knowledge that it isn't a peeing contest of theological wits for the public or our pride. Seminary students such as we are apt to bore others to death. I would imagine the average board member would cringe at the sight of such lengthy posts as may be possible. But you should also know that I have far more significant matters in life to deal with (as I'm certain you do too) and at the end of the day our banter is mere rubbish and will for all practical purposes count for next to nothing. This is not my upmost priority is what I'm getting at and I would hope that it isn't yours. Otherwise, we are in need of social media addiction counseling.

                            I'll be in touch.
                            Sounds good


                            Originally posted by Moosicman View Post
                            BTW, I dig your guitar link!

                            YouTube - White Lion - "Wait"

                            YouTube - Stryper's "Reach Out"

                            Happy strummin'!
                            Thanks!!!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Moosicman View Post
                              BTW, I dig your guitar link!

                              YouTube - White Lion - "Wait"

                              YouTube - Stryper's "Reach Out"

                              Happy strummin'!
                              That you playing the guitar??
                              That's sweet!!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X