What's the deal with Rob Bell

[PujolsNonRoidHomerHitter]

Again...His low view of scripture should be a warning to ANYONE interested in his teaching.

alarmist!

go cards

 

[brinny]

Again...His low view of scripture should be a warning to ANYONE interested in his teaching.

explain.

 

[simonthezealot]

explain.

He considers scripture to be a "humsn product" not a "divine fiat"
Also declared that the virgin birth is an unnecessary doctrine.

 

[simonthezealot]

alarmist!

go cards

Thats me!

 

[dies-l]

I appreciate this thread. I have been criticized numerous times for daring to place a Rob Bell quote in my signature line. Nonetheless, no one has bothered to explain to me what exactly offends them about Rob Bell. This thread has helped me to see what the major objections are and has convinced me that I do not agree with them.

It seems that the divide comes down to this: Is it a low opinion of Scripture to suggest that it often requires us to wrestle with it to understand what God is teaching us through it? Some seem to argue in the affirmative, that if one values Scripure, he or she will see it as easily accessible and directly applicable to our lives with little or no effort on our part. I would argue, however, that this position reflects the lowest possible opinion of Scripture, that is that it is not even worth wrestling with. I will note that Paul Washer, who is quite well-regarded by many in that part of the Conservative community that is hostile to Rob Bell, has said virtually the same thing in regard to Scripture. I recommend the message "The Only Begotten Son" by Paul Washer, which is available free on itunes. The fact that a very conservative preacher like Washer says virtually the same thing that Rob Bell is being criticised for among many Conservatives suggests to me that perhaps the criticism is the fruit of a sort of heresy witch hunt than it is the result of actual heresy. Just a thought.

There is at least one thing about Rob Bell that bugs me, which is this: He seems to be a part of the celebrity pastor trend that is becoming so common lately. Whenever we begin to view our pastors as celebrities, whether it is Bell, Graham, Osteen, Washer, Piper, or whomever, we begin to place personalities above the Gospel, which is always a dangerous thing. The idea of celebrity in the Church always serves to undermine the Gospel.

 

[dies-l]

Also declared that the virgin birth is an unnecessary doctrine.

Just a suggestion: include the actual quote instead of your interpretation thereof. I am fairly certain that I know of the quote you are referring to, and I think that your interpretation of it is perhaps less than completely honest. Unfortunately, I do not own a copy of Velvet Elvis to be able to quote it directly.

 

[brinny]

He considers scripture to be a "humsn product" not a "divine fiat"
Also declared that the virgin birth is an unnecessary doctrine.

where does he say that?

 

[Celticflower]

There is at least one thing about Rob Bell that bugs me, which is this: He seems to be a part of the celebrity pastor trend that is becoming so common lately. Whenever we begin to view our pastors as celebrities, whether it is Bell, Graham, Osteen, Washer, Piper, or whomever, we begin to place personalities above the Gospel, which is always a dangerous thing. The idea of celebrity in the Church always serves to undermine the Gospel.

This may be part of the reason I am not real keen on the guy. I have always had a deep mistrust for celebpreachers.

But, I am not going to condemn anyone who finds Bell's message helpful to them. It is just not a path I choose to walk.

 

[PujolsNonRoidHomerHitter]

I appreciate this thread. I have been criticized numerous times for daring to place a Rob Bell quote in my signature line. Nonetheless, no one has bothered to explain to me what exactly offends them about Rob Bell. This thread has helped me to see what the major objections are and has convinced me that I do not agree with them.

It seems that the divide comes down to this: Is it a low opinion of Scripture to suggest that it often requires us to wrestle with it to understand what God is teaching us through it? Some seem to argue in the affirmative, that if one values Scripure, he or she will see it as easily accessible and directly applicable to our lives with little or no effort on our part. I would argue, however, that this position reflects the lowest possible opinion of Scripture, that is that it is not even worth wrestling with. I will note that Paul Washer, who is quite well-regarded by many in that part of the Conservative community that is hostile to Rob Bell, has said virtually the same thing in regard to Scripture. I recommend the message "The Only Begotten Son" by Paul Washer, which is available free on itunes. The fact that a very conservative preacher like Washer says virtually the same thing that Rob Bell is being criticised for among many Conservatives suggests to me that perhaps the criticism is the fruit of a sort of heresy witch hunt than it is the result of actual heresy. Just a thought.

There is at least one thing about Rob Bell that bugs me, which is this: He seems to be a part of the celebrity pastor trend that is becoming so common lately. Whenever we begin to view our pastors as celebrities, whether it is Bell, Graham, Osteen, Washer, Piper, or whomever, we begin to place personalities above the Gospel, which is always a dangerous thing. The idea of celebrity in the Church always serves to undermine the Gospel.

very good post

go cards

 

[simonthezealot]

where does he say that?

On his low view of scripture ---Christianity today, and also quoted by his friend Brian Mclaren...I've linked both earlier on this thread.

I'll get the link or page number from the velvet elvis where he denies the necessity of the virgin birth.

 

[simonthezealot]

Let me ask bell advocates a question,

Do you believe that inspired, authoritative revelation was given
once for all and is contained in the Scriptures?
Or that it is an ongoing process?​

 

[simonthezealot]

Not sure how anyone can say his teachings are not casting aspersion on God's word.

"From Velvet Elvis"
“What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archeologists find Larry’s tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of the Mithra and Dionysian religious cults that were hugely popular at the time of Jesus, whose gods had virgin births? But what if, as you study the origin of the word ‘virgin’ you discover that the word ‘virgin’ in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew language at that time, the word ‘virgin’ could mean several things. And what if you discover that in the first century being ‘born of a virgin’ also referred to a child whose mother became pregnant the first time she had intercourse? What if that spring were seriously questioned? Could a person keep on jumping? Could a person still love God? Could you still be a Christian? Is the way of Jesus still the best possible way to live? Or does the whole thing fall apart?…If the whole faith falls apart when we reexamine and rethink one spring, then it wasn’t that strong in the first place, was it?”

 

[dies-l]

Let me ask bell advocates a question,

Do you believe that inspired, authoritative revelation was given​

once for all and is contained in the Scriptures?
Or that it is an ongoing process?​

Yes, on both counts. Just like I believe that God is one, yet He is three Persons. Inspired authoritative revelation was given once and for all and is contained in the Scriptures. God continues to give inspired, authoritative revelation through the Scriptures as His people read and wrestle with them. The two ideas are no more mutually exclusive than the oneness of God is with the Trinity.

Not sure how anyone can say his teachings are not casting aspersion on God's word.

"From Velvet Elvis"
“What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archeologists find Larry’s tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of the Mithra and Dionysian religious cults that were hugely popular at the time of Jesus, whose gods had virgin births? But what if, as you study the origin of the word ‘virgin’ you discover that the word ‘virgin’ in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew language at that time, the word ‘virgin’ could mean several things. And what if you discover that in the first century being ‘born of a virgin’ also referred to a child whose mother became pregnant the first time she had intercourse? What if that spring were seriously questioned? Could a person keep on jumping? Could a person still love God? Could you still be a Christian? Is the way of Jesus still the best possible way to live? Or does the whole thing fall apart?…If the whole faith falls apart when we reexamine and rethink one spring, then it wasn’t that strong in the first place, was it?”

Thanks for quoting. This way, at least, people can make up their own mind about what is being said here. Frankly, I don't see how this undermines Scripture or historical Christianity at all. If anything, it only suggests that genuine Christianity does not hinge upon the historicity of any particular interpretation of any given passage of Scripture. Note, here, that he is not questioning the virgin birth. Rather, He is stating only that the power of the Gospel transcends the power of any particular belief, doctrine, or interpretation, even one so seemingly essential as the virgin birth. IOW, those of us who have had a meaningful encounter with Jesus Christ do not accept Christ's authority because we believe he was born of a virgin or that He rose from the dead. Rather, we are able to believe that He was born of a virgin and that He rose from the dead, because we accept His authority and we believe He is who He claims to be.

Ultimately, we need to ask ourselves, do we believe in God because we believe the Bible? Or, do we believe (and, in fact wrestle with) the Bible, because we believe in God, as revealed in the person of Jesus Christ?

 

[simonthezealot]

Yes, on both counts. Just like I believe that God is one, yet He is three Persons. Inspired authoritative revelation was given once and for all and is contained in the Scriptures. God continues to give inspired, authoritative revelation through the Scriptures as His people read and wrestle with them. The two ideas are no more mutually exclusive than the oneness of God is with the Trinity.

Jude 3
3(A)Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our (B)common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you (C)contend earnestly for (D)the faith which was once for all (E)handed down to (F)the saints.

"once for all" hapax- delivered ONE time... the faith... to the saints.

 

[dies-l]

Jude 3
3(A)Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our (B)common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you (C)contend earnestly for (D)the faith which was once for all (E)handed down to (F)the saints.

"once for all" hapax- delivered ONE time... the faith... to the saints.

Read that passage together with Hebrews 4:12

"For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart."

and together, they very nicely support what I said earlier.

What you have presented as an either/or proposition is perhaps better views as a both/and proposition. If it were an either/or case, as you seem to suggest, Jude 3 would be a poor support for the argument that you are trying to make.

First, you are confusing the word "faith" with "revelation." Jude says that the faith has been handed down to the saints once and for all. Certainly, the salvation that comes from following Jesus and the core of what it means to do so, rely entirely on the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Yet God continues to reveal through the Scripture and through the Holy Spirit how we are to do this in our lives today. Thus, faith is handed down, once and for all, yet God continues to reveal His word to us through the Scriptures and our interactions with them.

Secondly, your interpretation of the passage ignores the use of the past tense. Jude says that the faith was handed down (past tense). Thus, at the time of writing, this act was already completed. If the passage were intended to proclaim the finality that you seem to suggest that it does, then the Jude's letter would necessarily come after the revelation had already occurred and could therefore not belong to Scripture itself. Likewise, any book that was written after Jude would not be able to be regarded as Scripture by this interpretation. Therefore, if we are to accept as biblical, Jude and any books written thereafter, we cannot accept the interpretation of Jude that seems to be suggested here.

 

[BigChrisfilm]

Not sure how anyone can say his teachings are not casting aspersion on God's word.

"From Velvet Elvis"
“What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archeologists find Larry’s tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of the Mithra and Dionysian religious cults that were hugely popular at the time of Jesus, whose gods had virgin births? But what if, as you study the origin of the word ‘virgin’ you discover that the word ‘virgin’ in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew language at that time, the word ‘virgin’ could mean several things. And what if you discover that in the first century being ‘born of a virgin’ also referred to a child whose mother became pregnant the first time she had intercourse? What if that spring were seriously questioned? Could a person keep on jumping? Could a person still love God? Could you still be a Christian? Is the way of Jesus still the best possible way to live? Or does the whole thing fall apart?…If the whole faith falls apart when we reexamine and rethink one spring, then it wasn’t that strong in the first place, was it?”

If someone came up to me on the street and asked me that question my answer would be "I'd call you a heretic, sir". Should it be any different with Rob Bell?

 

[simonthezealot]

Thanks for quoting.

No problem, i try to make a habit of doing fullest context.

This way, at least, people can make up their own mind about what is being said here.

Good point, and we'll see if in defense of him a great number reach to far and add to what he's said here to make him not seem dismissive on the authority of scripture.

Frankly, I don't see how this undermines Scripture or historical Christianity at all.

He's hinting at the unimportance of the virgin birth...That itself is an attack on both the authenticity of scripture and on the deity of Christ.

If anything, it only suggests that genuine Christianity does not hinge upon the historicity of any particular interpretation of any given passage of Scripture.

How do you derive this from that...
we know that...Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God... So apparently we are able to interpret simply enough the written word.
Paul writes, "If any man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual,let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord" (1 Cor 14:37)
Pretty simple really!

Note, here, that he is not questioning the virgin birth.

He is questioning the importance of such doctrines..God placed them in his word for a purpose..To attest to scripture and proof of divinity...Any, any undermining sets out to minimalise scripture and our LORDS divinity.

Rather, He is stating only that the power of the Gospel transcends the power of any particular belief, doctrine, or interpretation, even one so seemingly essential as the virgin birth. IOW, those of us who have had a meaningful encounter with Jesus Christ do not accept Christ's authority because we believe he was born of a virgin or that He rose from the dead. Rather, we are able to believe that He was born of a virgin and that He rose from the dead, because we accept His authority and we believe He is who He claims to be.

How'd you derive all this out of that?

Ultimately, we need to ask ourselves, do we believe in God because we believe the Bible? Or, do we believe (and, in fact wrestle with) the Bible, because we believe in God, as revealed in the person of Jesus Christ?

Both, before i was born again i mentally assented to Gods existence and accepted His truth as REVEALED in His word, but knew Him not. When i delved in to seek Him from scripture i was given the gift of faith..
I despise guys like bell who undermine God's revealed word.

 

[BigChrisfilm]

Yes, on both counts. Just like I believe that God is one, yet He is three Persons. Inspired authoritative revelation was given once and for all and is contained in the Scriptures. God continues to give inspired, authoritative revelation through the Scriptures as His people read and wrestle with them. The two ideas are no more mutually exclusive than the oneness of God is with the Trinity.



Thanks for quoting. This way, at least, people can make up their own mind about what is being said here. Frankly, I don't see how this undermines Scripture or historical Christianity at all. If anything, it only suggests that genuine Christianity does not hinge upon the historicity of any particular interpretation of any given passage of Scripture. Note, here, that he is not questioning the virgin birth. Rather, He is stating only that the power of the Gospel transcends the power of any particular belief, doctrine, or interpretation, even one so seemingly essential as the virgin birth. IOW, those of us who have had a meaningful encounter with Jesus Christ do not accept Christ's authority because we believe he was born of a virgin or that He rose from the dead. Rather, we are able to believe that He was born of a virgin and that He rose from the dead, because we accept His authority and we believe He is who He claims to be.

Ultimately, we need to ask ourselves, do we believe in God because we believe the Bible? Or, do we believe (and, in fact wrestle with) the Bible, because we believe in God, as revealed in the person of Jesus Christ?

Let me ask you this, do you agree that Rob Bell is questioning the importance of the Virgin Birth of Christ?

 

[simonthezealot]

The reason Bell downplays so many doctrines is that he is a "here and know" heaven on earth promoter, the eternal afterlife is of little importance...he's a picture of everything wrong with the emerging social gospel folk.

 

[JediMobius]

I enjoy Rob Bell's NOOMA videos, and have found a lot of food for thought in them. However, the Mars Hill church is not for me. I think the Mars Hill church (and whatever other churches Bell has planted) serve to draw a group of people who might otherwise not even go to church to learn the good news. Although when I was there I sensed the congregation was mostly made of observers and not doers, God was there to draw someone to himself. Reading these past few pages, I think we need to remember that part of the body of Christ may have a purpose or appearance that seems foreign to us, but looking at the fruits, we can see that it's part of the body nonetheless.

I only know of Bell from a couple of the NOOMA videos my husband made me watch. My problem with those is that there always seems to be something in the background that is a major distraction and disconnect from what he is saying. In one he is talking about doing not just observing - then turns and looks out the window at his neighbor across the street shoveling a driveway. But he never makes a move to help her and when he finally does get out of his cozy little room and goes to get the paper (or whatever) he barely acknowledges the woman, who it turns out, was shoveling her next door neighbor's drive.

My husband thinks the guy is great. I rate him a major

I haven't seen this particular NOOMA, but I see how it could be beneficial for certain people. So the woman was illustrating the part about doing and not just observing, while Bell was illustrating just observing. It seems that Bell opted not to be the good example, but the poor example who. Further, Bell eventually when from observing to action, but was that small action an inspired first step, or deceiving himself (as the character) that he was doing and not just observing? I think it's more fitting that Bell would play the weak character and not the strong one, because anyone viewing the video who was an observer and not a doer, would be starting from the same point as the narrator. Is this the best way for everyone? No, but for many it is.

Let me ask bell advocates a question,

Do you believe that inspired, authoritative revelation was given
once for all and is contained in the Scriptures?
Or that it is an ongoing process?​

I don't think it's accurate to say inspired, authoritative revelation was given once for all because the Holy Spirit grants us authority in interpreting the word of God, and sometimes revelation - which brings deeper understanding than words may even be able to convey.