What's the deal with Rob Bell

Status
Not open for further replies.

simonthezealot

have you not read,what God has spoken unto you?
Apr 17, 2006
16,461
1,919
Minnesota
✟19,953.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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?
NOPE.
 
Upvote 0

JediMobius

The Guy with the Face
Jan 12, 2006
1,592
112
39
Beer City, Michigan
✟10,618.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Let me ask you this, do you agree that Rob Bell is questioning the importance of the Virgin Birth of Christ?

Is it important that he was born of the virgin Mary, or that Christ was begotten of God, made flesh, lived a blameless life, died and was buried, and was risen?

The hypothetical question Bell poses is about how scripture is interpreted in the face of reality. If one believes the bible says A, but it turns out in reality that B is actually true while A is not, Bell notes that B may have always been what the scripture said even though A was interpreted for so long.

That's not heresy, that's faith that scripture contains the truth, even if we misread some of the details. That's questioning the status quo, testing what is built on the foundation to see if it still stands.
 
Upvote 0

simonthezealot

have you not read,what God has spoken unto you?
Apr 17, 2006
16,461
1,919
Minnesota
✟19,953.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The hypothetical question Bell poses is about how scripture is interpreted in the face of reality. If one believes the bible says A, but it turns out in reality that B is actually true while A is not, Bell notes that B may have always been what the scripture said even though A was interpreted for so long.

That's not heresy, that's faith that scripture contains the truth, even if we misread some of the details.
It's called scripture twisting...

or if they're a band "Twisted Scripture"
musik01.gif
 
Upvote 0
D

dies-l

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

I appreciate that. It is always preferable to see the quote within its full context, but in this case, quoting the entire chapter (as would be ideal) would be more than most people would be willing to read and would likely border on plagarism.

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.

He's hinting at it in the same way that he is hinting at the relative unimportance of anyone's favorite pet doctrine. Clearly, however, he is not denying the virgin birth, nor is denying any other doctrine of the Church. Rather, he is encouraging us to consider the importance of individual doctrines in light of who Christ is and what He has done.

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!

I have read the entire book and the chapter from which the quote is taken. It seems rather clear to me. I am not sure what your Scripture citation has to do with the topic however. :confused:


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.

God placed them in His word because they are true. Bell is not minimizing the Truth of them. He is, however, suggesting that our faith not depend upon our pet doctrines but on who Christ is and what He has done.


How'd you derive all this out of that?

Like I said. I have read the book and the chapter from which you are quoting. I don't have a copy of it handy to quote directly from the chapter, but from what I remember of the book, taken in context, the meaning of the passage is rather clear. If you want to PM me the entire chapter, I would be happy to discuss in greater detail.


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..

If that is the case, then my experience is different from yours. Perhaps, this is part of the reason we relate to Bell differently. In my life, Jesus acted, I came to believe, and then I accepted what the Bible taught about Him. My initial experience with the Gospel was in that order. Certainly, I knew of what the Bible taught before this time. But, I did not come to believe because of something that I had read. I believed what I read because I believed in what Jesus had done in my life. And, so in my faith today, the priority does not lie in doctrines such as the virgin birth and the resurrection (although I believe in these things, because I believe God). Rather the priority wrests in my faith in Christ, which was cemented by what He has done, and which is not based on the historicity or literalism of any particular core doctrines of the Christian faith.

I despise guys like bell who undermine God's revealed word.

You have yet to show that he has done so. In fact, I think this discussion has shown the intense respect that he has for Scripture in his teaching and in his general hermaneutic approach.
 
Upvote 0
D

dies-l

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

Bell is recognizing that genuine faith is more important than intellectual assent to any particular pet doctrine, and he is using a very important core doctrine to illustrate this point. The very fact that he chooses the virgin birth to make this point suggests to me that he is absolutely recognizing, rather than questioning, the importance of the Virgin Birth as a core tenet of Christianity.
 
Upvote 0

BigChrisfilm

Contributor
Feb 17, 2006
6,555
130
Portsmouth Ohio
Visit site
✟15,453.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
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 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.



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.

I think we should also be careful that we don't just always take someone's word for it that they are a Christian. While it's not up to us to judge who is or isn't we can judge teachings in the light of scripture. Let's just say if it isn't Biblical, it isn't Christian.
 
Upvote 0

BigChrisfilm

Contributor
Feb 17, 2006
6,555
130
Portsmouth Ohio
Visit site
✟15,453.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Is it important that he was born of the virgin Mary, or that Christ was begotten of God, made flesh, lived a blameless life, died and was buried, and was risen?

The hypothetical question Bell poses is about how scripture is interpreted in the face of reality. If one believes the bible says A, but it turns out in reality that B is actually true while A is not, Bell notes that B may have always been what the scripture said even though A was interpreted for so long.

That's not heresy, that's faith that scripture contains the truth, even if we misread some of the details. That's questioning the status quo, testing what is built on the foundation to see if it still stands.

There are some things that are without question when it comes to the Bible. The Virgin Birth of Christ is essential doctrine. To answer you question, yes, everything you mentioned is important. I don't need Rob Bell to question the Bible. If he wants to do that, he's the one that will have to answer for it not me. However, again, questioning of the Virgin Birth of Christ shows a low view of scripture, and my heresy alarm starts tingling when I hear someone question the essential doctrines of the faith. Let's not forget

Genesis 3:1
1Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?


They kinda found out the hard way that actually, YEA, he HATH said.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BigChrisfilm

Contributor
Feb 17, 2006
6,555
130
Portsmouth Ohio
Visit site
✟15,453.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Bell is recognizing that genuine faith is more important than intellectual assent to any particular pet doctrine, and he is using a very important core doctrine to illustrate this point. The very fact that he chooses the virgin birth to make this point suggests to me that he is absolutely recognizing, rather than questioning, the importance of the Virgin Birth as a core tenet of Christianity.

I think he is recognizing the importance of the Virgin Birth of Christ in the same way a heavyweight contender recognizes the champ before the big fight. He knows it's important, could that be why he went after it? Is that something we should be complementing him on?
 
Upvote 0
D

dies-l

Guest
I like to call it heresy. You say Tomatoe, I say Tomatoe...

And, I say tomato. Anyway, heresy is nice word that is often used to describe any spiritual or religious thought that is disagreeable to the speaker, whether or not the thought actually runs contrary to any established Truth. The biggest example of this is that any strain of Protestant Christianity is regarded as heresy by the Roman Catholic Church. OTOH, Roman Catholicism is regarded as heresy by many Protestants.

In reality, the importance of the label of heresy is limited by the respect that any given hearer has for the hermaneutic of the speaker and his or her ability to differentiate Truth from genuine heresy. IMHO, considering its relative lack of value as an assessment of a given statement, it is a word that is used far too often on these forums, and its use generally undermines the validity of anything the user of the term has to say on the topic in question.

IOW, the overuse of such labels serves little purpose other than to bring an end to meaningful discussion by seeking to stigmatize, often without merit, anyone who disagrees with the speaker.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JediMobius
Upvote 0
D

dies-l

Guest
I think he is recognizing the importance of the Virgin Birth of Christ in the same way a heavyweight contender recognizes the champ before the big fight. He knows it's important, could that be why he went after it? Is that something we should be complementing him on?

I don't believe he is attacking anything. However, you are entitled your opinion to the contrary however much I may disagree with it. I do appreciate the opportunity to hear, plainly stated, what some of the objections to Bell's theology are. Nonetheless, I disagree with those objections I have heard thus far. As you stated, we are to judge teachings according to Scripture, and I see nothing in Scripture to support the objections that have been raised.

I do thank you for explaining your opinions on Bell's theology. I recognize that I am unlikely to change your opinion on the topic and that you are unlikely to change mine. So it goes.
 
Upvote 0

BigChrisfilm

Contributor
Feb 17, 2006
6,555
130
Portsmouth Ohio
Visit site
✟15,453.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
And, I say tomato. Anyway, heresy is nice word that is often used to describe any spiritual or religious thought that is disagreeable to the speaker, whether or not the thought actually runs contrary to any established Truth. The biggest example of this is that any strain of Protestant Christianity is regarded as heresy by the Roman Catholic Church. OTOH, Roman Catholicism is regarded as heresy by many Protestants.

In reality, the importance of the label of heresy is limited by the respect that any given hearer has for the hermaneutic of the speaker and his or her ability to differentiate Truth from genuine heresy. IMHO, considering its relative lack of value as an assessment of a given statement, it is a word that is used far too often on these forums, and its use generally undermines the validity of anything the user of the term has to say on the topic in question.

IOW, the overuse of such labels serves little purpose other than to bring an end to meaningful discussion by seeking to stigmatize, often without merit, anyone who disagrees with the speaker.

I could probably agree with most of that. However there are certain times with the word Heretic/heresy should be used. I don't use it a lot, but I reserve it for those that are questioning/denying essential Christian doctrine. I think that's pretty fair.
 
Upvote 0

b.hopeful

Sharp as a razor, soft as a prayer
Jul 17, 2009
2,057
303
St.Louis metropolitan area
✟11,162.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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.


Well said!

About celebpreachers....how much of it is a person utilizing modern methods and appealing to the masses in a modern world?

I too am not comfortable with it. I've recently cut them some slack though. I wonder if it's not just an excellent tool for our time. I'm trying to be open to the idea...but it still rubs me the wrong way.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BigChrisfilm

Contributor
Feb 17, 2006
6,555
130
Portsmouth Ohio
Visit site
✟15,453.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I don't believe he is attacking anything. However, you are entitled your opinion to the contrary however much I may disagree with it. I do appreciate the opportunity to hear, plainly stated, what some of the objections to Bell's theology are. Nonetheless, I disagree with those objections I have heard thus far. As you stated, we are to judge teachings according to Scripture, and I see nothing in Scripture to support the objections that have been raised.

I do thank you for explaining your opinions on Bell's theology. I recognize that I am unlikely to change your opinion on the topic and that you are unlikely to change mine. So it goes.

Actually, I have changed my mind on many subjects in the past. I've been wrong about certain preachers, in fact people that I used to love to listen to I no longer listen to. As Christians we are weigh these things with scripture. I'm not so dedicated to a man that if I find his teaching heretical I refuse to accept that fact. We are called to test all teachings, as well as ourselves to see if we are in the faith. I will agree Rob Bell is a hard on to put a finger on. I think that's why he is so dangerous.
 
Upvote 0

BigChrisfilm

Contributor
Feb 17, 2006
6,555
130
Portsmouth Ohio
Visit site
✟15,453.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Well said!

About celebpreachers....how much of it is a person utilizing modern methods and appealing to the masses in a modern world?

I too am not comfortable with it. I've recently cut them some slack though. I wonder if it's not just an excellent tool for our time. I'm trying to be open to the idea...but it still rubs me the wrong way.

I don't care what he does in church, IE bringing in candles and videos and all that stuff. Sitting in a circle, sitting on couches, whatever. It's the teachings that concern me. The low view of scripture that concerns me. The bringing in of other religious practices that concerns me. Rob Bell hasn't done anything where he's come right out and said LOOK AT ME, I'M TEACHING HERESY. I ask you a question though, if Satan were to live on this earth as a man, would he do that? Would he come right out and say it? I don't think so. This kinda teaching is MUCH more dangerous in my opinion. I'm afraid people are getting fooled into being sucked into this one.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.