Rob Bell...whoa??

[Leah]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODUvw2McL8g

Pay close attention to what he (Mr. Bell) says when he talks about who God is and what Jesus' death means to him (rather than what the BIBLE says the gospel is). That's some scary....and absolutely HERETICAL stuff he's saying!

Overall, what Rob Bell preaches sounds very much like universalism to me.

 

[Howard Cneal]

What would (modern day) Christianity be without hell...?

I'd better grab my pitchfork and torches, there's a heretic in these here parts!!

In all seriousness, he is preaching against penal substitution, it sounds like to me, and that is A-OK in my book. I wasn't aware a belief in a violent, angry God (as the True God) was a requirement to be a "Christian."

No. The truth is, he is right - most intelligent, balanced, well-rounded people don't want anything to do with the Christian faith because it has a distorted view of the nature and character of God. This is reality.

Believe me, if I had a message given to me the way a typical calvinist or fundamentalist views God, I don't think I would ever have became a Christian! :o

lol Honestly, if what he said was "heretical" (which is a pointless religious word people use to mudsling their opponents) then I'd hate to see what people would have to say about what I preach! Yeesh.

 

[Faulty]

I saw this and the editors commentary on his book a few days ago. I've suspected he was a universalist since he added Shane Hipps as his second in command a while back, who is a flaming universalist.

It's not really a shock, but more of a confirmation.

 

[JimB]

I just heard about this today and it does come as a bit of a surprise to me but then you might be surprised at who is a Universalist. In American history John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Millard Fillmore, and William Howard Taft were all Universalists, some of them Unitarian Universalists who denied the Trinity (and would have been barred from membership in this forum and probably your church), yet they are all revered in America as among our great “Christian” Forefathers who were supposed to have founded a Christian nation. Add to the mix Clara Barton, Louisa Mae Alcott, Alexander Graham Bell, William Cullen Bryant, Charles Dickens, Dorthea Dix, and Florence Nightingale and it seems a bit hypocritical to brand Bell a heretic and then enshrines these remarkable leaders.

~Jim

True faith believes in God, not itself.​

 

[Faulty]

Those other people were not teaching such things as scriptural doctrine as a representative, or under-shepherd, of Christ on earth either.

 

[lismore]

Alexander Graham Bell

Hey!

He's a Scotsman and I didnt know he was a Universalist.

 

[lismore]

That's some scary....and absolutely HERETICAL stuff he's saying!

I have heard a few other DVDs by Rob Bell. He comes over as a very outgoing, very charismatic, very extrovert person who doesn't yet have the basics of the Christian faith. He will gather a following of like minded-people round him, people who need their ears tickled and an evening filled.

E.g from that clip it's clear he doesnt know the gospel.

God sent his only begotten son!

 

[Simon_Templar]

I don't know jack about Rob Bell. The turtle-neck, emo glasses, and artsy tone of the video irritated me to no end. Based on that he seems like a poser trying to be uber relavent and edgy. I hate that.

However, to be fair, he did not explicitly teach universalism. Rather, he questioned the common model of what people believe about redemption and condemnation. As I said, I don't know anything about the guy, he may be a universalist and this would certainly fit if he were.

However, there is only one thing I disagreed with in his little slice of relavency... which granted is a key point.

He talked about the idea of Jesus needing to rescue us from God.. clearly implying that this was wrong and a wrong view of God etc.

To a certain extent that is true because of the way he has phrased it. However, his implication in my opinion clearly contradicts the biblical reality that we were under wrath and that Jesus reconciled us to God who were enemies of God, by the propitiation he made through his blood.

There is a general trend that has been around for a hundred years or more to try and escape the true meaning of the word propitiation. They try to redefine it to mean simply 'securing favor'. The original and true meaning of the word is to turn away wrath, and instead secure favor.

What he has done, by his clever phrasing, however is essentially a stealthy strawman. He has misrepresented the true biblical teaching (granted many people may misunderstand it exactly as he misrepresents it) by implying that God the Father is out to get us, but Jesus rescues us from him.

This is entirely different than saying that we were under the just wrath of God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) but that GOD HIMSELF rescued us because despite the fact that we were under wrath, he still loved us.

That is the key right there. He is correct at the end when he says "love wins" even if he miss applies it himself and ends up believing falsehoods.

Love does win... All who are saved are saved by Love, because God acted out of Love, even when we were under wrath. When we were yet sinners Christ died for us.

This is what a lot of people like this guy can't understand. Love and Wrath are not mutually exclusive. Quite the opposite, they are facets on the same gem.

 

[Simon_Templar]

As a side point I also wanted to mention this...

The video starts out talking about the Ghandi thing..

#1 we don't know if Ghandi is in hell or not. God knows.
#2 Even if Ghandi is in hell, that doesn't mean everything he ever said was without merit.

St. Anselem (if memory serves) said something to this effect "Whatever that has been said that is true, came from the Holy Spirit".

If God can speak through a donkey... he can probably speak through Ghandi.

Obviously we shouldn't put trust in people as teachers etc, when they don't believe in the gospel, or the bible etc.. but that doesn't mean that they can't have insights.


Lastly, regarding damnation. I believe that few will be saved because thats what Jesus said. Narrow is the path and few there are who enter by it. However, a wise Catholic Priest once said something to this effect...

we are required to believe in hell and we are required to believe that some might not be saved, but we should hope that all will be.

The point being, God does not guarentee salvation to all, in fact he makes it seem pretty clear that not all will be saved... but yet the bible also tells us that God does not desire the death of the wicked, and he is not willing that any should perrish.

We should have that same heart.

 

[GrowingInGrace]

Pay close attention to what he (Mr. Bell) says when he talks about who God is and what Jesus' death means to him (rather than what the BIBLE says the gospel is). That's some scary....and absolutely HERETICAL stuff he's saying!

Overall, what Rob Bell preaches sounds very much like universalism to me.

No. I've heard atheists say what he said, Bell is using their conclusions about God because of what some Christians say when they emphasize condemnation rather than reconciliation.

In the same way that someone put the little note that said Gandhi is in hell. Gandhi also objected to the condemnatory Christianity.

How is it that after 2,000 we've gotten back to the method of the Pharisees?

When Bell said that Love wins. I believe that he means Christians need to change their evangelistic tactics to what Jesus exemplified. Mercy even to the greatest of sinners.

I don't know about any other Christian but I heard that Jesus loves me., not, God is sending you to hell if you don't accept him.

Unless I've forgotten a pertinent scripture that states otherwise, the wrath of God is only during the great tribulation.

 

[LinkH]

What kind of God do we need to be saved from? What kind of God would be angry at people?

A righteous and holy God, who is rightly angry at the wicked sin of people who DESERVE to be in Hell.

If someone doesn't realize he is a sinner, why does he think he needs to be saved in the first place? Saved from what? Not getting a promotion at work? We are saved from God's wrath, the wrath we deserve because we sinned, through Christ.

Btw, who is Rob Bell and why should we know who he is?

 

[LinkH]

I just heard about this today and it does come as a bit of a surprise to me but then you might be surprised at who is a Universalist. In American history John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Millard Fillmore, and William Howard Taft were all Universalists, some of them Unitarian Universalists who denied the Trinity (and would have been barred from membership in this forum and probably your church), yet they are all revered in America as among our great “Christian” Forefathers who were supposed to have founded a Christian nation. Add to the mix Clara Barton, Louisa Mae Alcott, Alexander Graham Bell, William Cullen Bryant, Charles Dickens, Dorthea Dix, and Florence Nightingale and it seems a bit hypocritical to brand Bell a heretic and then enshrines these remarkable leaders.

I knew Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson did not adhere to orthodox Christian doctrine, at least not all of their lives. Franklin was born in a Puritan home, and I hear Jefferson flip flopped between Christian and Deist beliefs, making his own New Testament by removing out the parts he did not believe in. I did not know that either of them were a part of a Unitarian organization. I did not know that about the others.

Is it wrong to acknowledge that unbelievers can be strong leaders or brilliant in other ways? If people think all these guys were all Christians, I'd classify that as ignorance rather than hypocrisy.

As far as I know, the framers of the Constitution were either professing Christians or some other version of theist-- like Deists, probably with Christians being the majority.

From studying history, it doesn't sound like Franklin lived a righteous life in many respects from a Christian perspective, but he was skilled as a writer, businessman, investor and scientist. I don't see any problem with appreciating these qualities while realizing he was not a good spiritual role-model. Ghandi had good leadership skills, but it is still wrong to be an idol-worshipper.

 

[Simon_Templar]

I knew Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson did not adhere to orthodox Christian doctrine, at least not all of their lives. Franklin was born in a Puritan home, and I hear Jefferson flip flopped between Christian and Deist beliefs, making his own New Testament by removing out the parts he did not believe in. I did not know that either of them were a part of a Unitarian organization. I did not know that about the others.

Is it wrong to acknowledge that unbelievers can be strong leaders or brilliant in other ways? If people think all these guys were all Christians, I'd classify that as ignorance rather than hypocrisy.

As far as I know, the framers of the Constitution were either professing Christians or some other version of theist-- like Deists, probably with Christians being the majority.

From studying history, it doesn't sound like Franklin lived a righteous life in many respects from a Christian perspective, but he was skilled as a writer, businessman, investor and scientist. I don't see any problem with appreciating these qualities while realizing he was not a good spiritual role-model. Ghandi had good leadership skills, but it is still wrong to be an idol-worshipper.

Franklin never professed to be a Christian to my knowledge. He admired the Quakers and he did believe in God in some sense. He did also acknowledge the necessity of Christianity to free society.

Jefferson remained a member of the Episcopal Church, which was trinitarian and non-universalist, his entire life. However, through out his life he persued developing his own religious beliefs and thoughts. He is often called a deist, but I don't think that label is entirely accurate. What he seems to have actually believed would be something more like a hybrid of Christianity and deism.

John Adams has some quotes which do suggest that he was a universalist. However, on the whole most of what he said and wrote paints a much more orthodox picture than either Jefferson or Franklin. Same is true of John Quincy Adams. I've never actually heard that he was a deist before and usually I've seen him regarded as a pretty orthodox Christian.

However, during that time, unitarian universalism was very much on the rise. In fact many of the New England congregationalist churches descended from the puritans were either in part, or wholely taken over by unitarian doctrine.

By the mid 1800s Unitarianism was very widespread.

 

[GrowingInGrace]

We don't need to be saved. We need to receive the salvation that God provided through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.

All God's wrath was upon Jesus, all of the curse, all our collective sins and it's wages.

All that is left is God's love. Because all of us are sinners, what we deserve is what God did in Christ. In that God showed his love unto all of us who don't deserve it. Because Jesus didn't deserve that punishment but he did so for our sake.

Most everyone already knows that they are a sinner because Christians tell them that they are. Do you think that when Jesus went among the sinners that he told them that they were sinners?

Did he tell the woman caught in adultery that she deserved stoning? No, he said neither do I condemn you, now go and sin no more.

How are we going to effectively present the gospel to a sinner that we assume doesn't deserve it because we think they need to know that they have incurred God's wrath? How are we supposed to fulfill the greatest commandment to love our neighbor as ourself if we are condemning them?

Where is the good news in that?

 

[LinkH]

Do you think that when Jesus went among the sinners that he told them that they were sinners?

Did he tell the woman caught in adultery that she deserved stoning? No, he said neither do I condemn you, now go and sin no more.

Saying "Go and sin no more" indicates that the person one is talking to is a sinner.

 

[GrowingInGrace]

Saying "Go and sin no more" indicates that the person one is talking to is a sinner.

Definately so that the text shows her to have been practicing sin. No argument there.

However, he did not say, you are condemned because you sin.

He did not give her what she deserved. He gave her mercy, what she did not deserve.

 

[JimB]

Those other people were not teaching such things as scriptural doctrine as a representative, or under-shepherd, of Christ on earth either.

Does that matter? IMO, we are all representatives of Jesus Christ, not just the paid “clergy.”

~Jim

 

[Simon_Templar]

We don't need to be saved. We need to receive the salvation that God provided through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.

All God's wrath was upon Jesus, all of the curse, all our collective sins and it's wages.

All that is left is God's love. Because all of us are sinners, what we deserve is what God did in Christ. In that God showed his love unto all of us who don't deserve it. Because Jesus didn't deserve that punishment but he did so for our sake.

Most everyone already knows that they are a sinner because Christians tell them that they are. Do you think that when Jesus went among the sinners that he told them that they were sinners?

Did he tell the woman caught in adultery that she deserved stoning? No, he said neither do I condemn you, now go and sin no more.

How are we going to effectively present the gospel to a sinner that we assume doesn't deserve it because we think they need to know that they have incurred God's wrath? How are we supposed to fulfill the greatest commandment to love our neighbor as ourself if we are condemning them?

Where is the good news in that?

First of all... "we don't need to be saved, we need to receive salvation..." Thats like saying we don't need to be fed, we need to receive the food. All your doing is changing the grammatical structure of the sentence but it doesn't really mean anything different...

Secondly, none of us deserve what God did in Christ. If you think that we deserve what Jesus Christ did, or that we preach the gospel to people because they deserve it... you have utterly missed the point.

God does not love because we deserve to be loved. He loves because it is his nature to do so, and it is precisely the fact that he loves those who DO NOT deserve to be loved that makes his love profound.
Jesus actually taught precisely this point, anyone can love those who "deserve" to be loved.. but in order to be truly like God, you must love those who do not deserve to be loved.

Secondly, YES Jesus did go among the sinners and tell them they were sinners.. He did that all the time!

Telling someone they are a sinner is not condemning them. On the contrary pretending that a sinner is not a sinner IS condemning them.

If you go to a person who is about to walk off a cliff and tell them that they are about to walk off a cliff.. you are not killing them, you are trying to save them. If on the other hand you pretend that they are not about to walk off a cliff, you actually DO justly have guilt in their death.

You ask where is the good news in telling people they are sinners...

ok,

let me ask you.. where is the good news in telling people that they don't need to be saved?

Seriously.. have you looked around you? If this world is not broken... and if people are not sinners... then that is the absolute WORST testimony about the nature of God that I can possibly think of.

 

[Faulty]

Does that matter? IMO, we are all representatives of Jesus Christ, not just the paid “clergy.”

~Jim

Yes it matters. A man who occupies the office of teacher and pastor, has a far greater responsibility than any others when it comes to the faithful teaching of scripture.

 

[Faulty]

Here's the Amazon editorial review of this book, emphesis mine:

"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."


There is a reason I didn't post anything about this guy a few days back when I saw all this. All I'd get are general responses along the lines of, "so what? it's just another guy in a pulpit teaching lies, but he writes well and is so charismatic, but you who pointed it out really suck".