simonthezealot
have you not read,what God has spoken unto you?
- Apr 17, 2006
- 16,461
- 1,919
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
NOPE.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?
Let me ask you this, do you agree that Rob Bell is questioning the importance of the Virgin Birth of Christ?
It's called scripture twisting...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.
No problem, i try to make a habit of doing fullest context.
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.
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!
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.
How'd you derive all this out of that?
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.
Let me ask you this, do you agree that Rob Bell is questioning the importance of the Virgin Birth of Christ?
Really? I like to call it critical thinking.
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.
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.
Really? I like to call it critical thinking.
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 like to call it heresy. You say Tomatoe, I say Tomatoe...
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?