Slice/CRN Discussion: Of Rob Bell, Trampolines and Virgins
Issue: In Velvet Elvis, Rob Bell writes in the chapter entitled “Jump” -
Somebody recently gave me a videotape of a lecture given by a man who travels around speaking about the creation of the world. At one point in his lecture, he said that if you deny that God created the world in six literal twenty-four-hour days, then you are denying that Jesus ever died on the cross. It’s a bizarre leap of logic, I would say. (026)
Earlier in the chapter, he created a metaphor contrasting doctrines as either bricks or springs. Bricks are fixed in size in shape (i.e. doctrines as bricks implies that we know the exact correct interpretation of the verses in question and the system to tie them them all together), whereas springs can flex and stretch (i.e. doctrines as springs implies that there may be room for disagreement over interpretation, and that there may be no ’system’ tying them all together).
Some have taken this analogy past its intent, suggesting Bell means that we can remove springs entirely from the Tramploine, but Bell also writes:
In fact, [a spring’s] stretch and flex are what makes it so effective. It is firmly attached to the frame and the mat, yet it has room to move. And it has brought a fuller, deeper, richer understanding to the mysterious being who is God. (022)
With that little bit of context (you really need to read the entire chapter for the full context of the discussion), here is the passage Ken likes to isogete
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? (026,027)
CRN’s Take: Ken suggests that Bell denies the virgin birth, and in doing so, denies the Christian faith. Additionally, because Bell often makes use of the Hebrew spoken in the first century rather than the Greek used in our earliest copies of the gospels, he must be heretical and in love with unregenerate Jewish rabbis.
Chris’ Take: Ken is sorely mistaken on all counts, not adding in the paragraphs right after his isogetical quotation:
I affirm the historic Christian faith, which includes the virgin birth and the trinity and the inspiration of the Bible and much more. I’m a part of it and I want to pass it on to the next generation. I believe that God created everything and that Jesus is Lord and that God has plans to restore everything.
But 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?
This is because a brick is fixed in size. It can’t flex or change size, because if it does, then it can’t fit into the wall. What happens then is that the wall becomes the sum total of beliefs, and God becomes as big as the wall. But God is bigger than any wall. (027)
While I believe Bell could have used a historic example (like Galileo disproving the church’s doctrine on the relationship between the earth, sun and the cosmos), it probably would not have been as effective. Ken actually went on to prove Bell’s point, giving his own extra-Biblical interpretation of the virgin birth – that Mary’s virginity was necessary for Jesus to have been a perfect sacrifice. While this may or may not be true, it is a traditional assumption made by a number of church fathers, but not explicitly stated in scripture.
Bell is using a logical comparitor that many Christians are accused of ignoring, making them appear to be anti-science. However, we can use the following as a guide:
In this world we have truth and we have opinion. Where conflict happens is where we mistake one for the other. What do we do when we appear to have a conflict in ‘truth’?
1) The Bible, itself, it true.
2) Nature, which was created by God, points to Him and does not contradict Him.
3) Only when God has a specific purpose in mind does He contradict the laws of nature that He created (as wih Jesus’ miracles, the parting of the Red Sea, etc.)
4) If it appears that Biblical truth and scientific truth conflict, then one – or both – of them are not actually truth, but they are our opinion (or interpretation), unless #3 has occurred. (source: forgotten by me from an old sermon…)
What Bell is trying to do is set up a hypothetical in which #1 must be true, #2 is true (i.e. “What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof”), then what if it is just our interpretation that is off? It is not only about apologetics, but it is also about understanding what is actually Biblical and what are traditional teachings. Could have he used a better example? Yes. Does it make a heretic? No.
As for Ken’s second issue – Hebrew vs. Greek – we do not have copies of the ‘original’ gospel documents, the very first ones written down. A large number of scholars recognize that there was most likely a common source document or oral history that was used by Matthew, Mark and Luke, and that it was almost certainly written in Hebrew. This is referred to as part of the ‘synoptic problem‘, and it has nothing to do with heresy.
I also have a study guide I’ve written for this particular chapter in Velvet Elvis.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
21 Comments(+Add)
Chris,
I’m going to place my earlier comment here: “I have great problems with the way Rob Bell has presented the issue of the virgin birth. I realize that his main purpose wasn’t trying to prove/disprove the virgin birth, but by what he said he may have given people who already doubt the virgin birth grounds for holding onto their doubt. He may also have opened up doubt for those people who have never heard the way “virgin†can be interpreted in the Old Testament.
Does he anywhere in the book explain that there are other reasons to call Mary a virgin as in “virgin-person who has not had sexual intercourse,†for example, the last part of Matthew 1:18, “But while she was still a virgin, she became pregnant by the Holy Spirit?â€
Your added context doesn’t change the questions I had about this topic.
I wasn’t questioning whether or not Rob Bell was denying or affirming the Virgin Birth. I was concerned that his presentation may introduce or affirm doubts regarding the truth of the Virgin birth. If a person is going to present possibilities for why the virgin birth isn’t true, he can’t just do away with the doubt he has planted in peoples’ minds by saying that he himself affirms the virgin birth.
I’m not trying to be picky, but comments such as Rob Bell made about the virgin birth really tested my faith at one time. The instructor I was listening to seemed to have learned the mentality from his seminary of “Advance in your studies as much as you can until you find some way of showing that scripture is contradictory. Then STOP. And go out into the world and share your “advanced knowledge” with others.” I have personally suffered from such teaching, and realize how dangerous it is.
Hasn’t he also planted doubt as to whether or not it really matters what one believes about this? Isn’t that the essence of what Ken Silva is saying?
Thanks for your response. I hadn’t really read all the finer details of Ken Silva’s presentation. It will take me some time to work through the issues both he and you have presented.
Another topic, but what does “God has plans to restore everything” mean according to Rob Bell?
I would argue that Bell’s metaphor is flawed and outright wrong with the Bricks versuses Springs. You wrote “spring is attached to the mat” and that somehow proves that others have taken the analogy too far? I think you are giving the anaolgy too much credit. What do bricks have to with trampolines? Bell is trying to eliminate any obstacle for those who have a problem with Christianity.The only thing that is a brick for Bell is his idea of springs. Also, what I think is part of Bell’s appeal is that he obfuscates the issues.
This particular part that you quote noticed what Bell did. He states that 1)”virgin” meant during the first century young woman who had gotten pregnant from the first time. 2) I affirm the “historic” virgin birth. Which history? The one taught by Bell or the one that is taught by many. Probably, you would respond with the one taught by Christian history. But what does that mean?
Also, one of the things he mentions as a spring is the trinity. Is the trinity a non-essential where one can disagree on? We do know the correct interpetation of the trinity. We know its not polytheism. We know its not modalism. Sounds to me brick is perfect for the doctrine of the trinity.
Amy,
Some of the reasons you cite are ones that I would have used, as well, in choosing Galileo over the Virgin Mary. Especially because it was part of a single example and not a topic of detailed discussion.
I know some of the debates liberal scholars have had over the word ‘virgin’.
It is primarily centered on Matthew’s use of the technique of d’rash in quoting Isaiah 7:14, which was part of Isaiah’s prophecy against King Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel. It was not considered part of Messianic prophecy until Matthew quoted it – so the question gets asked on why Matthew used it. Some suggest it is an example of type/archetype, others see it simply as inspired d’rash, and still others prefer to see it as part of God’s mystery. In the particular case in Isaiah, the prophecy was fulfilled by a young woman who was not the receiver of an immaculate conception. I tend to agree with David Flusser’s view that one reason Matthew would have wanted to emphasize this detail would have been in response to the Mithra mystery religion – which taught of their god being virgin-born – which was the primary competitor with Christianity in the first and second century AD.
I understand your concerns, and I agree that a different example would have been better – even sticking with the literal 6, 24-hour day creation. That said, I’ve heard him talk about controversial subjects and then go deeper, or touch on them one week and then come back for resolution two or three weeks later. (For an example, his sermon at Willow Creek mentioned on CRN today, does a good job of raising a subject that would be controversial to despensational theology and then hitting it in detail.)
You asked
I guess, at least for me, the answer is no. It made me think through why Mary’s virginity would have been of importance, and to consider that, while scripture is definitely true, I sometimes mix my own interpretation of how it systematically connects with the rest of scripture – and that it is just that – my own interpretation. It is this process of systematizing that has led parts of the Catholic church to believe in Mary’s continued virginity after birth, ascention into heaven, and other ‘traditional’ additions that have nothing to do with scripture.
Alan,
What do bricks have to do with trampolines? I would suggest that you read the entire chapter to answer that question. It has to do with whether every doctrine builds upon another in a human-constructed system that falls apart when one doctrine is questioned (back to Bell’s original comments on the creation video).
You are reading too much into (or possibly trying to twist – I’m not familiar with you, so I can’s say which, so I will assume the former and not the latter) Bell’s affirmation as being ’slight-of-hand’. One many occasions in his Mars Hills sermons he has affirmed what YOU would consider the historic Christian faith.
The doctrine of Trinity, as we have developed it, came more than a century after Jesus’ death. During Jesus (and Paul’s) life, the concept of Trinity was based on Genesis 1:1-3, but was left much more to mystery rather than try to put the definitions around it we have. I believe in the Trinity, as well, but I know some folks who claim to have a whole lot more knowledge of how it actually works than I think we can know. Yes, it isn’t polytheism (even though God is called Elohim, which is plural). We also know that (somehow) He is One, as well. We don’t know, though how it works. Bell made that point earlier in the same chapter.
Forgive me, but it seems some people are completely missing the point of this. What are we as Christians so afraid of? If we really have the truth we claim we have (which I believe we do) why are we so afraid to accept questions about what we believe? Truth will always come out. Rob’s questions is legitimate. I’ve met people who claim that virgin meant many many things and it is the crux of their argument. Without doubt there can be no faith, and Rob choses to ask direct questions. The springs analogy is beautiful and in no way says, “it doesn’t matter.”
Amy, I’m sorry you were hurt by a former teacher. I personally had a teacher who taught me that God doesn’t really care about certain prayers and they certainly don’t change his mind. A view at the time I was crushed to hear, and greatly hurt my prayer life. But It would be unfair to say that it isn’t a teachers job to raise some questions.
“The doctrine of Trinity, as we have developed it”
I don’t think we developed the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity was revealed by God through Sacred Scripture. Is the word stated in the Bible? No. But that doesn’t mean it was developed by the church a century after Jesus’ death. I disagree with your assertion that the Trinity was based on Genesis 1:1-3. There are other verses in the Old Testament that show the Trinity.
I am not twisting Bell’s words. I am merely offering what someone could view his comments. I could have said you are reading too much into his words because you like Velvet Elvis and Ken posted an attack on it. So you looked for something and pulled a sentence out. But I didn’t do that.
As far as him affirming historic Christian faith, could you please cite a sermon that proves this. Thanks.
Joe, Rob Bell does not offer answers. Good teachers do question but they lead you to the truth. IMO, Bell doesn’t lead to the truth.
Alan,
The basis for the Trinity does begin in Genesis 1:1-3, and it is the primary verse used by the Jewish people pre-Christ, and even today. In Genesis 1:1, the word for God is Elohim – which is plural. In this verse, he is God the Creator. In Genesis 1:2, God the Spirit hovers over the abyss. In Genesis 1:3, God the Word speaks light into existence.
The Apostle John identified Jesus as God the Word
As for citing Rob Bell and affirming the Trinity, he did so in the Exodus series last spring, and again in the Everything is Spiritual tour in the summer. He has affirmed the primacy of scripture in numerous sermons. If I wanted to, I could probably pull one of John MacArthur’s books off the shelf and isogete that he approves of cross-dressing circus performers, but it would be just as disingenuous as making anything of Bell’s affirmation other than what it plainly states.
Perhaps you could identify where Bell denies the Trinity (other than twisting his affirmation of such). I’m willing to say that my opinion of VE is my opinion. Ken has (in multiple fora) said God told him to go after Bell and has (on a number of occasions) equated his opinion with God’s opinion. I’ve got a bit better grip on who I am than that…
Joe,
Thanks for your kind words.
Just a comment on “it would be unfair to say that it isn’t a teachers job to raise some questions.” While I agree that this can be true, I think its fair to say that it would have been better if this teacher had pursued another field of teaching that would have left his faith intact. I have little doubt he wishes he had never ever been exposed to questions, without being introduced to possible answers. The teacher who was raising questions was a PhD Bible translation consultant teaching a workshop on an Old Testament book to national translators in another country, men who were putting the Word of God in their own languages. Men who have only had Christianity introduced to their country about 100 years. Men who, because of their country’s circumstances for the most part didn’t even have a high school education (not a mark of a lack of intelligence; I’m just remarking on it to give some indication of their lack of acquaintance with higher criticism). The teacher kept bringing in examples that demonstrated that the prophecies in a particular OT book could not be interpreted as the church has interpreted them. He didn’t just bring up issues; he brought them up in a sneering way and didn’t discuss possible ways of resolving them.
All the examples he gave of problems in the NT really disturbed me. I talked with him once afterwards, and was surprised that he almost started to cry. He told me that when he went to seminary he lost his childlike faith. He didn’t realize it but what he was teaching put a crack in mine as well.
At the time I was talking to the teacher, there was another man standing with us, a PhD in linguistics and with advanced Bible training I believe, who made a few comments in response to what the teacher was presenting. They seemed so simplistic to me at the time – they were an acknowledgement that even though there are some issues in scripture that are difficult to understand and even seem contradictory, God has allowed it to be so, and it’s wonderful that He can give us the faith to trust Him in spite of not being able to understand apparent contradictions.
I became very despondent after that experience and wanted to gather some books to help me see other explanations of all the difficult passages the man had brought up. But I had no such resources, and no way to get them at the time.
One night I was reading a book on Martin Luther. He talked about all the questions, struggles that he was having about faith, but came to a place one day where he was just overwhelmed by truth – I don’t have the exact quote, but I believe that it was and understanding of the grace of God, the truth that Christ died for him, a sinner. At that moment he became free of his despondency. It was presented as a turning point in his life.
And when I read those words, God also worked in my heart. The oppression that I had been feeling lifted. That was the end of my struggle. I’ve never returned to those questions and sought answers for them. I realize that there are probably reasonable arguments against some of the things the teacher was teaching. But I also know that even if I studied the issues there would probably be some apparent discrepancies that I could not solve intellectually. Perhaps one day I will do some studying if someone else is struggling with an issue. For myself now I am happy to report that I may seem to some people like that man with the “simplistic” comments who acknowledged that God was in control.
Amy,
Your story beautifully illustrates my point, I believe. In my opinion, Rob has written a book that is intended for an audience that he believes is going to question everything he has to say. They are going to question everything the Bible has to say, and certainly everything he has to say about the Bible. I think he’s saying, “It’s OK, to resist and ask these questions that I’m reasonably certain your going to ask.” Questions, cannot stop truth.
At the end of the day, much of the Bible does not makes sense. It makes no sense to build an ark if you’ve never seen rain, it makes no sense to tel the most powerful man in the world to “let my people go.” It makes now sense to talk to a burning bush, it makes no sense to send most of your troops home and attack the worlds most powerful army, it makes no sense to talk to a king without his scepter being pointed to you, it makes no sense to leave your entire life pursuit and follow someone simply because He said, “Follow me.” Unless, there is more going on here than we can possibly see. The Grace that Luther talks about in his statement.
Perhaps, you and I are not the intended audience of who Bell is writing to. Just a thought.
Hi,
I actually found your site because of of the hooplah at SOL (odd coincidence for an acronym there). Anyway, I was banned at posting from there for whatever reason – I never thought I was indecent or anything. I guess I crossed the line because I didn’t agree with the author.
Well, I’ve been reading your site for a while now, and must I tend to see eye to eye with you on most things. This is no exception. The funny thing to me about this is how Bell’s critics will not let this thing die. This book is almost two years old now. When I read this, I did so almost all in one night. After I was done, I did not come away thinking, “this guy is a heretic.” I was struck at the honesty and openess of his writing, and started recommending the book to my friends. It was to my great surprise that I learned that someone at the congregation I am on staff (part-time campus minister) at came to the Lead Pastor with “grave concerns.” Well the long and short of it is, that since then we have been banned from using any of Bell’s materials. I have submitted to the authority above me, but I completely disagree with the reasoning.
For one thing, I think the point of this whole chapter is not about what is correct doctrine – it’s what that doctrine leads us to. Do we use doctrine as a defensive measure – something to keep the “wrong” people out and keep us protected – or do we use it to propel to a new and better life. That’s what I think Bell is trying to say. As far as virgin birth thing, I think he making an ad absurdum argument to some extent. He obviously doesn’t believe that people will dig up evidence of a guy named Larry. I think he’s giving permission to look into that doctrine, to actually test it. To some that seems stupid, but to others it is very freeing. Especially for those of us that come a conservative background where asking questions = doubt = lack of faith.
To me this all points to an underlying problem in the Church. We are very good at presenting the Gospel as information. But the problem is that the Gospel is more than information. The Gospel is the good news of Jesus; in a sense it is Jesus. When people have a real experience with Christ, and actually get to know Him, it’s not something they can be argued out of. Jesus is bigger than our doctrines.
Is Rob Bell teaching, “It’s okay to question, and then come up with ANY answer, even one that thoroughly distorts what scripture says (as his example of the virgin birth does.)” Did Bell’s book leave people thinking that it is okay to question the virgin birth? If the answer is yes, then how far would Bell go in saying “It’s okay to question?” And at what point does one’s own conclusions of who God is become an invention of one’s own mind? Another God, another Jesus?
Or, is he saying it’s okay to realize that you can’t understand everything humanly speaking, but you can, by God’s grace, accept things you don’t understand as true?
Whatever the case, isn’t he ultimately responsible for causing/allowing doubts about whether or not Jesus was born of a Virgin by the example he used?
Someone above implied that Bell offers questions, but not answers. Does he ever, in his talks, explore the bible text to show why Christians believe in the virgin birth, why they believe that God’s Word is God’s Word? Does he ever explain why the concept of the “Trinity” does a good job in describing the nature of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit?
Or does he simply imply that whatever conclusions one comes to are okay?
Do any of you know if there is some place online where I could read excerpts of the book?
Joe,
The question I have about Rob Bell is, “Is the spiritual destruction the teacher in my story experienced in his own life and probably brought about in others who listened to him, the same type of spiritual destruction that Rob Bell could bring about through his teaching?” I would need to do lots more reading, viewing of Rob Bell before I decided that; but I do have that question in my mind.
The problem is, if it were true that Rob Bell’s teaching is spiritually destructive few would recognize it because Rob Bell, unlike my teacher seems joyful, full of life, definitely entertaining.
Has Rob Bell ever responded to criticism about using the virgin birth for an example?
Amy,
I would suggest you listen to some of Rob Bell’s sermons online. I think he clearly does give answers, and isn’t wishy-washy or anything like that. He is actually one of the best speakers I’ve heard when it comes to explaining the history and culture behind the Biblical text. I also think, though, one of the main thrusts of his ministry is getting people to think for themselves. To roughly paraphrase from a Brian McClaren book (which probably won’t win me any points) “learning results from thinking, not from being told.”
I also think that what people like Bell are puching for is a more honest faith. I personally know pastors who are afraid to share their true opinions on certain things with people in their churches simply because of fear. Is that the kind atmosphere that we want in churches?
As far as Bell responding to criticism, I don’t think he’s come out with a detailed rebuttal or anything. However, Mars Hill’s statement of beliefs was changed not long ago and now includes a statement explicitly affirming the Virgin Birth.
I find the whole “virgin birth” discussion, as it relates in this particular case, to be far too tangential to spend this much time on.
Bell used it as an example, and a rather outlandish one at that (as if it could be proven false)…
This was followed by a definitive statement that he does believe in the virgin birth, that it was just a hypothetical.
Case closed, nothing else to beat here, move on to another horse…living or dead.
Neil S.
Sorry, Neil, but I see the horse as looking quite ugly and wounded but certainly not dead.
Chris,
While I am of the opinion that Ken should have used the rest of the text to demonstrate that Bell says he does believe in the trinity, I don’t see where Ken is suggesting that Bell is denying the virgin birth. Maybe I’ve missed that somewhere? I think the main point of his article is that Bell is implying that it doesn’t matter if one believes in the virgin birth. Also, I don’t see what, “Additionally, because Bell often makes use of the Hebrew spoken in the first century rather than the Greek used in our earliest copies of the gospels, he must be heretical and in love with unregenerate Jewish rabbis” has to do with the primary focus of his article.
Amy,
I’m not focusing only on the single article, but on that one and some others from Slice/Apprising that have referenced the same passage in the past. Ken, in some of my ‘discussion’ with him keeps coming back to harp on the Hebrew issue, which was why I addressed it here, as well…
Amy,
I don’t know how to say it except the Ken Silva almost seems to have a vendetta against Rob Bell, even going so far as to say the letter of an obviously hurting and perhaps unbalanced person who is poignantly angry as a “putrid fruit of Rob Bell” The “logic” used to indict Bell is awful. Just go to his website and peruse the “missives.”
Joe,
Joe,
I wouldn’t purposefully use Ken Silva’s or anyone elses logic to indict anyone. What I have seen of excerpts (including Chris’s fuller excerpt regarding the Virgin Birth), and a couple of other original sources of Bell himself are enough to make me know that I need to look into Bell myself.
uh, Chris, the virgin birth IS necessary to the Christian faith. Sin is passed from the father and no actual decendant of Joseph could have prospered on the throne of David due the the Jeconiah situation. This is why the Bible lists genealogies. My kitchen table is rock solid until you start sawing off legs…
Steve,
I believe in the Virgin Birth. I just don’t believe in any “proofs” of the VB that are systematic (i.e. based on an extra-Biblical, Hellenistic, ’system’), which seems to be the ‘proof’ you offer. [While there are scholars who find the Isaiah prophecy to be ambiguous in terms of young woman/virgin, it is Mary's response "How can this be, for I am a virgin?" that is the definitive text - it cannot mean anything else when taken in context.]
As it states in Deuteronomy 24:16
In John 9:1-3, Jesus also seems to rule against the Jewish tradition of the sin of parents being passed on to their children (which is different that the consequences of sin being passed on).
There is no reason why the VB must be true contained in scripture. That it is true is clear, but the why it had to be is not. This is one of those points of mystery in how God works that we, as westerners, cannot seem to accept and have to build ’systems’ to explain (as you have just done).
Your systematic interpretation of ‘why it must be true’ is conjecture, and this is the heart of what Bell was getting at – not the denial of the Virgin Birth, but the separation of what is true from what is tradition and/or conjecture and understanding one from the other. That is not to say that tradition/conjecture may not be helpful in discussion, but it has to be understood as such.
You said
I would reply that God put the right number of legs on your table and that if you’ve added additional legs to the table, they aren’t needed. What Bell was trying to do was not to ’saw off a leg’ – but to illustrate a means of distinguishing between the two types of legs.
“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
Matthew 7:15-23
Rob Bell should be judged by his fruit and the man produces good fruit. Both past and present hold dramatic examples of men who held firmly to the virgin birth and the Trinity but their fruit was bad. I believe truth is very important to Rob Bell or he wouldn’t be teaching the things he teaches today. I think Rob Bell affirms a virgin birth and the Trinity. But I sincerely doubt Rob Bell could have a man like Michael Servitus burned alive at the stake because he did not affirm the Trinity or infant baptism. I am quite certain that Rob Bell and many, many others would agree with God who declared Abraham righteous despite the fact he most certainly did not have the ’springs’ or ‘table legs’ of the virgin birth or the Trinity.
Jesus and his disciples uprooted and shook the very faith foundations of an ENTIRE nation that at one time was declared the people of God, because their faith had become in the foundations their God had given them instead of the God who had given them the foundations. And when we begin to go down that road we become capable of the most evil of name calling, ill advised perceptions and yes, we even become capable of killing the Son of God. Matthew 25:31-46.