Yeah, the little blurb from Ken was what brought this to my awareness. I wasn’t able to make it to Bell’s last speaking tour, but it looks like I’ll be able to go hear him this time.

Thanks, Ken!

Seriously, I’ve always wondered how people can pre-attack something lilke this. It’s like the negative reviews you see on Amazon before a book has been released, where it is clear the person hasn’t even read the book.

Point of order boys. This post on CRN Grace To You wasn’t mine. Did you see my name on it?

No, you didn’t. Trust me Rob Bell won’t have to wonder when I speak about his emerging apostasy. Carry on…

I did not see much value in the “Everything is Spiritual” tour, and even his supporters grudgingly admitted it provoked thought but had no gospel. I’m not asking for a “bow your heads” invitation, but the gospel please.

Without the tie in to the cross, everything is intellectualism. One of the reasons that the cross doesn’t fit in with some of these tours is because it is so unsophisticated in a post modern world. Even though these tours are not evangelistic in nature, the Person of Christ must be central.

“That in all thing He might have the preeminence”.

Rick,

Just a thought…

It is common for a man to die… but very rare a man will rise from the dead… 3 days later.

I think if you read through the book of Acts the focus is on the resurrection. It seems that as Paul stated without it, we are the most to be pitied.

Now that does not mean the Cross is lesser in importance… but for many years there has been a bit of an over focus at the expense of the resurrection. I see that though the pendulum may swing a bit wide there is a true heading toward balance of both.

Also, I have never read anything nor heard anyone but Bell’s critics state he does not talk about the Cross… can you point to a specific example in which he has state it’s unimportance or has negated it or has said something of a negative against it? Can you give me an example even where he plays it down to the point that we need to criticise Bell for “neglecting” the cross?

I will admit I have not read much of his stuff… but what I have I have been impressed with… I have read much of his critics theology which I am not as impressed with at all.

Blessings,
iggy

I was speaking to the “Everything is Spiritual” tour. A supporter of Bell’s was very excited to go, and when he returned he admitted there was little Bible but he still enjoyed it greatly. Sometimes we go to great lengths to be relevant and if we are not careful we leave out the essential, unsophisticated truths that the whole world needs to hear.

P.S. There is no resurrection without the cross.

I was the editor of our (Christian) college newspaper — and YES, I took the heat (and rightfully so) for what I allowed to be published. (Usually, I mostly took the heat for my own articles, which were passionate but not very gracious — God has been working on me in this area since then).

Ironic and odd…

Rob Bell himself says that the Bible is a human product rather than a divine product, he maintains that following Jesus is still the best way to live even if Jesus was conceived by Larry instead of by the Holy Spirt of the Virgin Mary, doesn’t want to debate what the Bible is (how hard would it be to say that it is the inspired and inerrant word of God) and wont’ affirm that a literal hell exists.

Yet Bell says that he wants people to trust in Jesus.

Why should I? What Jesus is Bell trying to push?

If Jesus wasn’t born of the virgin Mary as the scripture says and hell doesn’t exist as Jesus taught that it did and the scriptures are a human product, then if you are honest then you must conclude that the Bible is a load of crap and the Jesus of the Bible is nothing more than a myth.

Why on earth would I want to trust in and follow a myth?

“But if his lack of clarity, to you, sharpens you, deepens your convictions and motivates you to share the Gospel, then there is a blessing for the world.”

Yes, AN, but to others it might lead them to the ditch. Bell is either a frontrunner to enlightenment or to apostacy. He cannot be both. Those are excellent questions, Chris, and presented in a Christian way. Where are the answers, AN, theywould be simple enough to answer, How come only us fundamentalists do not deserve a respectful dialogue? Are we the only ones?

If Bell believes as we do and is just changing the methodology then we can discuss those pitfalls. If he has departed from some of the view Chris has said why doesn’t he just come out and defend it?

Very mircurial and undiscernable.

Let us be clear, the virgin birth of the Lord Christ is part of Who He is. It is not an obstacle to faith, it is an attractive truth that the Holy Spirit uses to draw people to Him. All of His attributes are used by the Spirit in the invisible presentation of Christ to a sinner.

Jesus said if He is lifted up He will draw all men. He did not say lift up a softened caricature of Him so people will be attrcated to that personage. Jesus, with all His accompanying truths, has enough drawing power to draw even intellectuals like Colson, Schaefer, and Lewis. Bell is using the methods of men’s well meaning intellect and not the Spirit.

By the way, so are many who are not emergent.

Phil,

I must respectfully disagree with you. I am not taking Bell’s statements out of context.

Bell is on the record as saying the Bible is a human product. He said this to McLaren and Christianity today.

In VE he says that following Jesus would still be the best way to live even if Jesus was the product of Larry and Mary.

Did you see his interview in the ooze today? He completely danced around the doctrine of hell.

I smell a neo-orthodox liberal.

If I can’t trust the scripture to be God’s word (a product of divine fiat), can’t trust it to tell me the truth about Jesus, who he is, how he was conceived and what He said happens to unrepentant sinners then I’m not interested in believing anything in the Bible at all or following Jesus and his “example”.

Either it is God’s word or it is a bunch of mythological crap. There is no middle ground on this.

If I can pick and choose to believe what I want to believe about Jesus, what he said, taught and did, then I am doing nothing more than make jesus into my own personal ‘idol’.

I’m not interested in Bell’s “Jesus Idol”. His “Jesus Idol” has no moral authority to be any kind of example to me.

If Bell believes otherwise, then he needs to grow some balls and unequivocally tell the world he believes the Bible IS God’s Word inspired by the Holy Spirit, that Jesus was miraculously conceived by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary and that hell is a VERY real place that real people will spend eternity in if they do not repent and believe the Bible.

If he won’t do that it is because he doesn’t believe it.

I’m not on Slice and I’ve seen worse language than this on this board.

At least I didn’t say my wife was Hot!

I think on the subject of Bell we have to agree to disagree. Rob Bell’s writings and interviews are highly dependent on context.You can’t proof text Bell and understand what he’s actually communicating.

Chris Rosebrough says,

At least I didn’t say my wife was hot!

Almost made me spit my drink across the room! LOL

That one’s not even difficult to figure out. Bell is rejecting the idea that the Bible has been figured out. Its nothing but a rule book created by God and is perfectly understood in all its parts.

To say the scriptures are a human product is no more a rejection of God’s involvement in them than it is to say that Jesus was human is a rejection of his divine nature.

Of course for people who do believe they have the Bible perfectly figured out that’s a threatening message. Much like people who have forgotten that Jesus was human are offended by the idea that Jesus was tempted, got tired, ate, drank, poooed, and slept, and might not really have had sparkly white teeth, perfectly blow dried hair, and often didn’t carry a lamb around his neck.

Chris R.,
It seems rather ironic to me that you would accuse Bell of not having balls. I mean, really, Bell has probably taken more flak from the religious establishment than any of his contemporaries. The thing I really respect about him is that he hasn’t backed down, either.

I don’t really think he’s being allusive at all. Look at the way Jesus answered the pharisees. Was He being allusive. From their perspective, yes. But we know he was revealing what was in their hearts.

The fact is that God will judge Bell. We are only spectators. I do see things at Mars Hill that appear to me to be genuine fruit. The fact that there are 10,000 people there and they avoided a lot of the trappings of typical megachurches means something.

Also, just FYI, the interviewer quotes something Bell said in his session at the conference they were at. He says Bell said, “”of course I believe in a literal hell”.

Chris R.,
Also the saying Bible is a human product in no way says it is not inspired. It didn’t just drop from heaven. People wrote it, iterpreted it, and compiled through the leading of the Holy Spirit. I don’t how anyone could argue against that.

From Mars Hill’s Theological Statement: “We believe God inspired the authors of Scripture by his Spirit to speak to all generations of believers, including us, today. God calls us to immerse ourselves in this authoritative narrative individually and communally to faithfully interpret and live out that story today as we are led by the Spirit of God. ”

Pretty straightforward to me. I guess we can quibble because it doesn’t use the buzzwords of “inerrancy” or “infallibilty”, but to the average person it is pretty clear. The only people that are arguing about inerrancy and infallibility are pointy-headed seminarians.

Rick,
I’m not sure you and I agree on anything on this post at all. From Bell (which I won’t discuss to Chris R). Which is cool, because we can agree to disagree this side of heaven and when we get there we won’t care who was right or wrong. Chris’ comment was just funny to me, that’s all.

Phil,

I’m sorry but Mars Hill’s statement is extremely confusing to me. It is not straight forward at all.

I says nothing about the scriptures being inerrant and leaves the door wide open to subjectivity.

Chris R.,
Bell doesn’t say there are no absolutes in the Bible. He is saying we can’t treat it like it is 100% clear on every issue. Some treat it like it is full of equations and formulas or something.

I am probably going to have to follow Joe’s lead on this, because I don’t think we’ll ever see eye to on this. It seems both our minds are made up.

Chris R,
Are you claiming the Bible isn’t a human product? If so you’ve got some explaining to do when it comes to claims of authorship found within scripture itself. Did God lie to us when he dropped the scriptures from heaven? The scriptures are a human product in the same way as Jesus was human.

Your second charge against the Bells is again, proof texting to get a result. The equivalent would be to look at Galatians 5:2 and claim that anyone who is circumcised is damned because of that circumcision.

Alright, I’m pretty much finished with this conversation. The more I read from you on Bell, the more it feels like to me that you read a hit piece on Bell and have accepted those conclusions at face value without examining what he actually meant by those statements. If you dealt with scripture in the same way you’d be ashamed.

Of course God allowed and used human components such as personality, writing style, and other things in the Scripture. The point is what is Bell trying to prove? That fundamentalists overemphasize the divine nature of Scripture. Let’s face it, even believers do not take the Scriptures as God’ Word to the depth that they should, so dumbing down our view of Scriptures just adds to the problem.

It is impossible to fully unfold and glorify the miraculous nature of the written Word of God, so to go from the fine china down to the earthen ware does nothing but make the Scriptures more of a human book than a divine revelation.

Even if a person believed that the Scriptures were not inerrant as far as numbers etc., he still must emphasize the divine nature and the ministry of the Holy Spirit to communicate inerrant truth. I do not know what Bell wants to accomplish by calling the Bible a human book. It always seems to me that he is being intellectually cute, being careless with truth, and instead of challenging people to live to even a higher standard of Christlikeness he brings the bar down lower.

As far as I can tell Bell has orthodox roots, and if he was taking those roots and regenerating life into them that would be great. Instead he sets a course to explain everything differently than has been established within evangelicalism. He will pass off the hot seat and someone else will take his place soon.

Toying with the Word of God, including humanizing the focus, is a dangerous business both to hearers and to God Himself.

Because man is only a conduit in this relationship, God has and is the Word. It is like saying there are two in the salvation relationship so why not emphasize our side?

Tim – you must remember that you can assess Bell’s rationale through a mind that is in receipt of most of the perspectives. You know the the different views and therefore your interpretation of Bell’s teachings comes with a balance.

What if I am newly saved and do not have that knowledge? When I was first saved and I heard that teaching from Bell I would have assumed that the Bible was a collection of man’s witings from man’s mind and that God was trying to use a man’s book to communicate His Word. That is a very deep difference than God using man to write His book.

You can give Bell the benefit of the doubt, but I still contend that we are not putting ourselves in a new Christian’s shoes, or for that matter all the ignorant old Christians.

What do you think?

Phil – we aren’t speaking of how Bell explains the Scriptures, it’s how he explains the essence of what the Scriptures are and the process of their creation. That is foundational.

Rick,
Well, he says they’re inspired in “Velvet Elvis” and in his sermons, and the Mars Hill theological statement says so explicitly.

Saying they’re a “human product” doesn’t negate their inspiration. There’s even a line in “Velvet Elvis” where he says, “Because God has spoken, and everything else is commentary” (p. 52) about the Scriptures in “Velvet Elvis”.

You missed my entire point. And I think the “you guys” reference removes my free will to be included in the “you guys” of my choice.

I am not, never have been, and never will be a Calvinist. I openly deny all five points and any other points that might surface in the future that they may find in his attic or in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Now, Tim, I am not a part of “you guys”, I am the sole proprietor of “one guy”.

Some humor there also.

You guys are always saying that.

OK, what was the human part of the Scriptures?

“The human element was that man physically took place in writing it. That God worked in a mans heart and mind to bring the words into the written form.”

That is all Bell has to say. Has he? Where?

what was the human part of the Scriptures?

I think that alot of the “say hello to…” parts of scripture were more of the writer’s own commentary. The fact that the cultural and personal events of the writers were infused into the writing as well say alot. The simple fact that we have to exegete thru alot of that should say something. Does that mean it is any less inspired? No.

All I can say is that if one of us, mislabeled as “fundamentalists,” were to use this argument for the teachings of Dr. John MacArthur the gentlemen here would then scoff we have made an idol of him:

he holds the scriptures in higher regard than most believers I know (including almost all [emerging teachers]). Does he believe that scriptures are inspired? Yes. Does he believe they are a human product? Yes. He has taught both.

what?

Ken,

First of all, you are about as fundamental as they come. You are just below Fred Phelps on the scale of fundies.

Second, no one is arguing that Johnnie Mac doesn’t care about the divinity of the scriptures. I don’t even see how that argument would apply to Johnnie Mac.