Obviously, listening to Rob Bell all these years has destroyed your basic Bible Knowledge…and why wouldn’t it?

James 1

12 Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him. 13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. 14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

God knows about sin, for sure.
He knows when we are going to sin, and when we have.

But he did not plan it, nor did he create it. Satan did that, and we bought into it…hook line and sinker.

How did sin enter the world? By ONE MAN- Adam. And death through sin.

God didn’t plan it…he knew that it would happen. Big difference.

He planned for it, however. By making payment in full by Christ on the cross.

You should go back to seminary. But it shouldn’t be Fuller. We all see the garbage that turns out.

MG,

Look in the mirror…

But look on his blog where he himself has commented. He means exactly what he says.

But why seek understanding when condemnation is so much easier?

Ruach.

PB,

“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

Do you understand what “ruach” means? Because I don’t know why you use it the way you do. Is their some inside joke in your using it?

It’s not like “peace”, “grace”, or “shalom” is being extended to the reader. How do I extend “breath” or “spirit” or “wind” to a reader?

Just wondering….

What does ‘ruach’ mean?

I agree with Pastorboy (apart from the judgmental swipes at bell and Fuller) that God did not create sin.

On the other hand, you cannot have a sovereign God and say it was not part of his plan.

Isaiah 45:6-7

6. That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else.7. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

Please understand I am just being a stinker here.

iggy

But… that is not what THE bible says…
The point is that there are many that do believe God created evil/sin… and they disagree with PB… and he considers them friends.

I see that as truly heretical… and false teachings.

I bet if PB actually took time to see what his “friends” believe… he would be appalled. But I doubt he will do so.

He should ask Ken, Ingrid, Brannon Howse, Mike Ratliff and anyone else some of these questions.

Do you believe God created sin?
Do you believe someone can lose their salvation?
Is one regenerated at baptism?
Is Jesus still a “man” in His glorified state?

Feel free to add any others.

iggy

Zan,

That’s what I thought it meant which is why seeing it so often from John on his replies caused me wonder.

So how is John using it?

Now I’m really confused.

Is he saying his comments are just wind blowing through the blog?

Jerry,

It is more like farting in an crowded elevator…

Pastorboy,

I think there was a time you would post here and posit impassioned arguments… now you seem to just you the privilege to make personal jabs at people.

Is there a policy that every comment directed at Joe must begin with an insult against his pastor?

I remember sitting in class discussing the various lapsarian models. At the time I thought it was a discussion that was trying to make God way tooo explainable… a truly modernist phenomena.

The original question from Coop is interesting. Too many of the responses come from modernists who appear to have God figured out.

And Joe, “oriental” is so not PC…

Really? What is the correct PC form of that now a days?

As Pastorboy said – “Asian.”

Not to get caught up in the whole PC thing – but the logic goes like this: “oriental” basically means “eastern” – so calling people Oriental is naming them from a Western European perspective.

Although, Middle East is acceptable… who knows.

What really set me over the edge was his “Gospel According To” video. Comparing the glorious gospel to the pagan religion of the day? God have mercy.

How about a link?

When you say “comparing” I assume Bell was pointing out how the details/events of the Gospel was similar to pagan religions of the day – e.g. virgin birth.

This begs two questions; 1) is he right? and 2) what’s his point?

Just making the comparisons, if they are right, is no sin… does not make him an enemy.

It’s the point that matters.

What really set me over the edge was his “Gospel According To” video. Comparing the glorious gospel to the pagan religion of the day? God have mercy.

Oy vey…

How can you even have a conversation with someone who lacks the comprehension to understand the simplest of concepts. Bell wasn’t saying the Gospel of Jesus equal to the story of Mithra. He was simply making a comparison to set the story in the correct cultural context.

Joe,
You are blessed to have him as your teaching pastor.

OK, now we are two links behind… in “The Gospel Presentation” the official title of Bell’s video.

I remember listening to one audio critique of a sermon on Pirate radio… shortly after Chris became more conciliatory for a while. I forget who he was critiquing but it was painful to listen to…

…I mean that literally. He mocked the deliverly, he mocked the illustrations, he mocked a pastor preaching the word based on delivery not content.

I could only imagine what he would do with a sermon of mine… I hope he never listens to me.

I asked a bunch of question, and made comments on how hurtful I found his critique… but to the best of my knowledge they went unanswered,

RE: 38 – maybe it was not Pirate Radio – it was, however, Chris Rosebrough… is that one in the same.

Here is my response to his sermon critique.

THAT is what the fuss is about? C’mon, that cannot be the video that sent Pastorboy over the edge!

I do find all the parallels a little too convenient… but I suppose it’s all either true or not historically.

But what in the video is there to send someone over the edge?

I suspect the issue, as we have seen before, is an error in discerning the purpose of the message.

Kyle,

I agree, if this were a Gospel presentation for unbelievers I would say it should be clearer and more direct.

It is obvious, however, that his target is Christians, so a certain familiarity is assumed.

That said, he does speak of crucifixion, and resurrection, and sin and restoration… he even uses the term “saved” – so all the elements are there.

He does not mention “repentance” so I’m sure some will call him apostate – but again, context context context… or better yet more awkward – intended audience, intended audience, intended audience…

Well I. Am doing this on a blackberry due to being stuck in an airplane in allentown pa.

Kyle is right, he defines the gospel in an completely unbiblical manner, emphasisng behavior and works over the changing power of Jesus Christ. The paganism illustrations may be true, but it simply detracts from the Gospel as if the story of Jesus is insignificant and not unique. It gives fodder to those who desire to doubt. I do not care who the audience is. Why not preach the power of God unto salvation? He is an enemy of the Gospel and a false teacher.

The paganism illustrations may be true, but it simply detracts from the Gospel as if the story of Jesus is insignificant and not unique. It gives fodder to those who desire to doubt. – PB

I have never understood why some think we must shield people from things they may take wrong…

Bell in no way implies that the Gospel/Jesus are insignificant or not unique – to say so proves you completely missed his point.

In fact – the whole point of the comparison was to highlight the very significance and uniqueness of the Gospel, or Jesus.

In a world where all sorts of people had gods who were resurrected -WE really have such a God… this is not a detraction, this does not give people an excuse,…

…[Bell] defines the gospel in an completely unbiblical manner, emphasisng behavior and works over the changing power of Jesus Christ.

Yes, he emphasis behavior, but it is behavior BECAUSE OF the changing power of Jesus Christ.

You cannot miss this from the video unless you actively seek to deny it a priori.

I do not care who the audience is. Why not preach the power of God unto salvation?

I find this statement astounding! It does not matter who the audience is?

You guys are missing the point

He preaches another Gospwl entirely in this video! It is really no Gospel at all. I am not saying its my way or the highway, I am saying it does not come close. He is an enemy of the Gospel, and if you believe this is the gospel you are deceived.

So which part of it is the different gospel? The bit about Jesus’ resurrection? Or the part about the church undermining Caesar through the reflection of Christ’s life?

Now, I realize you’ve bowed to our modern day political Caesar, but that doesn’t make Bell a heretic, it just makes you deeply wrong.

When I am out of this stinkin airport/airplane I will transcribe the end of that video and post it. I guess I am not shocked that the fellow haters of the real Gospel would begin name calling. Rob Bell is preaching another Gospel in that video.

The old saying is the gospel assumed is the gospel lost.

There’s another word for old sayings: extra-Biblical.

In 1 Cor. Paul said that the most important and first thing he had to remind them of was that Jesus Christ died for our, us personal, sins.

1 Corinthians 15 doesn’t stop there. It goes on to remind them also of the resurrection of Christ which was witnessed by many. 1 Corinthians 15 also continues to emphasize the resurrection as the cornerstone of the faith as he makes reference to the empty tomb, and calling God a liar if you claim Christ was not raised.

Just as Bell begins with the resurrection in that video, and makes the point that the church undermines Caesar and builds communities in direct contradiction to the way of the world through the power of Jesus.

How is this not the gospel again?

Oh right, because Pastor Boy and his pathetic band of ADMs are jealous of the in-roads the gospel has made through the faithful work of Mars Hill Church.

Here, let me help:

The gospel is the good news that God hasn’t given up on this world, that the tomb is empty that a giant resurrection rescue is underway and that you and I can be a part of it

The only way this isn’t the gospel is if you believe salvation is found only on Good Friday and not on Easter Sunday.

And if you do, then you are outside the historic orthodox faith of which Mars Hill Bible Church is a part.

He did not emphasis the gospel. As was stated no mention of repentance. I am unsure but did he mention faith, judgement, hell, God’s glory? I can not recall so that is why I am asking. It has been about 2 days since I watched the vid.

This may shock you Kyle, but in 1 Cor 15, the passage you referenced earlier, the word repentance doesn’t appear. Neither does hell. Neither does God’s glory.

Perhaps if you held Bell to Biblical standards you wouldn’t be writing what you do about him.

This is the gospel.

“The gospel is, therefore, the doctrine which the Son of God, our Mediator, revealed from heaven in Paradise, immediately after the fall, and which he brought from the bosom of the Eternal Father; which promises, and announces, in view of the free grace and mercy of God, to all those that repent and believe, deliverance from sin, death, condemnation, and the wrath of God; which is the same thing as to say that it promises and proclaims the remission of sin, salvation, and eternal life, by and for the 102sake of the Son of God, the Mediator; and is that through which the Holy Spirit works effectually in the hearts of the faithful, kindling and exciting in them, faith, repentance, and the beginning of eternal life.”

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/ursinus/gospel.ii.html

LOL, you are a funny guy Bo:)

#68

Wow, and here I thought that the gospel was:

Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.

The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.

and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth.To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood

She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”

to give knowledge of salvation to his people in the forgiveness of their sins,

I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.”

For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he then said to the paralytic—”Rise, pick up your bed and go home.”

And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”

Why are people healed? There sins are forgiven.

Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.

that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise.”

and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out,

Let it be known to you therefore, brothers, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you,

And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’

I would add the entire book or Romans but that would be to much.

It seems to me from the versus above that Jesus mission and plan from all eternity past. The plan of the Father, Son, and Spirit was to show mercy and grace to humans through the death and ressurection of Christ. He was sent to forgive sins of sinners!

I agree with that also. Please also not it say he appear to take away sin 3 verse prior. I am not saying PS is the only part of the death of Christ. I am just saying it is one of the top reason he came. To die for our sins. Please take note I did not say it was THE TOP, one of the topereasons. If you miss this point in prestenting the gopsel then you miss one of the main points of the gospel. Not the only point just on of the main points.

5You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.

When I am out of this stinkin airport/airplane I will transcribe the end of that video and post it. I guess I am not shocked that the fellow haters of the real Gospel would begin name calling. Rob Bell is preaching another Gospel in that video.

Time for more moderation me thinks!

The bottom line is this.

What Bell says in the video is perfectly biblical.

All this fuss, and Pastorboy’s asinine arrogant and unChristlike judgmentalism, is based on complaining that Bell does not blatantly present a call to Gospel repentance… which is not the point he is addressing.

HE WAS NOT TRYING TO SAY HOW WE GET SAVED – BUT WHAT DIFFERENCE IT SHOULD MAKE

I agree with that also. Please also not it say he appear to take away sin 3 verse prior. I am not saying PS is the only part of the death of Christ. I am just saying it is one of the top reason he came. To die for our sins. Please take note I did not say it was THE TOP, one of the topereasons. If you miss this point in prestenting the gopsel then you miss one of the main points of the gospel. Not the only point just on of the main points.

The thing is, the phrase “he died for our sins” in and of itself is not a full fledged proof of the PSA view of the atonement. And the PSA description of what happened on the cross is not the whole Gospel. I actually think that the way Bell presents the story not only in this video, but in his books and sermons, is a much more comprehensive and compelling presentation.

I know I sound like a little cry baby, but some mutual respect can go a long ways when blog about things we hold very dear to out hearts, like the bible and God and Christ ect…

Kyle,

I agree, and your dressing PB down for calling us enemies of the Gospel is much appreciated.

I do not understand why the need to immediately jump to such nastiness.

The Gospel is the good news that God hasn’t given up on the world?

HUH?? NO The Gospel is not that. Rob makes it sound like there is actually something we can do. Like God is waiting for us to do something good. There is nothing that we can do. Nothing, God did something, He demonstrated His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

That a giand resurrection rescue is underway and you and I can be a part of it? TELL ME HOW! How can we? Again, it is like Rob Baal is saying we are all a part of it….WE ARE NOT!Jesus is saving me from my sins, my mistakes, my pride.. TRUE- but HOW? How do we become a part of it? Comeon Rob Bell….Spit it out PLEASE!! How does he save us from my indifference to suffering in the world…how? from cyniscism and despair… HOW? He is rescuing us day by day because God wants to put it all back together- BINGO! Universalism.”You, me, THE WHOLE WORLD” No repentance. Everybody gets put back together….

That my friends is not the Gospel. That my friends IS HERESY. Rob Baal is an enemy of the true Gospel of repentance and faith in Christ alone.

Well I suppose that if one denied what Bell spoke about in that video, you’d pretty much be denying everything the Christian faith stands for. I thought it was a great video full of important information many don’t know about the early church, and he included the Gospel to boot. What’s the issue here?

Iggy…

I have denied none of those things.

Neil,

I said if you believed the other Gospel that I quoted Rob Bell as preaching which is not the historical Biblical Gospel then you are believing a false Gospel. The Gospel is NOT that God has not given up on the world. The Gospel is that Jesus came into the world to 1. Glorify God by SAVING SINNERS.

To do that Jesus had the wrath of God poured out on him as a substitute for our sins. He was risen again from the dead and sits at the right hand of the Father making intercession for us.

God did not paint blood on the doorposts of the universe to invite us all in. We must respond to the Gospel call- OBEY the Gospel.

If you do not believe this you do not believe Jesus, Peter, James, Paul, John, or any of the other writers of the Gospels or the Epistles.

I would rather believe them than the false prophet Rob Baal.

Ken, Chris R and all those wrapped up in this “discernment” business seem to me like very lonely, angry, bitter people.

It’s a shame that the gospel they so tenaciously think they are defending has taught them so little about grace.

Iggy,
I think you’re being a little generous. They’re not ignorant, they’re malicious. They’re not misunderstanding, they’re liars.

And now they’ve over extended. In a video where Bell is obviously orthodox, they’d rather stake out heterodoxy than agree with Bell.

So go on with your bad ADM selves, enjoy your lying, resurrection-denying selves.

…TELL ME HOW! How can we?…TRUE- but HOW? How do we become a part of it? Comeon Rob Bell….Spit it out PLEASE!! How does he save …HOW?…

HE WAS NOT TRYING TO SAY HOW WE GET SAVED – BUT WHAT DIFFERENCE IT SHOULD MAKE

Q:

That a giant resurrection rescue is underway and you and I can be a part of it? TELL ME HOW! – Pastorboy

A: We are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do Ephesians 2:10

A: Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. 2 Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ Galatians 6:1-2

A: Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. James 1:7

A: I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’” – Jesus as quoted by Matthew

3. caring for the poor is a fruit of the gospel. it is NOT the gospel. bell is confusing sanctification with justification

So, if I stand in front of a tree and say “This is an apple tree” you would respond “No, it is a tree that produces apples… you are confusing the tree with the fruit.”

Pastorboy, I have no problem seeing the truth you expounded about what God has done through Jesus Christ (in comment 99) as summed up nicely by Bell saying God has not given up on the world. I think Jesus summed it up by saying God so loved the world.

This is way too much angst spent on semantics.

Nathanael,

I missed that… YIKES, when ya start inserting devious stuff like that all reason has been jettisoned.

RE: 90

So Bell uses a colloquial phrase to describe God’s love for the world and if we do not object we’re enemies of the Gospel.

joe,

there was NOT A SINGLE mithras follower in the first century that believed that mithras was born of a virgin. the myth of mithras clearly teaches that he was born fully grown from a ROCK, he was naked except for the phrygian cap.

also, the mithras cult didn’t really take root in the roman empire until the mid 2nd century.

again, either bell is stupid, deceived or buy’s into liberal lies and is purposely promoting false liberal fabricated ‘history’.

which is it?

fact: bell claimed mitras was born of a virgin. bell is way off the mark. mithras was born from a rock.

Apparently, your definition of ‘fact’ is different from the standard one. Bell claimed that Mithra’s followers believed he was the product of a virgin birth. This is true – Mithras was the product of a single parent (Attis), whose seed was supposedly spilled on a rock, from which Mithras came forth.

fact: bell claimed that people wouldn’t be impressed with the claim that jesus rose from the dead because of the myth of attis. bell is way off the mark. the attis cult was a complete non-factor in the 1st century.

While there is some debate on the the dating of the Mithras cult, the range of the dating is from about 125 BC to 300 AD. When I was in Ephesus a couple of years ago, the archaeologists on site were discussing a tauroctany (a Mithras shrine) discovered nearby that dated to the first century.

so either bell is stupid, deceived or buy’s into liberal lies and is purposely promoting false liberal fabricated ‘history’.

I see nothing “liberal” or “conservative” about viewing the history of Mithras. Bell didn’t even get into Dionysus and other pagan gods being worshiped in first century Asia Minor who had resurrection stories or who claimed to give eternal life or who claimed to show the way to the heavens after death.

He uses the likely facts of history to show how Jesus’ story was different and true, even while demonstrating why some did not automatically believe based on the first-hand witnesses.

Eddie, the theory about Mithra has been contested and there are theories.

from Wikipedia:

Some have tried to demonstrate Christian dependence on a Roman mystery cult called Mithraism, which was established prior to Christianity. Early reconstructions of the Mithras legend proposed, from Persian sources, that he might have been born of the union of Mother Earth and Ahuramazda, however the theory has not endured. Carvings illustrating the legend reinforce documentary sources that focus on Mithras being born purely from rock (saxigenus),[50] as Athena, the daughter of Zeus and Metis,[51] sprang from the forehead of Zeus.

As for dates:

Mithraism) was a mystery religion which became popular among the military in the Roman Empire, from the 1st to 4th centuries AD.

FYI – There is Greek evidence of Mithras in the first century BC, and Roman writings by Statius circa 80 AD (Thebaid (Book i. 719,720)), along with archaeological evidence from the early 70’s, from soldiers returning to Europe from the conquest of Jerusalem.

It’s really a non-issue. EVEN if you concede that Bell is getting his facts wrong about the history of Mithra or Attis there is something deeper and more poignant going on. Perception is reality. There is a prevailing notion in religious circles today (thanks to liberal scholarship or Jesus Seminars) that these other cults adversely influenced the story of Christianity. They tend to argue in such a way that wishes to deflate the authenticity of the gospels and make them sound like copies of other mystery religions.

Bell is taking a wise pastoral role here and turning that on its head. He is more or less saying, “Fine, lets say all this is true. Here is the power of the Gospel…”

joe,

ancient religions happen to be a favorite subject of mine.

since you keep ignoring the facts and obviously have zero knowledge on the cult of mitras, i recommend that you go ahead and produce the data and 1st century documents and quotes that substantiate bell’s fabricated history.

if bell was telling the truth then the evidence will be there.

so go ahead, produce the evidence that mithras was born of a virgin.

if the evidence for bell’s fabricated history is not there (and it isn’t), then i have to ask you, why are you unquestioningly following this man as if he were a cult leader?

if you really want to know the truth about these alleged claims regarding mithras and attis i recommend that you pick up some books by dr. edwin yamauchi. he is the world’s authority on this subject.

Chad, I’m a little upset that you trumped my little nugget of wisdom with a chunk of truth.

chad i couldn’t disagree with you more. there is nothing pastorly about bell’s strategy.

he is bending over to false liberal scholarship & basically saying ‘it doesn’t matter if the claims are historical or not’ because we are the gospel and we are the proof of the resurrection. this is pure subjectivity and just flat out not true. next you’ll be telling me the book of mormon is true because you had ‘proof’ through a burning in your bosom.

nathanel,

i’ve already proven that bell was either lying or deceived regarding mithras and attis. and i don’t think this error was an accident.

are you like the word faith people who claim that you can’t criticize ken copeland and benny hinn because they ‘are god’s annointed’ and the bible says you can’t touch god’s annointed.

give me a break

Eddie,
In all fairness, jumping into a comment thread and telling everyone that what you are saying is a fact is not the same as providing proof…it’s just not.
And no one demanded you provide truth. But your demand on Joe to provide proof that your claims are false is just backwards. That is why I said what I said.

No one is saying you cannot question Bell’s conclusions. But an accusation is different than a critique.

because we are the gospel and we are the proof of the resurrection.

Well, you can’t deny this. Look around you, Eddie. How else do you explain the Church? How do you explain our existence? So yeah, we ARE proof that the resurrection happened. The fact that Jesus lives in my life (and I assume yours) is proof that Jesus lives today.

In a sermon by Will Willimon he says this, something I used just this last week in my sermon:

In a TV show about Jesus awhile back with Peter Jennings, a Professor N. T. Wright, when asked about the possibility of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, pointed, as evidence, to us, the Church. If you don’t believe that God vindicated Jesus, his life, his teaching, by raising him from the dead, well then how do you explain us, the Church? Lots of great teachers left us some great books, a gaggle of admirers, but who left us something like the Church? We believe in the resurrected Christ, said Professor Wright, because we keep meeting him—in word and in worship on Sunday, in those dark nights when we cry out in misery for help and he is there.

I believe that is true. Why don’t you?

Or perhaps, Eddie, you have never known Jesus to be alive as a person but merely as a fact?

Jesus was born in a specific and real region of the world during the reign of augustus and was crucfied, died and was buried under pontious pilate and bodily rose from the grave and this was an objective and real event that was seen by over 500 real people with real names who really lived.

agreed.

i am not the gospel.
i am not proof the resurrection.

Well, since I don’t know you I will have to take your word for it.

you are not the gospel.
you are not proof of the resurrection.

I disagree. While I agree I am most surely not the fullness of the gospel and certainly not the best representative, my life is one redeemed by a risen Christ, the one who is the first fruits for what God intends to do for us all.

Jesus said what we do for the least of these “we have done to him.” We who are Christians are the gospel. We are good news. We, the Church, are a light to the world – proof that God has not given up on God’s good creation. So yes, we are proof that God is working.

there are plenty of people with changed lives in mormonism, buddhism, and islam. are there changed lives proof that those religions are true?

You don’t want to get into this with me. Nor do I wanna get into it again for at least a few more weeks.

I’ll just say this: I thank God that the Holy Spirit is at work in all the world.

if the evidence for bell’s fabricated history is not there (and it isn’t), then i have to ask you, why are you unquestioningly following this man as if he were a cult leader?

You’ve already been provided with information that supports that (at a minimum) there is a significant stream of scholarship (including Roman records and artifacts) which place Mithra worship’s origins between 100 BC and 80 AD.

I see no evidence that Joe is ‘unquestioningly following’ Bell – though I would note that he is the teaching pastor at Joe’s church, so Joe is biblically required to the same level of submission to him as an overseer as you are to the elders of your own church. This has nothing to do with following someone “as if they were a cult leader”, and everything to do with appropriate, biblical submission.

if you really want to know the truth about these alleged claims regarding mithras and attis i recommend that you pick up some books by dr. edwin yamauchi. he is the world’s authority on this subject.

Eddie, I would point to numerous other scholars of ancient religions as more authoritative – but that is neither here nor there. It is safe to say that there are legitimate sources that back Bell’s use of history, even if there is disagreement among scholars as to the exact dating of Mithra. At the bare minimum, Christian charity would assert that supported views which differ from your own would not be treated as ‘falsehood’ or heresy.

he is bending over to false liberal scholarship

It is funny that you say this, because the current President of Western Theological Seminary (a Reformed seminary with a solidly conservative reputation), who is by no stretch of the imagination a ‘liberal’ scholar, teaches and agrees with this dating, as well, and was likely one of Bell’s sources. Just because liberal scholars (like those on the Jesus Seminar) might misuse the facts of history to try and discredit Jesus doesn’t make the facts incorrect – it just makes their (mis)application incorrect.

i’ve already proven that bell was either lying or deceived regarding mithras and attis. and i don’t think this error was an accident.

You’ve not proven anything – in fact, your assertion has been contradicted with specific historical references.

And while I disagree with Chad on Universal Reconciliation, I do agree with what he’s said in #136 (though I’d disagree with the subtext behind the line after the smiley face)

sorry guys i’m late for a meeting.

I just got back this morning, and I’ve just sort of skimmed through the comments, but as far as the whole Mithra thing goes, I think Bell’s argument is along the same line of the one N.T. Wright makes in The Resurrection of the Son of God.

Yes, there were other stories of resurrection floating around at the time, but there were a few major things that set Jesus’ resurrection apart. First, it was at a specific historical point in time and at a specific location. Also, it was an actual physical resurrection. This is something that people entrenched in a Greco-Roman worldview would have thought odd, and this would have set the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection apart from all others. The resurrection accounts of Mithra and other Greek and Roman deities were of spiritual or astral resurrections. They were not resurrected to physical bodies.

…the uniqueness of the claims of the gospel is that they took place in real time and history. – Eddie

No one is denying this.

Bell is not denying this.

So, while true and agreeable – what’s you point in saying it?

Even if Bell did happen to have some of his history not quite right regarding the whole Mithra thing (which I don’t believe is the case), I fail to see how that makes him a “liberal”. He’s simply stating that the early Christians were proclaiming the truth of Jesus against the plethora of false stories floating around at the time. That is exactly what are called to do today.

It’s not as if he’s in some way promoting that people worship gods other than Christ. It simply the same old song and dance of people who are looking for any excuse to complain about him.

What Eddie and Pastorboy say Bell believes:

i think bell is also a universalist in much the same way that you are – Eddie

He is rescuing us day by day because God wants to put it all back together- BINGO! Universalism. – Pastorboy

What Bell says Bell believes:

Jesus is our only hope for bringing peace and reconciliation between God and humans. Through Jesus we have been forgiven and brought into right relationship with God. God is now reconciling us to each other, ourselves, and creation. The Spirit of God affirms as children of God all those who trust Jesus.

Here we have the denial of universalism proper – Bell affirms that only Jesus saves.

Here we have the denial of a Christian universalism – Bell affirms the need to trust Jesus specifically.

We can give Eddie a pass for he may not have seen this before

Pastorboy has, and knows full well what bell says, yet he continues to willingly promote false statements about Bell.

neil,

the point is that bell is giving us a fabricated history. he then uses this fabricated history to take the gospel out of the realm of the real and objective and instead throws it into the realm of the subjective and unverifiable. as a result he doesn’t proclaim christ’s crucifixion for our sins as the core of the gospel nor does he discuss repentance and the forgiveness of sins (like the apostles did, read Acts), instead he claims that ‘we are the gospel’ (subjective) and we are the ‘proof of the resurrection’ (subjective) through our humanitarianism (social gospel).

this is really just a new spin on classic liberalism which also takes us out of the objective word of God, throws us into subjectivity and claims that the proof that they are being used of god is their love for the poor.

again i point out the fact that mormons, buddhists and muslims can all make the exact same subjective claims. they all engage in providing for the poor and making the world a better place. yet these religions repudiate the claims of Jesus Christ and are false religions.

as soon as you throw christianity into the world of the subjective you have no ability to proclaim the real truth of christianity above and against these other religions.

claiming that your changed life is proof of the resurrection is every bit as unverifiable subjectivity as claiming that the book of mormon is true because you had a burning in your bosom. how on earth can you claim that your subjective experience is more true than another person’s subjective experience?

yet the christian gospel advanced through the objective eye witness proclamation of the death & resurrection of Jesus through men who were physical eye witnesses to the events of the gospel narratives. these eye witnesses incessantly proclaimed christ’s crucification for our sins and his resurrection for our justification and called their audiences to repentance in order to receive the forgiveness of sins (read Acts).

the gospel proclaimed by the apostles is vastly different than the gospel bell is proclaiming in that video.

the point is that bell is giving us a fabricated history. he then uses this fabricated history to take the gospel out of the realm of the real and objective and instead throws it into the realm of the subjective and unverifiable.

He does no such thing, show me where he takes the Gospel out of the realm of the objective. His whole point assumes the objective truth of the events.

RE 152:

Eddie,

I agree that offering changed life as proof of the Gospel is an argument that false religions can/do use.

And if Bell were using this as an apologetic for the objective truth of the Gospel I would agree with you.

But this is not what he is doing.

He is talking to people who already believe the objective truth of the Gospel.

He does not need to prove it or describe it or promote it or call them to believe it – they already do.

His point is to illustrate what difference it should make.

Eddie,

It would be like me giving you directions from point A to point B… and you complaining that I did not include the way to point C.

You are complaining that he is not including content that is not apropos to his point.

fact: in the video that is being discussed bell said you and I are the gospel and proof of the resurrection.

All this fuss over stating something in a colloquial manner… what Bell said is simply a rephrasing of Paul telling the Ephesians to walk in a manner worthy of their calling…

neil,

using only the bible, define the gospel for me.

since you are not mentioned in the Bible by name. You don’t get to define yourself as the gospel.

161 comments and most of them in response to Pastorboy’s wild accusations based on Bell rephrasing

“God so love the world” to “God has not given up on the world.”

And Eddie’s wild accusations based on Bell rephrasing

“Live a manner worthy of your calling” to “You are the Gospel.”

Geesh!

If someone else had said these things it would be NBD… it’s not what was said but who said it that generates the issue.

phil

i hope you’re right about bell making wright easier to understand. but im not as optimistic that is the case.

this question might seem very random but it isn’t.

do you believe that you can ‘release yourself into the heart of god’?

Eddie,

I think you are applying Bell’s words way to literally, you are missing his point.

Look at it this way – Paul called believes the body of Christ. Now, it would be very reasonable for someone to say we are not the body of Christ… that Christ has his own body… and that calling humans the body of Christ denies and deminishes the resurrected Jesus…but you could only do this is you misapplied what Paul meant.

If you look at what Bell meant – it makes perfect, and perfectly biblical, sense.

neil,

i may not be a bible scholar but i’ve been around churches for a few years and read my bible daily and bell’s ‘gospel’ made no biblical sense to me at all.

i may not be a bible scholar but i’ve been around churches for a few years and read my bible daily and bell’s ‘gospel’ made no biblical sense to me at all.

Bell’s point was that the Gospel should be seen in our lives, that we demonstrate the power of the Gospel and the resurrection.

That God is in the business of calling people back to himself and we get to be instruments in that.

Neil

neil,

i don’t think that video had a specific audience. it was not targeted to just believers.

the content of the gospel message is intimately tied to the fruit of the gospel in our lives. to discuss the fruit without the content of the gospel obscures the content of the gospel and tacitly turns christianity into a subjective works based religion.

Time out, I’m off to lunch…

i have to get some real work done or my customers will riot. i’ll check back tonight after work.

the content of the gospel message is intimately tied to the fruit of the gospel in our lives. to discuss the fruit without the content of the gospel obscures the content of the gospel and tacitly turns christianity into a subjective works based religion.

So you basic complaint is the content of the Gospel was not explicit when presenting the fruit of the Gospel.

So you are saying that everytime someone discusses the fruit of the Gospel, that everytime someone expounds on the SO WHAT of the Gospel – it is only valid if it is also attended by a WHAT of the Gospel as well.

I disagree.

RE 177:

So, we are now no longer talking about what Bell actually said… but what he MUST have meant based on who he associates with…

Can we have a list of your friends so we can discern what you actually mean?

Jesus is our only hope for bringing peace and reconciliation between God and humans. Through Jesus we have been forgiven and brought into right relationship with God. God is now reconciling us to each other, ourselves, and creation. The Spirit of God affirms as children of God all those who trust Jesus.

Here we have the denial of universalism proper – Bell affirms that only Jesus saves.
Here we have the denial of a Christian universalism – Bell affirms the need to trust Jesus specifically.

Um, Neil, just FYI : I affirm the very same thing and would say it just as Bell has said it.

RE 184:

Chad,

You would say that only those who have trusted Jesus are saved?

Neil

I read the statement:

The Spirit of God affirms as children of God all those who trust Jesus.

as exclusionary – yes.

If it is not exclusionary it is redundant.

neil,

listen mate. i have friends who are atheists, hindu, jews and homosexual unitarians. that doesn’t make me a heretic.

if i were to allow them to teach my bible class or let them preach from my church’s pulpit then that would be more than problematic.

questioning bell’s orthodoxy when it comes to his friends is one thing questioning his orthodoxy based on who he allows to preach from his pulpit is another animal altogether.

Eddie,

The point is, you switched from discussing what bell actually said to those he associates with.

I may be uncomfortable with his associates… but this does not change what he said.

phil,

i did not gleen any of the data that posted regarding hipps’ beliefs from any odm site.

i told you not to take my word for it. call him and ask him for yourself.

hipps is a very nice bloke. very amiable and quite capable and willing to discuss his beliefs. when you call him ask him about the logos from john 1 and the importance of the ‘breath of god’ and about jesus’ mission to awaken people to the divine breath of god within them. however, he might get cross with you if you remind him that the gnostic gospel of thomas bluntly discourages giving alms to the poor and claims that women can’t be saved unless they become men.

Just a thought, would the Mennonite denomination allow someone who is “blatantly unorthodox” to pastor one of their churches?

Methinks Shane is accountable to someone (besides God) in his ministry.

The Spirit of God affirms as children of God all those who trust Jesus.

Until shown otherwise I will give Bell a charitable reading and assume that this statement is a narrative way of phrasing the prologue of John’s Gospel… particular 1:12, which is exclusionary.

[I understand that there is a camp that sees this as non-exclusionary - but I'll side with the historic faith on this one]

Eddie,

Once more, is orthodoxy a requirement to be saved?

I don’t see John 1:12 as exclusionary in the same way I don’t see Bell’s statement as exclusionary. To make it as such means you have to admit John 1:12 is contradicting Eph. 4:6 and 3:14-15, both of which make it quite clear God is the father of all. Not just some.

There are two options other than admitting an exclusionary John contradicts Paul.

1) They are using the terms differently. One using it as a term for all humans, the other for those adopted in a salvific way. Why would John say those who believe have the right to become something… if everyone is that same something by default… whether they believe or not?

2) Nothing in the context of Ephesian forces us to assume Paul mean all human beings. In fact, the context of Ephesians 4 is unity within the body of Christ.

If it comes out, if someone shows, if Bell himself says, that he’s in the Christian Universalists camp – I will at that time stop defending him.

Yet, this must be what he himself says. It is not valid to argue from guilt by association. It is not valid to argue from what he has not said. It is not valid to pour meanings into his words that are not obvious in the context.

202 –
Neil, I don’t find it a problem at all. To become a child of God is to live into the inheritance that you are. The word John uses that is translated “become” is ginomai, which has a vitality to it – it has with it a sense of awareness – an awakening. The word “to know” (ginosko) comes from the same root.

So John is saying what Bell is saying – by trusting in Jesus we have affirmation that we are children of God. With this affirmation comes power. Wouldn’t you agree that waking up to the reality that you are God’s child and God has saved you is empowering? Even salvific?

By limiting this to the church, in that specific context, we are not saying he is not above all. Of course he is the God of all

Well then you can’t say that God is only Father of some. He is either Father of only some and then over only some or he is Father of all and over all.

At this point we obviously part ways in what we see.

I see no point in John contending that those who believe have a right to something… if everyone has that right by default.

That said, it is nice to disagree and hash out interpretations without name calling on either side.

Phil,
I don’t want to get into this again either, but really?

You think “One God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all” is only about some people? So God is not really above all?

Is it possible that Paul is stating an ontological reality – a fact about the world. This is who you are. Period. You are a child of God. God is your Father.
And then is it possible that the rest of the letter (which is what I would argue) is how we appropriate that reality about our lives? It’s about living into that reality? Some do, many, admittedly, do not.

I think that is precisely what Paul is getting at.

Well, in a word, yes. I do believe that Paul was writing to a specific group of people. First the Ephesians, but then the Church at large. In Ephesians 4, it seems that Paul was saying to the Church – “you all have one Father and are baptized into the same body of Christ – so act like it”.

Yes, in one sense, the Father is above all, but Christ is not Lord of all in a functional way yet.

Anyway, I don’t see that verse as a support for universalism. But I don’t hate you for it, Chad…

I see no point in John contending that those who believe have a right to something… if everyone has that right by default.

ahhh. But see, this is where faith comes in. Trust.

I think that is exactly what John is saying. What we put our faith in makes a difference in what we are becoming.

This is why I argue very forcibly for the need for faith. Contrary to other universalists who say you can believe in anything you want.

phil,

all i am saying is that you should call hipps and ask him for yourself about these matters.

also, the mennonite church does not have a category for heresy in their theology. you can ask hipps about that too when you call him.

g’day

I think that is exactly what John is saying. What we put our faith in makes a difference in what we are becoming.

In this world – right? Because ultimately we are all children of God and glory bound whether we believe or not – right?

215-

Neil, I appreciate your question and the spirit it comes in. It would be nice if this happened all the time without having to hear how I have made Satan my bedfellow (Chris L).

Does it haunt me? It has from time to time. But I have been digesting this for years. As you know I am a big fan of church history and contra Rick F, I believe we have much to learn from the saints of the past (and present). We stand on their shoulders.

However, I also acknowledge some other very real things – confessions in my faith that are paramount. Chief and foremost is my conviction that God is still very much alive and active in the world and the Holy Spirit is still leading Christ’s bride into truth. This has not stopped in the 1st century or 4th century (with Augustine) or in the 16th century with Luther/Calvin or in the 18th century with Wesley nor will it stop in the 21st century with Bell/McLaren/Pagitt/Tickle/Hipps/CRN.info et. al.

Even a brief scan of church history reveals how much has evolved and revolved. Slavery, women’s rights, race issues to name just a few ethical changes. Or theologically how we think of atonement or the Eucharist or the role of the Church and so forth. Through out history there have been highs and lows, periods where certain voices were dominant and others minor. Some resurge after a period of silence and others never reappear. The teaching that God will one day reconcile ALL of creation to God’s self and do this through God’s Son Jesus Christ (Christ as Victor), however, has been present from the very beginning of the Church. It got snuffed somewhat when Augustine came along. Augustine put nearly everyone in hell. The Western Church has followed his lead for so much. And he is not right about everything (though much he is).

Sorry so long – but to answer your question, no, I am not haunted any longer. I feel strongly that God’s victory through Christ is the heart of the Good News. The Church are those who have been enlivened and awakened to the hope that is Jesus and have been entrusted with sharing this message to all the world. They need to know that, in Bell’s words, “You don’t have to live this way….” (taken from his talk “The God’s Aren’t Angry”)

The other day I saw a church sign that made me laugh – usually they make me cringe…

it read:

“Do not put a comma, where God has put a period”

The obvious and specific reference aside – I thought that a rather clever come-back.

Thanks Chad!

I think – before I could embrace Christian Universalism I would embrace annihilationism.

With the latter ya kinda get to have your cake and eat it too…

mr. miller,

i made no accusations about shane hipps. i spoke only the truth about his beliefs and my source is prima facia.

i told you not to believe me but invited you to call the rt. rev. hipps and hear it from the horses mouth yourself.

rev. hipps is not defensive in the slightest regarding his views on the gnostic gospel of thomas. nor is he shy about his panentheistic beliefs regarding the divine breath of god within us that jesus came to awaken.

as you will soon discover for yourself, i made no accusations about the rt. rev. hipps.

the question i have for you is what are you going to do after you call him and discover for yourself that i am telling the truth?

these facts are a bit of a game changer.

with that I must bid you all adieu. I have my businesses to tend to. tell martino that I regret not being able to explore the topic of the ancient religions further with him but that I expect that he’ll do the scholarly thing and cross check mr. bell’s facts regarding mithras and attis. good scholarship never hurt anyone who was on the side truth.

g’day

the question i have for you is what are you going to do after you call him and discover for yourself that i am telling the truth?

Again, your refusal to answer a simple question affirms my suspicion. If you make an assertion about someone, you should be able to provide evidence to back it up. It is not my responsibility to find the evidence to support a claim you are making.

Again are you saying that he actually told he believes the Gospel of Thomas to be part of the canon, or are you simply in some way inferring this? It’s a simple question.

Right now, you have not made your case.

Eddie seems unable to answer any simple question.

I won’t ask my question a third time, Eddie. If you won’t answer it, I’ll draw my own conclusions as to why.

Neil,
I’m pretty sure it was not a lack of comprehension that kept Eddie from answering Phil’s question. But you’ve definitely helped the nose on one’s face become even clearer.

Neil,
In 225 you were anticipating my follow-up question.

The other issue, of course, is how certain sects of the Church have turned “orthodoxy” into it’s own work. Since Eddie obviously thinks orthodoxy is necessary to be saved it begs the question, “Is mental assent any different from an outward good work?”

Phil,

You mentioned Boyd which reminded me of the time period I think I Chris L found my blog and invited me to check out this site. At the time I was defending Boyd to a bunch of nazi Calvinists who follow “Dr.” Robert Morey around like puppets.

The discussion is still there: http://biblicalthought.com/blog/a-review-of-gregory-boyds-trinity-and-process/

You might find it interesting.

As an aside, that discussion got me in touch with Boyd and he and I carried on an email correspondence for several weeks, discussing Morey, war, and violence in the OT (he was working on a book at the time).

peace.

mr. miller,

i’ve made it perfectly clear that my source is prima facie.

do i need to double dog dare you to step away from the keyboard and do some REAL research?

i’ll make this easy for you.

you can contact the rt. rev. shane hipps at

Trinity Mennonite Church
4334 W Vista Ave
Glendale, AZ 85301-1670
(623) 931-9241

http://www.trinitymennonite.com

he’s quite a likable chap and communicates his beliefs rather lucidly and openly. he’s not evasive about what he believes in the slightest. i’m sure you will find the conversation to be “eye opening”.

“You take the blue pill and the story ends. … You take the red pill and you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.”

LOL, Eddie, have a good day… I am well aware of how to look up phone numbers.

What Mr. Hipps actually believes really doesn’t affect me in the slightest. From the way you refuse to answer my simple question, I can imagine the way your conversation with him went.

It was probably something along the lines of you asking loaded questions getting him to answer in a way that in your view is supported by the G.o.T., and then you inferring that he is supporting the G.o.T. That would explain his irritation towards you at the end…

Oh well, I tried.

But you can have a prime rib source. Mine is Bailey’s Farm. Organically fed cows. Good eats.

By the way, I’m more of a McRib sort of guy, personally… Machine separated pork…

Look, Eddie G.

The facts mean nothing to this conversation. Joe believes this:
Rob Bell says it, I believe it, that settles it.

What it all comes down to is that none of it is the Gospel. It is pure unadulterated anti-Gospel. The focus is on us, our works, our goodness, us being the Gospel. It is works-based legalism. it is Robellion against God (I did mean to spell it that way)

I am saved based upon the grace of God demonstrated by him punishing his Son, pouring out His wrath upon him, and accepting His sacrifice, demonstrated by Jesus being risen from the dead, and living forever to be our advocate directly with the Father. I am not the Gospel, though I should live like the Gospel is very true in my life. That is not the Gospel, it is the fruit of the Gospel in my life.

appropriate it? Not sure where your from but around these parts we grill em.

#217
In order to be saved- yes- orthodoxy is required.
You must have an orthodox view of your need, your sin,
An orthodox view of God.
An orthodox view of Jesus.

Yep.

Ruach

I heard that on facebook Rob Bell didn’t become a fan of God. I’m pretty sure that means he’s going to hell.

phil,

i want to clarify something.

what i have stated about the rt. rev. hipps is most certainly true. i have not slandered him nor misrepresented his beliefs. my source is impeccable and it is not a secondary or tertiary source. and i have NOT challenged you to prove what i said to be wrong. instead, i’ve invited you to confirm what i’ve stated and learn for yourself that what i’ve said is true. i am not asking you to prove a negative.

that you refuse to make the call and keep finding ‘technicalities’ to brush aside my invitation to learn the truth for yourself is telling to say the least. maybe your not as interested in the truth as you make yourself out to be.

Eddie –

FYI, Shane is on vacation this week, but from a short bit of follow-up, your “impeccable” source is apparently shoveling something that smells an awful lot like pig manure…

Now you’re just screwing with Phil.

About the only thing I can gather from some sleuthing is that perhaps (and this is only a guess) Shane quoted something once from the GoT, or more likely mentioned that it existed, and – since we all know that quoting something in a church service means you think it should be part of canon – this has led to this bit of tinfoil hattery from this watchdog wannabe…

So to recap:

Eddie makes an assertion

Phil says “prove it”

Eddie says “No, you disprove it”

Good thing our courts do not work on Eddie logic…

OK, I was wrong – apparently it goes like this…

Eddie makes an assertion

Phil says “prove it”

Eddie says “No”

Still a good thing our courts do not work on Eddie logic…

And has anyone ever seen Eddie and Pastorboy in the same room at the same time…?

What it all comes down to is that none of it is the Gospel. It is pure unadulterated anti-Gospel. The focus is on us, our works, our goodness, us being the Gospel. It is works-based legalism. it is Robellion against God (I did mean to spell it that way) – Pastorboy

Two points;
1) Although this comment was approved early, all subsequent comments that misuse a persons name will sit in moderation for a while. Play nice, use a brothers real name, or sit in a t-me-out chair.

2) What Bell is advocating in the video IS NOT works-based legalism – that is the funniest charge I’ve seen you sling yet. If he was talking the HOW I would agree… but since it what the SO WHAT I do not.

The question is. If you were to describe what difference the Gospel should make in a person’s life – how would you do without describing things people should do (you works-based accusation)?

Has the Holy Spirit been informed about this orthodoxy requirement? Anyone? Who’s watch was this on? I want names!