I was part of a conversation about forgiveness recently. Two statements were made and I’d be interested in your opinion. We were discussing the book that I brought up a few weeks ago.
First statement:
All grace is cheap.
Second Statement:
No, It is not. God’s grace was bought with the blood of Jesus. It had a huge price.
What do you think?
This entry was posted
on Friday, November 13th, 2009 at 10:14 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
86 Comments(+Add)
“For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light”
“Ye are not your own: for ye are bought with a price”
Not to be mistaken for a wishy-washy liberal, I vote for both.
The second is more true. Grace is not cheap, it’s free.
Depends on your perspective.
Yup – Grace is free to those recieving it, but cost so much to He who gives it.
#3, Well, Neil that’s why I’m asking for YOUR perspective.
The unmerited favor of God was purchased for us at the greatest price imaginable – the blood of Christ. That is why it is so precious, though it is free.
After studying a number of Jesus’ parables, I concur that grace is not cheap for the one who offers it. That includes grace that we give to others.
Are you really giving others grace if it doesn’t cost you?
Yeah. Calling it cheap is the problem, I think. “Cheap” carries with it an implication of quality as well – which of course we do not intend. As Paul C., said – it is precious even if cheap.
But even apart form that, “cheap” is relative – it speaks of the relationship between the cost and the benefit.
And by definition – there is no cost… therefore “free” is probably better.
But at this point we are splitting hairs… though once split – I prefer “free” over against “cheap.”
It doesn’t cost us anything.
But it does cost us everything.
There is a sense, if you think about it–and part of the problem is that we do not–that grace is wasteful. (That’s not original to me, but if I reveal the source it will be written off instantly.)
I agree with that statement. Grace is wasteful. It costs everything and nothing.
I prefer “extravagant” over “wasteful”.
As do I. In many ways they are much the same… yet the former connoted less negatively.
I like “wasteful” because it confronts human values and assumptions…
Grace is “wasted” in human terms on people undeserving.
Extravagant waste.
(alabaster box)
Grace becomes cheap when we live lives that demonstrate that we spurn the gift that cost God so much to give. Grace is supposed to be transformational- Ephesians 2:8-10- where we are created in Christ Jesus to do good works which He has prepared in advance for us to do. We are supposed to be new creatures in Christ, the old has passed away, the new has come.
When it comes to Joe’s co-pastors, the one (Shane Hipps) says that everyone has the spirit-even Osama Bin Laden- no matter what sail they build. That is not the saving grace of God- the common grace of God- includes the air we breathe, it is the kindness that is supposed to lead us to repentance. Saving grace is given only to those who repent and trust Jesus. He is not a better sail, He is the only sail by which we can catch the wind of the spirit. Rob Bell believes that grace is given to all- again a common fallacy. It is common grace- ability to work, food, air, heart beats- that we all have. It is not saving Grace.
Joe’s co-pastors are the ones who promote cheap grace by saying that everyone has a part in it. They mis speak, the common grace of God, the kindness of God- is meant to lead us to repentance (Romans 2) The saving grace is not for all people everywhere. It is for those who (by God’s grace) repent and place faith in Christ alone for salvation.
You know John, I seriously wish you could drop the whole thing. I mean it. I hate even responding because that is an acknowledgment you even wrote it.
Please John, for the Love of God, for the love of grace and peace, drop the whole thing about RB and MH. Please. It is not an argument we wish to have and it is not one that you will persuaded anyone here to believe. The only ones who will agree already believe it.
We know how you feel, what you believe, and your visceral dislike for anyone who disagrees with you on this subject. Please, please, please, just drop it for good.
jerry
I am truly sorry that you feel that way, Jerry. I guess the open exchange of ideas are not allowed here, unless they agree with your own. This is a proper post, in line with the OP speaking about grace. I gave my opinion about cheap grace, an example of how it is being taught in one
church/performance center, and who the costly grace of God is for.I think every time Joe’s
pastorperformance artist is mentioned, a certain group is offended. I am sorry, but it seems like an appropriate discussion. And by the way, Rob Bell called himself a performance artist, so I am not mocking him.I wish you commenters here were all more like Rick. He is far more tolerant than you guys.
on that note, I hope ND wins and so does Ohio State for Jerry. Purdue even has a chance today, Chris L!
PB,
if someone just went on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about the same thing, would you fault the people around them for being annoyed?
jerry’s advice is good.
find a new whipping boy.
[Redacted by Chris L]
i mean it’s all Jay Bakker, all the time lately…have at it.
yeeesh.
[Redacted by Chris L]
Cool it…. Jeesh.
sorry…
Grace is a particularly difficult truth to describe since we sinners exhibit precious little that can even be considered a speck of grace. We can show kindness and mercy, but showing grace, particularly God’s grace, is beyond us.
To exhibit the grace that God has shown us this scenario would have to take place:
A man rapes and murders your only daughter and he seems genuinely unmoved by it all. You visit that man, who seems to have made a lifestyle of crime, in jail and sincerely and completely forgive him, and then you offer to adopt him as your son and immediately put him in your will.
And that is just on a human to human level.
Pastorboy,
I agree we cheapen grace by how we treat it. There are probably all sorts of examples from the material world…taking invaluable things and treating them with assumption.
Pastorboy,
I believe we allow open and frank discussion. And in this case since Joe attends the church you brought up the connection was closer than usual.
That said, you do have a reputation of bringing up Bell in the most creative ways.
Two things that would help (at least me) take you accusations more seriously. 1) site examples… saying what Bell (or anyone) says without a link makes it difficult to respond – particularly when there is an ODM history (those you tend to side with) of ignoring context and twisting meanings.
And 2) As we say in HERE, those in the body should be treated with all due respect. What is the point in saying bell is not a pastor and his gathering is not a church?
One final thought… instead of saying what you think Bell and Hipps say and believe – maybe you could ask instead.
For example:
Thanks
Neil, in his recent interview, which I have quoted at http://www.crn.info, he states that he is a performance artist.
Pastorboy,
The link is incomplete, I’d fix it for you… but I do not know which of your blog posts you intended to link.
http://crninfo.wordpress.com/2009/09/27/rob-bell-and-evangelism/
Perhaps you have missed the difference between evangelism, teaching and pastoring and conflated them all into the same construct…
In doing so, you seem to expect every public utterance to be “evangelistic” (in the modernist definition – i.e. an apologetics-based argument for the purpose of gaining mental ascent or to lead to conviction), when not all are called to do this. It is as if the Holy Spirit has no means to work without a modernist (and evangelistic) approach.
How about you just respect the body of Christ, and allow the mouths to be mouths, the eyes to be eyes and the discernmentalists be [sphincters].
Did I seriously just read this:
I heard DA Carson say that preachers are more like stomachs…they take it all in, digest it, and it goes where it needs to go from there. I like that imagery.
It’s not a pretty picture, but it is an effective one.
If you quoted Bell calling himself a performance artist, as opposed to a pastor, I missed it in the quotes you posted.
**sigh**
(heavy, heavy, sigh)
So, every time I have heard an author talk about a book he wrote – he too should be excoriated for it?
So, every time a musician entertains a Christian audience without an altar call they are to be excoriated?
Two points, Pastorboy, you are holding Bell up to a narrow definition of what YOU think needs included in an event – an event that was not intended to be a Gospel preaching, Bible studying event – I think Chris L., may be right – you are looking at things from a modernist POV… as if this even has to run through a grid of your creating. And that is not fair. If you can show me where the Bible requires an event like this to include Bible preaching – I’ll agree.
Secondly, when you have a link to a real infraction of Bell’s please post it.
At what point do “misquotes” become lies?
Oh John. You do realize this is about his performances when he travels not about when he preaches? I mean when you golf, is that about golf or about evangelism.
I mean if you really think that Rob was talking about his preaching than we really and truly are back to questioning reading comprehension skills and basic logic function.
From Boston .com…Rob Bell interview…
No gospel…just good works
Q: Do you preach, or perform?
A: I came up through your standard go-to-seminary path, served as an apprentice pastor, did weddings and funerals and hospital visits, but I always veered toward creating things. I was always setting stuff on fire, building things, bringing in piles of dirt. And I started to realize that there’s a dimension to the sermon in which it’s a kind of performance art. Over the years, I’ve realized that I have as much in common with the performance artist, the standup comedian, the screenwriter, as I do with the theologian. I’m in an odd world where I make things and share them with people.
so…you are a performance artist?
the gospel is a joke?
So…what is the point of the tour?
I am pretty sure that the Gospel should fit somewhere in the tour…
And to your question Joe, I have witnessed at least once to everyone that I have golfed with. Now I am being light and salt on the golf course to those whom I have witnessed to and waiting to golf with someone new so I can share verbally with them. All to the glory of God.
Again – by YOUR standards. So you are saying it is wrong for a Christian to write a book (aimed at other believers) then go on tour and talk about the content of the book (and NOT have fun), if he does not alos preach a bible passage.
Course, to so so you must have been at one to know he did not also talk about the Bible.
As far as I can tell, you are elevating a personal preference to some kind of universal standard.
John,
Have you ever read through the OT prophets?
They were ALL performance artists.
You really, seriously don’t get it do you?
jerry
John,
Your quote in #36 is illustrated by all of your sermons. You do perform. Most of your statements online are performance. I know you’re going to throw up a “not true” type statement but I don’t believe you. The rest of your stuff, I’ll let others deal with.
Pastorboy,
It’s comments like
that make it hard to take you seriously.
I hope you understand I try…
But he CLEARLY did not say that the Gospel was a joke. He only compared the role of preaching to others who communicate for a living.
Such swipes just prove you appear to have no interest in discussing what he says – you are just out for a jab.
As much as I believe people need the Lord… I don’t think everything has to include a Gospel presentation to be valid.
PB,
I just hope you realize that for every Bell interview and sermon you dissect you are inviting troublemakers into your church to sow dissension. You will be held to the standard you hold others to. Personally, I would think those in pastoral ministry would have a little more grace when dealing with other pastors.
So really, I no longer am at the place where I get angry with what you say. I really just feel sorry for you and the trouble you will bring to yourself.
#43..”When will we realize that people need the Lord? At the end of broken dreams he’s the open door…”
Yeah – I’ve been humming it ever since
I typed it…
Much of what Bell, Rollins, Tickle, and Paggit say is unrecognizeable in Biblical terms and some is indefensible unless you are predisposed to defend anything he says.
Rick sometimes I think that about what you write. My point here is that what John is all up in arms about is ridiculous.
“Rick sometimes I think that about what you write.”
I am not sure I received that in the way you meant it.
I agree much of what Rollins and Tickle say is unintelligible.
And I’ve read some things by Paggit that I believe thoroughly unbiblical.
But I am still waiting for Pastorboy to point out anything Bell has done or said that is beyond just offending PB’s own modernist standard.
“But I am still waiting for Pastorboy to point out anything Bell has done or said that is beyond just offending PB’s own modernist standard.”
He openly endorses all of these, and according to reports he has hired Shane Hipps whose rhetoric is off the charts.
Clearly you didnt read the whole interview, where he criticizes those who do focus on the Gospel:
Lets just change the scripture ” go into all the world and entertain people with performance art, teach them about pain and creativity, and lo I am with you always…
First off, Rob Bell is not the dictator-at-large at Mars Hill, as far as I know. I suspect that the decision to being another pastor on staff was not his alone.
Secondly, Hipps has said some things that are provocative, for sure, but that does not make one a heretic.
As far as Pagitt goes, I’ll say this. Based on the three books of his I’ve read, I agree with him on a lot more than I disagree with him. I actually thought his last book was his best. My only exposure to Phyllis Tickle has been her teachings at Mars Hill, and I’ve enjoyed those.
PB is simply a modernist. He sees things in a very compartmentalized fashion. The gospel must be presented in a certain way, and converts have to react in a specific way. It’s all very cut and dry. Sadly, though, I’ve found that real life is rarely that cut and dry.
@51: I agree that he hangs with people I probably would not, but until he denies any of the positions held by Mars Hill… I will give him the benefit of that doubt.
And, as Joe said, picking on him for the reasons Pastorboy did in the post I liked to – is petty.
re 52:
A few years ago I read a book that stressed that the great commission was to make disciples, not converts; and too much of the Gospel preaching in the 20th Century (modernism) was interested in converts.
So, you quoting the commission against Bell’s comments about making converts says a lot.
#52
If you believe that is focusing on the gospel, I fear for you. Truly.
Your condescending pettiness, you insistence of using the same term (performance art) as if it were some meaningful allegation, your insistence on seeing things from YOUR modernist approach – are below you.
How do you obey Mark 16:15, Matthew 28:18-20, and Acts 1:8 or imitate Jesus’ example of speaking the truth (in addition to miracles and being the only fully human/fully God man ever…if you expect the Jesus message just to come through without ever sharing the truth of Christ?
Pastorboy,
Although Joe and I have disagreed in the past, I have to side with him.
I believe you are so jaded against Bell that you are incapable of reading clear statements without poisoning them with you own presuppositions.
He is NOT criticizing those who focus on the Gospel… he is has had enough (and so have I) with people who are only after converts.
tell me, please, do you not see the difference?
re 58:
When guys made comments about your reading skills, I thought that a swipe at you that should not be made…
…but the more you comment on what Bell said, the more I wonder.
I am coming to the belief that you are incapable of reading Bell. I am coming to the conclusion that you are so predisposed to assuming he is wrong, that you will make it so regardless of what he actually means.
Actually, I would agree with this statement, as well. The great commission is about making disciples, not about making converts. Discipleship is about how to live, not mental assention to a set of arguments…
#59 no, he is making a straw man. He says it clearly in bullhorn. He is against people who preach the Gospel, and he proves it when he leaves Mars Hill, what does he talk about?? HIS BOOKS not the Bible, not the word of God, but his lousy hebrew interpretations and hermeneutic (the Exodus theology) etc. etc. etc. You keep saying as long as he stays with his narrative statement of faith it is all good, but please PLEASE show me where in the last 3 years he has made an orthodox statement about having a saving faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation.
I have also noticed we have fallen into the old routine of Pastorboy making accusation, we address them, and instead of engaging our comments he just moves on to another accusation…
So, if you care to engage please respond to: 39, 42, 43, 44, 50, 53, 54, 55, 58, 59, or 61.
RE 59: Seriously? Still bitching about his talking about his book?
I give up, you are so entrenched in YOUR modernist ways you are incapable of even discussing anything else.
I am sorry, Pastorboy, I really tried… probably a waste of time… but it was my hope we could discuss this… apparently not.
I am sorry.
61
I agree to. You cannot have a disciple without having a convert.
Unless you are a Rob Bell groupie- you are his disciple and you don’t have to be a convert. Any old sail will do.
In terms of evangelism, you must be converted before you can follow Jesus. It is a God thing, but it is also something we are commanded to preach, and not be ashamed of. It is the introduction to the amazing saving faith. it is not about notches on a belt or being more religious like Bell said. It is about loving God and loving people. Thats why we preach. Its not about selling books or selling Jesus- its about loving God.
I don’t remember Jesus or Paul ever having an altar call or leading someone in the sinner’s prayer…
I do believe people need to decide to follow Christ, but I believe that many of our efforts to convert are counter-productive in the long run. A person who is argued into making a decision can just as easily be argued out of it.
True conversions occur when people encounter the living Christ, and as Christians, we are the only living Christ some people may see. And personally I think harassing people to make a decision is not the best way to be Christ in the world.
Well, so is much of what Calvin wrote, and much of what Luther did, and much of what Piper preaches, and much of what I write, and much of what…and so on and so forth…
there’s no arguing that point. The point is whether or not what they say is in direct opposition to the work of Jesus Christ to bring about God’s plans for the world.
I don’t think you can sustain such a charge.
#66 – Altar calls are not the issue. How can a sinner be saved unless the gospel is preached, including Christ and Him crucified.
“I don’t think you can sustain such a charge.”
The assessment is always subjective. In some corners no one is a heretic, while in other corners everyone is.
Rick,
I agree. You are a heretic.
I know you agree that I’m one too.
Let’s call the whole thing off and be loved by Jesus in spite of our theological heresies.
After all, this is a thread about grace and that’s all we got anyhow.
jerry
PS,
#70 – That makes any discernemnt irrelevant. Like I said, it is not all or nothing and it just may be important in this or any generation.
Maybe.
#67 – There are those who will defend whatever Calvin or Luther said or did. The same goes for MacArthur, Bell, etc. today. In my opinion, real heresy is that which dismantles or chamges or adds to salvation by faith in Jesus Christ exclusively and personally.
The rest is important but not heresy in the same sense.
(I am not under any illusion that I will change anyone’s mind here; perhaps not even make anyone give a serious re-assessment. But I feel I still should speak without resorting to personal attacks or hyperbole.
#66
I do not believe in, nor does the Bible support decisional regeneration.
Regeneration is a God thing which we get to participate in, not by being ‘fully human’, but by proclaiming the evangel- the good news- to the world.
And Bell preaches Christ crucified and raised – pretty much all the time.
And I guess that is why I am so adamant when it comes to defending these people. None of the ones listed here have denied the death and resurrection of Christ. I could point to specific places where they affirm it.
I feel what the critics are mainly jumping on is that people like Bell do not use specific Christianeze buzz words to describe these things.
#73 – I will not ask for a specific place where Bell articulates the death, burial, and resurrection and the necessity of personal faith in Christ and that work for salvation. I have asked before to less than satifactory answers.
I do not consider the “death, burial, and resurrection” as “buzz” words. I have not seen any emergent openly deny the death and resurrection. But I have seen a void in addressing such things. (BTW Borg, Crossan, and others deny it openly)
#65
Apparently Jesus disagreed. All of his disciples followed without having any idea who he was. They were disciples that were not yet converted, yet they knew there was something different about Jesus and they wanted to be around him. I see that same thing happen every single day. People who are disciples of Jesus though they have not yet placed saving faith in him. Often that comes later.
Well, I don’t have the book in front of me at the moment, but Bell lays it out pretty clearly in Jesus Wants to Save Christians. I’ve also heard him talk about in several sermons.
Those aren’t the buzzwords I’m talking about. I’m talking more about words like “propitiation”, “substitution”, and the like. Those terms have a specific meaning to one group of people, and unfortunately, it seems they have been equated with the gospel for those people.
I read “Jesus Wants to Save Christians”. I must have missed the gospel part, and in fact, some said that Bell was speaking to Christians so he did not need to teach the gospel.
There are important nuances in language. When someone says “It’s Jesus that saves us” it doesn’t necessarily mean “You must believe in Jesus to be saved”.
When a dog greets another dog without smelling its butt, does that mean that it does not trust the other dog?
Use of “Christianese” seems to me, more and more, to really be all about saying to other Christians “I am one of you” than actually conveying any sense of truth to a listener – be they Christian or not.
#78 – Or it’s a clandestine way to not say something you really do not believe. If you are speaking to 2 groups of people, one that understands Spanish and one that understands English, would you not at least make an attempt to make both groups understand what you are saying?
I am convinced that some preachers are purposely ambiguous in order to conceal their evolving theologies.
That may be true, unfortunately. But I probably see it as sad for a different reason than you. I see as sad that pastors usually feel they aren’t free to share their true feeling simply so they don’t offend the heretic hunters sitting in their congregations.
In Bell’s case, though, I actually don’t think he’s that hard to understand. He’s never going to be a Reformed pastor or a traditional Evangelical, so he’s never going to talk like one. He’s never going to present the “Gospel” in terms of the Romans Road to salvation or the Four Spiritual Laws. So people waiting for him to do something like that will be waiting for a long time.
That Bell is purposefully ambiguous is undeniable. He is also purposefully provocative…
The question is – why?
it could be that he is evolving away from the uniqueness of Jesus and is afraid to divulge that for fear of losing his position and audience
or
it could be any number of other reasons…
Speaking of, this has to be considered one of the most modernist methods of all.
Ambiguous and provocative are two different things. Overall, I don’t see him as that ambiguous, honestly. I’ve read some statements that I could say are ambiguous, but if you’re taking statements in interviews with magazines and newspapers, well practically anyone can be made to sound ambiguous.
I’ve done interviews with the campus paper here, and when I read them, they sounded nothing like what I intended to say. You really have no control over what a reporter does with your words.
When I listen to Bell’s sermons, I generally do not hear ambiguity. In fact I hear quite the opposite. I think he does of explaining the context and history behind Scripture.
Perhaps there is a generational and even just stylistic element at play, but I simply have never gotten the idea that Bell is some mushy relativist.
I would love to read somewhere in Bell’s recent writings or messages where he pauses long enough to enounciate a clear and unambiguous gospel. Then I would criticize him for fellowshiping with heretics instead of being suspected of being one.
But before God Alimighty, I cannot see how anyone can listen to Tickle, Hipps, Paggit, and Rollins and endorse them while still being moderately “orthodx” in you soteriology.
“The question is – why?
it could be that he is evolving away from the uniqueness of Jesus and is afraid to divulge that for fear of losing his position and audience
or
it could be any number of other reasons…”
Or perhaps he is not being ambiguous.
Well, the one of those who I’ve had a lot of exposure to is Pagitt, and as I stated earlier, I didn’t find anything explicitly unorthodox in any of hid books. He is a bit too, shall I say, “hippy” sounding to me, but I can’t find any Scripture against that.
I think what it gets down to is this. Much of post-enlightenment evangelicalism is obsessed with answering the “how” of salvation. How do I get saved and how do I distill the message in a way that it is most efficient in getting others saved.
I simply think that this question is not the thing that is in the foreground now. These pastors have grown up hearing plenty about how to get saved, but there is a deficiency in the area of how to simply live the Christian life. So that is what their books and sermons are talking about.
It’s not saying that the first question isn’t valid at all. It’s just operating from the assumption that in many ways it’s been answered. People know how to get to saved, but do they know how to live like a Christian, or what that means in simplest of terms? Sadly that answer seems to be no.