# ... Yet another Rob Bell thread.



## ryanhamre (Apr 29, 2011)

I hesitate in posting this, but I think it is finally the answer we've all been waiting for.

From the most recent Interview/Debate/Conversation whatever you want to call it, the following conversation occurs-



Rob Bell said:


> Let's say a 17 year old rejects Christ, dies, and 17,000,000 years from now [...] God is still punishing that person, is God like that? And I think it's a totally legitimate question...





Adrian Warnock said:


> Do you think God is like that, Rob?





Rob Bell said:


> No! I don't think God is like that.



The full video can be found here-

Unbelievable? | Rob Bell | Premier.tv


----------



## Herald (Apr 29, 2011)

Rob Bell just happens to be the most popular face today for universalism. But it is what is. The shock value of his statements are gone, but the damning results of his belief system linger. 

sent from my most excellent Motorola Atrix.


----------



## Andres (Apr 30, 2011)

Why does Rob Bell get to define what God is like?


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Apr 30, 2011)

I've made this observation before, and will make it now again.

No one is surprised when pigs act like pigs and wallow in the mud. So why should we be surprised when a people pleaser, like Bell, acts according to his nature? This man obviously fears man's opinion more that of God. May the Lord have mercy upon him and grant him repentance.


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 30, 2011)

I'd never heard of Rob Bell before this book was published.

He's just following the liberal theological approach to Scripture, which is believe what you want to believe and reject the rest.


----------



## toddpedlar (Apr 30, 2011)

Wish I could have that hour back.

Rob Bell is not only a false teacher but an arrogant ass.


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 30, 2011)

Luke 6:40b + Pasadena education = 'nuf said.


----------



## steadfast7 (Apr 30, 2011)

I say this hesitatingly, but 2 things I credit Bell for: he's honest and he's a clear thinker - _within his own Arminian system._ Let me explain. Many Arminians would easily conclude the same as Bell, if they were to think through their position long and hard enough. It's only logical that if God loves _every individual_ unconditionally and eternally, then hell is unacceptable. He's a clear thinker in that he has reasoned this out correctly; and he's honest and brave enough to say it publicly at the expense of undermining 2000 years of orthodoxy. The trouble is that now he's articulating this inevitable and dangerous idea to a generation of anti-intellectual Arminians. He's become their spokesman and icon.


----------



## toddpedlar (Apr 30, 2011)

Dennis,

I have to beg to differ with you on Bell and whether we can give him credit for being "brave". One of the main problems I see with Bell is that he is NOT willing to clearly come out and say what he believes. He couches things in slippery language, and then refuses, repeatedly, to answer direct questions with answers he is willing to stand on. I don't think he's brave in the least - rather, he's stuck in a post-modern mindset, and arrogantly claims some sort of moral high ground in the uncertainty he wishes to publicly portray (while he indicates time and again that, in fact, he's rather settled on most of the questions asked of him). He's very typical of the post-modern, emergent paradigm (which is in my view extremely cowardly and at the same time prideful) in that he values uncertainty about all things (except God's universal love) and characterizes as narrow-minded bigots those who want to claim anything less slippery than he wishes to cling to. He says all the right things about wanting to give people hope in Christ, and about wanting to serve them as a pastor...that much I'm happy to give him credit for - but he is otherwise terribly problematic.


----------



## steadfast7 (Apr 30, 2011)

toddpedlar said:


> Dennis,
> 
> I have to beg to differ with you on Bell and whether we can give him credit for being "brave". One of the main problems I see with Bell is that he is NOT willing to clearly come out and say what he believes. He couches things in slippery language, and then refuses, repeatedly, to answer direct questions with answers he is willing to stand on. I don't think he's brave in the least - rather, he's stuck in a post-modern mindset, and arrogantly claims some sort of moral high ground in the uncertainty he wishes to publicly portray (while he indicates time and again that, in fact, he's rather settled on most of the questions asked of him). He's very typical of the post-modern, emergent paradigm (which is in my view extremely cowardly and at the same time prideful) in that he values uncertainty about all things (except God's universal love) and characterizes as narrow-minded bigots those who want to claim anything less slippery than he wishes to cling to. He says all the right things about wanting to give people hope in Christ, and about wanting to serve them as a pastor...that much I'm happy to give him credit for - but he is otherwise terribly problematic.


 
You're spot on about him being a product of the postmodern paradigm, couching his arguments as "questions" rather than statements. But the interview in the OP seems clear enough that when pushed for an answer, he will flatly deny orthodoxy. My only point is that he is knows what he's doing and he knows how to effectively speak to this generation. He's making bold statements, _in the language of his audience_, and I don't think he's self-deceived about it either. Not sure about y'all opinions about him, but I think he's a real threat.


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 30, 2011)

It's a pity neither of them asked Bell if he believed he deserved to go to Hell forever. If he doesn't believe this he's not going to believe it about anyone else.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Apr 30, 2011)

Richard Tallach said:


> If he doesn't believe this he's not going to believe it about anyone else.



How so? The church is full of people who believe that they do not deserve to go to Hell, but can point out and name others whom they feel deserve it.


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 30, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> > If he doesn't believe this he's not going to believe it about anyone else.
> ...



Touche, Boliver.

What I was trying to say is that if we don't understand the depravity of our own hearts such that we acknowledge that we deserve Hell, we may not understand the depravity and resulting desert of humanity generally.

The people _ you_ are talking about have a very superficial and unbiblical view of human nature and God's wrath. Hell isn't for them, or your common or garden sinner, but for mass murderers, serial killers, terrorists, child molesters and people who cross them.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Apr 30, 2011)

Richard Tallach said:


> Touche, Boliver.
> 
> What I was trying to say is that if we don't understand the depravity of our own hearts such that we acknowledge that we deserve Hell, we may not understand the depravity and resulting desert of humanity generally.
> 
> The people you are talking about have a very superficial and unbiblical view of human nature and God's wrath. Hell isn't for them, or your common or garden sinner, but for mass murderers, serial killers, terrorists, child molesters and people who cross them.



I understand now. Thank you for the clarification.


----------



## J. Williams (May 1, 2011)

This is my first post on Puritan Board, so I apologise that I have not mastered the art of posting here yet:



ryanhamre said:


> Originally Posted by Rob Bell
> Let's say a 17 year old rejects Christ, dies, and 17,000,000 years from now [...] God is still punishing that person, is God like that? And I think it's a totally legitimate question...



There are a few ways in which I would answer that:

1. Sinners will not cease sinning upon entering hell, but will continue to sin for eternity (Pr. 1:24-31, Rev. 16:9-11). 
2. They are also condemned on account of the sin of unbelief (Jn. 3:18, 36, Jude 4), 
3. A sinner in hell could not atone for even one sin anyway, as people are not without blemish or Divine etc. (Heb. 2:17, 4:15)!


----------



## kvanlaan (May 1, 2011)

I think the recent post of the Rob Bell parody and a quote from Ravi Zacharias combine to pigeon-hole it the best: the parody talked about him just continuing to bring up question after unsettling question, while true Christianity provides answer after solid answer. Ravi's statement was about a Bruce McLaren book, but I think it applies to Rob as well: every statement dies the death of a thousand qualifications. Rob makes a statement (asks a question, whatever) and then spends the next few minutes explaining what he _really_ meant by it because it is not really the universalist rubbish it looks, sounds, and smells like. However, his explanations seem rather vague and mushy so that he can say what he wants (virgin birth, anyone?) and explain away any criticisms with smoke and mirror qualifications as to why he is still solidly Christian in his theology. Yuck.


----------



## toddpedlar (May 1, 2011)

J. Williams said:


> This is my first post on Puritan Board, so I apologise that I have not mastered the art of posting here yet:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Those are good - but one important point which Bell certainly rejects is that one sin is infinitely grievous because it is an offense against an infinitely holy, perfect and righteous God. So, even if a flawed human could through penance or whatever pay the penalty for a sin against (if such were possible) another flawed human only, that person could never pay the penalty for a sin against God.

Bell's biggest problem is that he doesn't account sin for what it truly is. I do think the idea that Boliver brought up of asking Bell whether he thought he deserved to be punished in Hell for eternity would reveal a lot (and I suspect I know how Bell would respond... something like "Well.... do YOU believe that?").


----------



## Peairtach (May 1, 2011)

I agree that Bell seems unpleasantly cocky and full of pride e.g. talking about "what God is creating through me" etc, apart from the fact that he is peddling false doctrine while trying to maintain a veneer of orthodox evangelicalism.

The fact that Bell has a shallow view of sin is also shown by how he came to write the book, in questioning whether or not Gandhi was lost.

Thinking very superficially, and as the world thinks, Gandhi was a nice peace-lovin' guy of some kind (Hindu) of spirituality. How can we dogmatically say that Gandhi is in Hell when he was a nice guy?

But Gandhi was a sinner and he was sinning also in following Hinduism; so if he died without trusting in Christ he is in Hell.

Bell isn't saying Gandhi's in Hell unless He believed, but is questioning why someone would think it the case that Gandhi was in Hell even if he didn't believe. 

So Bell's thrown the Gospel away, for all his mealy-mouthed obfuscations.


----------



## DMcFadden (May 1, 2011)

From the "Other Dennis" . . .

Todd, you spooked me when you responded to Dennis OH (aka steadfast7). It took a minute to realize you were not arguing with me!

My earlier post may have been unduly succinct (for me anyway). But the best way to understand Rev. Bell (in my opinion) is against the backdrop of his educational background. The president of his seminary (quoted in Time and elsewhere as supportive of Love Wins) is a very nice, very intelligent, very "bridge building" kind of guy who has extended the "edgy" explorations of theology on the boundaries of evangelical belief. Like Bell, he also spent years in Grand Rapids in an environment of Reformed thought anxious to move beyond the turgid confines of what they evidently saw as a sterile orthodoxy.

After interviewing hundreds of ordinands who graduated from Bell's (Piper's and my) alma mater in Pasadena over the last three decades, I will say that Bell seems to have turned the particular culture of his seminary into a very "successful" shtick. More answers than questions, a little bit of shock, and pushing the boundaries.

35 years ago my jaw dropped when one of our seminary profs tried to explain contextualization to a class of mostly first year students. He opined that if we were to preach Jesus in the inner city, you would not speak of the hypostatic union. Rather, you would call him the "Best [insert street rap profanity including the name of deity and a certain 4 letter Anglo Saxon term] you ever saw." He pronounced each of the abbreviations in full! If his intention was to shock, it worked! Grow up in that seminary culture where you are rewarded for asking odd and awkward questions, belittling evangelical leaders (Jack Rogers used to dismiss Francis Schaeffer, Carl Henry, and Gordon Clark), reading more of the radicals than the conservative scholars in the interests of "knowing all sides," and trying to push the envelope of orthodoxy while you work harder to identify with Roman Catholics, secularists, and Muslims than you do those to the "right" of you . . . and you get Rev. Bell.

In my observations, Bell simply never learned how to get over his seminitis. The excesses of the classroom and the academy are things most people learn to forget. Evidently, he has turned it into his main thing. With his brilliance, creativity, and ego, he has been VERY effective doing it. [Unfortunately. Sigh]


----------



## steadfast7 (May 1, 2011)

We are talking about Fuller Seminary right? Any chance there's a link to the fact that they were one of the first evangelical schools to let go of inerrancy in their statement of faith?


----------



## DMcFadden (May 1, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> We are talking about F***** Seminary right? Any chance there's a link to the fact that they were one of the first evangelical schools to let go of inerrancy in their statement of faith?


 
It depends on who you talk to about it. The current president seems quite satisfied with the direction and even a little proud of their openness (as was his predecessor).

The former president wanted to establish the school as an "open" evangelical institution. In my day the largest group of students were from the PCUSA. It was considered a conservative school by mainline standards. The former president, a brilliant OT scholar and graduate of another one of my alma mater institutions, Westmont, wanted to encourage students to distinguish themselves from the narrow sectarian mindset of fundamentalism and (increasingly in the minds of faculty members) evangelicalism. He served on a committee in CA back in the 70s advocating evolution in schools and discrediting creationism as wrong-headed hermeneutics.

The current president has a very inclusive view of the faith. He wants to position the school with an open door to everyone for dialog. So, you find him in Salt Lake apologizing for evangelicals to the Mormons, with rabbinical reps, with Inmans and Islamic scholars, etc. His Grand Rapids Calvinism (honed as a trained philosopher, founder of Evangelicals for McGovern back in the early 70s, and former prof at Calvin) positions him to prefer asking leading questions to giving answers.

One of the residents in the retirement home where I work (and a dear friend) is Dan F*****, son of the founder. He was perhaps the first name evangelical to go in print with a limited inerrancy view back in the late '60s. Lindsell said it was the effect of Barth and Cullmann on Dan when he was doing a second doctorate in Basel.

I think it was his conservative nature. He is a deeply pious man who can bring you to tears with his prayers. However, he struggled with the phenomena of the Bible. One of his existential struggles was over the fact that Jesus said that the mustard seed was the smallest seed and we know it wasn't. His recourse to "defend" inerrancy was to narrow the scope of the affirmation to merely the salvific areas of Scripture. 

After Dan went public in the 60s with modifications, it did not take long for cutting edge profs to push for a less embarrassing less "fundamentalistic" doctrine of the Bible. The change to the seminary doctrinal statement came a few years before my arrival as a student.

In my day we were taught that the Pentateuch was "mosaic" only in the sense that it was a mosaic of bits and pieces cobbled together hundreds of years later (700s?); Jonah was only a literary device, a parable if you will; Daniel was penned during the time of Antiochus Ephiphanes as a pious forgery; Jesus never said many of the things attributed to him; Paul did not write Ephesians; only God knows who wrote Revelation; and while heterosexual marriage is to be seen as God's ideal, a realistic church will bless gay unions as an alternative to one night stands. The most definitive things taught (that I can remember) were that Francis Schaeffer was a rationalistic and divisive sectarian, Carl Henry had a paper pope and reason for his god; Harold Lindsell was a number of very unfavorable things; and that, theologically considered, Jesus was the prodigal son who went into the far country). I can even remember that one of my profs wrote a book defending Judas as still within the universal love and redemptive purpose of God. Also during my years, one of the profs was quoted in the L.A. Times defending the errors in the Bible as proof of its inspiration. An errorless Bible would be docetic, don't you know.

One of the students (and a favorite of the faculty) was a Roman catholic monk working on his PhD in theology. If memory serves me, he was a T.A. for some of the theology profs (this could be errant, but it is accurate to the best of my recollections).

So, steadfast7, it all depends on what came first: the chicken or the egg. An historian writing about the period a century from now will probably place the blame/credit on my friend Dan. However, during my time there he was in the top one percent of the most conservative faculty.

My wife often comments that she is embarrassed to have her degree from ["The-School-Which-Must-Not-Be-Named"]. When some new outrage surfaces, she threatens (so far merely threatening) to send her diploma back. My threshold for cognitive dissonance is evidently pretty high so my reaction is alternately one of grief and bemusement. At this stage of my "pilgrimage," my conservatism is probably more of an embarrassment to them than they are to me.


----------



## Rufus (May 1, 2011)

Andres said:


> Why does Rob Bell get to define what God is like?


 
And where does he get his basis for his beliefs?

Hypothetically one could make a God that is perfectly fine with all sin and a universalist and so forth, but that god isn't God.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (May 1, 2011)

Hey Dennis,

I recently met some students from the Houston campus of the "school of which we do not speak" and all I can say is that you are being kind in your descriptions.


----------



## torstar (May 1, 2011)

Nice touch with that Seminary's name turning out F***** on Dennis's reply.


----------

