-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Rob Bell Interview
- Thread starter quantumfaith
- Start date
freeatlast
New Member
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
This guy is a false teacher.
This guy is a false teacher.
quantumfaith
Active Member
While I do agree, there are some "issues" with what we hear coming from Mr. Bell, I do appreciate his "honest wrestling" with things spiritually and theologically that He finds himself in tension with.
As The Worm Turns
Amen to that!
This puts Bell in direct sunlight and exposes him.
The interviewer,Martin Bashir nails him over and over,yet Mr.Bell tries his best to be evasive. Mr.Bashir is the orthodox one in this interview --Bell is indeed a false teacher. His cool specs won't save him.
The words of Mr.Bashir are remarkably on the mark:"You're amending the Gospel so that it's palatable to contemporary people who find,for example,the idea of hell and heaven very difficult to stomach. So here comes Rob Bell,he's made a Christian gospel for you and it's perfectly palatable,it's easy to swallow. That's what you've done,haven't you?"
Amen to that!
This puts Bell in direct sunlight and exposes him.
The interviewer,Martin Bashir nails him over and over,yet Mr.Bell tries his best to be evasive. Mr.Bashir is the orthodox one in this interview --Bell is indeed a false teacher. His cool specs won't save him.
The words of Mr.Bashir are remarkably on the mark:"You're amending the Gospel so that it's palatable to contemporary people who find,for example,the idea of hell and heaven very difficult to stomach. So here comes Rob Bell,he's made a Christian gospel for you and it's perfectly palatable,it's easy to swallow. That's what you've done,haven't you?"
freeatlast
New Member
Here is the problem I have with someone who claims to be a leader in the church and messenger of God who supposedly "honestly wrestles" with this kind of doctrine. If he IS honestly wrestling then he needs to step down until he gets it figured out since this is not some insignificant issue such as should we meet on Saturday or Sunday, tithe or not tithe. This is about the gospel itself. This is about the veracity of not only the plan of salvation but if the Lord knew what He was talking about.
If this man IS truly honestly wrestling with this then he himself is not saved as he has not come to the truth. More importantly he is leading multitudes to their condemnation because of his false teaching. No I don’t see him as honestly wrestling and I have no sympathy for him as he has the same book as we all do and he has chosen to willfully reject the plan of salvation for a more palatable gospel. He needs to come to the light first himself before he seeks to lead others less he lead them into the same darkness he is in. He has the wrong Jesus, the wrong gospel and is on the wrong road as is everyone who follows his teachings. False teachers are not false because they are sincerely seeking the light. They are false because they willfully reject it for another gospel.
This man and others like him are spoken of in scripture.
For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds [they are] without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.
Last edited by a moderator:
quantumfaith
Active Member
Yes, he appeared to be dancing quite a bit in this video too.
quantumfaith
Active Member
I "sense" that Mr. Bell wants to come out and espouse at least "some form" of universalism, but He is hesitant about doing so, whatever the reason.
Because he's afraid. He doesn't want to lose the "Christian" so he tickles everyone ears.
quantumfaith
Active Member
Well Ann, fear is a very human trait, and I am certain that our God understands that. I, at this moment, am not convinced that he is "intentionally" being an "ear tickler". But, if he is intentionally doing so, he will have weighty things to answer for.
The MSNBC interview is one of the more challenging ones to Rob's positions. Perhaps one of those reasons is that Rob, and several in his theological family like McLaren, refuse to sit down with humble, honest theologians/pastors who will challenge them.
His new book is just not good.
It presents a shallow view and shallow engagement in things that need serious investigation. His misuse of Scripture should be enough to disqualify the book and his terrible redefinition of a central Greek word should make him have to take Greek again.
Interesting that he is happy to sit down with secular hosts on big name networks but not take the reserved and pointed review from informed churchmen. Glad he finally got cornered by somebody who did their homework.
At some point you have to answer direct questions. Usually when someone is being this evasive it means their hiding something. Then he says he's not a universalist. Now I agree, he's not a universalist. He's an inclusivist. Rob pretty clearly (in his book at least) points out that while Jesus' atonement is the granter of salvation for all people who live moral, religious lives in whatever tradition they find themselves. That's inclusivism.
Anyhoo, I'm pretty sad that HaperCollins picked up this book and Brian McLaren's latest waste of perfectly good trees. It should be telling that Zondervan walked away from the opportunity because it violated their mission statement.
His new book is just not good.
It presents a shallow view and shallow engagement in things that need serious investigation. His misuse of Scripture should be enough to disqualify the book and his terrible redefinition of a central Greek word should make him have to take Greek again.
Interesting that he is happy to sit down with secular hosts on big name networks but not take the reserved and pointed review from informed churchmen. Glad he finally got cornered by somebody who did their homework.
At some point you have to answer direct questions. Usually when someone is being this evasive it means their hiding something. Then he says he's not a universalist. Now I agree, he's not a universalist. He's an inclusivist. Rob pretty clearly (in his book at least) points out that while Jesus' atonement is the granter of salvation for all people who live moral, religious lives in whatever tradition they find themselves. That's inclusivism.
Anyhoo, I'm pretty sad that HaperCollins picked up this book and Brian McLaren's latest waste of perfectly good trees. It should be telling that Zondervan walked away from the opportunity because it violated their mission statement.
quantumfaith
Active Member
I too was quite impressed that the MSNBC host had done his considerable due diligence, and it is VERY SELDOM that I have anything positive to say about MSNBC.
glfredrick
New Member
The plain truth about Bell and other "emerging" church leaders is that they have been dancing around with a post-modern narrative for a long time. When someone tries to nail down their theology, they just ask questions in return (much like we see on this board). But, eventually, one will run to the end of the questions and need to actually "say something" which Bell has now done.
What he "said" (wrote) is not the orthodox Christian expression, but rather mirrors the good old Liberal Protestant line of reasoning pushed onto the world by such as Schleiermacher, Harnack, Fosdick, et al. Albert Mohler (http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/03...bell-and-the-reemergence-of-liberal-theology/) notes that these liberals did not intend to ruin Christianity, in fact they intended to "save it from itself" by introducing a socially palatable form that removed some of the difficulties from the gospel. But, sadly, what they removed was indeed the substance of the gospel -- that we are doomed and damned sinners destined for an eternity in hell, suffering the wrath of God -- unless we are saved and imputed the righteousness of Jesus Christ by grace through faith.
Interestingly (and this plays out on this board every day) the early Protestant liberals found that hell slandered God's character. In the minds of these liberals, a loving God could not possibly do something as mean-spirited (and evil) as casting sinners into an eternal hell, though that is exactly what the Scriptures tell us. We see on the board, the same liberal argument, that a loving God could not possible be the One who selects those who will live or die. That needs to be OUR choice, for to suggest that God choses "slanders the character of God." I see the enemy working to counterfeit the gospel in this manner in multiple directions, from hell to soteriology. It always ends up at Genesis 3, with the enemy whispering into our ears, "Did God really say?" And, we chose ourselves over God... :tear:
What he "said" (wrote) is not the orthodox Christian expression, but rather mirrors the good old Liberal Protestant line of reasoning pushed onto the world by such as Schleiermacher, Harnack, Fosdick, et al. Albert Mohler (http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/03...bell-and-the-reemergence-of-liberal-theology/) notes that these liberals did not intend to ruin Christianity, in fact they intended to "save it from itself" by introducing a socially palatable form that removed some of the difficulties from the gospel. But, sadly, what they removed was indeed the substance of the gospel -- that we are doomed and damned sinners destined for an eternity in hell, suffering the wrath of God -- unless we are saved and imputed the righteousness of Jesus Christ by grace through faith.
Interestingly (and this plays out on this board every day) the early Protestant liberals found that hell slandered God's character. In the minds of these liberals, a loving God could not possibly do something as mean-spirited (and evil) as casting sinners into an eternal hell, though that is exactly what the Scriptures tell us. We see on the board, the same liberal argument, that a loving God could not possible be the One who selects those who will live or die. That needs to be OUR choice, for to suggest that God choses "slanders the character of God." I see the enemy working to counterfeit the gospel in this manner in multiple directions, from hell to soteriology. It always ends up at Genesis 3, with the enemy whispering into our ears, "Did God really say?" And, we chose ourselves over God... :tear:
quantumfaith
Active Member
Where GL does it play out on this every day, that "liberal" claim, state, imply, spin etc that hell slanders God's character?
Martin Bashir,the interviewer, attends Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City.The pastor is Tim Keller.
I knew there was something special about Mr. Bashir. When he was a guest on the Jimmy Fallon talk show, he brought up the subject of the inerrancy of scripture.
I mean, it's not often that that gets talked about on network television.
Did anyone else catch their fascinating discussion?
I mean, it's not often that that gets talked about on network television.
Did anyone else catch their fascinating discussion?
glfredrick
New Member
That is exactly what is in the writings of many a fore-running liberal! I don't have time right now to look up all the references, but that is indeed one of the reasons behind both liberal and Arminian theology.
The way this proposition is often stated is, "God could not make us do what we cannot do." Which implies that if God indeed DOES make us do what we cannot do, that God is harsh, cruel, evil taskmaster, etc. So, in order to not "slander" God by making Him out to be harsh, cruel, evil taskmaster, etc., a theological way (by inserting an anthropological basis) is found to get around making God say what He indeed does say and do.
He's trying to sell books for Pete's sake! The real motivation is money:love2:.... if he wanted to make a statement, he wouldn't be in Manhattans 5th Ave Barnes & Noble signing books at 7pm. Make it lovey dovey & dumb & stupid and they will beat a path to your door to buy that horse manure. John Shelby Spong will attest to that. Ca Ching$$$:thumbsup::smilewinkgrin: