What Would be Your BEST Biblical refuting of Robb Bell And hell?

Rev. 11:15-18 (ESV)
Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever." [16] And the twenty-four elders who sit on their thrones before God fell on their faces and worshiped God, [17] saying,
"We give thanks to you, Lord God Almighty,
who is and who was,
for you have taken your great power
and begun to reign.
[18] The nations raged,
but your wrath came,
and the time for the dead to be judged,
and for rewarding your servants, the prophets and saints,
and those who fear your name,
both small and great,
and for destroying the destroyers of the earth."



There are others... :smilewinkgrin:

 

My first scriptural reference here is Matthew 22:1-14. Not only are all saved people not members of the Bride, some are cast into Hell.

 

Bill help me out here. Are you sayiing that some saved people will be in hell?

 

I'll allude to the fact that Jesus spoke of hell, and the Bible has many examples of the lost making their permanent abode there.

Any doctrine teaching otherwise is to say God is not telling the truth here. This is a blasphemous teaching.

 

Uh, what?

 

Bill where did you go? Can you explain what you meant by what you said? Are you saying some of the saved will be in hell? Also who are you referring to as saved and not being part of the bride? How does that work?

 

Not 'biblical refuting' but just three points in regards to Rob Bell's claim that he is 'just asking questions that Christians have been asking for many years':



1. Rob Bell was trained at Fuller Theological Seminary. He did well there. Whether he has honest questions about these issues or not is not the issue. He DOES know the orthodox doctrine of salvation. So even if he honestly doubts that doctrine, the way he poses his questions (in his video)…contorts and distorts that doctrine in such a way as to turn it into an absurdity. That is not accidental as it might be for someone who has only a vague idea what Christians believe. He knows very well what Christians believe and he twists it. No accident.

2. If his questions are honest ones, then he needs to resign or ask them on his own time. The duty of the pastor is not to invite his congregation (and certainly not the general public) to join him as he meanders through his own personal journey of self discovery. His duty is to lead people to Jesus Christ.

3. Now that the book is out, his orthodox defenders are rightly embarrassed by the rank heresy therein. It is a profound failure of discernment not only on the part of leaders but also on the part of people in the pews. We have lost the willingness or the ability to do as Jesus commands and “beware of wolves”.

A guy like Bell can worm his way into the Church and deceive whole swaths of believing leaders and people and even people like us. It is very sad and I'm afraid it does not bode well for our future.

 

Well said, and bears a repost!

 

Fuller is evangelical. Period. Give me a school that identified itself as being "evangelical" over "conservative" any day. "Evangelical" means they affirm orthodoxy. "Conservative" means they approach the Bible with an agenda.


It is a fantastic school that fosters first rate Christian scholarship.

Please stop making these asinine assertions.

 

Check out Fuller's statement of faith here.

http://www.fuller.edu/about-fuller/mission-and-history/statement-of-faith.aspx

And, seriously, stop saying things like that.

 

Oh my soul. What a huge mess.

Seriously, man, you're way out in left field. So far you're slashing tires in the parking lot.

 

Fuller did have a leftward drift during the 80s and 90s. That is fairly well documented. But they are not the radical institution that some here would make them out to be. Most theological seminaries had a leftward drift during their time at one point or another -- some recovered with a renewed emphasis on a scriptural basis for their doctrine (SBTS for example) while others continued leftward. Others still turned so far rightward in their fundamentalistic backlash that they are really of no true value to the kingdom any longer, for what they preach and teach is so archaic as to be culturally irrelevant and biblically Pharisaical.

 

Wow. Just wow.

Many sincere, inerrantist, fundamentalist Christians see no problem holding with both the Scriptures and science.

We just may have problems holding with some folks interpretations of both Scripture and science.

 

No it doesn't. Folks from the far left and right all refer to themselves as "Evangelical" and that term once affirmed a conservative or Orthodox view. It no longer does as the left works to hide itself from site.

Wrong it means Orthodoxy which is the opposite of folks like Bell, Campolo, Schuller, and Mclaren.

It has swung to the far left.