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

[JesusFan]

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.

Evangelical once meant Conservative , who were wiling to know and engage other world views, but stayed Christian...

Not it means to engage and adopt much of the others world view, in oder to "accomodate" others to come to Christ

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

Emergent Church just another name to redefine Christian doctrines and faith, in order to appeal to the post moderns, but water down the Christianity to point that what is left has become "social church club"

It has swung to the far left.

What is their current belief statement?

 

[jaigner]

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.

These are some of the most weirdest and most troubling statements imaginable.

 

[glfredrick]

These are some of the most weirdest and most troubling statements imaginable.

Not completely... Richard Mouw has garnered just a bit of condemnation of late with some of his ecumenical efforts, particularly in the arena of dialog with Latter Day Saints.

Fuller has had a reputation of being rock solid as far as Evangelical seminaries are concerned and some of the best and brightest current Evangelicals such as Carl F. H. Henry, Schreiner, Ware, and Piper were grads, but so was Rob Bell, and he later than the others.

Interestingly, the current listed staff for Fuller is just two, Mouw and Joel Green. Not sure what that means, but I would find it difficult to run a decent theological seminary with just those two men as faculty.

Below is a portion of the mission statement of Fuller. I see a lot of Rob Bell (or vice-versa) in that statement:

But some resources must be reserved for capturing the visions which frame the larger mission – the mission beyond the mission. And we must make clear to ourselves and the persons, foundations, and churches that support us that their stewardship is linked not only to a primary educational mission, but to a full expression of Christian discipleship which claims for Christ the world which he made and died to save.

This broader duty of a theological seminary is clear:


We must face the tough questions put to us by the Scriptures, the churches, and the contemporary world;

we must take the risks necessary to break fresh ground in ministry and broach new ideas in scholarship;

we must brave the dangers of our mistakes and the criticisms of those who may misunderstand;

we must put our biblical convictions into practice, even when the price is high.

The components of this mission beyond the mission are not options for us. They are abiding imperatives, grounded in the divine command and reinforced by the needs of our times.

Simply stated, the commands to which we respond are these:


Go and make disciples;

call the church of Christ to renewal;

work for the moral health of society;

seek peace and justice in the world;

uphold the truth of God’s revelation.

I also see the rudiments of a liberal agenda when the social gospel is so rooted in their mission and purpose.

Read the entire statement here:

http://www.fuller.edu/about-fuller/mission-and-history/mission-beyond-the-mission.aspx

 

[mandym]

These are some of the most weirdest and most troubling statements imaginable.

It is common practice for the left to overstate things. It is a result of not having anything solid to stand on. But it is your credibility. Wreck it as you see fit.

 

[Winman]

If a person doesn't believe the Bible, then there is nothing you can show them from the Bible that will convince them.

Best bet is light his Bible on fire and throw it in his lap. I have been on fire before, and it isn't fun. It would at least make him think about it.

 

[JesusFan]

Not completely... Richard Mouw has garnered just a bit of condemnation of late with some of his ecumenical efforts, particularly in the arena of dialog with Latter Day Saints.

wasn't he trying to get the evangelical church to view them almost as being "seperated bethren?" that we had misunderstood them, had done a disservice to their actual theology?

Fuller has had a reputation of being rock solid as far as Evangelical seminaries are concerned and some of the best and brightest current Evangelicals such as Carl F. H. Henry, Schreiner, Ware, and Piper were grads, but so was Rob Bell, and he later than the others.

true, was founded on solid teachings, but once decided to go into "new Evangelicalism" by accepting critical theologies, went adrift!

Interestingly, the current listed staff for Fuller is just two, Mouw and Joel Green. Not sure what that means, but I would find it difficult to run a decent theological seminary with just those two men as faculty.

More like a bible study class!

Below is a portion of the mission statement of Fuller. I see a lot of Rob Bell (or vice-versa) in that statement:



I also see the rudiments of a liberal agenda when the social gospel is so rooted in their mission and purpose.

Read the entire statement here:

http://www.fuller.edu/about-fuller/mission-and-history/mission-beyond-the-mission.aspx

MUCH of whatDR Lindsell foretold would happen to them once they caved to accepting current critical views on Bible, watering down its Inerrancy/authority, has happened, as they now seem to be rolling towards being as a school that would be open to various views in say charasmatic, emergent church, social agendas etc...

their founder must now be rolling over in his grave!