Rob Bell Takes Off His Sheep Suit - And John Piper Bids Him "Farewell"

If it walks like a universalist, and talks like a universalist, then it's probably Rob Bell:

LOVE WINS. - Available March 15th from Rob Bell on Vimeo.

Rob Bell is an enemy of the true biblical Gospel and if that is not apparent in this video then may I recommend a book called Romans written by a guy called Paul.

But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? I speak in a human way. By no means! For then how could God judge the world? (Romans 3:5-6)

And it might help if Bell took the time to read all the verses in John chapter three and not just verse sixteen.

Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God. (John 3:3 and for the record the word "cannot" is actually translated "no chance" in the original Greek)

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3:17-18)

So the note concerning Ghandi, while perhaps inappropriate, is not based upon some guy who wants to assert his omniscience Rob! It's based upon an elementary understanding of the clear teaching of the Bible. You know - the Bible - that big old book that you spend most of your time perverting and confusing it's plain meaning! Ghandi, as a professing Hindu, is almost certainly in hell. This is not because I think so but because the Bible tells me so (the "almost certainly" disclaimer is in the genuine hope that Ghandi repented of his sin and put his trust in Jesus Christ prior to his death, in which case God would have saved him). And Rob, are you biblically incompetent or deliberately deceiving people? Which one is it? What do you do with verses like Romans 5:9 which directly refute what you assert in this video:

Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. (Romans 9:5)

When we deny an attribute of God, such as His wrath, we are breaking the second commandment (idolatry) by making a god in our own image. In this video, Bell just cannot conceal his utter disdain for the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement, and for those who defend it. I certainly didn't feel the love from "Mr Love Wins" in this video. Can you feel the love tonight?

This is the video that was the cause of the entire internet melting down a couple of weeks ago (in case you didn't notice). Partly because Bell is becoming more and more overt in his long established heretical views, and also in part because of John Piper's legendary tweet in response to this video which simply said "farewell Rob Bell". It is quite right that John Piper and the Gospel Coalition have put Bell outside of the camp, but I still have to ask the question why did it take so long? The contrast between the Gospel Piper preaches and the gospel Bell invented could not be more stark. Piper says "God is the Gospel" whereas Bell says that "you are the gospel". More than five years ago Bell wrote these words in his book Velvet Elvis in a sneaky affirmation of his universalism:

So this reality, this forgiveness, this reconciliation, is true for everybody. Paul insisted that when Jesus died on the cross he was reconciling ‘all things, in heaven and on earth, to God. This reality then isn’t something we make true about ourselves by doing something. It is already true. Our choice is to live in this new reality or cling to a reality of our own making.” (Velvet Elvis p146)

What is staggering is how much of a sacred cow Rob Bell has become, and the number of professing Christians (and also unbelievers - which is telling) who are willing to relentlessly defend Bell (hence melting down the entire internet in their flurry of protest). Guys, how hard is this? I know that in his latest video (shown above) Bell does his usual schtick of asking provocative questions and never answering them. I also know that Bell has made an art form out of pretending to be a Christian for many years now. He trades on the evangelical world's willingness to always give the benefit of the doubt to vague, obscure, and foggy theology. But Bell's obvious disdain and resentment for the historic orthodox Christian faith, coupled with his continual propensity to cloud crystal clear doctrines of first importance is despicable to say the least.

This has been the MO within the emergent movement from the very beginning. Have leaders like Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, and Tony Jones grown more and more heretical over the last decade or has it been a planned gradual release of false teaching to an evangelical landscape as it gradually grows more tolerant. These guys are all non-Christian theological liberals who have held their views for a long time but had a vested interest in concealing much of their heresy until the modern evangelical climate was deemed ready to receive each incremental attack on the historic Christian faith. Tony Jones obviously didn't get that memo because by 2008 he had already run out of things to deny.

And now Bell is spending more and more time without his sheep suit on. If you meet Rob Bell, please share the Gospel with him. Like Ghandi, he also needs to repent of his sins and trust in Jesus Christ to save him from the wrath to come.

Foxes Book Of Emergents With Hurt Feelings - Rob Bell (Part 10)

Phil Johnson over at Pyromaniacs has writen an article on the emergent sacred cow otherwise known as Rob Bell. It is such a great and insightful read that I have posted it here as well. If ever there was a barometer of the lack of discernment among professing Christians, Rob Bell´s popularity certainly makes it very obvious. The guy is a seductive speaker and innovative story teller but if you don´t get a lot of red flags every time you hear this guy speak you need to give your biblical literacy a serious boost. In this article on the Pyromaniacs blog, Phil Johnson responds to an interview Bell did with a Boston newspaper which has a link below. Johnson is a truly exceptional Christian thinker of the modern era and I encourage you, the reader, to take the time to digest Phil´s words . . .

See, this kind of stuff is why I keep saying the historic meaning of the word evangelical will probably never be recovered. (You might want to read The Boston Globe's religion section and then come back here. The rest of this post will be more relevant if you have the full context.)

I do agree with Rob Bell about one thing. (Quick. Somebody wash my mouth out with soap. Please.) He's right when he points out that the way the secular media usually employ the term evangelical—as a synonym for religious right-wing politicos—is a misnomer. Bell says, "For many, the word has nothing to do with a spiritual context."

Well, yeah, OK. I suppose that's part of the problem. More precisely, the term evangelical has been systematically evacuated of any reference to its historic doctrinal roots. People today therefore feel free to assign it any meaning they fancy—religious or non-religious. Practically everyone in the world of popular religion now claims to be "evangelical" in one sense or another. That includes not only old-line Moral Majority types who think the Republican Party agenda is gospel truth; hip middle-class Willow Creekers who couldn't care less about either doctrine or politics but just want to be entertained; crypto-Socinians like Bell and McLaren; crass socialists like Jim Wallis and Sojourners; heavily politicized left-wing wingnuts who think Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, and Al Franken are all good medicine—or whatever.

In fact, listen to Bell's own cockamamie claim about what the term properly describes: "I embrace the term evangelical, if by that we mean a belief that we together can actually work for change in the world, caring for the environment, extending to the poor generosity and kindness, a hopeful outlook. That's a beautiful sort of thing."

So is that what Bell considers "a spiritual context," or did he already forget what he had just been saying about how the term became politicized and corrupted in the first place? Hmmm.

An interviewer at The Boston Globe evidently wondered the same thing. He tells Bell, "I'm struck by the fact that I don't hear a lot of explicitly religious language, or mentions of Jesus, from you."

Bell's answers to that question and others in a similar vein are instructive. Among other things, he admits, "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."

One thing is clear: Bell himself is no true evangelical in any historic sense of the term. The Boston Globe's headline ("Bell aims to restore true meaning of 'evangelical'") is exactly backward. Bell has no agenda to "restore the true meaning" of the term evangelical, much less encourage a revival of true evangelical belief. In fact, Bell has made a career of attacking historic evangelical convictions—laying siege to the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the wrath of God against sin, the authority and perspicuity of Scripture, the necessity of the virgin birth, the coherence of the biblical testimony about the Resurrection, the exclusivity of Christ, and whatever other historic Christian doctrines Bell finds politically incorrect.

In fact, if you have the stomach to read the complete version of The Boston Globe interview, don't miss Bell's arrogant skepticism about the sovereignty and omniscience of God: "For a lot of people, dominant questions center around, 'Why is this happening? Why me? Why now?' Unfortunately, the religious voice often enters into the discussion at an inappropriate time—'God just planned this.' Really? Your God planned this, not mine."

If any popular figure "in the evangelical movement" (or on its copious fringe) deserves the label "heretic," it is Rob Bell. The guardians of evangelical politeness don't like that kind of candor, but when a secular newspaper like The Boston Globe is publishing pieces implying that the best, most promising alternative to right-wing civil religion is a mish-mash of Open Theism and performance art—and that whatever "evangelicalism" is, it must be one or the other of those two abominations, it's time for people with historic evangelical convictions to speak up clearly and make the biblical message heard again.

Go Back To Part 9
Go Back To Part 1

The Post Mortem On Postmodern (Part 2)

Continued from Saturday.

Noah and his family were the only human survivors of that ancient environmental crisis. Could global warming really have caused the oceans to rise that much? As the waters abated Noah and his family were given a fresh chance to bring in the "kingdom". It remained to be seen what would "emerge" from this scenario in the following years.

Admittedly that initial covenant of animal sacrifices after stepping off the Ark was a backward step for environmental causes. But generally things went pretty well for several generations up until they decided to build a tower up to heaven. Unfortunately Doug Pagitt had not yet been born and was thus unable to inform them that heaven is not a place (after all, Jesus told His followers that He was going away to prepare a "new reality" for them).

Much confusion emerged as the tower was being built. People simply could not understand each other. One plausible explanation was that Brian McLaren was the spokesman for the project but the latest archaeological evidence seems to refute this theory. Recent excavation of the ruins shows that the project was abandoned due to the need of accommodating people's differing realities. This ancient civilization embarked, instead, on constructing a massive labyrinth that became so big that everybody ended up lost and scattered across its vast reaches.

The emergent movement was down but not out. A remnant remained that would not make a public appearance, aside from left wing political campaigns, until Moses led Israel out of Egypt. The promised land awaited - could it be an actual place?

Continued tomorrow!

Go On To Part 3
Go Back To Part 1

Shocking Message to Pastors and Churches

Drink in these sobering words from Christian and then watch the video and ponder what your local church is really all about and your own personal urgency in your dealings with the lost.

A few weeks back, I learned that I have a brain tumor. As I was reflecting upon this, I asked the question, "What if an unsaved person with a brain tumor went into some of the more popular, influential, or notable churches in America today? What would they see and hear?" So, I did some basic searching on the web and found that some of these were some of the most viewed and / or commented videos out there.

Here are the questions to us Christians: What image are we putting up for the lost? What are we saying to them? And how should they react when they see and hear this kind of stuff in our churches today?

I ask that you view this with an open mind and heart.

Foxes Book of Emergents With Hurt Feelings - Tony Jones (Part 4)

Just when you Thought Tony Jones Had Run out of Heresies . . .

Is there anyone out there who can explain to me why Tony Jones of the "Emergent church" has not yet been condemned as anathema by prominent evangelical leaders? How heretical must one be to qualify for excommunication - it is a mystery to me why anyone would even refer to him as a Christian. Whatever he talks about never even remotely represents orthodox Christianity.

Not only is Tony endorsing unrepentant homosexuality as a lifestyle fully compatible with practicing Christianity. Not only is Tony embracing radical pro-abortionist and Universalist Barack Obama as a genuine Christian. Not only is Tony (or more specifically the emergent village) saying "so long" to sola scriptura. These provide just a snapshot of the heretical lunacy that Tony Jones tries to pass off as legitimate theology. But wait, there's more! Tony decided he wanted to take heresy to levels previously unseen among heretics who masquerade as Christians. And for that - I have to tip my hat to you Tony. While Brian McLaren and Rob Bell continue to sprout their unbiblical nonsense in a fog of christianese, Tony Jones decided to dispense with the fog and put up a big red flag for all those remaining with any degree of discernment.

The leader of the leaderless emergent movement has now decided to reject the doctrine of human depravity - you know the one which says that all people are sinners and deserve the wrath of God. The first question that sprung to my mind was "doesn't he have any children?". Unlike Bill Clinton, I think Tony must have "inhaled" something. Exactly what planet does he come from?

When I was growing up in a moderate, centrist church -- somewhere between mainline Christianity and evangelicalism -- Original Sin was a given. I first learned about it in youth group, and we regularly talked about it. Actually, it's more accurate to say that we talked about a life with Christ, and the notion of Original Sin was in the background. It was assumed. And I cannot remember that it was ever debated.

In other words, I assumed that the doctrine of Original Sin was a biblical notion, and that all Christians accepted it as gospel truth. Of course, neither is true . . . while in college, I also took a class on the theology of Augustine from an eccentric professor, Charles Stinson, and therein I learned that the great father of Western theology was the author of the doctrine of Original Sin. Of course, Augustine was not making it up ex novo, but was taking as his inspiration the account of creation in Genesis 3 and certain Pauline texts.

In seminary, I learned from John Thompson that John Calvin and his theological heirs reified the notion of Original Sin and that it hadn't played much of a role in medieval and Scholastic theology.

And sometime later, I discovered that whole branches of the Christian family tree -- most notably, the Orthodox Church -- has never embraced Original Sin.

I have come to reject the notion of Original Sin. I consider it neither biblically, philosophically, nor scientifically tenable.

So he considers it neither biblically, philosophically, nor scientifically tenable? Notice he doesn't qualify any of these outrageous claims. Not only is Jones not being honest in his own self assesment, he has to highlight large portions of Scripture with a black felt pen and avoid all social interaction in order to hold to this. There is so much Scripture plainly stating human depravity but I'll wield only one in the interests of an already lengthy post:

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned (Romans 5:12).

And Tony seems to think it is an idea invented by Augustine and the Reformers. Furthermore, I can watch the news or my kids to see the "curse" in action. I didn't have to teach my children to lie or be selfish. Oh no, they were all born with a PHD in rebellion. If someone as thick as me can figure this out . . . .

Bare in mind that Tony is the "theologian in residence" at Doug Pagitt's church, "Solomon's Porch". They might as well rename it "the ditch" because that's the place you go when the blind lead the blind.

We need to pray for Tony Jones, the guy is seriously lost!

Go Back To Part 3
Go Back To Part 1

Foxes Book of Emergents With Hurt Feelings - Tony Jones (Part 3)

Tony Jones and the F-Bomb

After a fairly large amount of exposure to the "emergent conversation" it has become apparent that the use of coarse language is fairly commonplace. This is obviously not the case for every individual who is a part of the "emergent village" but it certainly seems to be an alarming trend.

It is no surprise when the national corodinator of the emergent village is not averse to some of the worst forms of "colorful language". Tony Jones speaking about the Bible wrote:

"This connection between deconstruction and the Bible is especially meaningful, methinks. I am quite convinced that the Bible is a subversive text, that it constantly undermines our assumptions, transgresses our boundaries, and subverts our comforts. This may sound like academic mumbo-jumbo, but I really mean it. I think the Bible is a f***ing scary book (pardon my French, but that's the only way I know how to convey how strongly I feel about this). And I think that deconstruction is the only hermeneutical avenue that comes close to expressing the transgressive nature of our sacred text."

There it is, a great case of bad theology and bad language going hand in hand. Tony Jones, "theologian in residence" at Doug Pagitt's fellowship otherwise known as "Solomon's Porch" drew deep from his well of Christian apologetics and stated (concerning the issue of swearing):

“People in the Bible swear. And we need to re-think the cultural context of swearing.”

Really Tony? Do you really need to use that language? Is it the best witness to the fallen world around us? When Paul writes to the church in Ephesus:

Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. (Ephesians 5:4)

is it possible that your coarse language could fall into this category. Tony Jones would argue in the negative but either way is it really worth taking speculative chances with the word of God or erring on the side of caution in order to take care not to offend God. The Bible makes a very strong case against offending God - think Ananias and Saphira - and also to avoid the appearance of evil.

Here is an interesting article I found on the subject so you can make up your own mind:

Why any Christian would fight for the liberty to use foul language is beyond me, but there is a growing debate as to whether cussing is appropriate for the believer. Let’s start with two basic facts:

First, There is no verse in the Bible that specifically says, “Thou shall not use any of these words,” followed by a list of the most common cuss-words of our day. Second, the verse most people use to argue against the use of foul language is Ephesians 4:29: “Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth . . . .” As the second half of the verse seems to indicate, the “unwholesome word” Paul has in view here is probably not a reference to individual cuss-words, but rather to unkind, unhelpful, or untrue statements or messages that would tear a fellow believer down rather than building him up.

Having said that, I wouldn’t want anyone to rush to the hasty conclusion that cussing is appropriate. In my view there are at least six reasons to conclude that cussing is inappropriate for believers.

1. Many of the words known as cuss-words are descriptions of immoral acts, filthy emissions of waste from the body, or private body parts. Whatever the original meanings of these words, these vulgar meanings are undoubtedly connected with them now. When a person uses one of these words, he is calling to mind one of these acts or objects. With this in mind, remember that Paul tells Christians to dwell on things that are honorable, pure, lovely, and excellent (cf. Phil. 4:8). When you use language that calls to mind some obscene act or private body part, you are not only dwelling on the wrong objects yourself, you are also making it difficult for your hearer to focus on the right things.

2. The Christian who uses foul language in public wastes the opportunity to set himself apart from many unbelievers who commonly say the same things. The fact is, the person who does not know you but hears you fire off a cuss-word in a sentence would not likely think, “Now there’s a fine Christian man (or woman)”? Your speech leaves him with no reason to suspect that you are any different than everyone else, and therefore, gives him no reason to listen to what you might have to say about Christ.

3. Paul wrote to Corinth, saying, “Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God” (1 Cor. 10:32). He did not want Christians to offend anyone unnecessarily, not even the unbelievers around them, and certainly not a fellow Christian. He was not referring to the offense of the gospel, of course, or an offense taken by someone who despises certain Christian beliefs or practices. Cussing is not part of the gospel message, however, and it certainly is not an essential Christian practice. Therefore, if even a single Christian (or an unbeliever, for that matter) is offended by your foul language, you have sinned.

4. Many movies receive an “R” rating because of foul language, meaning that even unbelievers recognize that cussing is inappropriate, at least for children. Additionally, in many public parks and other venues, the use of foul language is prohibited altogether. Frankly I find it shameful when Christians claim as a personal liberty that which even our pagan society recognizes as offensive.

5. Given the fact that the tongue is “a restless evil and full of deadly poison,” that which cannot be tamed and which “defiles the body” (James 3:6, 8), Christians should have as their “default setting” a natural suspicion of what comes out of their mouths. This thought is affirmed by Proverbs 10:19 which says, “When there are many words, sin is not lacking.” The fact is, the more you say, the more likely you are to sin. Using these biblical principles as a guide, if there is any question as to whether or not something produced by the tongue is sinful, we should always err on the side of caution rather than appealing to our liberty.

6. One would hope that Christians who claim the liberty to cuss in public, among their families, or even in the presence of other believers, would at least find such language unthinkable in the presence of Jesus Christ. The fact is, however, if you would not cuss in His presence, then you cannot cuss with a clean conscience at all because as Jesus said, “I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matt. 28:20).

I would never want to rob a believer of any genuine Christian liberty, but our liberty in Christ is not “the right to do whatever is not explicitly prohibited.” Christian liberty is freedom from the slavery of sin (Rom. 6:16-22), freedom from the curse of the law (Gal. 3:13), and freedom to “have as our ambition . . . to be pleasing to [the Lord]” (2 Cor. 5:9).

Judge for yourself, but please make your highest aim to glorify God in all that you do and say (cf. 1 Cor. 10:31). And remember as you judge that “there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks” (Eph. 5:4).

Go On To Part 4
Go Back To Part 2
Go Back To Part 1

Foxes Book of Emergents With Hurt Feelings - Tony Jones (Part 1)

Why I Applaud Emergent, Tony Jones

This Blog has had some very severe criticism of the emergent movement and justifiably so. Laden with heresies cloaked in vague and ambiguous language, it is the key proponents of this movement that pose one of the greatest dangers to our undiscerning youth culture. Tony Jones is the "theologian in residence" at Solomon's Porch which is a fellowship of people in Minnesota having their minds corrupted by the heretical teachings of Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones. The truth is that everyone is a theologian - the question is whether you are a good one or a bad one. And Tony Jones falls easily into the latter category.



But the great thing about Tony is that unlike the continual fog of a Brian McLaren or Rob Bell, the "theologian in residence" keeps sending up red flag after red flag making it patently obvious to any genuine convert that they had better run away as fast as they can. Thank you Tony for being overt in your heretical ideas. We've already heard Tony's heretical view on the New Testament writings of Paul. What follows is another great example of a big red flag:

Tony Jones on Unrepentant Homosexuality
In "Same Sex Marriage Blogalogue: How I Went from There to Here" Jones has removed all doubt as to his position, and that which he feels the Body of Christ itself should take, regarding those who are unrepentantly practicing the sin of homosexuality:

And yet, all the time I could feel myself drifting toward acceptance that gay persons are fully human persons and should be afforded all of the cultural and ecclesial benefits that I am. (”Aha!” my critics will laugh derisively, “I knew he and his ilk were on a continuous leftward slide!”)

In any case, I now believe that GLBTQ can live lives in accord with biblical Christianity (at least as much as any of us can!) and that their monogamy can and should be sanctioned and blessed by church and state.

Marsha West at Renew America had this to say:
After years of pondering and praying, praying and pondering, he managed to come up with the wrong answer. How do I know this? Because his "revelation" doesn't line up with Scripture.

Evidently what the Bible teaches on sodomy made Tony feel uncomfortable, so he decided to hold back his opinion until he could come to terms with what he was "feeling." I say "feeling" because his conclusion doesn't comport with the written Word of God.

When people like Tony play fast and loose with God's Holy Word these are the atrocities that occur. It will be all downhill from here for Tony unless he repents - and he's already a long way down that hill.

Go On To Part 2

A Brief History of the Emergent Church (Part 2)

The saga continues.

Noah and his family were the only human survivors of that ancient environmental crisis. Could global warming really have caused the oceans to rise that much? As the waters abated Noah and his family were given a fresh chance to bring in the "kingdom". It remained to be seen what would "emerge" from this scenario in the following years.

Admittedly that initial covenant of animal sacrifices after stepping off the Ark was a backward step for environmental causes. But generally things went pretty well for several generations up until they decided to build a tower up to heaven. Unfortunately Doug Pagitt had not yet been born and was thus unable to inform them that heaven is not a place (after all, Jesus told His followers that He was going away to prepare a "new reality" for them).

Much confusion emerged as the tower was being built. People simply could not understand each other. One plausible explanation was that Brian McLaren was the spokesman for the project but the latest archaelogical evidence seems to refute this theory. Recent excavation of the ruins shows that the project was abandoned due to the need of accomodating people's differing realities. This ancient civilization embarked, instead, on constructing a massive labyrinth that became so big that everybody ended up lost and scattered across its vast reaches.

The emergent movement was down but not out. A remnant remained that would not make a public appearance, aside from left wing political campaigns, until Moses led Israel out of Egypt. The promised land awaited - could it be an actual place?

To be continued

Go On To Part 3
Go Back To Part 1