Rob Bell? Rob Who?

It is now well over a year since Rob Bell overplayed his wolf like hand with his book "Love Wins". Bell's universalism did not surprise those of us who knew it years ago when he wrote Velvet Elvis. But it seems that the majority of evangelical commentators were reluctant to cry wolf until Rob fully disrobed from his sheep suit.

Bell had been getting away with teaching outrageously unbiblical things for years and this may have bred overconfidence to the point where he was willing to "out" himself. The controversy that erupted over Love Wins certainly granted Rob Bell his fifteen minutes of fame. But it also paved the way for us to be blessed with his absence over the last year. It did not take long before Bell resigned as "pastor" of his "church" and left the pulpit for the far loftier heights of producing a television series about himself (I guess that is one way of channeling your immense humility). We all thought he had disappeared until this video recently surfaced displaying the winning kind of love that Rob has for those who voiced legitimate biblical concerns about his teaching:



Could you feel the love? Rob Bell seems to forget that child like faith includes trusting what God has clearly taught in His word and rejecting anything that contradicts it. That is - having right doctrine! This video does serve as a timely reminder of what we have been missing since Bell went underground. I just feel like the recipient of a bad trade when Rob Bell resurfaces so soon after Phil Johnson's departure from cyberspace. Fortunately Phil lives on in reruns and here's a great one of him reviewing Bell's book "Love Wins". Let's just say he takes no prisoners:

Rob Bell's Dangerous Perversion Of History

The Christian Gospel isn't the only thing that Rob Bell perverts. He also does a bang up job of sounding authoritative in his handling of history.

Rob Bell disappeared off the radar of this blog for a long time and I was of the hopeful opinion that Bell's theology was in the cargo hold of the "emergent ship" when it sank. But alas, Bell managed to grab an enormous amount of publicity through his latest book "Love Wins" where he becomes a lot less vague about some of his heretical views including universalism. On the positive side of the ledger, Bell is doing a lot more strutting around without his sheep suit these days and it appears that he may have shot himself in both feet in the process. Even Zondervan (a greek word meaning "anything that'll make a buck") publishers ditched Bell because of his latest book (I don't know if it was principle or pragmatism)!

And to his legion of defenders out there in cyberspace, Bell's confession that "I am not a universalist" is not exactly a watertight legal defense. The proof is in the pudding and Bell has been writing and preaching a whole lot of pudding for more than half a decade now. And all that hate mail is a great way to champion your "love wins" motto!

A big part of Bell's MO in gaining believability in the false gospel he proclaims, is the way he sounds so credible in the way he reinvents history (always at the expense of historic orthodox Christianity). A very popular post that was done on this blog at the end of 2009 gave a compare and contrast between the Gospel according to John Piper and the gospel according to Rob Bell. I recently had an interesting video from James White drawn to my attention that I thought would be very worthwhile posting on my blog today. If there's one thing I know about Dr. James White it is that he has a brain the size of a planet. If there's one thing I don't know about Dr. James White it is how that giant brain fits inside his regular sized head. Whatever the reason, the guy has an excellent working knowledge of church history and the following critique is an excellent rebuttal to Bell's "gospel presentation" and perversion of history that appeared in that post. This is well worth the look for all of us who heard the alarm bells (pardon the pun) but didn't know enough history to put our finger on what the exact problem was with how Bell recounts church history:

Rob Bell - Al Mohler's Verdict

Rob Bell's new book "Love Wins" is a case of a book that you can judge by its cover. Bell certainly removes his sheepsuit for the promotional video. But I thought I might step aside today and let someone way smarter and more articulate than myself comment on this current controversy swirling around Rob Bell's newest book/assault on biblical Christianity. When it comes to theological heavyweights they don't come much bigger than Al Mohler who is the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. With Mohler you get careful, well thought out critique, through a sharp biblical lens. Mohler undertook the aggravating task of reading "Love Wins" and here is what he found . . .

This brings us to the controversy over Rob Bell’s new book, Love Wins. As its cover announces, the book is “about heaven, hell, and the fate of every person who ever lived.” Reading the book is a heart-breaking experience. We have read this book before. Not the exact words, and never so artfully presented, but the same book, the same argument, the same attempt to rescue Christianity from the Bible.

As a communicator, Rob Bell is a genius. He is the master of the pungent question, the turn-the-picture-upside-down story, and the personal anecdote. Like Harry Emerson Fosdick, the paladin of pulpit liberalism, Rob Bell is a master communicator. Had he set out to defend the biblical doctrine of hell, he could have done so marvelously. He would have done the church a great service. But that is not what he set out to do.

Like Fosdick, Rob Bell cares deeply for people. It comes through in his writings. There is no reason to doubt that Bell wrote this book out of his own personal concern for people who are put off by the doctrine of hell. Had that concern been turned toward a presentation of how the biblical doctrine of hell fits within the larger context of God’s love and justice and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that would have been a help to untold thousands of Christians and others seeking to understand the Christian faith. But that is not what Bell does in this new book.

Instead, Rob Bell uses his incredible power of literary skill and communication to unravel the Bible’s message and to cast doubt on its teachings.

He states his concern clearly: A staggering number of people have been taught that a select few Christians will spend forever in a peaceful, joyous place called heaven, while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better. It’s been clearly communicated to many that this belief is a central truth of the Christian faith and to reject it is, in essence, to reject Jesus. This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus’ message of love, peace, forgiveness, and joy that our world desperately needs to hear.

That is a huge statement, and it is clear enough. Rob Bell believes that the doctrine of the eternal punishment of unrepentant sinners in hell is keeping people from coming to Jesus. That is an unsettling thought, but on closer look, it falls in upon itself. In the first place, Jesus spoke very clearly about hell, using language that can only be described as explicit. He warned of “him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” [Matthew 10:28]

In Love Wins, Bell does his best to argue that the church has allowed the story of Jesus’ love to be perverted by other stories. The story of an eternal hell is not, he believes, a good story. He suggests that a better story would involve the possibility of a sinner coming to faith in Christ after death, or hell being a cessation of being, or hell being eventually emptied of all its inhabitants. The problem, of course, is that the Bible provides no hint whatsoever of any possibility of a sinner’s salvation after death. Instead, “it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment.” [Hebrews 9:27]

He also argues for a form of universal salvation. Once again, his statements are more suggestive than declarative, but he clearly intends his reader to be persuaded that it is possible — even probable — that those who resist, reject, or never hear of Christ may be saved through Christ nonetheless. That means no conscious faith in Christ is necessary for salvation. He knows that he must deal with a text like Romans 10 in making this argument, “How are they to hear without someone preaching?” [Romans 10:14] Bell says that he wholeheartedly agrees with that argument from the Apostle Paul, but then he dumps the entire argument overboard and suggests that this cannot be God’s plan. He completely avoids Paul’s conclusion that “faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” [Romans 10:17] He rejects the idea that a person must come to a personal knowledge of Christ in this life in order to be saved. “What if the missionary gets a flat tire?” he asks.

But this is how Rob Bell deals with the Bible. He argues that the gates that never shut in the New Jerusalem [Revelation 21:25] mean that the opportunity for salvation is never closed, but he just avoids dealing with the preceding chapter, which includes this clear statement of God’s justice: “And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” [Revelation 20:15] The eternally open gates of the New Jerusalem come only after that judgment.

Like so many others, Bell wants to separate the message of Jesus from other voices even in the New Testament, particularly the voice of the Apostle Paul. Here we face the inescapable question of biblical authority. We will either affirm that every word of the Bible is true, trustworthy, and authoritative, or we will create our own Bible according to our own preferences. Put bluntly, if Jesus and Paul are not telling the same story, we have no idea what the true story is.

Bell clearly prefers inclusivism, the belief that Christ is saving humanity through means other than the Gospel, including other religions. But he mixes up his story along the way, appearing to argue for outright universalism on some pages, but backing off of a full affirmation. He rejects the belief that conscious faith in Christ is necessary for salvation, but he never clearly lands on a specific account of what he does believe.

Tellingly, Bell attempts to reduce all of the Bible and the entirety of the Gospel to story, and he believes it is his right and duty to determine which story is better than another — which version of Christianity is going to be compelling and attractive to unbelievers. He has, after all, set that as his aim — to replace the received story with something he sees as better.

The first problem with this is obvious. We have no right to determine which “story” of the Gospel we prefer or think is most compelling. We must deal with the Gospel that we received from Christ and the Apostles, the faith once for all delivered to the church. Suggesting that some other story is better or more attractive than that story is an audacity of breathtaking proportions. The church is bound to the story revealed in the Bible — and in all of the Bible … every word of it.

But there is a second problem, and it is one we might think would have been learned by now. Liberalism just does not work. Bell wants to argue that the love of God is so powerful that “God gets what God wants.” So, God desires the salvation of all, he argues, so all will eventually be saved — some even after death, even long after death. But he cannot maintain that account for long because of his absolute affirmation of human autonomy. Even God cannot or will not prevent someone from going to hell who is determined to go there. So, if Bell is taken on his own terms, even he does not believe that “God gets what God wants.”

Similarly, Bell’s argument is centered in his affirmation of God’s loving character, but he alienates love from justice and holiness. This is the traditional liberal line. Love is divorced from holiness and becomes mere sentimentality. Bell wants to rescue God from any teaching that his wrath is poured out upon sin and sinners, certainly in any eternally conscious sense. But Bell also wants God to vindicate the victims of murder, rape, child abuse, and similar evil. He seems not to recognize that he has undercut his own story, leaving God unable or unwilling to bring true justice.

In truth, any human effort to offer the world a story superior to the comprehensive story of the Bible fails on all fronts. It is an abdication of biblical authority, a denial of biblical truth, and a false Gospel. It misleads sinners and fails to save. It also fails in its central aim — to convince sinners to think better of God. The real Gospel is the Gospel that saves — the Gospel that must be heard and believed if sinners are to be saved.

But this is where Rob Bell’s book goes most off-course. He describes the Gospel in these words:

It begins in the sure and certain truth that we are loved. That in spite of whatever has gone horribly wrong deep in our hearts and has spread to every corner of the world, in spite of our sins, failures, rebellion, and hard hearts, in spite of what has been done to us or what we’ve done, God has made peace with us.

Missing from his Gospel is any clear reference to Christ, any adequate understanding of our sin, any affirmation of the holiness of God and his pledge to punish sin, any reference to the shed blood of Christ, his death on the cross, his substitutionary atonement, and his resurrection, and, so tellingly, any reference to faith as the sinners response to the Good News of the Gospel. There is no genuine Gospel here. This is just a reissue of the powerless message of theological liberalism.

H. Richard Niebuhr famously once distilled liberal theology into this sentence: “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.”

Yes, we have read this book before. With Love Wins, Rob Bell moves solidly within the world of Protestant Liberalism. His message is a liberalism arriving late on the scene. Tragically, his message will confuse many believers as well as countless unbelievers.

We dare not retreat from all that the Bible says about hell. We must never confuse the Gospel, nor offer suggestions that there may be any way of salvation outside of conscious faith in Jesus Christ. We must never believe that we can do a public relations job on the Gospel or on the character of God. We must never be unclear and subversively suggestive about what the Bible teaches.

In the opening pages of Love Wins, Rob Bell assures his readers that “nothing in this book hasn’t been taught, suggested, or celebrated by many before me.” That is true enough. But the tragedy is that those who did teach, suggest, or celebrate such things were those with whom no friend of the Gospel should want company. In this new book, Rob Bell takes his stand with those who have tried to rescue Christianity from itself. This is a massive tragedy by any measure.

The problem begins even with the book’s title. The message of the Gospel is not merely that love wins — it is that Jesus saves.

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.

Dear Graeme, UnkleE, And Everyone Else Who Is Silent About The Gospel

I am finding a common tendency among most people who are critical of my adherence to Scripture or my "narrow" view of the Gospel. The tendency is that these people, when asked, almost always refuse to explain the Gospel in their own words. Two particular people spring to mind in recent weeks.

The first is a guy called Graeme who is an old friend from my early Christian life when I lived in Ipswich, Australia. Though I would still consider Graeme as a friend, I'm not so sure he would reciprocate after the hard words I spoke to him in the comments section of one of my posts. These hard words were, however, entirely called for due to Graeme's disgraceful cheap shot at the Creation Science community with his outrageous claim that:

Lets face it, Creationists don't don't really care about Christ. But they do care about the literal meaning of creationism (yes that is a direct quote).

It becomes even more outrageous when you consider the fact that Graeme has commented numerous times on this blog without having anything to say about the Person and work of Christ. Graeme's comment is equally insulting to ministries like Answers in Genesis who produce excellent Gospel tracts and invest heavily in evangelistic outreaches. Some of these people are people who I have met personally and found to be very Christ centered. I wouldn't have a clue about where Graeme stands with Christ because he has never said anything about it. When Graeme was asked several times to articulate the Gospel and how much He esteems Christ, he had this to say . . . . deafening silence.

"UnkleE" is another Aussie, as best as I can tell, who felt the need to comment on a recent post about Rob Bell and defend Rob Bell's heretical theology. In fairness to "UnkleE", he initially responded because he misunderstood some of my commentary (which I should have been clearer on). But as the conversation progressed, it turned out that "UnkleE" had read one of Bell's books (Velvet Elvis if I recall) and found nothing problematic or heretical in a book that is very heretical and probelematic (paging universalism). Since "UnkleE" considered Bell to be sound enough that we should just leave him alone I challenged him to explain the Gospel in his own words - in the hope of understanding where "UnkleE" was at. I was genuinely concerned about "UnkleE" due to his handling of Scripture and relaxed attitude about universalism. What was UnkleE's response:

Further discussion would be unproductive.

Well Graeme and "UnkleE" and everyone else who is unwilling to discuss this with me - please watch this video and answer my question underneath!



Obviously the woman's advice is as useful as an ashtray on a motorcycle . . . unless you WANT to go to hell! But what would you say to this man in this situation? I really want to know. Graeme and "UnkleE", hard as it might be to believe, right now I am being your best friend. This is where the rubber meets the road. And whether you respond or not (please do), you can be sure about this: one day you will either meet the man in this video or be the man in this video.

More Correspondance Concerning Rob Bell (Part 2)

My Rob Bell Exposed video on youtube is still causing quite a stir. If only the hordes of Rob Bell groupies were as zealous about defending the Gospel as they are about defending Rob Bell. I regularly get slanderous and hateful mail from emergents who are outraged that I would expose their heretical guru as a fraud to Christianity.

I thought it would be worthwhile to post some more correspondance today. This time it is with a youth pastor who is studying for his Masters in Divinity and Theology. As with my previous post I have inserted my responses in bold.

Dear Cameron

I am a Youth Pastor in XXXXX, Michigan. I am also in school to get my masters of Divinity and Theology. One of the kids in my Youth Group brought to my attention a video that you did on Rob Bell's video called Dust. After watching the video i was disappointed and disturbed for several reasons. First the main reason that i am disturbed is because you as being a fellow believer in the Lord, have stood up in front of the mass and torn down another brother in Christ.

Based on the gospel Rob Bell preaches I don't consider this tearing down a brother. If Rob Bell is born again (because I cannot judge his heart) it certainly doesn't come across based on the content of his message.

You stood before another gathering of believers and used it to preach an agenda. If you wanted to preach the message about Peter having faith in God and God alone to walk on water you could have done that without showing the video of Rob Bell. By using Rob Bell you have pushed your own agenda into a sermon.

The question is not whether anyone has an agenda, it is which one of us has the right agenda. Jesus gave us all an agenda otherwise known as the Great commission and it is the reason why I witness and preach. In fact it is what I use most of my spare time doing. If you are interested to see how I witness and preach you will find plenty of other videos on youtube of me doing that.

I know you claim that you are exposing humanism but that is not what you are doing.

How so? I think it's pretty straight forward, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to work it out. Rob Bell is explicitly teaching that God has faith in man which is a blatant contradiction of the doctrine of human depravity.

I found it odd that you talked about knowing the contextual place of the word that you are reading so you give the background to the verse, but you do not show the whole video. So you take a part of the video and only show that section and not the rest.

I only had 10 minutes all up from my senior pastor. I would have loved to show the whole video although even if I did then you'd probably complain about breach of copyright. I have had mail from members of Bell's church, some of which accuse me of breaching copyright and others accusing me for not showing the entire video. By showing a portion of the Dust video I did what was legal to do within copyright law which describes it as "citing a work for commentary". Many people and all of the youth had already seen the video in it's entirity anyway. But I did spend many hours checking my context and I remain convinced it was sound, and I did invite biblical criticism from others which is why I am happy to hear from you (though I'd prefer if you spent more time reasoning from the Scriptures).

From there you twist the words to meet an agenda that you already had planned.

Please explain to me how quoting someone qualifies as twisting their words????

You changed the point that Rob Bell was trying to make.

I was actually totally focussed on Rob Bell's major point. My closing remarks were actually in response to Rob Bell's major point in the video - "that God has faith in us". This idea has no biblical basis. It is also actually a denial of God's omniscience (all knowing), and omnipresence (all seeing) because Hebrews 11:1 defines faith as "the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things unseen". You can only hope in things you don't know about and for things to be unseen would require God to not be omnipresent. It is a very big deal as it is a radical redefining of the character and nature of God. God does not have faith - He is the object of faith. The whole reformation was built upon this truth.

The point he is making is just like when the Bible talks about with we were to have faith the size of a mustard seed we could move a mountain. The point here and that Rob is making is that we know we can do this, if we had the faith, but we do not believe enough in ourselves to believe that God will do this for us.

Find me one verse in the Bible that says we should believe in ourselves. I can assure you that I can find many that say the opposite some of which were quoted in my presentation.

We do not want to look at our selves has holy vessels for God, so we doubt our own capability no matter what God can do. We believe God can do it, but we believe it can't be done through us. We lack faith that it is possible for these things and these works to be done through us.

But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me (2 Corinthians 12:9).

I do not agree with Rob Bell all the time, but I believe it is wrong for another pastor to tear down the work of another pastor. It is not for you to judge, or call Rob Bell a false preacher, by what you have said in your video makes it look like you feel Rob is a false preacher.

The key problem with your sentence here are the two words "I believe". This is not about what you believe but what the Scripture actually says. Romans 16:17 tells us to "mark" those who teach doctrine contrary to what we learn in Scripture. Ephesians 5:11 tells us to expose the works of darkness. Galatians 1:8-9 pronounces damnation on anyone who preaches any other gospel than the one preached in Scripture. So the question is not whether I should be doing this as a shepherd (and remember that shepherds are supposed to feed sheep and protect them from wolves), but whether I am telling the truth and handling Scripture correctly - both subjects that you never delved into.

Once again, the question is not whether I should call him a false teacher but whether he is a false teacher. I gave a biblical critique of the content of Rob Bell's teaching and it would be nice if you could extend me the same courtesy.

Christianity is divided enough, and no divided team ever works to its full potential.

It is false teachers that cause division - not those who expose them. "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them" (Romans 16:17).

What you preach holds an impact and that impact will be judged, and judged by God alone. It disappointed me greatly that preacher would take a shot at another Christian.

I wouldn't take a shot at another Christian. Rob Bell is a universalist. That's not Christianity last time I checked.

In Christ
(Name withheld)

Go Back To Part 1

More Correspondance Concerning Rob Bell (Part 1)

My Rob Bell Exposed video on youtube is still causing quite a stir. If only the hordes of Rob Bell groupies were as zealous about defending the Gospel as they are about defending Rob Bell. I regularly get slanderous and hateful mail from emergents who are outraged that I would expose their heretical guru as a fraud to Christianity. But sometimes I get polite e-mails from people expressing concern for my "Rob Bell Exposed" video which convey a genuine concern for truth. I am only too happy to respond to these mails. Today I am posting an example as I thought it might be helpful to the many readers who have expressed their frustration at unsuccessfully pleading with their church leaders to stop playing Rob Bell's videos (of which several are heretical). What follows is a recent letter I received. I have inserted my responses in bold type (for the record, my response was very well received).

Hey Cameron,

This is in reference to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wSAEezBc3s

I can understand where you are coming from in this video. But I think you misinterpreted Rob Bell.

I think when Rob talked about how Peter did not have faith in himself as opposed to not enough faith in God, he was really trying to say: It wasn't that Peter did not have faith that Jesus had the power, cause He obviously did since He was still floating. It was that Peter did not have faith that He could do what God wanted Him to do.

Rob Bell explicitly teaches at the end of the video that God has faith in man just like we should have faith in Him. I know why Bell didn't quote a Scripture to support this idea - because there isn't any. Furthermore faith is defined in Heb 11:1 as the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things unseen. Faith requires things both unseen and unknown. God is omniscient (all knowing) and omnipresent (all seeing). Faith cannot be a part of God's character and nature. He is the object of faith. The Gospel is all about faith ALONE in Christ ALONE. Bell redefines God in doing this - which is actually breaking the second commandment.

I think by comparing "faith in God" vs "faith in himself" he really meant to say "faith in the power of God" vs "faith in the power of God to do stuff in Him". He just worded it very poorly.

I actually listened to Bell's sermon "Covered in the Dust of Your Rabbi" which is a much expanded version of Dust. Bell makes himself even more clear in the sermon and I took great care to understand him rightly. Furthermore, when it comes to the Gospel, the Christian minister must take great care to be explicitly clear on fundamental truths. Bell is constantly foggy. God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33).

I identified with this because I used to struggle really bad with porn and masturbation. I didn't doubt that God was all-powerful, but I did doubt that I would escape my addiction. I thought "I'm human, there's no way I can live purely like God in this way." What I was missing is that, even though I'm human, I can live like God because of His grace, power and Holy Spirit. I'll never be God, but I can be Christ-like.

You are actually agreeing with me here and disagreeing with Bell. We must be born again (John 3). We need the heart of stone removed and replaced with a heart of flesh by the Holy Spirit so that we can walk in obedience by His power (Eze 36:25-27). We need to be a new creature in Christ (2 Cor 5:17). Bell says none of this here. He says that God believed in the disciples because He left the great Commission in their hands. Bell never mentioned the upper room and the necessary indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This was a MAJOR focus of my presentation and Bell said nothing about the role of the Holy Spirit in 10 plus minutes. That is just plain disgraceful distortion of conversion and the Gospel and the depravity of man.

Eventually, after being addicted for around 8-9 years, I finally realized that I COULD stop! And I have stopped through the power of Christ and the Holy Spirit!

Exactly - not because God believes in you but because you confessed your need for Him!

Now another thing: My friend saw the Everything is Spiritual movie, and this lead her to believe in God and ultimately become a Christian (believing Jesus is Lord, lived, died and rose in the flesh. She also has repented of her sins). So Rob Bell's message was influential in her life. Even if Rob Bell did give a false message in this video, that does not mean he is not Christian, all his messages are wrong or that he is not your brother.

Rob Bell is actually a universalist so this story surprises me. If your friend repented of her sins - she never heard that from Rob Bell. He never preaches it which makes sense for a universalist. Bell articulates his universalist views in both Velvet Elvis and his third book. If your friend became a Christian all glory to God - it was inspite of Rob Bell's heretical gospel, not because of it. I document many of Bell's heresies on my blog and please also check out this scholarly review of Velvet Elvis which outlines much of Bell's heresies and false teaching: http://www.sohmer.net/Velvet_Elvis.pdf

Now if he is your brother, and you slander his name and all his teaching the way you do, this is bad! It's one thing to watch his
movie, sit down with some friends and discuss something amiss amongst yourselves. It's another to try to discredit his whole reputation based on this one mistake. Did not Paul make mistakes in speaking too harshly?

If he preaches a false gospel then he is not a brother. Paul pronounces damnation on all who preach false gospels (Gal 1:8-9) and instructs us to "Mark them" (Romans 16:17) and expose the works of darkness (Eph 5:11). So you have to decide if I am telling the truth not whether I should be exposing him.

I would say that if you really had a problem with his message, that you sit down with Rob face to face and confront him about it. Maybe you'll show him he is wrong, or maybe he will say "oh! yeah! I think I wasn't clear on what i was trying to say in that sentence" This is how the church should be rebuked and built up. When we publicly oppose one another behind each other's back without confronting one another first, we tear down each other.

How do you know I didn't try to speak with Rob Bell about this? I can show you my correspondence with them if you like and their cut and paste response that most people get who try to approach them about this. Think about it - it is publicly marketed material that warrants a public response. So it wasn't a Matthew 18 situation anyway. Plus this was a biblical critique of the content of Bell's teaching - not slanderous character assassination. Find one personal comment I made against his motivation or personal conduct? I would contend that Bell's Bullhorn Guy video is a damaging caricature of the many faithful open air preachers out there who suffer enough ridicule as it is. Who is taking Bell to task over that. Bell didn't approach any open air preachers before marketing that video - and he still won't talk to the many who have tried to air their grievances.


Say someone becomes a genuine Christian through a message by Rob Bell. Then they hear from you that Rob Bell is a sham. What if they say "oh, so all the stuff I learned about God from Rob is false? He's just a liar?" This could turn them away, when they infact might have had an accurate description of God that came from Rob.

Find me one orthodox Gospel presentation by Rob Bell in audio/video/written form. I have been challenging people from his church to present one for the last two years. Nothing has been forthcoming. Here is Bell's attempt to "tweet" the Gospel:

I would say that history is headed somewhere. The thousands of little ways in which you are tempted to believe that hope might actually be a legitimate response to the insanity of the world actually can be trusted. And the Christian story is that a tomb is empty, and a movement has actually begun that has been present in a sense all along in creation. And all those times when your cynicism was at odds with an impulse within you that said that this little thing might be about something bigger—those tiny little slivers may in fact be connected to something really, really big.

Now please tell me how someone can come to saving knowledge of Jesus Christ by virtue of that? Please tell me you can recognize that that is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Shepherd's feed the sheep and protect them from wolves. My video was fulfilling a shepherd's duty.

Also, if Rob Bell says Jesus is Lord and Jesus lived, died and rose in the flesh by the power of God, would you say he has the Holy Spirit? Another thing to think about.

Rob Bell says many things that sound orthodox but then redefines their meaning. You would be shocked to read what Bell says about the Trinity in Velvet Elvis. Rob Bell's Jesus is not necessarily the only way! Please read the book review I linked earlier and/or my blog (search for "Rob Bell") to biblically consider my contentions.
Sincerely
Cameron

Let me know your thoughts on this!

(Name witheld)

Go On To Part 2

The Exhilaration Of Double Imputation (Part 4)

In Part 3 I gave eight points of what a gospel devoid of double imputation looks like. Today, in the final installment, I am giving eight points of what a Gospel with double imputation looks like.

Also, in Part 3, I asked the following question.

100 years ago someone spoke prophetically about today when he said:

I consider that the chief dangers which confront the coming century will be religion without the Holy Ghost, Christianity without Christ, forgiveness without repentance, salvation without regeneration, politics without God, and heaven without hell.

Did you guess who said that? It was William Booth, the founder of the salvation army. Obviously, a denomination can change a lot in a hundred years!

What Does a Gospel With Double Imputation Look Like

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17a).

1. A Gospel with double imputation is a Gospel where conversion is a miracle. You are not an upgraded model, but a new creature, regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

The old has passed away; (2 Corinthians 5:17b)

2. A Gospel with double imputation is a Gospel where, prior to conversion, we are described as dead in trespasses and sin (Ephesians 2:1). And dead men need a lot more than a second chance - they need resurrection power. It doesn't mean that we stop sinning but it does mean that we have a new relationship with sin. The sin we once embraced we now despised. The peace that held sway between our spirit and our flesh has now given way to full scale war!

behold, the new has come (2 Corinthians 5:17c).

3. A Gospel with double imputation is a Gospel where God gives a new heart with new desires (Ezekiel 36:25-27) - a love for righteousness and a hatred for the sin we once loved.

All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; (2 Corinthians 5:18)

4. A Gospel where conversion is totally a work of God and not of the human will. Any gospel based upon a human decision fails to understand Who does the converting and the miraculous nature of that conversion.

that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them (2 Corinthians 5:19a).

5. A Gospel with double imputation is a Gospel where Christ is infinitely more than an example but a propitiation (Romans 3:25). Paul Washer believes that Romans 3:25 is the greatest verse in the Bible because it talks about Christ as a propitiation. Propitiation describes a sacrifice that takes away sin and satisfies wrath. God has wrath and you can't solve the problem by denying this explicit truth (as many vainly try). Every time you break God's law by lying, stealing, sex outside of marriage, or even a lustful thought, or any other part of God's law - God cannot violate His demand for justice because He is good. Most people try to reassure themselves as they face eternity with the thought that God is good and loving. Yes God is good and loving - and that is exactly the problem. If God overlooks sin He stops being good and loving and becomes corrupt. So either we must burn in hell for all eternity to satisfy His wrath or a substitute must endure God's wrath in our place. Here is where we find God's love.

How often do you hear Jesus referred to as an example to follow. While there is truth to this idea (Phillipians 2:5-9), it is transcended by Christ's role as a penal substitute. We need the imputed righteousness of Christ before we can even be able to follow Him as an example. Furthermore, the major reason Jesus came, to bring salvation, was because He is not like anybody and nobody can really be like Him. No one could keep the law, and no one could suffer God’s wrath. There are some ways in which I try to follow Jesus’ example but I am a hundred times more greatful that He fulfilled the law that I had broken and suffered the punishment that I deserve. There is the real good news.

As a footnote commentary on 2 Corinthians 5:19 it is wothwhile responding to universalists (people who believe that everyone will be saved) who try to use this verse to support their heresy. When Paul says that God was "reconciling the world to Himself" he clearly does not mean that everyone is reconciled to God as Rob Bell teaches:

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, emphasis mine)

We need to remember that Scripture cannot contradict Scripture and other places clearly teach that God divides people into "sheep and goats" (Matthew 25), some will be saved and go to heaven, and others will be damned and go to hell. They are places God has made, not "realities of our own making". Another point is that if everyone is already reconciled then why are Christians given the "ministry of reconciliation" as seen in the prior verse. We also need to remember that Pauls context in 2 Corinthians 5:17 is "if anyone is in Christ" - he is clearly not teaching universalism. The meaning of "world" in 2 Corinthians 5:19 actually refers to:

the entire sphere of humanity (Titus 2:11, 3:4), the category of beings to whom God offers reconciliation - people from every ethnic group, without distinction. The intrinsic merit of Christ's reconciling death is infinite and the offer is unlimited. However, actual atonement was made only for those who believe (John10:11,15). (John Macarthur, commentary on 2 Corinthians 5:19)

and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:19b).

6. A Gospel with double imputation is a Gospel where, because of what Christ has done for us, we are given the responsibility to preach that message to every person.

Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God (2 corinthians 5:20).

7. A Gospel with double imputation is a Gospel with the responsibility to tell it to others. What a priveledge. God does not need us but has blessed us with a part to play in His redemption plan. I know that Rick Warren says "preach the Gospel, if necessary use words". That's like saying "wash always, if necessary use water". Every time the word "preach" appears in the new testament it means loudly spoken. It is a verbal message. Being salt and light backs up the message but it isn't the message. We cannot live out the Gospel because Christ came to do what we cannot do. We are called to speak about the One Who lived the life that we cannot live, and live a life that bears witness to the work of the Holy Spirit.

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God (2 Corinthians 5:21).

8. A Gospel where, in the words of John Macarthur:

Christ was not a sinner, but was treated as if He were, so believers who have not yet been made righteous are treated as if they were righteous. Christ bore their sins so that they could bear His righteousness. God treated Him as if He committed believers’ sins, and treats believers as if they did only the righteous deeds of the sinless Son of God (John Macarthur, commentary on 2 Corinthians 5:21).


If that doesn't excite you then you need to spend more time thinking about God's righteousness and your sinfulness. And then look to the glorious cross.

Go Back To Part 3
Go Back To Part 1

My Plea To Pastors About Rob Bell (Part 3)

I am persevering on this subject today for three major reasons:

1. Rob Bell is exerting a lot of influence on young undiscerning church goers. I was initially dragged into examining the teaching of Rob Bell due to the use of his teaching in my home fellowship and the disturbing understanding of the Gospel that began to "emerge" among many of the impressionable young. The deeper I dug the darker it got (wait until you read the quotes I've got posted today).

2. Though there are worse teachers out there, I get asked the most questions about Rob Bell. Also, Rob tends to be a very gifted communicator who is very adept at cloaking the heretical aspects of his teaching.

3. The reproach he brings on doctrines that people like the reformers were willing to lay down their lives for.

If you think my charges against Rob Bell's teaching are unfounded or over the top then listen to Rob Bell in his own words (with thanks to the guys at "A Thousand Tongues" website for compiling this list).

Rob Bell On Scripture:

“The Bible is a collection of stories that teach us about what it looks like when God is at work through actual people. The Bible has the authority it does only because it contains stories about people interacting with the God who has all authority” (Velvet Elvis p65).

“…it wasn’t until the 300s that what we know as the sixty-six books of the Bible were actually agreed upon as the ‘Bible’. This is part of the problem with continually insisting that one of the absolutes of the Christian faith must be a belief that “Scripture alone” is our guide. It sounds nice, but it is not true. In reaction to abuses by the church, a group of believers during a time called the Reformation claimed that we only need the authority of the Bible. But the problem is that we got the Bible from the church voting on what the Bible even is. So when I affirm the Bible as God’s word, in the same breath I have to affirm that when those people voted, God was somehow present, guiding them to do what they did. When people say that all we need is the Bible, it is simply not true. In affirming the Bible as inspired, I also have to affirm the Spirit who I believe was inspiring those people to choose those books.” (Velvet Elvis p68)

[The Bible is a] “human product…rather than the product of divine fiat” (Emergent Mystique, Christianity Today)

Rob Bell On Heaven and Hell:

”When people use the word hell, what do they mean? They mean a place, an event, a situation absent of how God desires things to be. Famine, debt, oppression, loneliness, despair, death, slaughter–they are all hell on earth. Jesus’ desire for his followers is that they live in such a way that they bring heaven to earth. What’s disturbing is when people talk more about hell after this life than they do about Hell here and now. As a Christian, I want to do what I can to resist hell coming to earth.” (Velvet Elvis p148)

“Heaven is full of forgiven people. Hell is full of forgiven people. Heaven is full of people God loves, whom Jesus died for. Hell is full of forgiven people God loves, whom Jesus died for. The difference is how we choose to live, which story we choose to live in, which version of reality we trust. Ours or God’s.” (Velvet Elvis p146)

Rob Bell On The Fall:

“I can’t find one place in the teachings of Jesus, or the Bible for that matter, where we are to identify ourselves first and foremost as sinners. Now this doesn’t mean we don’t sin; that’s obvious. In the book of James it’s written like this: ‘We all stumble in many ways.’ Once again, the greatest truth of the story of Adam and Eve isn’t that it happened, but that it happens.” (Velvet Elvis p139)

Rob Bell On The Exclusivity of Christ:

“I don’t follow Jesus because I think Christianity is the best religion. I follow Jesus because he leads me into ultimate reality. He teaches me to live in tune with how reality is. When Jesus said, ‘No one comes to the Father except through me’, he was saying that his way, his words, his life is our connection to how things truly are at the deepest levels of existence. For Jesus then, the point of religion is to help us connect with ultimate reality, God.” (Velvet Elvis p83)

Rob Bell On the Nature of the Atonement:

“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)

Rob Bell On the Virgin Birth:

“What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archeologists find Larry’s tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of the Mithra and Dionysian religious cults that were hugely popular at the time of Jesus, whose gods had virgin births?

But what if, as you study the origin of the word “virgin” you discover that the word “virgin” in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew language at that time, the word “virgin” could mean several things. And what if you discover that in the first century being “born of a virgin” also referred to a child whose mother became pregnant the first time she had intercourse?” (Velvet Elvis p26)

Rob Bell On Faith:

“Who does Peter lose faith in? Not Jesus; he is doing fine. Peter loses faith in himself. Peter loses faith that he can do what his rabbi is doing. If the rabbi calls you to be his disciple, then he believes that you can actually be like him. As we read the stories of Jesus’ life with his talmidim, his disciples, what do we find frustrates him to no end? When his disciples lose faith in themselves….. Notice how many places in the accounts of Jesus’ life he gets frustrated with his disciples. Because they are incapable? No, because of how capable they are. He sees what they could be and could do, and when they fall short it provokes him to no end. It isn’t their failure that’s the problem, it’s their greatness. They don’t realize what they are capable of….God has an amazingly high view of people. God believes that people are capable of amazing things. I’ve been told I need to believe in Jesus. Which is a good thing. But what I’m learning is that Jesus believes in me….God has faith in me.” (Velvet Elvis p133-134)

For further reading I recommend Mark Sohmer's scholarly review of Rob Bell's book Velvet Elvis.

Go Back To Part 2
Go Back To Part 1

My Plea To Pastors About Rob Bell (Part 2)

Well it would seem that Ron Dawson, who I spoke about yesterday, is still confused about some things. He has made another lengthy response to yesterdays post (it's in the comments section). As a professing Christian, Ron still doesn't think that itsy bitsy issue of Rob Bell being a universalist is worth splitting hairs over. Ron, I will remind you again that Paul clearly said:

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9)

Furthermore he stated:

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. (Romans 16:17)

Now Ron, please explain how universalism fails to qualify as another gospel?

In Rob Bell's own words:

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, emphasis mine)

If everybody is already reconciled to God why were we given the ministry of reconciliation? There are so many things you are confused about. You said that Rob Bell doesn't focus on repentance. Dude - he never talks about it . . . except for when he completely redefines the meaning to something about celebration. Find that meaning of repentance for me Ron? You yourself said that repentance is necessary in order to be saved. You also said that thousands of people are coming to Christ through Rob's teaching. Yet Rob never calls people to repentance. You continually refute yourself. This is just straight orthodoxy Ron. Jesus Himself warned in Luke 13 that "unless you repent you will perish". Sounds a little too much like a Bullhorn guy doesn't it? Paul made it clear that verbal communication of the Gospel message is God's means for bringing people to Christ:

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" (Romans 10:14-15)

Where does Paul say that "you are the gospel" or "how shall they see unless you live in the way of Jesus". No - it is verbal, how shall they hear! Yes, we should be salt and light in this evil world as an outward sign of the Spirit's inner work but don't confuse that with preaching the Gospel. This is all a very big deal which is why I am taking the time to try and reason with you about this. I am concerned for you Ron - really! I need to be provocative and jarring to your senses because they have been dulled to the point where you think Rob Bell and I preach the same gospel in different ways. Please wake up!

You also claim that Rob Bell's Bullhorn video is not a caricature. C'mon Ron! He's hired an actor to portray an open-air preacher in a very pathetic light. Yes, there are bad open air preachers out there, but I've never met an open air guy like this (and I've met a lot).



You're telling me that is not a caricature. A nerdy guy making gospel tracts during his work time? If you watch the whole video you see this guy is forgetful, doesn't talk to people around him, and is quite repulsive to everyone in his path. Notice also that all of Rob's criticisms are accusations of the open air preacher saying things that are true including calling people to repentance. You'll also hear that his whole basis for rejecting the validity of open air preaching is pragmatism ie nobody was listening. Pragmatism is not a grounds for rejecting open air preaching (think about Noah 120 years of preaching and noone repented), and even if pragmatism was a legitimate grounds, I can tell you countless stories of drawing hundreds of people to hear the gospel who would never enter a church building. I have seen the subjects of sin, righteousness, and judgment hold the undivided attention of sailors out for a night on the town.

And then Rob caps it all off by saying that he wants to talk to the bullhorn guys - well he doesn't. None of the bullhorn guys can seem to get in touch with him. So he cariciatures them, mocks them for preaching the truth, markets the video, won't respond to the questions of the people he ridicules, and makes money out of the whole thing, all the while making life harder for the those faithful laborers out there preaching in the public square.

It might be lengthy but I think this TV interview with two bullhorn guys will respond to all of Ron's objections and typcasting regarding open air preaching. Ron, please watch this through before writing another comment . . .



Ron, you said you are not a theologian. That is not true. Everyone is a theologian - the question is whether they're a good one or a bad one.

Go On To Part 3
Go Back To Part 1

My Plea To Pastors About Rob Bell (Part 1)

I really do believe that there are far better things to talk about than emergent guru extraordinairre Rob Bell. I just don't understand why he is the sacred cow that postmodern groupies defend to the hilt, and the prominent teacher I get more questions about than everybody else put together. Perhaps it is his contagious and captivating style of communication. Perhaps it is all the smoke and mirrors that comes with the theology he conveys. Perhaps it is his Yoda like ponderings that sound so deep and profound even though we don't quite know what he's talking about. Whatever it is, by persistent questioning (from both sides) and my continual frustration with the confusing world of postmodernism (where wrong is right and right is left), I have been persuaded that further discussion is warranted.

But could Bell really be as bad as his critics suggest? How could a man accused of so much false teaching and heresy sneak under the radar of the wider Christian public? I have certainly been very forthright in my criticism of Rob Bell on this blog. You'd think enough has been said but this week I really got pushed over the edge by the madness that is postmodernism. In the good old days a debate involved contention over opposing views. But in the mad world of postmodernism it seems that the greater problem than disagreement is when the postmodernist agrees with two conflicting views that logically contradict each other.

There were two straws that broke this camel's back in the last week. Firstly, I was made aware of some recent correspondence of a friend of mine concerning Rob Bell. My friend, David, who I treasure as a brother, is an academically trained pastor with a sharp apologetic brain. But to my absolute amazement he wrote these two statements:

1. Bell has, however, “baptized certain prevailing cultural values and call[ed] them good” in silencing the Bible’s challenge to aberrant sexual expression, claiming that God is not angry over our sin, suggesting that Christ’s atonement was only subjectively necessary, and advocating a form of universalism in which all are forgiven though some simply fail to live accordingly.

2. . . . the vast majority of his teaching is orthodox, and it isn't becoming of Christians to malign a brother . . .

Can someone please join the dots on that for me? How exactly does "suggesting that Christ’s atonement was only subjectively necessary and advocating a form of universalism in which all are forgiven" make someone a Christian "brother". If you are a pastor, elder, youth leader, or any other form of active Christian voice - PLEASE, I BEG YOU, PROTECT YOUR SHEEP. Shepherds are called to feed sheep and protect them from wolves. Both of these are violated when the sheep are fed on the doctrine of wolves. The idea of eating the fish and spitting out the bones just doesn't cut it with an undiscerning flock. I don't teach my two year old son how to handle snakes - I teach him to avoid them at all costs. The same should apply to your congregation.

The other straw that broke this camel's back was my "dialogue" with a man called Ron Dawson - a defender of Rob Bell. I will give a more extensive response to Ron in later posts but, for now, my concern lies with his self contradictory statements concerning the Gospel.

I have a video on youtube called Rob Bell Exposed where I respond to some of Bell's false teaching on one of his Nooma videos called Dust. In the comments section for this video Ron wrote:

I think the problem is that you cannot deny Rob's very positive influence on the growth of God's church. Thousands have come to know and love Christ b/c of Noomas. I don't doubt there are holes or mistakes in some of Rob's [theology]. But, when you look at the body of his work. When you look at the fruit of his labor, what do you see? I think the fruit of his work suggests that his is someone who earnestly wants to preach the love and redeeming power of Christ . . . I seriously doubt the thousands of people converted b/c of Nooma are all following some false messiah. Let's be real here. :-)

Since Ron thinks that people can come to Christ by virtue of Bell's gospel I asked him to define the Christian Gospel in his own words. Ron wrote:

God loved us immensely. Came to earth in form of a man (still wholly God, but wholly man), and died a terrible death as a price for all sin. By His power he defeated death and rose again. He offers all who would repent and believe on Him and His resurrection an everlasting life. ~ Also, that He calls us to love Him with mind, heart, body, and soul, and our neighbors as ourselves.

This explanation does have some shortcomings and an element of works (I will elaborate on that in a later post). But what is clear is that Ron and Rob have a fundamental difference concerning the need to repent. Earlier, we heard David concede that Bell is a universalist which explains Bell's failure to preach repentance. Ron, on the other hand, says repentance is necessary.

I then pointed out to Ron that he and Bell clearly preach/believe different gospels and the Apostle Paul says that:

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed (Galatians 1:8-9).

But since then, Ron has continued in his persistant defence of Bell failing to see that his claims of thousands coming to Christ through Bell's teaching is a self refutation of his own understanding of the Gospel. They believe different gospels on the fundamental point of repentance and Bell's universalist view, that everybody is saved.

Ron Ron Ron, please come out of the postmodern fog and stand for something. If Bell is leading thousands to Christ then renounce your own version of the gospel. Or, conversely, if you have a right understanding then Rob Bell must be a heretic. Which one is it? No hazy postmodern answers allowed.

I also asked Ron to back his assertion that Bell is leading people to Christ by finding one solitary orthodox presentation of the Christian Gospel by Rob Bell in writing, audio, or video. As with all the other Rob Bell defenders that I have requested this information from for the last two years - NOTHING has been forthcoming, not from any of his books, teaching, or sermon archives.

Please hear my plea if you are reading this. This is not small talk here. This concerns the very Gospel by which men must be saved. We cannot afford to get it wrong. Please stay away from anyone who preaches a false gospel - even if they have some good ideas. After all, even a broken clock gets it right twice a day.

Go On To Part 2

Tim Challies v Phil Johnson: When Real Christians Contend With Each Other

There are quite a few ugly rows going on right now. There are certainly fights worth fighting and heretics that must be exposed. When Brian McLaren denies penal subsitutionary atonement, Tony Jones says homosexuality is a valid Christian lifestyle, and Rob Bell embraces universalism then real Christians must pronounce "Anathema" over them and strip them of their sheep outfits. But when the lines of demarkation drop below the level of heresy and false teaching to matters of preference and opinion our conversation should be seasoned with graciousness and love. The Lord Jesus said that "By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35).

Recently two Christian men whom I love and respect, Tim Challies and Phil Johnson (their blogs "Challies dot com" and "Pyromaniacs" are two of my favorites), have taken up opposing positions in debating the issue of when to criticize and when not to. When godly men enter public debate I have found it to be very educational both in the tone of engagement, and in evaluating an opposing view. These men love each other and value their respective contributions to the body of Christ. They are big boys and man enough to weather each others criticism. And that is a major lesson for people who have been exposed to one too many ugly personality clashes in their local church. When we are secure in our Christian love we are liberated to speak our minds in the hope and knowledge that our true friends will sharpen and refine us with their observations and objections.

What started the debate was Tim's post called Evil as Entertainment where he stated among other things that:

I want to say a word today about watchblogs or discernment blogs or whatever you want to call them. I am referring to blogs that specialize in sharing bad news . . . Day after day they offer examples of all that is wrong in the church. They may vary what they offer a little bit, but what is true of them is that they offer a steady diet of negative content related to the church in general or perhaps related to just one person or one ministry . . . these blogs are really little more than entertainment. And once I had these blogs filed in that way in my mind, their popularity and their draw began to make much more sense to me. They are really just a spiritualized form of YouTube or any other site that entertains by sharing what is gross and base and negative and that does so for the sake of entertainment. There is really no value in watching boys do stupid things on skateboards and laughing when they crack their ankle bones in half; there is really no value in watching the worst pastors in America preach to the worst churches in America. Such sites offer evil as entertainment.

Phil Johnson then responded with Turning a Blind Eye to Evil is Evil Too where he agreed on some points and disagreed on others. Johnson pointed out that:

identifying what I see as the key difference between healthy discernment and the obsessive/compulsive peevishness some of our fellow critics seem to think is the mark of real orthodoxy . . . It needs to be said that "calling people out for damnable heresies that are causing people to drift away from the true faith" is a shepherd's duty, not an option—and it can be quite edifying if done well. That said, anyone can sample my preaching ministry; I invite you all to do so. What you'll discover is that when I am speaking to the flock (as opposed to lecturing in a men's meeting or exhorting pastors in a Shepherds' Conference seminar, or writing on my blog) I employ humor and criticism very sparingly. That's because when I preach, my immediate concern is to explain the meaning of specific texts of Scripture and exhort people to apply the truth to their lives in obedience to God. This blog (Pyromaniacs) serves a totally different purpose. It always has. I make no apology for that, especially here in the gutless, effeminate, faint-hearted, hopelessly "diverse," hazy-and-hesitant subculture contemporary evangelicalism prides itself on being.

It has frankly never troubled me one bit that people who hate our theological stance dismiss us as "watchbloggers" (or worse). If someone can't see how PyroManiacs differs in tone and style from the trash-talking parodies maintained by certain bloggers whose sympathies lie at the opposite end of the theological spectrum from us, that says more about their brand of discernment than it says about ours.

Look: I agree with the gist of Tim Challies' concern. (At least I think I do. The more Tim has clarified himself, the less certain I am that we agree as much as I assumed at first. Still—)

I do think it's evil and irreverent to regard apostasy as nothing more than something to mock and be entertained by. Those who fall into that attitude inevitably mirror and amplify the very impieties they say they deplore. They tend to become petty, overly-critical, thin-skinned, and surly-sounding gossip-mongers. Ditto with the sophomoric anti-watchblogs that relentlessly parody such full-time critics, raising the stakes on the irreverence game to ever-new heights. These two opposing forces feed one another's worst tendencies, and I have no desire to participate with or encourage either side in their native forums. The comment-threads on both sides always turn into adolescent insult-contests, and it can be downright ugly. It's an embarrassment. It's also an easy trap for anyone still swaddled in unglorified flesh to fall into.

Tim, as any godly individual should, weighed up Phil's words and delivered his verdict:

I guess any writer can attest that every now and then you write something that is really, objectively good; and other times you lay an egg. Having talked it over and having read plenty of feedback, I’m going to have to say that I laid an egg on Monday. While I do not feel that what I said was wrong or unnecessary, I can see that I should have said it better. At the same time, I think it sparked some useful discussion and for that I am grateful . . . Phil Johnson wrote about how he both agrees and disagrees with me. This article really helped me see the lack of clarity in my own article (well, that and my wife telling me that Phil’s article was better than my own) . . . Most of what Phil says is most of what I should have said (or said more clearly) on Monday.

There is so much we can learn from these two godly men!

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

Shocking Undertones to Rick Warren's Inauguration Prayer

In ealier posts I discussed Rick Warren's inauguration prayer for Barack Obama's presidency. Though I was critical of his prayer in general, I did commend Warren for praying in Jesus Name and not being a sissy on that issue. Well it turns out that I might not have listened closely enough and Warren has been very sneaky - but not sneaky enough for people sharper than myself.

If you want a refresher here is the prayer again - listen carefully and then examine the startling revelations below.

Islam expert Robert Spencer at JihadWatch.org, an organization dedicated to bringing public attention to jihad theology and defending Western society, criticized Warren for including a common refrain from Islam's Quran – "You are the compassionate and merciful one."

"'The compassionate, the merciful' is, of course, a reference to the invocation at the beginning of every chapter of the Qur'an except one: 'In the name of Allah, the compassionate, the merciful,'" Spencer writes. "Making sure everyone feels included – terrific. But the prayer indicates yet again that there is little general awareness of the reasons why the term 'Judeo-Christian-Islamic values' is a misnomer."

Warren also included the foundational Jewish prayer Shema Yisrael, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one,"

The Dallas Morning News religion blog writer, Jeffrey Weiss, wrote, "I found it to be inclusive – in the sense that he expressed God's love of all peoples and set forth a set of broad moral imperatives." On the Dallas paper's message board, one contributor presented a complimentary critique, with a fitting conclusion, regardless of one's opinion of Warren's invocation.

"A prayer for our time and our new President," he writes. "May God's care and blessing be upon a people that can extend that blessing onto others. The Lord of ALL (non-Christian, gay and lesbians included) is the Lord of us. May we recognize and honor Him so. As this prayer clearly reminds us, we will eventually have to give an account to Him of our deeds, good or bad."

And being a converted pantheist, I mean environmentalist, he had to play to the “tree huggers” this zinger, “When we fail to treat our fellow human beings and all the earth with the respect that they deserve, forgive us.” And then he couldn’t leave the civil rights over constitutionalists out by praying the adulterous Martin Luther King into heaven.

Greg Dixon at "Freedom's Phoenix" shared the following startling revelations.

Praying in the Name of Isa Inexcusable

I must confess that when Warren came out to pray, I was nervous for him but I was not a Boo Bird. I wanted him to pray a good prayer. I wanted him to hit a homer for our Lord Jesus Christ. He is a Baptist preacher. He follows a Baptist preacher as Pastor to Presidents, what an honor. But when he closed his prayer by saying, “I humbly ask this in the name of the one who changed my life – Yeshua, Isa, Jesus, – who taught us to pray…:” My heart sank. Isa is the Muslim word for Jesus through out the Koran. Here is what the word means in the Koran.

Jesus in Islam [Hilal Plazz.com]

“Jesus, or Esa as he is known to Muslims, is one of Allah’s greatest prophets who brought the same message as all of God’s messengers – worship the One true God without partners. It is obligatory on Muslims to love Jesus and to honor him, as they do for all of Allah’s messengers. Muslims, however, do not believe that Jesus is the son of God nor God himself. According to Islam, Jesus was simply a man who was born of a miraculous birth to Mary without male intervention.”

Is 'Isa the true name of Jesus?
Jochen Katz
“The traditional Arabic name for Jesus is Yasu'. Until very recent times, all Arab Christians used no other name for Jesus. And even today, that is the name used by more than 99% of all Arab Christians. Just walk into any Arab Christian church, turn on Arabic Christian broadcasting, read Arabic Christian literature written for Christians. You will only find Yasu', never E(I)sa . Only very recently (perhaps some 25 years ago) some Christians started to use the name E(I)sa in Arabic publications written specifically for Muslims in the hope that they may more easily accept their message if they see the quranic (Koran) name for Jesus instead of the traditional Christian one.[1]

Nevertheless, among themselves, Arab Christians do not use E(I)sa (Isa) Abualrub's statement suggests that Arab Christians commonly use E(I)sa , and that is simply wrong.” Mr. Katz also explains that Esa is Esau the brother of Jacob the son of Isaac. Dr. Scott Johnson from Ft. Myers, Florida who has a powerful Internet ministry, has now gone on record with these potent words: “I want to go on record as saying the Rick Warren is NO pastor of mine, and should be shunned by every Bible loving Christian until such time as he repents of his sin, turns his life around and truly decided to follow Jesus, not Esa! Until then, he is no brother of mine and no example of a Christian.”

Praying In Jesus’ Name

While on earth, the Lord Jesus instructed His disciples that after He was gone they were to pray to the Father in His name to receive answers for their prayers. The most hated name in America today is the name of Jesus. You can say God all over the place, but if you say Jesus, you will be treated as if you have the plague. Courts are ruling that His name cannot be invoked in prayer in the halls of the legislatures of the states, and many preachers now are careful at city council meetings and other public gatherings to use generic endings like, “In His name”, etc. After all, we wouldn’t want to offend Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc. Warren’s prayer was carefully crafted to be legally correct when he said, “I humbly ask this in the name of the one who changed my life…Jesus”. That was politically and legally correct. He wasn’t forcing Jesus on anyone else. He had the right to say that Jesus was the one who changed his life, although he didn’t say that He was His Savior.

In private conversation or a church setting that might fly, but not in a public forum. The Lord Jesus said, Lu 9:26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels. With these words Rick Warren presented another Jesus that is not the Jesus of the Bible. The Jesus of the Bible is not Warren’s personal Jesus, he is a universal Jesus. Three times God spoke from heaven and said, “This is my beloved Son, hear ye Him.” The writer of the book of Hebrews said, Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

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