Out of Ur sort of enters the Rob Bell discussion with a summary of Rob’s Raleigh, NC stop on his “the gods aren’t angry” tour. The summary is interesting, the comments are puzzling. A quick comment about Mark Driscoll’s statements about Rob at the Convergent Conference sparked numerous attacks on Mark Driscoll. He and his comments were called “irresponsible”, “quick to throw out the heretic label”, “dangerous- a rouge teacher with a serious lack of Christlikeness demonstrated in his conduct”, “needs to mind his own business” and so forth. I’d been meaning to listen to it, so this drove me to listen to see if I was really missing something. But first the summary of Rob Bell’s evening in Raleigh.
From the summary, it sounds like Rob, who loves to study and is quite bright, gave a basic study of anthropology and religion. He interjects Scripture into this rather than using Scripture as the starting point. Here is the crux of the matter:
I’m all for telling the Story- but how can you tell the Story without the climax which is the cross of Christ. The author is right, no sermon can say everything, but to miss that which Paul resolved to know at the expense of all else sounds irresponsible (1 Corinthians 1-2). Without the atonement (which includes both penal substitutionary atonement and Christus Victor among other things) there is no resolution found in the “palin genesis” or restoration of all things.
Rob Bell is basically saying what he said in Velvet Elvis– that his understanding of the atonement is universal in such a way that everyone in hell has been forgiven by God. Then why are they in hell? Are they there only because they think God is mad at them? This view makes no sense. At best, Rob dances with heresy because he offers a gospel different from that which Paul declared- one in which we were children of wrath until we were united with Christ.
So now to Driscoll. I heard a very different Mark Driscoll than I’m used to hearing. He is more humble and gentle. He was very honest about his own sin. In speaking of those leading the emergent church, he spoke highly of them personally. What he took issue with was their theology. What he took issue with was their departure from orthodox Christianity.
Some of the commenters acted as if Driscoll considered himself, and his theology, the measure of all Christianity. No, Driscoll embraces orthodox Christianity which has been affirmed and taught by church leaders for 2,000 years. Mark Driscoll warns that these men, including Rob Bell, lead people away from the Way, the Truth and the Life. Driscoll did not resort to personal attacks, however. Sadly, the commentators couldn’t resist the temptation to attack him rather than refute his theological arguments (which is why Mark is not wild about bloggers).
Mark Driscoll did not call for a burning, but showed the influences (many of whom are non-Christians or ancient heretics) and shifts in Rob Bell’s theology. These influences and shifts (particularly trajectory theology- theological evolution) result in a minimizing the authority of Scripture to appease inappropriate cultural enculturation.
Mark Driscoll, and other faithful teachers, are not to mind their own business. Paul called elders to guard the flock from wolves in sheep’s clothing, correct false teachers and remove them if they don’t repent.
What is interesting to me is the idea that he is a “rogue teacher”. Preposterous would be a better word. Mark Driscoll has been willing to humble himself and accept the admonishment and rebuke of godly men like John Piper and C.J. Mahaney. He WANTS to know when he’s sinning (a mark of grace). He is influenced by godly pastors and scholars.
His criticism of Bell, McLaren and Pagitt includes the facts that they are more influenced by non-Christian philosophers/theologians than standing on the shoulders of giants, and they refuse to listen to godly people who try to correct them. Who would the rogue be- the one standing within orthodox Christianity who invites the input of his brothers, or the one repainting Christianity who seems unconcerned with the input of others with whom they may disagree?
I don’t say this because I’m a Mark Driscoll guy. I say this because I’m a Jesus guy, and what to believe all that the Spirit of Christ in the Apostles instructed them. None of us should defend our favorite teachers should they depart from the Scriptures. But many are defending Rob Bell when he does that very thing.
(HT: Gospel Centered Church)
Cavman Considers 
Didn’t Steve Brown used to say that one of the church’s biggest problems is that they [we] think God is still mad at us?
But of course the difference here being Brown was saying the unbelief in the church is rampant… unbelief in the good news of the gospel of Christ!
As for Bell thinking God is not upset w/ us or anyone else?
Let me see:
God upset- throws out Adam and Eve
God furious- destroys human race via a flood
God spurned- has the Assyrians do a number on Israel, and the Babylonians on Judah
Jesus righteously indignant- overturns tables, expels money changers in Temple, tells Pharisees they are of their father the devil.
Christ rejected- tells Israel, Ok, if you are going to despise me, I’m going global to a people that will bear fruit.
Christ will baptize w/ fire, some will not escape God’s wrath, and he will come in judgment.
This just in:
Jesus is beside himself that if God wasn’t upset then why did I have to endure the curse?
Can you imagine the Son saying to the Father,
“Then why in the world did you forsake me on the cross, if you weren’t really upset?!!!”
And the Father replying, “Well, I guess I was wrong to take out my vengeance on you, sorry. Son, will you forgive me?”
And since when is it not Driscoll’s business or any other child of God, when he feels a teacher is proclaiming heresy?
None of his business? What kind of juvenile reply is that?
Oh, so it all between God and Rob Bell?
We are to merely stand by and let those two work it out?
I must say, reminds me of having heard Hinn, Crouch and others use “Touch not my anointed” when being charged w/ heresy.
Can you imagine an embezzler saying to the judge, “well, that is between me and God, judge”.
Or how about one guilty of mail fraud, or a murderer or rapist telling a judge, “Well judge, actually it is none of your business”.
Only in the church.
Reminds me of Luther’s famous quote:
“I’d rather be governed by a wise Turk than a stupid Christian”.
Hey Cav, what is the source of that quote anyway?
You da man, Cav
“I don’t say this because I’m a Mark Driscoll guy. I say this because I’m a Jesus guy, ”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
When I read that in your blog, I actually involuntarily laughed audibly.
It actually brought back memories of one of our profs shocking us one day in class with “I’m a truth seeker”. I was waiting for him to smile, but then he never did. And I thought to myself, but yes, every other teacher out there says “I am a truth seeker” too. So where does that get us?
Oh well, great memories.
You know, I have no dog in this fight.
I don’t know anything about Rob Bell, and I don’t know hardly anything about Mark Driscoll either.
But I do believe Bell, Driscoll, Piper, Mahaney, Mohler, Sproul, Van Til, Murray, Robertson, Pratt, Ridderboss, Horton, Miller, Smith, Brown, Frame, Vos, Gaffin, Ferguson, Carson, and yes, even Keller can all be wrong from time to time and even be unaware of it, needing brothers to come alongside of them to show them their blind spots.
Everyone, you willneed to take note that I did not include in that list the name of Billy Graham…..
couldn’t pass up a good laugh. 🙂
Yeah, the difference between Brown [whose book on this subject I’m reading- wait… aren’t they all 🙂 ] and Bell is that Stephen Brown is addressing it as an issue for Christians as an application of our union with Christ. Bell is addressing it for all people everywhere, which would also contradict the clear teaching of Romans 1- the wrath of God IS BEING revealed against…
God is still angry with those who refuse allegience to him through the atonement of Christ (who satisfied the wrath of God- propitiation, and removed the cause of the offense- expiation contrary to what some people seem to think.)
Keller can err? Blasphemy! 🙂
Yes- which is why I feel okay when I disagree with any of those men listed when their statement doesn’t line up with Scripture. Hence, the “Jesus Guy” statement (thinking 1 Cor. 1- it’s not about the teacher, but truth). That is why on this blog I will disagree with guys I really like. We disagree on non-essentials, not essentials. I fear Rob Bell and I would disagree on essentials.
I remember one prof calling himself a “Truth Guy” (possibly the same guy in a different context. I thought he needed to be a “Truth and Grace Guy”, but the blood of Jesus is sufficient for his sin and mine.
What I vividly recall is one day in the classroom that was over by the small kitchen and mail boxes.
He suddenly out of the blue proclaimed [boldly, I might add :)] but I am “a truth seeker”. He apparently was contrasting himself w/ others vaguely. But over the years much of this has faded from my recall. Anyway, we must have all been staring with a stunned silence, because he then proceeded to try to explain it. And it didn’t get any better. 🙂
He never backed off of it at all…. then again, I don’t know that he would have backed off of much in those days. Perhaps he changed over time. I DO want to be fair to him that in sanctification it takes time to be molded into the image of Christ.
Oh, I agree wholeheartedly regarding the distinction between Brown and Bell in their teaching on God not being upset with people. I think it is one of the real legacies of Steve Brown for which I am thankful and feel the church has been edified.
Do you remember Steve Brown saying “Steve, you get your three free sins today”.
Remember him saying stuff like that?
I also remember him saying, “If you guys preach grace, some of the people in your church are going to be very upset with you”.
In my denomination, we believe that God is not angry at humans but at sin. He loves us but is angry at sin and how sin has corrupted his creation. He sent his son who died on the cross to rescue us from sin.
It presents a very different picture of God who loves people but hates sin that so harms them.
Unfortunately, Scripture also presents God as angry with unrepentant sinners, not just sin.
He does have a general love for all of creation, which encompasses all people. But He does not love all people savingly. God says that he hates the wicked. Hard to escape that reality and remain faithful to Scripture.
The real question that has never been asked is, what is love? We sit here are debate tossing and turning ideas, when in reality we probably all have a different understanding of love. The question is more that what is love, but what is love from God’s perspective? God loves us so much he poured out all his wrath on his son. I may not have kids, or be married, but talking to my father I see, from and earthly sense, how difficult it would be to pour out all of your wrath and anger on your own son. God’s love is greater than anything we can comprehend. He created the world, we rejected him. Yet for some reason he still loves us. We turn away, yet he still pours out his grace upon us. Does this mean we can live our lives scot free? Heck no! We must first accept the free gift that has been offered to all mankind. The free gift that spares us from God’s wrath. It is when we understand how amazing and beautiful that gift is that our attitudes and lives completely change. God’s wrath will be poured out to those who live in sin. Wouldn’t you be angry, righteously angry of course, if people wouldn’t accept the death of your son as atonement for their wickedness? The gospel is clear. God hates sin. He won’t let you get away with sin. And there is nothing you can do cover up your sin. God did that through his son Jesus Christ. Rob bell may preach opposite to Driscoll about anger, but only one person preaches from the biblical text first. I have been listening to Rob bell’s sermons for a while now, and he adds scripture when it fits his message. He really just rambles for a bit. I am blessed being a Christian university where I am taught the importance if correct exegesis of scripture, and I am aware of how little people find it important. The Biblical text was written contextually in a certain time period in history. If it was written in the 21st century it would be probably a lot different. The core message would be the same. But people who read the passages years later will have to be aware of the context of situations, otherwise they might try to put in practice what isn’t really being said. A focus on the big picture is important. God created man. Man Fell into sin. Man needed a redeemer. God Sent son as that Redeemer. We wait patiently till he returns again. We are in the end times. Does that not scare you? The apostles thought Jesus would come back any day. Two thousand years later, we don’t even think about his return. God’s love is far greater than anything we can comprehend. But I am thankful for it. I am thankful that he has spared me of his wrath and anger. I can say that because I crucified jesus, just as God had been setting up for thousands of years. Our God is an angry God. Our God is a God of grace. Our God is just.
I currently attend Mars Hill Church on a regular basis. I am a college student with much to learn. But when Driscoll preaches a serious from a book of the Biblical Text I praise God for the blessing that Driscoll is. His exegesis incredible. His passion for context and context and more context excites me. The fact that he can spend a half hour “introducing” the passage really makes me listen. Sadly most preachers do not exegete scripture thoroughly. We live in a world of “good lesson” sermons. A world where the Bible is adapted to the message we want to give, not adaption our message to what the Bible wants to give. This is why Mark Driscoll has to apologize for being wrong sometimes. Because the Biblical Text will expose truth and sin. Luther would have seemed pretty crazy and offensive when he tried to expose the heresy of the catholic church. But today we look at him as a hero. Yet he was not treated as such at the time.
I have rambled for too long. If all you read is this then good. Make sure whatever speaker you listen to exegetes scripture accurately. What does this mean? This means you to as an average church attendant is going to have to study the Biblical text as well. We are lazy in this new age, we want people to tell us what to do. We are products of consumerism. Yet when it comes to our faith we should be different. To much pressure is placed on the Pastors. If each member of the church studied scripture on their own, thing would be much different. Church would no longer be a fill up at the gas station. But an outreach to those who have never heard. This is partially the way Mars Hill Church of Seattle is structured. Through your community groups you study and grow with the Biblical text and become the missionary to the city. Church becomes the time to fellowship, learn and worship corporately.
“No, Driscoll embraces orthodox Christianity which has been affirmed and taught by church leaders for 2,000 years”
Orthodox Christianity has been taught for that long? Throw out the reformation people…. we can go back to before Martin Luther! Let’s face it… our theology is constantly being reformed. It is arrogance to think that we have it all figured out and that “reformed” theology is the end all of what we should believe. We need to be questioning why we believe what we believe. That is how growth has always occurred in the Christian faith. Being “reformed” suggests it was all in the past, not that reformation is a constant process.
“Reformed and reforming” is the slogan of the Reformers. They saw the development of the church’s theology as deviating from Scripture, and used many of the church fathers and other early church theologians to show that they were not innovators. The Reformers wanted to return to Orthodox Christianity (and I think they by and large did).
It would be reductionistic to think that they church fathers were all united on every doctrine. But you see a strong consensus on the major things. So, for the Reformers it was not about innovation but recognizing where the church had gone astray and trying to return back to biblical faithfulness.
We err if we think the Reformers got it all right, hence the “reforming”. They too were impacted by the noetic effect of sin, and had blind spots in their theology.
Where Driscoll is correct is that our reforming is recapturing truth that we have disregarded or corrupted. Where Bell goes astray is in thinking that reforming is innovative to the degree that you toss out time-tested truth. Driscoll owns a theological heritage, allowing disagreement on peripheral matters. Guys like Bell certainly seem unwilling to own a theological heritage, and are willing to disagree even on the most fundamental matters AS IF they were merely peripheral.
I agree with caveman. He seems to have grasped the concept.
I too agree with Cavman.
The idea of Reforming theology with culture has stirred great debate among my small group.
The matter of McLaren, among others, not having positions on key matters that are so rampant in our church culture is certainly disturbing. If you’re theology doesn’t have areas of mystery, you need to give it another look, but these areas of mystery should not be issues that The Bible speaks frequently and directly to… obviously, there is a right and certainly a wrong way to call out sin publicly from the platform of a national magazine, but there must be accountability among Christians.
One of the biggest problems with many churches is that they don’t teach God’s Grace balanced by our responsibility of sin. I’m reformed and I love Christ… I’m not concerned with whether or not God is angry at me, that’s really not even the issue, God is Justice… The Bible is the redemptive work of Christ. The issue is that my motive for obeying God should not be “I dont want God to be angry at me.” Our motivation should be love… Our love for God should be so deep that when we blow it, we think of Christ and how He has called us out of our sin because He loves….
We must be careful talking to our church culture on what the Fear of God looks like. So many times it becomes Behavior modification motivated by Fear of God as to not make Him angry. It’s a fine line to travel theologically…
In defense of Bell.
I recognize this is an act of sheer futility that will most likely accomplish zilch. I just really struggle with how people can get so confused about Rob’s view of the saving power of Christ to tack it up to universalism. I mean it obviously isn’t if Rob Bell talks about there being people in hell, right? Its not that Rob is saying everyone finds life in Christ, heaven, or whatever term you want to use for eternal life. He isn’t saying that at all. Having read Velvet Elvis a few times through, attended The Gods Aren’t Angry Tour in Seattle, WA and listened to many many podcasts from his church I think I have a really good gauge as to where his heart and doctrine lie.
The main issue that I hear constantly brought up is that he says things along the lines of God is not angry about our sins and there is therefore no punishment for them or something of that sort. Or maybe more like everyone is forgiven and there is no more need to sacrifice. Something of that sort, no more sacrifices need to be made for the forgiveness of sins. I think what is happening here, (again I have read the section in Velvet Elvis where Bell talks about there being people in heaven and in hell whose sins are forgiven, who God loves and Jesus died for as well as saw him speak on the end of the sacrificial system in The Gods Aren’t Angry Tour, so I am confident I heard/read the same issues of concern) is simply a case of missing the point. I think a lot of this stems from a sort of fear, a protection when guys like Bell come along that filters everything he says. Perhaps it stems from a desire to make a person who is greatly successful look like a fraud. I do not know. But lets slip off the fear goggles and try and approach these sort of claims from a scriptural and reasoned point of view.
Are all sins forgiven?
Heb 7:23-27
The former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing, but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently. Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.
For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.
NASU
Heb 9:11-12
But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.
The question in these passages is, what is the all in the once for all? Is it all time? Not likely since he is supposed to descend to earth once again some day in the future. Is it all sins? Then we could say that all sins have been paid for, made atonement for, covered, whatever your terminology of choice happens to be. Maybe that makes you uncomfortable and you prefer all people, well you still end with the same problem, he paid for ALL PEOPLE, atoned for all people, etc. So either way it is all sins or all people, thus making salvation available to everyone, everyone covered or every sin covered, you end up in the same place.
I want to reiterate here this is not saying that all people are living eternal life, simply that all of them or their sins are covered.
Col 2:13-14
When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
NASU
I like the finality of that verse, nailed it to the cross. As in, they are done with, over, beaten, and dead. No debt left. None. Its beautiful and final. So the sins that are atoned for cannot reclaim you because the debt was nailed to the cross.
The question remains, what about God’s anger and wrath?
Isa 53:2-6
For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, And like a root out of parched ground; He has no stately form or majesty That we should look upon Him, Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him. He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; And like one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.
NASU
Isa 53:10-11
But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand. As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities.
NASU
My understanding according to scriptures is simple. If one can call anything in scripture simple. All of God’s wrath was spent, poured out on His son, once and for all. If God spent it all on Jesus, why do we spend so much time trying to bring it up over and over again? “It is finished”, right? So what we have here is a problem though…
What about those who want nothing to do with God? Has he still forgiven them? I believe so… and this is why… if his anger is all spent on Jesus, he has nothing left but love for us. But he doesn’t force Himself on us, because that wouldn’t be love. So we have a choice to reject or accept Him. To reject Him is to reject life itself since he is the Life, thus the wages of sin truly are death. There are those who will not want God no matter what so he turns them over to what they desire. Romans 1 talks about this.
This is why hell can be filled with people who are forgiven, not because their sins weren’t covered or God was wrathful, but because they chose another path.
Imagine you are a kid again and your dad comes home and presents you with a brand new wii. This is something that you could never afford on your five cent a week allowance (hey your parents are cheap, but at least they pull out the big bucks on the wii right?) Most of us would be glad to receive this gift but for some reason, you reject it, maybe you were dropped on your head. Does this mean the gift isn’t yours? Does this mean your dad didn’t pay for it? The gift is still yours, you just have to pull it out of the box and play with it (its not like he is going to throw it in the dumpster.) He might return it, but that would have still been your choice in rejecting it, not because he didn’t get it for you.
This is all that Rob is saying, the gift of life is there, the wrath has been spent once for all on his Son, our sins are covered, grace paid the bill and we just have to accept it, to believe and trust that it really is true. Isn’t that the same gospel you preach? It is definitely the one I read about in scripture. God isn’t the Father who runs after his son with a switch, he is the loving father who runs out and falls on the neck of his prodigal.
Ryan M.
There is a difference between universalism (all people will be saved) and believing in the universal extent of the atonement (Jesus died for all people from all times). I’ve heard no one accuse Rob of the first, only the 2nd. Rob clearly believes this, and teaches it in Velvet Elvis (you can check out my interaction with the book via a search).
God is not angry with His children. Their sins have been removed by Christ’s work. By virtue of our spiritual union with Him, the Father sees us as He sees Jesus.
But Paul says that the wrath of God is being revealed (present tense, post-cross) as God gives people over to their sins. So, we have that problem to contend with.
Most of your Scripture quotes on this issue disregard the context. In Colossians Paul is writing to Christians, not unbelievers. To make Paul say that all the transgresssions of all people everywhere regardless of their relationship with Christ have been forgiven is to move far beyond the text.
The issue in Hebrews is one of the # of sacrifices. The priests of the Old Testament had to continually make sacrifices. Christ’s was once for all TIME, not for all PEOPLE. We keep this within the context of the rest of Scripture. For instance, He died for His sheep (John 10), His bride the church (Eph. 5), His people (Is. 53, 1 Peter 1-2).
To be consistent between your reasoning and illustration/analogy: it is not the gift which goes in the trash, but the child. For Rob Bell has forgiven people in hell. This makes God unjust. If Jesus paid for your sins, it is unjust for Him to send you to hell which is a place of judgment to pay for them again. Does that make sense? There is more than an offer of possible salvation involved, there is a real salvation purchased, and applied.
Bell’s understanding of the atonement is that it is NOT ENOUGH to save you (because many billions he supposedly died for are in hell). Therefore, your salvation is based on something else rather than what Jesus did. That is a sharp deviation from Scripture. It isn’t fear goggles. Rob Bell teaches false doctrine on SOME points. It is very difficult for people without a strong grasp of biblical and systematic theology to see where he leads them astray. Therefore he is not a person I would want young, or immature, Christians to listen to regularly.
Your comments were in vain because the Scriptures didn’t make the case you thought they made.
Are you a calvinist Cavman? because I get that vibe from your saying Rob Bell’s view of atonement is not enough to save people from their sins because they are forgiven yet in hell.
I also get it from you not believing in the universal extent of his atonement. Limited atonement, right? Then why does Paul say that in Christ God was reconciling to Himself ALL things?
As far as me missing context goes, I will do my best to ignore the condescending tone of your reply and simply explain myself.
Does the fact that Colossians was written to a church change the fact that the sins were nailed to the cross with finality, which was my point in that. No, not really. If you believe that Jesus paid for all the sins of the world then you understand that that debt is paid finally for everyone.
AS far as the Hebrews thing goes. You obviously didnt want to read that whole section since you disregarded it so quickly. I tell you what though, its my fault for jumping on your page and trying to defend him. Whatever. I am through
Yes, I am a Calvinist. Not hiding that.
No condescending tone, just a statement of fact. The question is: whose sins were nailed to that cross? Everyones, or those of his audience (and others in their situation)?
I guess we are going to disagree on the extent of God’s sovereignty.
I’ve done extensive work on Hebrews, sorry. That includes original languages. So I didn’t disregard it quickly, I drew on what I have learned over the years.
I don’t mind people trying to defend another- but you must make a strong case. You didn’t. Sorry about that.
I can disagree with Rob Bell. I don’t want to make false statements about Rob (or anyone else). You seemed to be implying something about his critics that wasn’t true.
I’m not sure why you feel the need to throw out ‘mea culpas’ and sulk rather than possibly engage in discussion you might possibly benefit from. Your assumption is that you know more than me. You might not.
Been reading Ryan M and Cavman.
Ryan M, you ask Cavman Are you a Calvinist?
The label you provide Cavman doesn’t help your case at all.
The question is not whether Cavman is a Calvinist.
For one thing, how are you even defining Calvinist?
More importantly the issue is what do the Scriptures say?
How about Romans 8:28-39
28-God has worked all things together for who?
Those called ones according to his saving purposes.
Who are they?
29-Those God foreknew [not the choice they would make]; God foreknew those very called ones and predestined them and they will be the ones conformed to the image of Christ
30-Each of the called ones, will be justified and each of the called and justified will be glorified.
31- God is for “us”; the foreknown, predestined, called, justified, glorified.
32- God gave his Son [not sparing him] for “us all”.
who are the “us all” in this context?
the foreknown, predestined, called, justified, glorified
Thus he will give “us” the predestined ones all we need
33- no charge against “those” God has chosen
34-Christ died for, rose for, prays “for us” [again the context] all the called ones
35-so who can separate “US” from the love of Christ?
36-39 the foreknown, predestined, called, justified, glorified are the only ones who have the confidence that nothing can separate “us” from the love of God displayed in saving us by Christ who was named “Jesus” not because he would merely make salvation possible, but because he actually “will save his people from their sins” [Mt. 1:21]
The statements of Christ dying for all are seen in their context to refer to all of those who are the foreknown, predestined, called, justified and glorified.
And that is not condescending either.
That is simply reading / interpreting the chapter in its context.
“No condescending tone, just a statement of fact.”
Bahahahaha! Best non-intentionally ironic statement ever.
This discussion has inspired me to give up reading random blog commentary. I can count on no hands the number of discussions I’ve encountered that create less heat than light.
Hi, what’s so bad about Rob Bell? I’ve been listening to his podcast and stuff, and thought his book God sex was very well but together. I just don’t understand why people think he’s a heretic. I just can’t find anything. Thanks in advance!
Some of what Rob says is right on. Some of what he says … not so much. In terms of specifics:
Big Picture: he uses a trajectory hermeneutic which essentially asks what would Paul (or Peter, John) teach now, which has led him into egalitarianism (not only are men and women equal, but functionally interchangeable apart from child bearing). His view of salvation is quite suspect (read some of my posts on Velvet Elvis). No only is Christ’s death EFFICIENT to save (he says hell is filled with forgiven people), but it sure sounds like he rejects justification by faith alone.
He is a controversial guy- loved by some and rejected by others.
very good report. I sometimes flip back and forth from, “I don’t like Bell much, but he’s not really dangerous,” to “Somebody has to stop this man!!”. So I try not to think about it too much. But I appreciate what appears to be a good investigation on the matter.
The only main issue that I took with Driscoll’s accusations, is that some of them were false, which lead me to wonder how much work he had put into the rest of his statements and assumptions (let it be known that I think he’s doing some great work as a pastor)
I’m give one example: He stated that Bell used “Women, Slaves, and Homosexuals” as support for why they had female elders (which is true on both accounts), but he then stated that the book said that the upward trajectory of scripture would eventually lead to homosexuality being OK, and therefore that was the direction Mars Hill Bible was probably moving.
I take issue with this, because he obviously hadn’t read the book (I think highly enough of him to know he wouldn’t intentionally lie). The book does not say this at all, it says quite the opposite. I uses women and slaves as scriptural example of ethics (God’s commands about them) slowly rose and got better over the course of the Bible and (though some complex framework) says that they weren’t intended to stop where the Bible left off (very few Christians nowadays would support slavery, for example). He uses homosexuality as an example of an issue that this never happens with over the course of scripture – God never changes or modifies what he says about it – therefore it’s wrong.
Driscoll levels a very serious and dangerous accusation against Bell and Mars Hill Bible based on something he hasn’t read – that IS irresponsible, regardless how much I like listening and reading Driscoll’s stuff.
Jesus said, “Don’t judge, or you will be judged…” I don’t think he was telling us never to judge. He was saying that if you are going to judge (which sometimes we must) you better covered your stuff and make sure you’re in proper order before you do… because you will be judged back.
Lastly – “Thank you God for godly men like Bell and Driscoll who are both passionate about living for you… despite their differences.”
Am I really to understand that God was so pissed, yet loved us so much that He had to kill himself in order to let His vengeance lie? “Orthodox Christianity” can feel the way it wants to; all I know is that I love my Christ. I will never begin to understand Him.
Dell,
Hard to read Scripture and not understand it consistently teaches substitution. The bull/goat/ram in the place of the sinner. All this pointed to a suffering Messiah who came to give his life as a ransom for many.
Hard not to read Romans 3 and miss the point of justice. In order for God to maintain His justice, and to forgive sinners, he put forward his Son as an atoning sacrifice- see also 1 John.
We don’t “feel that way” but have submitted out thoughts to God’s revelation. He wants you to understand what he has revealed. Otherwise, why give it (though that does not mean we’ll understand it exhaustively).
Late to the game, but great post!
Hi brother Cav… nice points you’ve got there… I believe Mr. Bell will listen to your advice because it is a sound theology… Why don’t you shoot him an email and talk it over so that you’ll know the reason behind what his talking all about is…
Talk to him as a loving brother… Grace & Peace bro… love your article…
Ian,
I’m not sure Rev. Bell would. People of greater mind & reputation have addressed these things. I sincerely doubt he as the time to read all the mail he receives, particularly from someone he does not know. He believes he is correct.
But since he is writing these ideas in book form, I would like to try and persuade those who read his books that some of what he teaches is out of step with Scripture. Some are not convinced, but some are. It starts with his pre-suppositions. If his pre-suppositions were correct (trajectory hermeneutics, for instance) then perhaps he would be right. But that is not a biblical, but rather humanistic method of interpretation.
Thanks, Cavman.
I too have heard a very different Driscoll of late.
I especially appreciated his Gospel-centered preaching at Advance09. (I didn’t go…but listened to all the audio.)
http://advance09.com/
I loved your quote —
“Mark Driscoll has been willing to humble himself and accept the admonishment and rebuke of godly men like John Piper and C.J. Mahaney. He WANTS to know when he’s sinning (a mark of grace)’
May we all look for more evidences of grace in each other while protecting our lives and doctrine closely (1 Tim 4:16).
Thanks!
-M
Thank you all for your posts. This has been a very interesting and enlightening conversation to read. I hope you all continue to grow in Christ through the Word and prayer!
[…] investigating some more of the Rob Bell and Mark Driscoll interactions. This article (click here) is from a blog entitled “Cavman Considers.” If you have any interest in either Rob […]