bill_coley — 2017-07-28T12:37:03-04:00 — #1
It's likely that most of us are familiar with former megachurch pastor Rob Bell. HERE'S A LINK to a CNN story about his current "Bible Belt Tour," a story your reaction to which I would much appreciate.
wolfgang_schneider — 2017-07-28T12:54:49-04:00 — #2
briefly read through the article ...and found this at the end
Indeed, I think there are many who do need a bit of "a certain type of heresy" .... and they would do better afterwards. If you wonder what type of "heresy" ... it's the type of heresy which Paul and the first Christians in the early church were accused of following
Apg 24,14 (KJV)
But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
dave_l — 2017-07-28T14:32:19-04:00 — #3
I see popular religion more of a marketing scheme than anything else. Whoever can construct the most marketable "Jesus" idol wins. Churches would go broke and cease to exist if they didn't sell an acceptable version of Jesus to their flock. So it's not only Rob Bell doing this, but many of his harshest critics do the same. I always believed Jesus would empty more churches than he would fill. And have always favored New Testament house churches with part time pastors who work for a living. Not dependent on "selling their words".
tyrone_howard — 2017-07-28T14:37:28-04:00 — #4
Nothing different going on here then in most Churches. Compromise the Bible, to keep your congregation.
I wont Judge, I'll pray.
bill_coley — 2017-07-28T15:01:10-04:00 — #5
Was Paul guilty of a similar offense, Dave, when he told the Corinthian Christians that he had "become all things to all people, that by all means (he) might save some"? (emphasis added)
19 For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. 23 I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (1 Co 9:19–23). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
In my view, Jesus would fill every church at which we spoke... just not with "church" people.
dave_l — 2017-07-28T19:15:34-04:00 — #6
No. But you say Paul's rejection for speaking the truth is the same as Rob Bell's rejection for speaking lies. They are not birds of a feather based on their mutual rejection.
Again, Paul accommodated people in truth. He did not compromise the truth to gain them.
If so, why did they crucify him?
bill_coley — 2017-07-28T23:02:50-04:00 — #7
I made no mention of anyone's "rejection." The "offense" to which I referred had to do with your comments regarding "popular religion('s)" "marketing scheme(s)," construction of "the most marketable 'Jesus' idol," and its "sell(ing) an acceptable version of Jesus to their flock." My question to you was whether Paul did something similar when he decided to "become all things to all people in order to win some of them." I take it that your answer to my question is no.
Were you to ask Rob Bell - and many, many others - I bet he would tell you that he, too, "accomodate(s) people in truth." My sense is that your vision of the "truth" is different from his.
I took your original statement...
...to refer to modern churches, and hence, the issue of why the ancients crucified Jesus did not cross my mind. I think there is ample testimony in the New Testament as to why they crucified Jesus.
Those reasons notwithstanding, however, I still be believe Jesus would fill churches, but not with "church people," a term by which I mean not conventional, stereotypical church types. I think Jesus would fill churches with weary, wounded, and ostracized people, people who don't fit in the "church people" category I offered.
dave_l — 2017-07-29T07:22:09-04:00 — #8
Rob Bell believes in "free will" as do most who oppose him. But all of these try to solicit "free will" acts from their audience by "selling" their version of Christ. In the 60s these same would tell druggies that Jesus is better than dope. And you could get high for free. And then the Word of Faith buch "offering" a Jesus model you can rub in the right way and receive anything they want, similar to witchcraft. And the hell, fire and brimstone bunch that solicit free will acts through intimidation and fear. And ultimately the Rob Bell types that offer a "user friendly" and even more "acceptable" Jesus model that would not hurt a fly. But it is all false.
So I watch as all of these try to sell their Jesus model. Some out of fear for Hell. And some out of a Jesus model that wouldn't think of doing something like that to even Hitler.
gao_lu — 2017-07-29T08:22:09-04:00 — #9
I see just such people in many churches today; and those who are saved, born again, are not left in their sin but are changed, become righteous and are conformed to the image of Christ.
tyrone_howard — 2017-07-29T16:05:44-04:00 — #10
You can not lump all those in to one. They just don't all fit in the same category. Let's stay on topic with This particular preacher because it is one thing for you to interpret a scripture or two different then someone else, it's a completely different occurrence to preach something not in the Bible or something contrary to explicitly stated principles like heaven , hell, the lake of fire and the new world.
bill_coley — 2017-07-29T16:36:53-04:00 — #11
Yes, of course. Praise God!
But in my view, it's important to acknowledge that not all "weary, wounded, and ostracized people" - the people I identified in my previous post - got to be "weary, wounded, (or) ostracized" because of "their sin." Recall the disciples' reaction to the man born blind in John 9, where they incorrectly assume the man's woundedness is the result of his or his parents' sin.
tyrone_howard — 2017-07-29T17:10:11-04:00 — #12
Yes, not all people are poor because of their sin. Not all people are handicap because of their sin.
However the condition of man is due to the fall of man and Jesus is still the redemption for the condition of man.
In the case of The man born blind, The disciples were asking a question founded on their teachings that sin, whether inherited or committed were the only cause of sickness, which the religious leaders of that time, in their self righteousness used to ostrasize anyone that didn't fit their mode of righteousness - wholeness inside and outside. Rather to demonstrate the man cast out for his outward appearance was ordained for the Glory of God to be made whole inside and out in contrast to those who would label him unworthy which were neither whole inside nor out
This text is not used to defend the sin of people today and make it ok to continue living in Sin, ignore that sin does bring sickness, or give teachers the authority to remove the fear of hell. Scripture says compassion will save some, fear will cause others to turn, getting people saved has to be the ultimate goal and if there is no hell what's the point of serving Jesus, or his sacrifice on the cross, or Holiness or taking up our cross - if we can live in sin and still make it in because there is no hell. If you break the law in earth you go to jail. If you break the law of God you go to hell.
gao_lu — 2017-07-29T19:18:20-04:00 — #13
Good point and I appreciate your bringing that out. Too often those wounded and weary and hurting, not necessarily because of any sin on their part, just don't show up at our churches. Your point that they might be more likely to do so at Jesus' warm invitation is good. I intend to do better in response to your post.
dave_l — 2017-07-29T19:38:49-04:00 — #14
The one thing they all have in common is the belief in "Free Will". So each produces a "Jesus Idol" that they try to sell to their audience. The "Hell, fire and brimstone bunch try to coax their clientele into "accepting a more harsh Jesus" through fear and intimidation. Rob Bell, on the other hand, tries to present a "Jesus Idol" that would not hurt a fly, not even Hitler. And he sells this concept making a more "acceptable Jesus" based on how limp wristed and nice he can make Jesus out to be. And it goes on and on. But none of it is the Gospel or the Christ of the Bible.
bkmitchell — 2017-07-29T22:45:06-04:00 — #15
Greetings Bill Coley,
I do not remember hearing about Bob Bell before, and I do not know much about him apart from the article you linked and Wikipedia. I am not sure why the CNN article claims him to be controversial, he does not appear to be offering anything that is radically new or that has not, in some form, been offered before (and accepted or rejected). In general, I think that sensational media/news sells or gets viewers. So, in my opinion, the author is attempting to make a mountain out of a mole hill or maybe is attempting to create controversy for whatever reason.
In my neck of the woods, people know neither about Bob Bell nor his critics. So, I am glad that you posted this article. My 'world view' and beliefs are probably very different that Bob Bell's regarding theology.
However, I think that we do believe in the same God and the Messiah although we may or may not believe the same things about God and the Messiah. But, then again in my opinion in a health Community of Christian there should be room for disagreement.
bill_coley — 2017-07-29T22:46:46-04:00 — #16
I raised the story of the man born blind as an example of woundedness not related to sin, Tyrone. My use of the story made no mention of, no inference about, a defense of people's sin or their living therein. Did something in my post prompt your commentary on such a use of the text?
I find this statement intriguing. What do you mean when you say compassion saved some? What passage(s) do you have in mind?
For as long as I can remember, I have rejected the idea that we follow Jesus so we can get into Heaven. Such a notion, it seems to me, is fundamentally selfish. To wit: My motivation for loving my neighbor (or confessing Jesus as Lord!) is that I want to go to heaven. To me, that's a profoundly selfish notion that is constitutionally out of step with the selflessness to which Jesus commanded us.
Selfishness sneaks into my vision of following Jesus, as well, I must admit, in that I serve Jesus because it's the only way of life that results in a life that matters. But from day to day, from moment to moment, the motivation I feel to share the love of Jesus with people has little to nothing to do with me, and most to everything to do with what I know to be the right thing to do... which is usually to put others first.
I happen not to believe in hell, but even if I did believe in hell, I would respond this way to the first part of your statement: I hope to high heaven that we can "live in sin and still make it in." If not, none of us - starting with me - has any hope.
bill_coley — 2017-07-29T22:50:07-04:00 — #17
Long time, no interaction, Brian. Good to receive your reaction to the story I posted.
I applaud the conclusion of your post, that Bell believes in the same God and Messiah as many, many other Christians, including you and me.
bkmitchell — 2017-07-29T22:59:29-04:00 — #18
I also think the CNN article's title is over the top and might even be slander. Rob Bell is not an 'outlaw' in any sense of the word that I know. He as far as I can tell started his congregation and resigned from it by his own choice and on good terms with his congregation. He even appointed the next leader/pastor. And, I have not found anything about any legal action against him that might deem him an outlaw nor of him being disfellowshiped/or excommunicated.
I may not agree with Rob Bell on every point of theology, but I also think the author or the editors of the CNN article who are calling him an outlaw are making a baseless claim.
From what I can see he is a Christians just as I believe the rest of us are here on these forums regardless if we agree on every detail. And, if we all had to agree with each other on every single detail of dogma/theology (esp when the Bible is either vague or silent on those details or those details are matters of interpretation) to be saved then I believe we would all be doomed.
tyrone_howard — 2017-07-29T23:48:04-04:00 — #19
I disagree. I can't speak for all but fire and brimston in contrast to Unconditional love are two sides of the same coin according to scripture. Free will is another topic which I won't even go into because scripture supports preeistnation & lost souls. Point is you lumping all things contrary to your views is unfair. But thank you for your views.
tyrone_howard — 2017-07-29T23:56:49-04:00 — #20
1) no. Just adding commentary.
3)Heaven is not just this idea of paradise for me but reuniting with the Father made possible by the sacrifice of Jesus. The purpose of the sacrifice was to redeem us from our sins to reunite us with the Father and give eternal life.
4) Hell is real. If not then Jesus sacrifice was pointless, because what was he saving us from!?
next page →