If you haven't read on several Christian blogs, or news articles, Rob Bell is making waves. I know of a lot of people that enjoy his books, and enjoy hearing him speak and preach. I personally have read his Velvet Elvis book and it personally concerned me. BUt since I usually do so much writing, I want to hear from you.
Rob Bell is coming out with a new book that will go over details of hell, and heaven. The description of the book given has led many pastors (like myself), theologians and followers wary of Bell's position on hell. The description is as follows:
"Bell addresses one of the most controversial issues of faith—the afterlife—arguing that a loving God would never sentence human souls to eternal suffering."
Many have commented on this: Kevin Deyoung, the original article by Justin Taylor and even John Piper who said "farewell to Rob Bell." sending people to Taylor's article.
But the issues with Rob Bell aren't new and go much deeper and I believe are deeply rooted in the Emergent Movement (the modern eras liberalism). Here is an article almost 3 years ago speaking about concern for Bell's teaching and preaching at Pulpit Magazine. John MacArthur also wrote his concerns for the direction of Rob Bell (and the Emerging Church movement) in his book "The Truth War".
But keep in mind these things:
1. No one has read the book (though Taylor says he has read several chapters)
2. Though Rob Bell could be espousing universalism
3. We need to be faithful to reading our Bibles more than Bell, or anyone else.
4. Regardless of your viewpoint of Bell, you must be firmly grounded in Scripture when reading or discussing topics like these.
So instead of putting forth what I think (as I think Deyoung, Taylor, and Pulpit mgazines article does enough), I want to hear from you.
1. IF Bell is teaching universalism, why would this be wrong?
How should we deal with Rob Bell and universalism?
(what I mean by this question is some have called him a wolf in sheep's clothing, a heretic, an awesome pastor, a great leader, a visionary---should the teaching be labeled heretical, unbiblical and if so then how do we handle the situation with Bell, or others that think this way?)
2. What implications does universalism have in regards to God's wrath?
3. If Bell does endorse universalism does this mean you will not watch any more NOOMA videos!??!
I would love to hear what you have to say on this subject.
Be Blessed
To preach universalism is to ignore what Christ says about the Kingdom of God.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading a few of Rob Bell's books, I am pretty skeptical of him being a universalist. He knows his scripture well, and I wouldn't expect him to ignore the many parable Christ told about the Kingdom of God.
But, only time will tell. I am planning on reading this book when it comes out.
"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." (2 Timothy 1:13)
ReplyDelete1. How should we deal with Rob Bell and universalism?
If Rob Bell has indeed adopted universalism, this should not surprise us. If, in fact, some of the most sound pastors were to adopt heretical teachings, this should not surprise us, either. We are warned of this throughout the Bible. It should grieve us, we should pray for these men (and women), but we should not be caught off guard.
3.If Bell does endorse universalism does this mean you will not watch any more NOOMA videos?
No. We shouldn't support anyone who endorses heresy, even if their previous teaching was sound.
On a side note, you mention both the Emergent Church and the Emerging Church. I believe these are different from one another, with the Emerging Church being more of an umbrella under which the Emergent Church falls. Not everything about the Emerging Church is problematic, such as the recent surge in house churches. House churches are not necessarily unsound, but are part of the Emerging Church in that they demonstrate the modern day disillusionment with the church.
I apologize Krista for not making that distinction. Emergent Church Movement is the liberalism spreading, while the emerging church is very different. Example Mark Driscoll was a part of the E.C.M. and left due to where it was headed theologically, yet he holds to being an emerging church.
ReplyDeleteNot a problem. They are different, but I understand one can be an Emerging Church AND be part of the Emergent Church. Not confusing at all, right? :)
ReplyDeleteTo answer the questions you pose:
ReplyDelete1. False doctrine should be dealt with as false doctrine. Even if something a pastor taught early in his/her career was sound, doesn't mean we should still support that ministry if the teaching fades into heresy. This means we should also treat the teacher as a false teacher--one we wouldn't lend our ear to.
2. Universalism at its core undermines God's just nature. God is just in executing his wrath upon mankind for rejecting him in favor of a life of sin. A universalist perspective negates a just God and embraces whatever seems right to us. Again, look at what we (man) chose in the Garden of Eden. We traded fellowship with God for something "better." How much better off are we now?
3. I never got the NOOMA videos anyhow. I've been the type to prefer cracking open a Bible and getting down to the meat of things. I'm just simple that way, I guess.
Take care Brother.