Rob Bell is the devil?

Intro:

There are a lot of people bringing about division and strife in the church by their zealous and self righteous attempts to point out heresy. Unfortunately, most o these finger-pointers are either: missing the point, or stressing on minor issues which are fueled with speculation. Yes, there is heresy out there. Yes, there are false teachers. –However, there are also sincere believers who love Jesus who are being nailed improperly. One of the so-called witches that is often being burned in effigy, (especially amongst my Calvary Chapel brothers), is Rob Bell. I’ve read Velvet Elvis twice, and don’t get where these crazy accusations are coming from.

I’m going to use Velvet Elvis as an illustration. If there is one common book that all the so called “discernment” ministers hate, it’s Velvet Elvis. I’m going to use Rob Bell’s confession as a rule by which I judge many of these topics:

“I affirm the historic Christian faith, which includes the virgin birth and the Trinity and the inspiration of the Bible and much more. I’m part of it, and I want to pass it on to the next generation. I believe that God created everything and that Jesus is Lord and that God has plans to restore everything” (p. 27).

If I see something that appears to contradict what Rob is saying about himself, I’m going to have to look at it from a different angle, so it falls in line with his own confession. This is how we look at scripture. It’s a good rule to use when we look at other literature too. It’s also good to draw the meaning out… discern the intent and meaning of the author. In Hermeneutics, we call this “exegesis”. The opposite, obviously, is putting meaning in, (isogesis). One is good. It’s inductive in its reasoning. The other leans toward “deductive” reasoning, which draws a conclusion by accepting voids in the logic.

It’s easy to see why people get the wrong impression of Rob. His method of communication has two factors that are disregarded by most. First off: He builds his lesson, one point at a time. The first point and the second point might not make much sense, but they are building blocks leading up to the point where he “brings it all together”. His new book: “Jesus Wants To Save Christians” is written, in its entirety, in this fashion. The second thing we need to take note of, is his provocative manner. He says thing that sound wrong, and he obviously does it intentionally. He wants to get our attention and provoke our thinking. If we read the provocative comment, and hold our peace for a few minutes, we’ll see how it too is generally a building block which is established to help emphasize a point.

I think some of his illustrations, and even some of his points are unnecessary. I think many of them provoke many people to jump to conclusions that are not fruitful or consistent to the intent of the book. It’s his first book. Even after his first book, he’s written more books than me.

I found a detailed critique of the book by Mark Edward Sohmer (www.mark.sohmer.net) -thanks for doing all this work Mark. I mean no dis-respect, but my incredulous responses will seem dis-respectful I’m sure. If you’re going to write strong accusations, it goes to say that you’ll be inclined to have a few come back at you.

It’s found on the web in PDF here: http://www.sohmer.net/Velvet_Elvis.pdf -I’m going to use it as my outline, because it draws conclusions that are consistent with most watch dog groups. (Oakland, Lighthouse Trails, etc)

This is long. Excerpts from the critic’s paper are in normal text. My words are in bold print.

Low View of Scripture:

“I’m part of a community, a movement of people who have been living, exploring, discussing, sharing, and experiencing new understandings of Christian faith” (p.14).

The critics accuse Bell of claiming that the Bible is not enough, and that we are unable to understand the faith that is so clearly describes. Anyone who has studied the Bible knows that it is a profound, living and powerful Word that continues to reveal itself to us as we grow more and more. We also see Paul’s confession “now we know in part, but then we shall know as we also are known.”. If we couple the limits of our mind with the unlimited wisdom of the Word, then obviously, we who are not perfect, will always have more to learn about God.

“The Christian faith is mysterious to the core. It is about things and beings that ultimately can’t be put into words. Language fails. And if we do definitively put God into words, we have at that very moment made God something God is not” (p. 32).

Please notice what Rob is saying here. He calls the faith “mysterious” and says it “can’t be put into words.” This is wrong because God has given us a divine revelation using words.

Again, the critic assumes that we already know everything. The critic assumes that our faith is something that is simple and understood on one layer. I know a lot of different Christians who have a lot of different definitions for their faith. Why would so many people think so many different things if it was so easy to discern the divine revelation? We are by nature, paradigmatic. Once we consider something true, it’s very hard for us to consider anything else. Most Christians are paradigmatic and are offended at the challenge to think beyond their current understanding of God/His Word. I for one, want to learn more and understand more. I for one, want to correct any thinking that is wrong. This is the core challenge of this book, and because most people are stubbornly paradigmatic, this is why people are quick to rob the intent of Rob and ascribe their own interpretations.

“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 the 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” (pp. 67-68).

Please note that Rob calls “Scripture alone” a “problem.” He says, “When people say that all we need is the Bible, it is simply not true.” He also makes the claim that the Bible we have is only so because a group of people voted a certain way, as if it could have played out that had the vote happened on a different day, maybe there’d be no book of Matthew, and the Didache would be considered canon. Rob demonstrates a very low view of the sovereignty of God and a high view of the power of man, two errors that continually show up throughout his book.

Let’s not read this small part of the page, and sip the rest. Rob is talking about the principle of “binding and loosing”.. or, simply.. approving and disapproving. When he speaks of the Bible, we can’t just approve the Bible, as the Bible alone… we also have to have faith that God used and inspired the individuals who chose these 66 books and deemed them as being inspired. Rob affirms, w/a high view of scripture, that this is the Word of God, but he goes on to say, that God used men back around 300 AD to decide which books were and which books were not inspired. By affirming the process, he establishes a greater recognition of the Word, than by a shallow claim of: “The Bible is Inspired”. Oh really? It’s inspired? Well what about those guys who sorted through all the letters and just chose these 66? What about the books that got rejected? -What about it? -“at some point we have to have faith. Faith the God is capable of guiding people….. that the same Spirit who guided Paul and Peter and those people in a room in the 300’s is still with us today.” The critic failed to read on and totally missed the point.

In Velvet Elvis, Rob tells the story of a female leader in his church who told him that she had been studying the Bible recently to try to find out what God teaches about a certain matter. In response to this woman, Rob said:

“Now please understand that this way of thinking is prevalent in a lot of Christian churches… But this view of the Bible is warped and toxic, to say the least. The assumption is that there is a way to read the Bible that is agenda- and perspective-free. As if all these other people have their opinion and biases, but some are able to just read it for what it says” (pp. 53-54).

Rob says that it is “warped and toxic” to think that we can understand the original intent of the Bible. Rob believes that we always see Scripture through the lens of our “opinion and biases.”

This is an illustration in an argument that Rob is building concerning the way we are so prone to interject our opinions into the Bible, and come out on the other side with an interpretation. Rob is building a case for exegesis and a case against isogesis here. He’s building a case for inductive reasoning, rather than deductive reasoning. Any student of hermeneutics would applaud this line of reasoning, if they didn’t stop with one sound bit and take it out of context.

“It is possible to make the Bible say whatever we want it to, isn’t it?” (p.44).

This statement reveals Rob’s opinion of the Bible – that it is unreliable because we can twist it to say what we want. Where Rob mortally fails is that we cannot make the Scriptures say whatever we want when we use a proper and consistent hermeneutic. This quotation of Rob’s only seeks to get the reader to have a lower view of Scripture; to trust it less.

“With God being so massive and awe-inspiring and full of truth, why is his book capable of so much confusion?” (p. 45).

Again, if you read on, you’ll see that Rob is building an argument FOR HERMENEUTICS, claiming that we can’t just believe what the scriptures say.. they have to first be interpreted. At face value, an isolated verse could mean several different things to different people. This continues with his “binding and loosing” theme.. the scriptures need to be approved or rejected in definition without our opinions poisoning the outcome.

“We sponsored a Doubt Night at our church a while back. People were encouraged to write down whatever questions or doubts they had about God and Jesus and the Bible and faith and church… But what was so powerful for those I spoke with was that they were free to voice what was deepest in their hearts and minds. Questions, doubts, struggles. It wasn’t the information that helped them – it was simply being in an environment in which they were free to voice what was inside” (pp. 29-30).

The telling sentence in this paragraph is when Rob says, “It wasn’t the information that helped them.” We must ask, “Why not?” I concede that a “doubt night” sounds like a great idea for a church to sponsor, and so I give kudos to Rob for thinking that up, but where he failed was in neglecting to open up the Scriptures to give the answers.

Wow, didn’t Rob say that there were answers? Yes he did! “it wasn’t the information that helped them…” You see, there was information, but that wasn’t the most helpful thing to these people. The Christian community is a scary place to a person who is wrestling with doubt. The moment you express it, you’ll have 2000 Roger Oaklands beating you over the head with their giant web-sites. Rob recognized that doubt was real, and that broke down some serious walls for people.

Rob routinely mocks those who believe the Bible for what it says. He wrote:

“Maybe that is who God is looking for – people who don’t just sit there and mindlessly accept whatever comes their way.” (p.30)

As Christians, we are to take Biblical truth by faith. This is not mindless.

This accusation jumps to a long-distant conclusion. People do accept things mindlessly. It’s unhealthy and leads to deception. If anything, this accused deceiver is challenging people to not be deceived.

“The idea that everybody else approaches the Bible with baggage and agendas and lenses and I don’t is the ultimate in arrogance. To think that I can just read the Bible without reading any of my own culture or background or issues into it and come out with a ‘pure’ or ‘exact’ meaning is not only untrue, but it leads to a very destructive reading of the Bible that robs it of its life and energy” (p. 54).

Though it is true that it is possible to read ones own culture and background into the text, many men spend years learning the original languages and studying the original cultures precisely so that they won’t read the Bible with their own lens superimposed on top of the text. With a proper hermeneutic, we allow the text to interpret itself, and we can understand the essentials without baggage and agendas and lenses.

The critic assumes that if we become Bible scholars who know the original language, that we will somehow be able to keep our stuff out of it. If this is true, why is it that so many Greek-genius Bible scholars disagree so drastically on so many parts of the Bible? Why? Because we humans have a hard time coming to a conclusion that conflicts with our paradigmatic thought.

The rest of the accusations from the “Low View of Scripture” section are not worth mentioning. A simple reading of the pages before and after the isolated quote will clarify the intent of the author. His challenge is not against the Word of God. His challenge is against the limitations of man. Mankind has a lot of stuff between his eyes and a clear, precise understanding of God and His Word. If we don’t realize that it’s possible for our understanding of the word to be flawed, we will continue on in a faith that is not as fruitful as it could be. Rob sets the stage with this section by exalting the limitless mysteries of God, and our endless challenge of learning and growing in it. Our critic totally missed Rob Bell’s point.

Wrong View of Truth:

All throughout Velvet Elvis, Rob portrays true Christianity as something dynamic, something that changes from generation to generation.

“The Christian faith tradition is filled with change and growth and transformation. Jesus took part in this process by calling people to rethink faith and the Bible and hope and love and everything else, and by inviting them into the endless process of working out how to live as God created us to live” (p. 11).

The Bible teaches just the opposite. The Bible teaches that true Christianity “was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). Please note the phrase “once delivered.” True biblical faith does not vary for each generation. Truth once delivered can not change. Yet Rob teaches that it does and has.

“And so these first Christians passed on the faith to the next generation who passed it on to the next generation who passed it on to the next generation until it got to… us. Here. Today. Those who follow Jesus and belong to his church. And now it is our turn. It is our turn to step up and take responsibility for who the church is going to be for a new generation. It is our turn to redefine and reshape and dream it all up again” (p. 164). Elvis on the Ed Sullivan Show: a review of Rob Bell’s Velvet Elvis – page 14 of 59

Rob teaches that each generation must “redefine and reshape and dream” Christianity anew. However, church doctrine is not re-shapeable. It is once delivered.

So, the critic assumes that the Christianity that was passed on from the Apostle John to the next generation stayed the same? It didn’t. Many of those who were in the next generation after John were Universalists. We quote Clement of Rome without a problem but we balk at guys like Rob Bell? Rob Bell doesn’t believe that everyone, even the Devil will ultimately be saved. Clement did. Why did Luther need to reshape Christianity for his generation? Because it was corrupt! If we don’t believe that our views of the faith can and do change from generation to generation, we are the ones who are propagating dangerous views.

“For many Christians, the current paintings are enough. The churches, the books, the language, the methods, the beliefs – there is nothing wrong with it. It works for them and meets their needs, and they gladly invite others to join them in it. I thank God for that. I celebrate those who have had their lives transformed in these settings.

But [Velvet Elvis] is for those who need a fresh take on Jesus and what it means to live the kind of life he teaches us to live. I’m part of a community, a movement of people who have been living, exploring, discussing, sharing, and experiencing new understandings of Christian faith” (p.14).

Rob’s error is this: we do not need “new understandings of Christian faith” but the old understanding.

Wrong. We need the “old understanding” (the one that’s right) to be our “new understanding”. –It’s obvious what Rob Bell means, but if you have predetermined that he’s a heretic, then you can’t give a half an ounce of credit to the author to discover the true intent of their words.

Rob brags about the fact that we ought to be free to find and embrace extra-biblical truth wherever we find it:

“So as a Christian, I am free to claim the good, the true, the holy, wherever and whenever I find it. I live with the understanding that truth is bigger than any religion and the world is God’s and everything in it” (p. 80).

If we follow Rob’s views out to their logical conclusion, then we ought to embrace truth found in Muslim scriptures. Why stop there? According to Rob, we ought to embrace truths found in Hindu Scriptures, and Mormon scriptures. Why not? Rob says “truth is bigger than any religion.”

Well, isn’t truth always truth? The context of this had to do with a Paul’s witness on Mars Hill. He claimed the truth that was there and used it as a place to launch his message. Recognizing an aspect of truth amongst a Muslim culture (he gave an example of something he saw in Turkey), does not affirm the Muslim religion. To say that Rob Bell is calling other religions true is a very ignorant and obviously bigoted conclusion. If anything, Rob is telling us how God has given us opportunities all over the world, and even in some strange places, to bridge a found truth, with the whole truth.

The rest of the accusations under this section fall under the same accusation of false reasoning and totally miss the point.

Heretical Errors:

The critic cited many quotes where Rob apparently denied the Trinity. He never denied it, he simply stated that the Christian faith existed before the doctrine was formulated. What if the doctrine were removed again? Would our faith fall apart over our understanding of this one thing? His argument is this: Our faith needs to be in God, and if our understanding of God were ever to be rocked, would we still be able to have a faith in God? His examples are definitely provocative, and, in my opinion, unwise. The example he used about Jesus possibly having a human father… that was stupid. It proved the point he was trying to make, but it intentionally provoked the Christian community to stop thinking and start building their piles of wood for the witch.

“Jesus at one point claimed to be ‘the way, the truth, and the life’. Jesus was not making claims about one religion being better than all other religions. That completely misses the point, the depth, and the truth” (p.21).

Please note that Rob failed to quote the entire verse. He significantly left out the part that says “no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” Rob is completely wrong when in his commentary on this verse

Whereas the critic sees this as a “belittling” of the exclusivity of Christ, I see it as an elevation. The point of comparison between Jesus and other religions is irrelevant. The point is: “..the way of Jesus is not about religion; It’s about reality. It’s about lining yourself up with how things are. Perhaps a better question than who’s right, is who’s living rightly?” (pg. 21)

Our critic said: “The Bible teaches that it is Jesus and His work alone that brings us to God, but Rob teaches that if we follow Jesus’ lifestyle, regardless of our external religion, then we are right with God.”

Rob never said anything that remotely communicated the “regardless of religion” idea… nor did he minimize anything to the simplicity of “lifestyle”. This is a severe jump from the author’s intent, to the demonizing accusation. I personally think the reasoning in this section is better left abandoned, because most people will find it more confusing than revealing. In spite of my opinion of its validity, it’s still not reflective of the critic’s conclusion.

Shocking. They took political propaganda from the empire and changed the words to make it about their Lord” (pp. 162-163).

The words of Acts 4:12 were divinely inspired, yet Rob reduces them to a mere parody of a Roman saying.

Nowhere will you find Rob Bell denying the divinely inspired word. He does however, make room for God to use this phrase, not only as an absolute truth, but also as a connection to the political propaganda of the day. If the message was provoking, it would have been heard and passed on by more people. Isn’t the Holy Spirit smart enough to do something like this with His inspiration? I think it’s possible. I won’t limit the Holy Spirit. I won’t say with confidence, that this verse (saying in that day) had a connection to the politics of Caesar, but I will admit that it’s possible.

Near the beginning of Velvet Elvis, Rob made this extraordinary claim:

“I am learning that my tradition includes the rabbis and reformers and revolutionaries and monks and nuns and pastors and writers and philosophers and artists and every person everywhere who has asked big questions of a big God” (p. 14).

Except for very few exceptions, “rabbis” do not embrace the biblical gospel, and neither do most “monks” and “nuns.” The great majority of monks and nuns throughout church history have fought against justification by faith alone. Rob either has an extremely naïve view of Church history, or else he believes that people can be a part of God’s Kingdom who do not believe the biblical gospel.

Yet another long distant assumption… Rob is confessing that his traditions and understandings of the faith were contributed to from many different sources. He isn’t saying anything about the doctrines of these different groups. He isn’t saying anything about their view of the biblical gospel. Why would he have to, since it had nothing to do with the point he was making?

This is typical finger-pointing witch hunt discernment: disregard the intent of the author, and interject your own intent in order to make the author’s words look incriminating. It’s low. Maybe this is an appropriate method of journalism for Katie Couric, but why is it so prominent in the church?

Wrong View of the State of Mankind:

“Over time when you purposefully try to live the way of Jesus, you start noticing something deeper going on. You begin realizing the reason this is the best way to live is that it is rooted in profound truths about how the world is. You find yourself living more and more in tune with ultimate reality. You are more and more in sync with how the universe is at its deepest levels” (p. 21).

The problem with this statement is that it overlooks the fact that nobody is good enough to live this way. Rob shows his very high view of man.

We don’ t see Rob Bell overlooking anything of the sort here. Look back at the quote.. Count, if you can, to the sixth word. What is it? -try- Try? Yes, try. That’s the best that we can do, because obviously, we aren’t good enough to live this way. In the process of trying.. you begin to realize some pretty awesome stuff. In the process of experiencing, first hand, the examples and the instructions of Jesus… you gain a better perspective.

The following is an example of how Rob has taken his preconceived high view of man and come up with a false interpretation of Scripture as a result.

“The first Christians know that Jesus is for everybody, but what do they do with all of these Jewish laws they follow? So they convene a council (yeshiva in Hebrew) to discuss it.

After hearing all sides of the issue, they decide to forbid (or should we say that they bind?) several things.

Here is why this is so important: They have to make decisions about what it means to be a Christian.

They actually do it. They gather together and make interpretations of the Bible regarding what it will look like for millions of people to be Christians” (p. 51).

Rob painted a picture of human beings coming up with rules and changing rules based on what seemed good to them, but this wasn’t so. These first Christians were divinely led by God’s Holy Spirit. It was God who was supernaturally forming His church and how they ought to act. Rob missed this completely.

Actually, Rob is going to make this clear, he is not missing this point, he is working up to it, and ultimately, he will be affirming the work of God in it. “at some point we have to have faith. Faith that God is capable of guiding people.” (pg. 68) -He says this in regards to the counsel that picked the 66 books of our Bible, but we’ve already covered this.

Regarding the Jewish Rabbis of Jesus’ day, Rob wrote:

“They believe the Torah was the way, the truth, and the life.

They believed the best way to live was to live how the Torah said to live” (p. 125).

And they were wrong.

Another case of disregarding the authors intent, and asking a non-related intent to stand in so that the words can more easily be criticized. In light of the entire scripture.. in light of Jesus.. yes, in hindsight they were wrong. But in that day, they were working within a different dispensation with different materials available to them.

Regarding the teaching that God will destroy the world at the end of the Millennial Kingdom, Rob wrote:

“Remember, when God made the world, he called it good. Why would God destroy something he thinks is good?” (p. 160).

Read on to the next page. He answers this question. Gee wiz! Context people! Hope you don’t interpret the Bible this way.

Who does Peter lose faith in?

Not Jesus; Jesus 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 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” (pp. 133-134).

This is a shockingly man-centered interpretation of this passage. Rob is teaching that Peter’s problem was not that he lost faith in Jesus, but that he lost faith in Peter! This type of thinking is absent from a true Biblical understanding of man. In John 3:30, John the Baptist said, “[Jesus] must increase, but I must decrease.” This is the correct view.

Well guess what! John was a young man in the boat on this day. He hadn’t written the gospel of John yet. Peter missed this Biblical point because he so negligently lived before the Bible was written. Stupid Peter. - To have faith in Jesus is to understand that “He is able” is one thing. However, if we don’t have faith in our self to apply the faith in Him, I’m not sure how it would work. Peter continued to believe that Jesus was able, didn’t he? Didn’t Jesus tell the disciples that they would do greater things than Him? They had to have some kind of faith in themselves, otherwise there would be no place to apply their faith in the Holy Spirit. Again, this is a confusing and somewhat abstract point. I don’t think the value of this point positively outweighs the negative provocation that it creates for legalistic Christians. Abstract? Yes. But wrong? Honestly? Who can honestly believe in the power of Jesus to work through them, if they don’t first believe they are capable?

Rob even goes so far as to say that we should not consider ourselves sinners, and challenges where in the Bible we ought to see ourselves as sinners.

“I can’t find one place in the teachings of Jesus, or the Bible for that matter, where we are to identity ourselves first and foremost as sinners” (p. 139).

No, let’s read Rob’s words again.. “where we identify ourselves first and foremost as sinners.” Read on. He confesses that we sin. But he is elevating our identity in Christ over our identity as lowly sinners. First and foremost is the message of this statement! This statement assumes and concludes that WE DO IDENTIFY OURSELVES AS SINNERS… but, not first and foremost.

Wrong Gospel:

“I hoped that our community would continue to be a safe place for her to question and study and discuss and hear that God loves her exactly as she is” (pp. 89-90).

The Bible does not teach that God loves her “exactly as she is.” She’s studying Witchcraft. She presently is an enemy of God through her wicked works (Colossians 1:21).

Wow. I actually found the reasoning of this accusation heretical. What does John 3:16 say? “For God so loved the (good people who weren’t doing anything wrong in the) world… “ -Nope! Maybe this is why the critic’s view is so bent on Rob Bell. They themselves have a wrong gospel. The author assumed that Rob was claiming that this girl was saved, or that this girl had already possessed her inheritance in God. Such a thing was not being said whatsoever. This accusation was a huge jump too. It created an impression and hoped that we would embrace it before we actually decided to think. This kind of stuff happens on MSNBC.

Rob tells the story of some friends of his who asked him to officiate at their wedding ceremony. Please notice what these friends of his think of Jesus, and notice how Rob responded:

“Last year some friends asked me to be the pastor for their wedding ceremony. They had been together for a while and decided to make it official and throw a huge weekend party, and they invited me to be a part of it. They said they didn’t want any Jesus or God or Bible or religion to be talked about. But they did want me to make it really spiritual. The bride said it in her own great way, ‘Rob, do that thing you do. Make it really profound and spiritual!’…

So then I asked them if they thought it was a mistake that they had found each other. And they said, no, they believed they were meant to be together and it was no accident that they met and fell in love. I then asked them, ‘Do you think whatever it is that holds all this together is the same thing that has brought you two together?’ They said yes. Same thing…

Then they said they would call this glue, this force, ‘God’…

It [the wedding ceremony and party] ended up being one of the most sacred things I have ever seen or been a part of” (pp. 76-77).

Rob married two unsaved fornicators who outright told him not to mention Jesus, God, or the Bible. Then they created their own false god by calling the “glue” that holds the universe together “God.” That’s idolatry and blasphemy.

First off: Why can’t unsaved people get married? I think they should. It’s one step towards God’s design. I marry unsaved people. I won’t marry people who are un-equally yoked though. Next point: these unsaved people didn’t want a mention of a God that they didn’t believe in. Why is that a problem? It’s their wedding. They don’t believe in Jesus. Third point: Rob came to a compromise with them, and built for them a step, the beginning of a bridge towards an understanding of God. He didn’t get all Fundamental Legalist on them and demand that he be allowed to mention Jesus! It wasn’t Rob’s wedding. Why use the name of Jesus to instill more bitterness and widen the gap between the unbeliever and their Savior? I think… what he did, was very wise.

On pages 151-152 Rob tells the story of a stranger paying his bill for him at a restaurant. The waitress told him he had nothing to pay because it had already been paid.

“My acceptance of what [the waitress] said gave me a choice: to live like it was true or to create my own reality in which the bill was not paid. This is our invitation. To trust that we don’t owe anything. To trust that something is already true about us, something has already been done, something has been there all along.

To trust that grace pays the bill” (p. 152).

This illustration is not Biblical. Rob’s illustration paints a reality where everyone is already forgiven (universalism) and whether you believe it or not, you owe nothing.

This critic stands if you’re a Calvinist and believe in limited atonement. I, however, believe that Jesus died for the sins of all men… That it’s not God’s will that any should perish… That the Lamb’s book of life has everybody’s name in it, otherwise, there wouldn’t be names to blot out… that the Lamb of God was slain before the foundations of the world. Rob isn’t saying anything here about Universalism. He’s just saying, that the work that merits forgiveness, is already done.

Everybody’s sins on the cross with Jesus.

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’. All things, everywhere” (pp. 145-146).

Biblical “grace” is undeserved favor for those who repent and put their faith in Christ. “Grace” to Rob can be summed up as “unearned salvation because everyone is already saved to begin with.” You see this when Rob wrote, “We cannot earn what we have always had.”

The Bible teaches that only those who repent and put

Wrong! Grace is not reserved and available only to the saved. It’s available and waiting for everybody. That’s the point that Rob is making. The work is done and the forgiveness is available to everybody! That’s not universalism. That’s a basic part of the gospel message, (unless of course, you buy into limited atonement).

“The problem comes when salvation becomes all about me. Me being saved. Me having my sins forgiven. Me being reconciled to God. The Bible paints a much larger picture of salvation. It describes all of creation being restored. The author of Ephesians writes that all things will be brought together under Jesus.

Salvation is the entire universe being brought back into harmony with its maker” (p. 109).

This is universalism – that everyone gets saved.

Where does Rob say that everyone gets saved? When mankind fell into sin.. everything was affected.. even the world we live on.. the climate.. everything. God is going to fix it all. Not just me. He’s going to restore creation. But I’m still wondering where it says, “everyone is getting saved”. More impressionism journalism.

More troubling is Rob’s teaching that Christianity is good news even for those who don’t become Christians. (pg. 166)

The gospel isn’t the gospel (good news) to the unbeliever? The point Rob is making from pg. 166 is this: if we give our lives over to Jesus and begin to live for Him, our lives will become a blessing to the people around us. We become a better neighbor and that makes the gospel good news to the unbeliever. How is this troubling?

The critic’s focus here is on Rob’s communication of the gospel. First off, this book was written for Christians. As far as I can tell, most of them are already saved. Right? The point here, isn’t to define the gospel for believers. They get it already. The point is, to challenge the believer’s thinking about their faith… to confront the paradigmatic mindset.

Aberrant Theology:

Wrong View of Jesus’ Purpose:

The Bible teaches us that Jesus came to earth for the purpose of paying a sin debt to make people right with God. Rob, on the other hand, teaches that Jesus came to earth to show people of all faiths the right way to live, and to model the way we all ought to be.

In the following excerpt, please notice Rob’s personal reason for being a Christian:

I’ll put the excerpt that this reasoning is built upon in a moment, but first, let me take note of a couple things. This is a set up. This assumes that the reader is an idiot and will follow this reasoning without considering again, the intent or meaning of the author. Yes, Jesus came to pay the debt of our sin. No one denies that this is our Savior’s purpose. I’ve never seen Rob Bell deny it. But then, the critic states that Rob believes that Jesus came for another purpose, other than the debt of sin. Jesus came and provided for us many practical teachings and examples. Are we allowed to take note of His other benefits, even if they are not the primary? Here’s the excerpt.

“As a Christian, I am simply trying to orient myself around living a particular kind of way, the kind of way that Jesus taught is possible. And I think that the way of Jesus is the best possible way to live… I’m convinced being generous is a better way to live.

I’m convinced forgiving people and not carrying around bitterness is a better way to live.

I’m convinced having compassion is a better way to live.

I’m convinced pursuing peace is every situation is a better way to live.

I’m convinced listening to the wisdom of others is a better way to live.

I’m convinced being honest with people is a better way to live” (p. 20).

Rob is talking about a good way to live. The critic goes on to say that the Mormons and the JW’s also have these same attributes of clean living, and that this connection is somehow a problem. Guess what. We all wear shoes and comb our hair. Should I qualify, every time I put my shoes on, that I’m putting them on as a redeemed believer in Jesus, just in case someone doesn’t confuse me with a Mormon who also puts shoes on?

Rob isn’t saying that Jesus’ example, and our experience of it was His primary goal for coming. The critic made that part up.

“The presentation often begins with sin and the condition of human beings, separated from God and without hope in the world. God then came up with a way to fix the problem by sending Jesus, who came to the world to give us a way out of the mess we find ourselves in. So if we were to draw a continuum of the story of the Bible, Jesus essentially shows up late in the game” (p. 82).

First, please note that Rob attacks the Biblical teaching of the gospel. The truth is that the gospel does in fact begin with man in sin and separated from God, hopeless to redeem himself on his own. After Rob assailed this Biblical teaching, he wrote, “God then came up with a way to fix the problem.” But this is not correct biblically.

Rob did not attack “the Biblical teaching of the gospel. He did not say that the gospel begins with man in sin.. He did not say that “God then came up with a way to fix the problem…” He said: The presentation often begins… - This is a perception. Rob is taking note, that the gospel is presented and perceived this way. If you read on (imagine that, there’s more information), you’ll see that Rob is building a case. Jesus wasn’t an afterthought. God didn’t come up with something in the end. No way! This has been set in stone, established from the foundations of the world. Jesus, the Word was with God and is God! All things were made through Him. He is in and is behind all things. “He is before all things, and in Him all things consist” (Col 1:17). Quoted: pg. 83.

For Rob, Jesus’ primary purpose was not to die a sacrificial death to redeem a fallen mankind, but His primary purpose was to demonstrate to mankind a better way to live. Please notice how Rob described Jesus’ purpose in the following excerpt:

“I’m part of this global, historic stream of people who believe that God has not left us alone but has been involved in human history from the beginning. People who believe that in Jesus, God came among us in a unique and powerful way, showing us a new kind of life. Giving each of us a new vision for our life together, for the world we live in” (p. 12).

When Rob said that Jesus came to “show us a new kind of life,” he demoted the Son of God from Savior of mankind to a mere social activist. The Bible teaches that Jesus primarily came to pay a sin debt.

More cheap journalism. The critic set the stage here by stating Jesus’ primary purpose again. By stating this point (which is a different topic all together, and not applicable to this excerpt), the critic is setting up the reader to have a false expectation. I’m being told that Rob is going to tell me Jesus’ primary purpose again. Does Rob do that? NO. Rob is continuing to express the benefit of believing in and living for Jesus. Rob wrote this book for Christians who are already saved. They don’t need to get saved again, so it’s not necessary to bring Jesus’ primary purpose into it again and again. We’re saved already. We walked through the door. Hooray for the door. Now, let’s take our eyes off of salvation for a minute and realize why we experienced it. It’s about a relationship with God. These are the people that this information is for. There’s no demotion here. The words of Rob Bell are being misinterpreted grossly, and then commentary is being made upon that false interpretation.

Wrong View of Heaven and Hell:

When people use the word hell, what do they mean? They mean a place, and event, a situation absent of how God desires things to be. Famine, debt, oppression, loneliness, despair, death, slaughter – they are all hell on earth” (p. 148).

While I agree that what happens in Rwanda and many other places are horrific and worthy of our humanitarian efforts, they are nothing in comparison to the Biblical description of Hell. Jesus described Hell as an awful place of “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 8:12).

If you read the context on page 148, you’ll see that Rob isn’t talking about Heaven and Hell. He’s talking about things we experience on earth that are looked at as being “hell”. He’s speaking of the perception that people have when they go through war and call it “hell”. This is contrasted with the call of the Christian to live in such a way that they bring heaven to earth. It has nothing to do with the eternal location of Heaven or Hell. The critic thinks that Rob is soft-pedaling on Hell and re-defining it. Not even close.

As a result of Rob’s mistaken understanding of “Heaven” and “Hell” being a state of mind here and now, he makes strange statements like the following:

“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 love, which story we choose to live in, which version of reality we trust” (p. 146).

When I first read that, it made no sense to me. How could Hell be full of “forgiven people God loves, whom Jesus died for?”

Notice something here. Rob Bell believes in a literal Hell where people go. There are so many people in Hell, that Rob says, it’s full. The author is speaking from a limited atonement standpoint again. I don’t buy limited atonement. I believe, (and Rob apparently does too), that the cross was sufficient to provide forgiveness for all mankind. I hate to think that His sacrifice was cheaper than that. I’ve always been taught that salvation is a gift. It’s just waiting for me to receive it. God has already forgiven me, but He’s not going to attribute that forgiveness to me until I receive His forgiveness by faith. How could Hell be full of “forgiven people God loves”? How could it not be? (unless again, you’re a Calvinist, in which case, you can see this your way and criticize Bell for being non-reformed).

Wrong View of Rabbinic Judaism:

I’m not even going to give this section any notice. Jesus spoke out against different teachers of The Law during His time. Jesus pointed out corruption amongst some of the Rabbis. Because of this, the critic has broad-brushed all Rabbis, of all time (even those before and after the 3 years of Jesus’ ministry), as being guilty of:

hypocrisy

saying they honor God, but in actuality their hearts were far from God

worshiping God in vain

teaching the commandments of men

laying aside the commandments of God

teaching tradition as equal to God’s commands

rejecting God’s commands

damning people to Hell through their false teachings.

Since all Rabbis fall under the above mentioned list, Rob’s discussion concerning their: methods, traditions and intelligence is all moot and inappropriate. The reasoning which stains this section is so ridiculous, I’m going to move directly to the next.

Wrong Hermeneutics:

I’m chuckling now, even before I get into this section. If the critic has any hermeneutic skills at all, this paper wouldn’t exist.

Regarding the physical world, Rob teaches:

“Central to reclaiming creation and being a resurrection community is the affirmation that when God made the world, God said it was ‘good’.

And it still is” (p. 170).

The first sentence is true. God did say the world was “good” after He made it. The second is completely false.

Again, the context (an hermeneutical principle by the way) shows us, that Rob is describing the things that are worthy of celebrating and experiencing in this world. There is good stuff here, and he is highlighting the beauty of creation. Is creation ugly? Does food taste bad? Is music painful? –Maybe for some. For me, there is enjoyment in this stuff, and the world is full of it… full of good stuff. Why is it bad to affirm this?

Regarding whether or not it is okay to question God, Rob said:

“What are some of Jesus’ final words? ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’

Jesus. On the cross. Questioning God” (p. 31).

This surprised me that Rob came to this conclusion, since Rob focuses so much on Judaism. Rob should have known that Jesus was not “questioning God” but quoting Psalm 22:1,

This was a bad choice of an example, in my humble opinion. I’m sure that Rob recognizes that Jesus was quoting Psalm 22. The point of this chapter wasn’t about Psalm 22. It’s about asking questions. The words of Jesus on the cross are written here for no other reason than them being a question. (he should have picked other questions, this one lends to confusion because it mis-directs) He emphasizes, that our questioning should come from a sense of awe and wonder, not from a place of disrespect. We should always be questioning, if we want to learn… if we want to grow.

Regarding the Ten Commandments, Rob wrote:

“The Ten Commandments are God teaching people how to discern, and how to live well in relationship between right and wrong with their creator” (p. 86).

This understanding of the purpose of the Ten Commandments is mistaken. When you consult the whole counsel of God, you see that the Law of Moses (the Ten Commandments) are not given to teach “people how to discern, and how to live well” but are quite the contrary given to show people that we don’t live well.

EXACTLY! Bell and the critic are saying the same thing. The critic is jumping to the punch, but they’re both on the same track. The 10 commandments do show us how to live well… etc. Ultimately, we will conclude that we can’t fulfill the requirements, but that’s not the point of Bell’s statement. I’m sure he isn’t denying it… there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of that. (deductive reasoning will lead you down the wrong trail more times than not)

Regarding the Creation account, Rob said:

“Is the greatest truth about Adam and Eve and the fruit that it happened, or that it happens? This story, one of the first in the Bible, is true for us because it is our story. We have all taken the fruit. We have all crossed boundaries. We have all made decisions to do things our way and then looked back and said to ourselves, What was I thinking? The fruit looked so great to Adam and Eve for those brief moments, but the consequences were with them for the rest of their lives. Their story is our story. We see ourselves in them. The story is true for us because it happened and because it happens. It is an accurate description of how life is. The reason the stories in the Bible have resonated with so many people over the years is that they have seen themselves in these stories” (pp. 58-59).

I’ve read this many times and I’m still not sure if Rob is denying the literal historical story of the Creation account of Genesis chapters one and two. It appears that Rob has chosen to allegorize the story.

He obviously believes that it happened. He calls it a “truth” in the first sentence. “It happened” is a truth and “it happens” is a truth. He used the account of creation to spring-board into the topic of bad choices and consequences.

Wrong Influences:

This section is ridiculous too. Every individual that Rob quotes and references isn’t an upstanding, saved fundamental. Some are not Christians. Some are doctrinally off. He’s not asking any of us to read their stuff and believe it. He’s giving small quotes and excerpts to illustrate or launch a point. Big Deal!

Bad Conclusions:

No. Bad assumptions.

Conclusion:

“I affirm the historic Christian faith, which includes the virgin birth and the Trinity and the inspiration of the Bible and much more. I’m part of it, and I want to pass it on to the next generation. I believe that God created everything and that Jesus is Lord and that God has plans to restore everything” (p. 27).

Rob said this in the beginning of the book. If we took his word for it… if we believed him… we would read his comments differently.

Problem is… people don’t believe him. They didn’t believe him before they even touched the cover of their own personal copy of Velvet Elvis. They didn’t believe him the moment they absorbed the twists and turns of the so called “discernment” ministries. They put meaning into his words.. they were determined to.. they used their imagination and changed the context by creating a false expectation…

This paper is just an illustration. If Rob Bell is a heretic, then I have twisted his words and am believing a lie. If he’s not a heretic, then others have twisted his words and are believing a lie. When it all comes down to it. This is just a book. This isn’t scripture. This is one guy’s challenge.. one guy’s view.. one guy’s perspective. If by reading it, people are duped into becoming Universalists… it won’t be Bell’s book that brought the topic to their attention. It will be the comments of some watch-dog.