What does Bell say in that video that justifies accusations of heresy? All I hear him doing is raising questions. He doesn’t make any declarative statement that commits him to universalism or any other heresy.
The problem I have been pointing out here is NOT legitimate criticism; it is the tendency to jump the gun and assume what someone else believes or means based on very skimpy or non-existent evidence.
In my opinion, anyone who reacts to that video negatively–with the intention of saying or implying that Rob Bell (based on the video) is teaching heresy–is theologically paranoid. OR they just want to score points with their crowd by being the first to denounce Bell as a universalist. Nothing in the video justifies the claim (whether explicit or implicit) that he is a universalist.
Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, "You shall not eat of any tree in the garden"? (Gen 3:1).
What does the serpent say in that verse that justifies accusations of sedition? All I hear him doing is raising a question. He doesn’t make any declarative statement that commits him to the denial of God’s prohibition.
The problem I have been pointing out here is NOT legitimate criticism; it is the tendency to jump the gun and assume what someone else believes or means based on very skimpy or non-existent evidence.
In my opinion, anyone who reacts to that verse negatively–with the intention of saying or implying that the serpent (based on the verse) is teaching rebellion against divine authority–is theologically paranoid. OR they just want to score points with their crowd by being the first to denounce the serpent as a diabolical tempter. Nothing in the verse justifies the claim (whether explicit or implicit) that he’s the villain.
Brilliant.
ReplyDeleteI can't, for the life of me, understand how folks will take the words Rob said, as if they are honest question, all the while ignoring the tone and suggestiveness in his voice.
He's not asking questions. He questioning answers.
A nice example of an internal critique.
ReplyDeletePerfect.
ReplyDeleteGame. Set. Match.
ReplyDeleteMealy-mouthed Bell-apologists a wimps have nowhere to run to now.
not really. considering the very next words out of the serpents mouth is "you shall not surely die" and until bell comes out and says as such you're jumping the gun. it's just a matter of consistency. and by the way i've read portions of the book and bell does in fact affirm that there will be folks outside of the kingdom when this is all said and done.
ReplyDeleteit's amazing how calvinists get all in a tizzy when someone refuses to make the distinction between calvinism and hypercalvinism, yet when it comes to folk they don't like they're able to misrepresent and make judgements without full knowledge... absolutely amazing.
"Not really. considering the very next words out of the serpents mouth is "you shall not surely die" and until bell comes out and says as such you're jumping the gun"
ReplyDeleteThe serpent's MO is first to question, then to deny. This is the path that Bell is on. Hence, the Genesis 3 text is apropos.
The statement, "you shall not surely die" is anticipated in the question, "did God really say?".
ReplyDeletewell again, we have to let the man finish the sentence. you are assuming that bell is a serpent, and as such assuming what he's going to say after the question. once again, the search for consistency continues. tim keller's "the reason for god" has a bunch of questions such as "isn't christianity outdated" and "how could a loving god send people to an eternal hell" if I were to compare keller to a serpent for starting with those questions i'd be foolish. bell may very well be a serpent, but all i'm saying is let the man finish the sentence and not indict him before the book comes out and as such make ourselves look foolish.
ReplyDeleteI guess what I don't get is why anyone is acting like this vid is the first thing that Bell has ever produced and that the words he says in it are the only words he's ever said in public.
ReplyDeleteI think what we've been seeing is a lot of orthodox Bell supporters crapping their pants and are now trying to change undies behind a telephone pole.
ReplyDeleteIt has not been surprising that most of his supporters do not provide any ID or a link to their own blog; it remains to be seen how many will have the nerve to admit they were duped when Bell does play his last card.
2333F5C2-4506-11E0-AD25-000BCDCB8A73 SAID:
ReplyDelete"it's just a matter of consistency. and by the way i've read portions of the book..."
So you're judging the whole book before you read the whole book. Isn't that precisely what you fault Justin Taylor et al. for doing?
"it's amazing how calvinists get all in a tizzy when someone refuses to make the distinction between calvinism and hypercalvinism, yet when it comes to folk they don't like they're able to misrepresent and make judgements without full knowledge... absolutely amazing."
But you just told us you only read "portions" of the book. Yet you presume to judge the book without "full knowledge" of the contents. It's "amazing...absolutely amazing" that folks like you can contradict yourselves so blatantly. If it's "just a matter of consistency," why can't you be consistent?
"you are assuming that bell is a serpent, and as such assuming what he's going to say after the question."
It's "amazing...absolutely amazing" that folks like you lack basic reading skills. My post does not assume that Bell is a serpent.
Rather, my post simply presents a counterexample to dupes like Roger Olson who act as if questions are inherently innocent.
But questions can serve many different purposes. Some questions solicit information, but other questions are designed to raise doubts in the mind of the listener.
Therefore, to say Bell was "merely asking questions" is a fallacious way to defend him. People can ask innocent questions, but they can also ask subversive questions.
Didn't Martin Luther as some 'subversive' questions?
ReplyDeleteLOTHAIR OF LORRAINE SAID:
ReplyDelete"Didn't Martin Luther as some 'subversive' questions?"
Try to be halfway intelligent. Is the issue whether subversive questions are good or bad? No.
The post had a very narrow point: the fact that Bell is "just asking questions" doesn't ipso facto mean the questions are inexpressive of his own views. For questions can serve different purposes. Sometimes questions don't express the views of the questioner, but sometimes they do.
BTW, it's ironic that 2333F5C2-4506-11E0-AD25-000BCDCB8A73 is "jumping the gun." In this post, *I* didn't say anything about Bell. Rather, I quoted *Roger Olson" about Bell.
ReplyDeleteI said something about the *serpent*, comparing *Olson's* statement about "just asking questions" with the serpentine questioner in Gen 3.
When did I make judgement about the book positively? I simply stated that the book does speak of folks outside of the kingdom when it's all over. How that gets twisted into me endorsing the book someone shall have to explain to me. After this I'm done you may have the lAst word but this whole drama illustrates why the folks in the reformed crowd are percieved in such a negative light. The whole point was it seems logical that we should read something prior to passing judgement. And I agree with the fact that bell has said stuff explicitly and in context that y'all could rightly beat him up for. Anyway grace and peace.... With a lil extra shot of grace
ReplyDeleteRhetorical questions aren't really questions. They ARE declarative statements.
ReplyDelete"...but this whole drama illustrates why the folks in the reformed crowd are percieved in such a negative light."
ReplyDeleteThat perception goes both ways. Folks in the anti-reformed crowd are perceived in a negative light as well.
Ken Silva at www.apprising.org is currently reviewing Love Wins in a series of posts. He got an advance copy.
ReplyDeleteSo far, we've learned he's advocating universal reconciliation. So, sure, Bell believes folks go to hell, but he also believes they'll all eventually be reconciled to God.
I'm not against raising the questions and challenges that are leveled against orthodoxy, but I'm concerned that the way in which Bell does it would, at least, so condition his followers to think the thoughts of liberals and other heretics that they would eventually buy into those false notions. In other words, the way he conducts his ministry could at least be setting up the next generation to fall for liberal ideas if he and they haven't at this point.
Thank you Mr Fosi.
ReplyDelete