Posted on 02/20/2015 4:41:37 AM PST by LeoMcNeil
Rob Bell is a progressive former mega-church pastor. He is also a heretic who, since giving up the mega-church pastoring gig, has been hanging out with the likes of Oprah Winfrey. Bell was part of the emergent church, which engaged in “conversations” and rejected historic Christianity. While the emergents like to pretend they’re new, hip and cool, the reality is they’re no different than the other progressive churches out there which have rejected historic Christianity. The difference between the emergent church and the pentecostal or baptist churches is only how they demonstrate their rejection of historic Christianity. Rather than rolling on the floor, the emergent church sips a Starbucks and has a “conversation” that looks remarkably like a sermon. Their conversation is distinctly post-modern, absolute truth is rejected.
Rob Bell was one of the leaders of the emergent church. Perhaps he still is. He gave up his church in supposedly conservative Grand Rapids, Michigan to hang out with Oprah and Hollywood Starlets out in Los Angeles. His most recent book argued there is no Hell and no one actually goes to Hell. These days he’s busy pushing homosexual marriage. He has argued that the church is moments away from embracing such a bastardization of marriage. Worse, he argues that the church shouldn’t rely on “2,000 year old letters” to form an opposition to homosexual conduct. If Christians cannot and should not rely on God’s word as contained in scripture, what exactly are we supposed to rely upon?
Bell of course argues we should rely upon personal experiences, in particular we should rely on the people placed before us. This is typical progressive nonsense, dripping in post-modernism. Bell’s argument really comes down to not believing in any truth whatsoever so we might as well be nice to the sexual perverts that may be in our lives. Of course being nice to such people is a truth, so that might get a little sticky at some point. Basically, if the wider culture embraces something Bell believes the church should follow. We shouldn’t look to scripture because that’s old. We must embrace the new and modern, even if it contains no truth. We want the church to be relevant after all.
The problem of course is that if we reject Paul’s 2,000 year old letters (to say nothing of the legal proclamations of Moses which are several thousand years older) why not reject the entire gospel of Jesus Christ? The gospels are just as old as Paul’s letters and they contain more foolishness to the world than Paul’s condemnation of homosexual acts. The gospels after all claim a virgin birth, a resurrection from the dead and an ascension into Heaven. They make the preposterous argument that some man named Jesus died for the sins of an elect. Not only that, this Jesus claims he’s God. What a silly, small minded, old fashioned thing to believe. Yet Bell doesn’t outright reject the gospel, the niceties of hippy Jesus give modern man the warm fuzzies.
Bell’s and the progressive and emergent church’s apostasy is clear. They reject scripture unless it suits their purposes, whatever they may be. There are plenty of Christian denominations which have been completely overtaken by progressive “higher criticism” and rejected everything relating to Christ’s birth and resurrection. Bell is well on his way to this, rejecting anything supernatural while keeping the stories about Christ being nice to wicked people. In doing so, they miss the entire point of those stories. But that doesn’t matter to the post-modern emergent church or to Rob Bell. These people really don’t believe in anything. They reject the Bible and they lie to people by offering a little bit of the Bible in the form of Christ’s niceties while rejecting everything else. That’s how Bell can embrace homosexual marriage despite God’s specific creation of marriage in the Garden of Eden between one man and one woman and multiple examples of homosexual conduct declared sin in scripture. In the end, Bell and any church or person who adopts such a position will do nothing but lead himself and others to Hell.
Yes He did.
Ever hear of FALSE Prophets?
I'm sure that your chosen religion has none of those; right?
What does it take to identify a False prophet?
HMMMmmm...
JESUS: Hey Smith! Remember that boast you made about doing more than even I had done to hold the 'church' together?
JOSEPH SMITH: Where am I?
JESUS: Don't you remember? A few seconds ago you were in that jail.
JOSEPH SMITH: Oh; yeah; but where am I NOW?
JESUS: Don't you remember? Does bang - bang ring a bell?
JOSEPH SMITH: Oh; yeah - that crummy gun I had was about USELESS!
JESUS: I hope you left instructions on how to hold your church together.
JOSEPH SMITH: Dang! I knew there was SOMETHING I was forgetting!
JESUS: Looks like there's a power struggle going on down there.
JOSEPH SMITH: Yeah; there was always SOMEone who wanted the power that I held - especially over the LADIES - wink wink.
JESUS: No need to worry about that now; remember what my friend Matthew wrote down?
JOSEPH SMITH: This? “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:30)
JESUS: That's it.
JOSEPH SMITH: I thought that was mistranslated.
JESUS: Nah - it was right.
JOSEPH SMITH: Oh well; it was fun while it lasted. My buds will still get it on with the girls.
JESUS: Uh; I'm sorry; in just a few more years; your followers will cavein to the United States government and abandon the 'Eternal Covenant' that you came up with.
JOSEPH SMITH: ME!? YOU are the one that told me to do that!
JESUS: Sorry; but you must have mistranslated what I told you. What part of Do NOT commit ADULTERY did you not understand?
JOSEPH SMITH: mumble....
JESUS: What did you say?
JOSEPH SMITH: Oh, nothing.
JESUS: Well; it was interesting talking to you; but now I must get back to perparing a place for those who believe in Me.
JOSEPH SMITH: Oh, yeah; the Celestial Kingdom.
JESUS: No...
JOSEPH SMITH: The Telestial one?
JESUS: Nope.
JOSEPH SMITH: SUREly not the TERRESTRIAL one!!
JESUS: Nope. Didn't you read that the mind of man had NOT conceived of it? Paul wrote it down in 1 Corinthians 2:9.
JOSEPH SMITH: I thought that was mistranslated.
JESUS: No; it wasn't.
JOSEPH SMITH: You SURE?
JESUS: Yes. Now I must be going: what did you say your name was again?
JOSEPH SMITH: Joseph Smith.
JESUS: Hmmmm. According to my Heavenly FAITHbook, you didn't sign in as one of my friends - sorry, I never knew you.
JOSEPH SMITH: But....
Of all of your comments, this one is THE most disrespectful to the Protestant Reformers who all practiced infant baptism (Calvin, Zwingli, Luther, Martin Bucer, others).
Is this the comment you're going to attempt to slam in their heavenly face when you see them there?
"Hey, John, hey, Martins, hey Huldrych...your overall 'fruit' -- due to the preaching of infant baptism -- was liberalism." ????
I think due to your forthcoming eternal relationship with these brothers, that you reconsider this direct slam of them.
And, btw, I'll give you a hint: (No, their "fruit" was far from liberalism!)
The Biblical references you cite here, except to a small degree Deut 1:39, don't fit ANY support of a so-called arbitrary "age of accountability."
Isaiah 7 is in reference to a "defense" -- a refusal to do evil.
Any age you provide as an "age of accountability" beyond the references you gave are of "no account":
Deut 1:39 references "little ones" who have yet to gain "knowledge between good and evil" ... and of the many toddlers & kindergarteners & early primary-age kids I've been around, I can GUARANTEE you these kids know quite a bit about "knowledge between good and evil."
Really the diatribes against infant baptism are really a slight misnomer...because they also become unbiblically justified diatribes vs. toddler baptism, kindergartener baptism, early primary age baptism as well!
So toddlers have some "knowledge between good and evil" (beyond the Deut 1:39 of "no knowledge" description) ... toddlers are able to "choose the good" ... toddlers are able to express faith in prayer... toddlers are able to repent...
So what reasons do you have that you militate against them and keep them from "coming unto Jesus" in baptism?
Same question for kindergarteners and first graders.
How does anyone believe. Belief come from God not the intellectual capacity of the believer.
Matthew 19:14
But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
[Elise]”Hallelujah!
“It is finished.””
So everything that can be invented, has been invented?
Clearly your assertion is wrong. The Apostles continued to have revelations from God long after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
This has always been God’s intent from the time of Adam.
The only time this has been interrupted was after John the Revelator was taken from the earth. There was no one left that could receive direct communication from God. They had all been killed.
God’s work is not complete until the final judgement. This is why Rev 11 speaks of latter-day prophets.
No LC, Jesus is following is own rule:
Acts 5:
38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
When you encounter teachers of a false gospel, just let them alone.
[Stormprepper]Bible = 0% evidence...well...because.
[Elise]Really???
Do you have any evidence of the flood, flaming hover chariots, Hebrew slaves in Egypt, Adam, Even, Noah’s giant boat, the miracles of Christ, Christ’s resurrection, John’s vision, war in heaven, etc...
You weren’t going to say “well we know where Jerusalem is..” were you?
If they can then they can be believe and be baptized, but Scripture clearly speaks of a time before then can.
Which presupposes he understands what is evil based upon moral ground.
Deut 1:39 references "little ones" who have yet to gain "knowledge between good and evil" ... and of the many toddlers & kindergarteners & early primary-age kids I've been around, I can GUARANTEE you these kids know quite a bit about "knowledge between good and evil.
Fine then, but which does not equate to a 8 day old infant or such.
I was referring to today in countering the assertion that Baptist and the South were liberal progressives. But the reformation needed to continue in degree, and the result of not separating from Rome more has resulted in such overall becoming more liberal as well.
Let's go back further; to where I DID say what you've typed here.
Only in your dreams!
Your 80,000 plus minions on doorsteps are out encountering those who, in LDS terms, have been taught a false gospel.
Will you recommend that they, too, leave people alone?
So; are you good with being DAMNED by the mouth of Brigham Young?
Do you have any evidence of the Golden Tablets, boats with holes in the bottom, Hebrew DNA in American Indians, Curloms, Steel being found in pre-Columbian America, Liahona, Magic Spectacles, Personage #2 ever saying ANYTHING, cities of Lamanites, war evidence from MASSIVE battles, etc...
Remember; it is YOUR religions claim to have RESTORED the Gospel and what was MISSING from Christianity. We are the bad guys, you are the good ones.
You should PROVE to the world the rightness of your position.
Why don't you use the JST again??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
