Rob Bell And The Progressive Emergent Church Embrace Sodomite Marriage

Leo McNeil ^ | February 20, 2015 | Leo McNeil

[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.

[Star Traveler]

Rob Bell is definitely a heretic, who doesn’t even try to pretend that there is any such thing as God’s inerrant and infallible Word!

[arthurus]

od is just a nice but busy guy in an office somewhere.

[LeoMcNeil]

Unfortunately Rob Bell has been a heretic for some time. His Grand Rapids church has led many astray, through I rather believe most of those who attended his church wanted as such. Most of them were looking for a reason to reject the Dutch Reformed faith, which is relatively strong in the area.

[Star Traveler]

Rob Bell is the subject of conversation in many of the radio programs from Olive Tree Ministries, with Jan Markell.

This subject, of the Emergent Church, Rob Bell (and others) along with post-modernism is frequently discussed — along with a number of other topics relevant to Christianity.

I would advise others to tune into Jan Markell here ...

Olive Tree Ministries
http://www.olivetreeviews.org

There are several years worth of good and informative programs here!

[chesley]

The author know nothing about Baptists.

Still, he’s right about Rob Bell.

[Springfield Reformer]

Leo, what’s your beef with Baptists? I am one, and I and most Baptists I know adhere to historic Christianity. Why the broad brush?

Peace,

SR

[Terry L Smith]

If’ y’all be dah christians ya’s s’posed tah be, and not the xians, d’is guy would be broke richard in a heartbeat!

[Terry L Smith]

dear arthurus,

re: “_od is just a nice but busy guy in an office somewhere.”

I suggest you look up ‘Mr. Deity’ on YouTube, because somebody took that ball and is running with it!

[CharlesOConnell]

παιδεραστής ψευδείς γάμο

Paiderastes (Pederastic) pseudeis gamo

Sodomite pseudo marriage

 

WHO KNEW? Homosexual Activists Aim to Destroy Marriage

Masha Gessen

youtube.com/watch?v=n9M0xcs2Vw4

Judith Stacey

.youtube.com/watch?v=e7ZIx73fBAs

[LeoMcNeil]

Historic Christianity recognizes that baptism is a symbol of the covenant which simply replaces circumcision. The children of believers are welcomed into the covenant via baptism. The modern baptist movement in America has long been associated with the progressive movement. It was the baptists who largely pushed the Christian Women’s Temperance Movement, which pushed prohibition. The argument against alcohol was part of the progressive movement at the time, it was a significant departure from historic Christianity which did not oppose the consumption of alcohol.

[liberalism is suicide]

Baptism is for penitent believers. See Mark 16:15 & 16 and Acts 2:38. How can an infant believe? Rom.14:12 says that “each one of us must give an account of himself to God”. We must each be responsible for our own response to the gospel, not our parents. That is Biblical and therefore historic Christianity.

[Springfield Reformer]

I understand we disagree about whether those without a profession of faith should be baptized.  But if your argument is that infant baptism defines historic Christianity, I must ask, history according to who?  Certainly not Scriptural history.  There are no examples of infant baptism anywhere in Scripture.  Go ahead and run through all the typical passages if you like.  I've been affiliated with sound reformed churches on and off my whole adult life.  I've known and respected many a good, Bible-based reformed preacher, read the recommended books, and explored this in Scripture for myself, with deep interest and openness, when my children were the objects of concern.  My conclusion, then and now, is there is nothing in Scripture to support the practice, let alone make the practice binding.

Nor does Christianity present any evidence of the practice as a widespread norm until centuries after the apostolic era.  Probably the earliest unambiguous reference to it comes from Tertullian, who advises delay:

And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary— if (baptism itself) is not so necessary — that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, “Forbid them not to come unto me.”  Let them “come,” then, while they are growing up; let them “come” while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come;  let them become Christians  when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the “remission of sins?” More caution will be exercised in worldly  matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to “ask” for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given “to him that asks.”  For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred— in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded  by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom— until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation.

I'm not representing Tertullian as the final word on the matter, but clearly, from an historical point of view, his comment reflects that there was a diversity of opinion on the matter centuries after the close of apostolic era. I regard my Reformed and Presbyterian brethren warmly, as brothers in Christ, and most I have known would not use that issue to divide the body of Christ.  Nor would I.  

As for whether Baptists were contaminated with the Social Gospel by the involvement of some of them with the temperance movement, that's a silly argument.  There were secular progressives running about in those days, true, but the impulse to eradicate the evils of alcohol had widespread Christian roots, Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists.  The Baptists barely get a mention in the histories I've read on the subject.  But it isn't at all surprising that communists would try to co-opt Christian organizations to further their own ends.  They co-opted Christianity itself.  Marxism is Christian utopianism in which Christ is removed and man put in his place.  But the popular appeal of the utopian narrative was deeply rooted in the Christian culture's sense of justice, of caring for the poor and oppressed, etc.  That Christianity should be thus co-opted does not invalidate Christianity.  Nor does an entire category of Bible-believing, strongly conservative Christians become suspect over the fact that some Baptist preachers here and there thought it would help their flocks to make liquor hard to get.  

And you can't really say the problem with progressivism was that it was entangling Christians with the political system.  Historically, the Baptists are among the least politically inclined.  Whereas the Reformed produced the theonomists.  Rushdoony, Gary North, and the gang.  Even Calvin saw no problem with a profound interaction between church and state.  What he had in Geneva went way beyond trying to legislate on a few big ticket moral issues.  Do you think we should legislate against abortion?  After all, not everybody sees human life as sacred.  Wouldn't want to slip into the Social Gospel by taking a stand against evil, right?  

So no, the whole smear thing on Baptists, or any other genuinely Christian group, based on the temperance movement, is baloney.  Being historically Christian comes down to the confession of the historical Christian faith, which in turn comes down to being faithful to God's word.  There are lots of things that could divide us if we let them.  Every human institution is imperfect in some way.  If we must be divided, let it be over things we in which we can appeal to divine truth for arbitration. Dividing over lesser things only aids and abets the enemies of Christ.  

Peace,

SR

[fwdude]

I can identify “emergents” by the oriental carpets strewn all over their pulpit-less “stage” (yes, they have performance stages now) and their high-tech, multi-colored and patterned state lighting. I almost expect pyrotechnics and smoke to appear as some of their “worship” events.

[daniel1212]

The difference between the emergent church and the pentecostal or baptist churches is only how they demonstrate their rejection of historic Christianity.

Historic Christianity recognizes that baptism is a symbol of the covenant which simply replaces circumcision. The children of believers are welcomed into the covenant via baptism

Rather, this simply another example of what emerged from the original "emergent church," that of Rome. Baptism has a limited correspondence to circumcision, signifying entering into covenant with the Lord, but unlike with circumcision, which was only for males, and did not necessarily require anything of them for it, baptism required moral cognizance, and wholehearted repentant faith.

The command is to,

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38)

Thus,

But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. (Acts 8:12)

And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. (Acts 8:36-37)

Yet as it is the faith which baptism requires and confesses results in God purifying their hearts, thus in the standard for salvation by grace then cleansing and regeneration preceded baptism.

To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. (Acts 10:43)

Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? (Acts 10:47)

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:7-9)

Nowhere does the Spirit ever provide even one example of any morally incognizant soul being baptized, which is read into the few brief mentions of whole household baptisms, while where more information is provided then it states or indicates it was those who could hear the word which were baptized. For while unbelieving husbands children are sanctified by one believer, (1Cor. 7:14) as were those of Lot's household, (Gn. 19) this does make then regenerate, and thus are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life, (Romans 6:4) and which baptism signifies.

But which does not justify its marginalization today.

[Elsie]

Rob Bell And The Progressive Emergent Church Embrace Sodomite Marriage

Too bad!

Genesis 13:13

Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD.

Genesis 18:20-21
20. Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous
21. that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."

Genesis 19:4-7
4. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house.
5. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
6. Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him
7. and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.

Psalms 12:8 The wicked freely strut about when what is vile is honored among men.

Isaiah 3:9 The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves.

2 Peter 2:13b Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.

Ezekiel 16:49-50
49. "`Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
50. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

---

---

2 Peter 2

1. But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves.
2. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.
3. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
4. For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment;
5. if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;
6. if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;
7. and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men
8. (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)--
9. if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment.
10. This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority. Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings;
11. yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord.
12. But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.
13. They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.

---

---

But there IS hope!!!

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

9. Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:
Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10. nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
11. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

---

If you could NOT change, you would be in most pitiful shape...
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

---

The Health Risks of gay sex.

---

---

[Elsie]

Rob Bell And The Progressive Emergent Church Embrace Sodomite Marriage

They're not alone...

---

I'm a MORMON ...

http://www.affirmation.org/

---

 

[Elsie]

Historic Christianity recognizes that baptism is a symbol of the covenant which simply replaces circumcision.

Oh??

Acts 15

The Council at Jerusalem

 ¹ Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” ² This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. ³ The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. ⁴ When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.

 ⁵ Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”

 ⁶ The apostles and elders met to consider this question. ⁷ After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. ⁸ God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. ⁹ He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. ¹⁰ Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? ¹¹ No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

 ¹² The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. ¹³ When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. ¹⁴ Simon^[a] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. ¹⁵ The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

 ¹⁶ “‘After this I will return
   and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
   and I will restore it,
¹⁷ that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
   even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’^[b]—
 ¹⁸ things known from long ago.^[c]

 ¹⁹ “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. ²⁰ Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. ²¹ For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

The Council’s Letter to Gentile Believers

 ²² Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. ²³ With them they sent the following letter:

   The apostles and elders, your brothers,

   To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

   Greetings.

 ²⁴ We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. ²⁵ So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— ²⁶ men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. ²⁷ Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. ²⁸ It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: ²⁹ You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

   Farewell.

 ³⁰ So the men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. ³¹ The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message. ³² Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the believers. ³³ After spending some time there, they were sent off by the believers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them. ^{[34] [d] 35} But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord.

Disagreement Between Paul and Barnabas

 ³⁶ Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us go back and visit the believers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing.” ³⁷ Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, ³⁸ but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. ³⁹ They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, ⁴⁰ but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the believers to the grace of the Lord. ⁴¹ He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.

---

Circumcision was a SIGN given to the Chosen People.

[dartuser]

Circumcision was a SIGN given to the Chosen People.

Further ... it was a sign of the Abrahamic Covenant, not the Mosaic Covenant.

[daniel1212]

So no, the whole smear thing on Baptists, or any other genuinely Christian group, based on the temperance movement, is baloney.

Let alone the broad brush