The Blood-Drained Gospel of Rob Bell
— Tuesday, March 15th, 2011 —
Much has been made, and rightly so, in recent days about popular preacher Rob Bell’s denial of the Christian doctrine of hell in his new book Love Wins. Reading this book over the past couple of days, I was prepared for what Bell was up to. I’d seen his promotional video, for one thing. For another, his arguments are the same efforts at hell-denial Christianity has seen, and rebutted, in almost every generation from the first century onward. What caused me to gasp out loud though was Bell’s dismissal of the blood of Jesus.
“There’s nothing wrong with talking and singing about how the ‘Blood will never lose its power’ and ‘Nothing but the blood will save us,’” Bell writes. “Those are powerful metaphors. But we don’t live any longer in a culture in which people offer animal sacrifices to the gods.
“People did live that way for thousands of years, and there are pockets of primitive cultures around the world that do continue to understand sin, guilt, and atonement in those ways,” he continues. “But most of us don’t. What the first Christians did was look around them and put the Jesus story in language their listeners would understand.”
On this point, Bell couldn’t be more wrong.
First of all, he’s wrong about the place of blood in the biblical story. God is not using blood atonement as a “metaphor,” picking up on already existing pagan practices. God’s emphasis on blood in the Bible is prehistoric. Abel’s offering is received, and Cain’s rejected, precisely because of blood (Gen. 4). Immediately after walking off of the ark into a new creation, the patriarch Noah is commanded not to eat blood, since it is “the life of the flesh” (Gen. 9:4).
God then commands an entire system of blood sacrifice, to his people who were to remain separate and distinct from the pagan nations around them, a bloody system he fulfills in the shedding of the blood of Jesus himself (Heb. 8-10). Again, the people of God were not to eat blood since the blood is “the life” of the animal, and is to be handled reverently because of its place in atonement. This prohibition is no mere metaphor of Israelite ceremony. It is repeated in the Jerusalem Council’s instruction to Gentile believers as an “essential” (along with abstaining from sexual immorality) of Christian practice (Acts 15:28-29).
All of this points, of course, to a new covenant, offered up by Christ Jesus, through the shedding of blood (I would cite Scriptures here, but the sheer number of them would overcome my word count). All of the Bible points to a bloody Passover Lamb who approaches the heavenly places with blood, not of goats and calves but his own (Heb. 9:12). The gospel is all about blood.
If God were accommodating himself to a cultural understanding, he certainly did a poor job of it. Yes, the ancient people of Judea and Galilee were familiar with the shedding of animal blood, but that’s precisely why they were so offended by Jesus. They heard Jesus call for the tearing down of the Temple (and with it the blood sacrificial system). Even worse, they heard Jesus call for the eating and drinking of his own blood.
Let’s not lose sight of the scandalous nature of Jesus’ call to the crowds at Galilee: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (Jn. 6:53). This was not to just a generic mob but to those trained from childhood not to eat even the blood of meat, much less the blood of a human being. This is why even Peter is offended, and would walk away, except that he has nowhere else to go.
Bell is also wrong about contemporary culture. He assumes modern people are beyond this association between blood and judgment. And he’s not alone. Our churches often want to appeal to our neighbors by being as antiseptic as possible: with gleaming restrooms and shiny foyers. Christianity seems clean and bright.
And yet, the people around us are obsessed with blood, from our cholesterol checks to our pharmaceutical advertisements to our cultural fascination with vampires that runs the gamut from movies to romance novels. Our culture is fascinated, and yet repulsed, by blood. That’s why the flickering image of blood running down a shower drain is the scariest scene in Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho. That’s why highway patrolmen seek urgently to clean blood from the scene of a highway accident. All around us, people know, instinctively and intuitively, that the sight of blood means something bad.
And that’s where the scandal of Bell’s revision of hell and the scandal of Bell’s diminishing of blood language come together. Blood means judgment. When the Holy One of Israel wishes to remind Pharaoh that he is a man and not a god, he turns the king’s life-giving Nile River into blood (Ex. 7:17-25). The Apostle John sees the same judgment on a self-worshiping humanity. The waters they need for life turn to blood (Rev. 8:8).
By removing the blood language, the language of sacrifice, we remove what it means to sing with the redeemed of all of the ages, “for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Rev. 5:9). If you remove the blood from the doorposts of Egypt, all that’s left is judgment. The same thing happens when you remove the blood from the gospel.
Jesus offends us with our own blood, reminding us that what runs through our veins will one day run cold. He tells us then that in order to live, we must be united to the life-blood of another, a blood spilled for rebels like us. Jesus’ blood speaks a better word than Abel’s. It tells us precisely what Bell would like us to ignore: God is just and judgment is sure.
The people around us already believe in hell, and not because they’ve heard a guilt-inducing message from the church. They may deny it consciously; everyone does, at first. But the Scripture tells us that, apart from Christ, we are all in captivity to the devil who holds us in bondage “through fear of death” (Heb. 2:15). How does anyone get free of this? It’s only by countering the accusations of Satan, and that can only happen, if there’s a just God, if there is a judgment. In Christ, we’ve already been to hell. In Christ, the devil’s indictments are answered. We have conquered him “by the blood of the Lamb” (Rev. 12:10).
That’s why every church that has embraced universalism had died out, withering away from the gospel. In order for people to see Christ, they must see sin and, yes, judgment. In order to see justification, you must also see justice. If you drain the blood out of the church, all you are left with is a corpse.
85 Responses to “The Blood-Drained Gospel of Rob Bell”
Trackbacks
- Russell Moore’s thoughts on Rob Bell « The Seven Churches
- Love Wins
- Rob Bell (Selective) Roundup – Justin Taylor
- love wins and the dangers of a false gospel « Publican's Progress
- The Rob Bell Broohaha | TransformingWords
- “G.O.S.P.E.L.” An Old Fogey LIKES It! | SBC Voices
- A Quick Thought « Sola Fide
- Love Wins: A Book about Heaven, Hell & the Fate of Every Person who Ever Lived « My World
- Rob Bell Round-up | Cheese-Wearing Theology
- Rob Bell Explosion, Round 2 | Simul Iustus et Peccator
- What I Read Online – 03/16/2011 (a.m.) | Emeth Aletheia
- More on Rob Bell, Including Video Interviews « Him we proclaim…
- The Blood-Drained Gospel of Rob Bell « Allsufficientgrace
- rob bell: a round-up on the most interesting takes « native pilgrim
- Food for Thought « Desiring the Better Country
- What Church Leaders Are Saying About Rob Bell’s “Love Wins” « Church Leaders Read
- More on “Love Wins” « Blog Stan the Man
- List of What Church Leaders Are Saying About Rob Bell’s “Love Wins” « Church Leaders Read
- The Danger of Lack of Pastoral Discernment « As Grace Extends…
- resources for learning about the rob bell controversy « truth demands confrontation
- Morning Coffee | Desiring Virtue
- Holiday At The Sea » Blog Archive » The Weekly Town Crier
- Great Reads on Heaven, Hell, and Universalism « Daniel Darling, Author, Pastor, Speaker
- Friday Links (3/18/11) | fwb21
- Rob Bell Love Wins Controversy – Interview, Review, Concerns | Ben Terry
- Berean Wife » Rob Bell – Not Surprised
- Emerging Liberalism in the Emergent “church” « Revive the Gospel!
- Hell, Rob Bell, and reviews of the book Love Wins « spreading the fame
- Why Theology is Important | Desiring Virtue
- A bloody Cross and a bigger Gospel: if the atonement loses so does love « Dalit Discussions
- Cast Out « Three Passions
- What About Hell? « Three Passions
- Reviews of Rob Bell’s Love Wins | Thinking Matters
- Is our Salvation Based On Grace or Work? | Christian Blog
Dr. Moore.
This is so good and so right. Thank you for providing a biblical theology study of ‘blood,’ wrapped in a critique of Bell’ book.
Dr. Moore, you have said it both well and correctly and I thank you for that.
I love this line, “If you drain the blood out of the church, all you are left with is a corpse.”
Thank you for sound doctrine.
Why? Because “blood means judgment.” May we be reminded of this always, and may we always “teach what is in accord with sound doctrine” (Titus 2:1).
I heard Bell say these words to a conference full of church musicians and songwriters last summer. Couldn’t have been more shocked and concerned for the roomful of impressionable creatives. Thanks for addressing this!
The day we have advanced beyond a blood soaked Gospel is the day we have abandoned the Gospel itself.
Compelling and helpful, sir. Thank you for addressing this key shortcoming in Bell’s new book.
I agree with your assessment. However, I could not find a reference in Gen 4 that explains that Cain’s offering was unacceptable because it was bot a blood offering. Did I miss something?
@John Notesten, I am with you, John, in which I do not find that it was necessarily because of the blood that Abel’s was accepted and Cain’s was rejected. Now I completely agree with Dr. Moore’s affirmation of the importance of blood in the Scriptures, and I would never do anything to diminish that fact, but I do think the Abel example was being stretched a bit. The Old Testament did allow for grain offerings, so I do not think Cain’s was rejected because of the lack of blood in that particular case, but because as the writer of the Hebrews stated in Heb. 11:4 - it was by faith that Abel offered his sacrifice.
@John Notesten, Dr. Moore is referring to God making a covenant with Adam & Eve in Genesis 3 that a blood sacrifice was necessary for covering human sin. How did God do this for Adam & Eve after they ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil? He slaughtered the first animals and provided them with the first clothing. So, God instituted the first blood sacrifice for sin as being necessary for forgiveness and a relationship with him. In Genesis 4, God found Abel’s sacrifice pleasing because he slaughtered an animal. God found Cain’s sin unacceptable because it was a grain offering instead of the required blood sacrifice.
@James P Harvey, Though that may be true, I think that is looking too much into the text. Nowhere in the context of Genesis 3 or 4 is this regulation established as in the case of Mosaic Law (Lev. 1-7). This reads more completed progressive revelation than the text allows and would be historically inappropriate at best. Also the fact is that God called man to work the land both pre-Fall and post-Fall (Gen. 2:15; 3:23). If anything, Cain was actually fulfilling the divinely-established mandate of God. But the text affirms the exact opposite, that if anything the irony is that Cain’s offering was rejected despite the fact that he was a worker of the field.
Further, even if we were to ignore the historical facts, the word choice suggests otherwise. Instead of any other word used to speak about sin-offering or guilt-offering, both which require a shedding of blood, Moses uses the word which is associated with “meal-offering” (minha) of grain. This does not have to specifically mean blood offering as in the case of 1 Sam. 2:17, but is used of an offering in general. In fact, it’s interesting that most of the time this specific word is used, it’s commonly referred to as “grain” or “vegetable-offering.” The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary cites that it is “especially of a bloodless offering.” Another great article to read is Bruce K. Waltke’s which is found the Westminster Theological Journal 48 (1986), p. 366.
Something also to consider I think is the fact that the Scripture’s emphasis I believe is on the fact that Cain brought to the LORD “an” offering. Whereas Abel brought to the LORD the “firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions.” In other words it’s very much tied to the heart. It was as James Cosentino points out, offered in faith.
Forgive me if that came off as harsh or ungracious. Often times text doesn’t quite communicate the tone. But I was greatly encouraged to look into Scripture and to interact with the text deeply. Thanks for the stimulation brother =)
Other than that, I also agree with Dr. Moore’s affirmation. We should never diminish that, and I think that is the very point of his article, not whether about Cain and Abel’s sacrifice and it’s nature. Great thoughts Dr. Moore!
@John Notesten, Perhaps both Dr. Moore & James Cosentino are correct. Yes, Cain’s sacrifice was done in faith (Heb 11). But what does that mean? To leave it at that statement suggests that we must work up this abstract “attitude” in ourselves in order to please God. No, faith is believing God. Faith is an obedient response to the word of God. The only way Cain’s sacrifice could have been by faith was in believing obedience to God’s revelation of the proper sacrifice. This, taken with the enormity of Scripture so well overviewed by Dr. Moore, suggests that the blood was the key.
Thanks to all for thoughtful article & comments.
“There’s nothing wrong with talking and singing about how the ‘Blood will never lose its power’ and ‘Nothing but the blood will save us,’” Bell writes. “Those are powerful metaphors. But we don’t live any longer in a culture in which people offer animal sacrifices to the gods.
“People did live that way for thousands of years, and there are pockets of primitive cultures around the world that do continue to understand sin, guilt, and atonement in those ways,” he continues. “But most of us don’t. What the first Christians did was look around them and put the Jesus story in language their listeners would understand.”
***********************************************************
It’s hard to make sense of his statement. The Crucifixion is not a metaphor. Jesus really did suffer a bloody death.
So it’s not just a question of putting the “Jesus story” in sanguinary sacrificial “language.” Rather, that derives from the central event itself.
Life is in the Blood!
Thanks for the critique, Dr. Moore.
Romans 5:9 doesn’t seem to be metaphorical to me!
Thanks for an interesting and essential point.
Of course, if there is no hell, then Jesus’ suffering and death on the cross was cruel and pointless. Therefore, my understanding of Bell’s theology (though I have not read the book) is that he has painted himself in a corner and has no choice but to deny the shedding of blood as atonement for our sins. A “nice” God would not damn people to hell for eternity, and a “nice” God would not require His Son to suffer and die on the cross.
Great stuff. I would take it further than Abel’s sacrifice to the shedding of blood to produce garments to cover Adam and Eve.
Keep up the good work!
What bothers me most is the de-valuing of Christ. As so many “pastors” have done before him, Rob Bell attempts to humanize Christ to a point where his divinity no longer shines through and He’s brought down to a level people can “understand”, which completely ignores the fact that He is God and he cannot be fully understood.
Dr. Moore, I appreciate your continual stand for the truth of God’s Word and contending for the faith. May God continue to use you to bring Himself glory.
I disagree with the use of Cain and Abel in this instance, though, because Scripture in doesn’t point to Cain’s offering being rejected because of a lack of animal sacrifice. Both brothers’ gifts are described using the same word in Hebrew, one that is not used elsewhere in Scripture to describe blood sacrifice. If I remember correctly, the word there does mean offering and is used of thanksgiving offerings. The only indication in the Genesis 4 account points to Abel offering the best of his “fruit,” while Cain only offered some of his fruit. It seems better that was a matter of wholehearted v. half-hearted worship of God, instead of blood sacrifice that had not been commanded at that time.
In Christ, Geoff
Thank you for this post. It is so encouraging to hear the word of God taught with clarity! As I was reading, I was reminded that Jesus asked Who do you say I am? This Rob Bell is answering that question and it does not coincide with what the word says! This is important! The Gospel is not being preached if that question is not answered by the word of God.
Thanks for the excellent critique. It is so heartbreaking to see someone who claims to be a Christian distort and deny the very beliefs that make Christianity what it is.
Still, as long as Rob Bell lives, there is still hope for him that he will repent from his blatant heresy.
A tour-de-force. Moving, chilling, and deeply biblical.
Excellent post on an aspect of Bell’s book/beliefs I’ve not yet seen addressed. Way to hold his feet to the fire.
@Scott Smith, Regardless of the context, this statement is neither productive or helpful.
This is so, so sad. I really thought Rob Bell understood the whole thing of atonement. The sacrificial lamb in the Old Testament that pointed to the Lamb of God. What is heartbreaking to me is the fact our daughter and her family go to MHBC. I don’t think they believe that.
4-5 sentences is a relatively weak basis for this critique. Most people haven’t read the book and you are simply feeding their assumptions about Bell. I could take half of a paragraph of this and make you into some kind of monster, but that would be ridiculous. I haven’t read the book so i can’t say if Bell is right or not but I have read your blog and I know that this is wrong. Its explotive, incendiary, and poor scholarship. Writing on a popular level doesn’t mean writing irresponsibly.
@Caleb Gunnels,
Is this for the whole book or the problem passages that Dr. Moore has selected? It would be ridiculous if he was critiquing the whole book based on these choices; however, one can easily see the direction that Rob Bell is going. I just can’t understand why we can’t accept that we saw this from the beginning, in his promotional video. Sure, don’t judge a book by its cover, but it is foreshadowed by its author.
@Caleb Gunnels,
You say you haven’t read Bell’s book but you know Dr. Moore is wrong about it? How does that work? Dr. Moore’s is the fourth or fifth review/commentary (and this one is more of a commentary of a particular point than a lengthy expositional review as some others are) I’ve read. It’s completely consistent with the others I’ve read.
Is it possible you are defending Mr. Bell for reasons other than this book? If so, I would urge you to cling to the Cross, not a teacher. Mr. Bell doesn’t need ‘followers’ any more than Paul or Apollos. No one should be ‘followed’ apart from Christ.
Thank you so much for bringing this matter to our attention Dr. Moore.
Down playing the blood of Christ is another one of Bell’s attempts to negate the Gospel. Bell is a spin master and hates traditional/orthodox teaching. He hates orthodoxy so much to the point that he even tries to re-write history.
Bell claims early Christians stole from the accounts of Hellenistic Mystery Religions. Bell claims that Mithra & Attis, for example, are an archetypal Jesus. Early Christians, according to Bell, robbed Hellenistic accounts of; being born of a virgin, being born on December 25th, the resurrection as well as dying to pay for the sins of his followers, etc.
Bell goes so much out of his way to discredit the resurrection that he even claims that people of antiquity would not have been impressed with hearing about the account of the resurrection of Christ. According to Bell, most people of the NT era hearing of the resurrection would respond with something like, “So?” - supposedly because they were so used to hearing of resurrection accounts.
Rob Bell teaches a history that counters traditional accounts of history so that he can preach another Gospel. He does this so that he can preach a gospel that says, “you are the Gospel” and Jesus did not die to save us from God’s wrath but to save us from our sins, our mistakes, our pride, etc.
Rob Bell belittles our Lord’s resurrection and now he’s discounting the blood that our Lord bore to cleanse us of our sins.
I apologize because I cannot remember the sermon that my information was taken from off the top of my head but I provide references that addresses this sermon on my blog for any that may be interested.
May it all be for His glory,
W.
There is a quite informative book on this topic written in 1992 by Jesuit author Francis A Sullivan called “Salvation Outside the Church? Tracing the History of the Catholic Response.” The book examined the controversy in 1949 when Leonard Feeney SJ accused the Archbishop of Boston of heresy for holding that Jews and Protestants could be saved. It is interesting to compare this Catholic experience to that of certain Protestants today who condemn the rest of the world outside their world view to damnation. I think that Reverend Bell is on to something here.
Dr. Moore I am really confused by your critique. To me this post amounts to making a mountain out of a mole-hill. I read ‘Love Wins’ and I do not find a denial of the blood of Christ as atonement.
When I first read your blog post I instantly recalled a book I was assigned to read in seminary. Quickly pulling the book I found the passage I was thinking of as follows.
How is Bell’s take any different than the now 16 year old “Purpose Driven Church” by Brother Rick out in California? Rob Bell is just rehashing something most of us have been practicing for nearly two decades now.
PDC by Rick Warren, p. 287, “Update the lyrics - There are many good songs that can be used in a seeker service by just changing a word or two in order to make them understandable to unbelievers. References to biblical metaphors and theological terms in a song may need to be translated or reworded. If the Bible needs to be translated from seventeenth-century English for seekers, so do the obscure lyrics of older songs.
If you use hymns, this sometimes requires major editing. ‘Here I raise my Ebenezer,’ ‘Beulah land,’ ‘terrestrial ball,’ ‘cherubim and seraphim,’ ‘angels prostrate fall,’ and ‘washed in the blood of the Lamb’ are all confusing phrases to the unchurched. They have no idea what you are singing about. The unchurched are likely to think that ‘the balm of Gilead’ is a song about terrorists!”
To me Warren and Bell are exactly right here - no one is denying the blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the cross as the atonement for sin.
However, the metaphor does not make sense to anyone doing evangelism with real flesh and blood lost people today. It doesn’t compute - you could just as easily say “Mumbo Magumbo!” and expect the lost person to identify Jesus as Lord and Saviour.
@Clark Frailey,
Hi, I’m the janitor at my church and was following this thread in hopes there would be no disagreement to Moore. Alas. But you brought up Purpose Driven Church and Rick Warren. Cultural pride took a hold of me when my pastor took us through the Purpose Driven material. I thought to myself ‘Hey we don’t need any advice from California I think we got the church thing down just fine here in The South.’ I don’t even buy oranges from California!
Nothing makes sense to people that are perishing. Similar to why, when I live in the heart of Florida do I see oranges from California! Doesn’t make sense. But take that faith step, ask Jesus to change you, the ‘helper’ comes upon you and a person becomes a new babe in Christ. When you love Jesus you want to learn about your new best friend and little by little the songs make sense.
Look at this verse from a song-
“Well you wore out your welcome with random precision. Borne on the steel breeze. Come on you boy child you see’er of visions, come on you painter, you piper, you prisoner and Shine!” That is a quote from a very famous song in the 1970’s by the British band Pink Floyd. It played on every radio that played rock. Does that make sense? No. But words have meanings. But what does it all collectively mean? Nothing.
My point is non-Christian peoples listen to music all the time that doesn’t make sense. Hymns have a vocabulary all their own that we can learn almost unawares as we grow in wisdom and stature and in favor with God as did Noah. My other point is that the words of Christ and other writers of The Book don’t make sense to people that are perishing and headed for Hell.
If we follow that line of logic Wade then there is no reason to translate the Bible into English or any other foreign language for that matter.
We should have maintained Hebrew and Greek as the only language the Bible could ever be read or taught in. Certainly we have zero need for modern paraphrases that seek to further bridge the gap.
Your logic also doesn’t ring true for me as someone that presents Christ on a regular basis to actual lost people. When offering a “step of faith” to someone with zero church experience they look at me like I have lobsters crawling out of my ears.
The point I was making that’s not addressed is “how is this any different” than what Warren and most of our churches are doing that care about lost people beyond lip-service? If the point is reaching people for Christ - and we’re approaching this like Paul - then we’d be eager to be as a Jew to the Jew - weak as the weak - I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. (1 Cor. 9:22)
In my experience that’s what Bell/Warren are driving at with this discussion. This is the point of most of CS Lewis’ writing and also pretty much how missions are accomplished. We must figure a way to help people understand the Gospel without getting hung up on a word.
“Mumbo Magumbo!”
Bro. Moore,
While agree that Mr Bell is far off the mark concerning basic Christian tenents, I wonder why we, as Southern Baptists, encourage the doctrines of Billy Graham, who, in his younger days, specifically spoke of the eternal fires of hell, but after the mid to late 50s spoke of it only as punishment through eternal seperation from God?
I do agree that hell is a real place, but I also believe it is a place that Jesus spoke of as a place where the rich man was “tormented in this flame”. When I contacted the Billy Graham Association, their spokesman said that Mr. Graham could never settle that issue, and that I should speak to a local pastor about it. I can read what Jesus said, and don’t need someone trying to teach me that the fires are not real. If Mr. Graham cannot settle on that issue, I wonder why we, as Southern Baptists hold him in such a high esteem?
I consider Mr. Graham to be my brother in the Lord, and my attempt at contacting him personally through the Association was an attempt at being scriptural in my approach to him. My hope would be that he would, again, say what the Scriptures say, that hell is a place of torment “in flame”.
With Love In Christ,
Phillip Senn
Dr. Moore,
A major issue that cannot be denied regarding the power of the blood of Christ is the understanding and integration of the Hebraic concept of covenant. Without covenant there would be no blood shed. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob cut a covenant with the blood of Christ that we as Gentiles have been grafted into by mercy and grace. If the church today truly grasped the the concept of covenant displayed through the shedding of blood we would fall on our faces in great repentance because generally speaking the Word of God has been taught and perceived through our own cultural lenses and experiences. A covenant made by God is everlasting and the blood encompasses the very high price covenant required by the One who declared and set it in motion. Life is in the blood because we serve a God of covenant. In essence, is covenant not the axis of the Bible?
Dr. Moore,
I greatly appreciate this article, and resonate with your statement that this is nothing new. Indeed, it sounds just like New England liberalism with a little bit of a liberation grid attached to it.
That said, could you maybe qualify the statement about Cain and Abel’s sacrifice being about blood? I’ve never heard anyone interpret it that way before, and I’d like to hear your opinion on the matter. I’ve always taken it to be more of an issue of heart trajectory, rather than an animal vs. vegetable scenario. Cain was a farmer, and Abel was an animal herder, so they both gave out of what they had. I always thought it was a similar scenario to Mark 12:43-44, where Jesus says that the widow gave all she had as opposed to the others who “give out of their abundance.”
Any thoughts you could give, maybe in a follow-up blog, would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Luke Allison
Luke
Thank you so much for a concise review of Bell’s new book. To the Caleb and any other detractors of this review - in fact, anyone critical of Bell’s quasi-Christian theology - may I suggest you take a look at this (well-conducted) interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg-qgmJ7nzA
Those are HIS own words my friends.
As with any confrontation of questionable doctrine, we must go directly to God in prayer, and search the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit’s discernment.
On another note, I just wanted to thank you Dr. Moore for ALL of the great posts. I have really enjoyed following every one of them since 2010 when you took the words out of my mouth about Glenn Beck’s prominence. You and a few others have inspired me to start my own blog in fact(http://thecaffeinecemetery.blogspot.com/). Hopefully you don’t mind that bit of “spam!” :)
In any case, I’m really looking forward to the messages God will give your readers through this blog in the future. Take care and God bless you!
Sola scriptura
@Geoff Parkins, I understood God’s clothing of Adam and Eve in skins of an animal directly after the first announcement of the gospel in 3:15 as a sign that blood sacrifice is needed in order for a sinner to approach God.
Blessings, JH
@Joel Hinds,
Where from scripture do you get that the clothing of Adam and Eve was a sign of the blood sacrifice? IE are we reading something back into scripture that we believe to be true but the scripture doesn’t actually directly teach?
Would claiming that Cain’s offering is rejected because it was not blood be putting the emphasis on the work over the faith?
@Joel Hinds,
Hi, just to say that while it cannot definitively be asserted that animals dying for human coverings and Cain’s sacrifice was unacceptable because it was not blood, we can fairly make this inference from how these issues develop in the rest of Scripture.
Certainly, as we read the OT it becomes increasingly clear that, as the Hebrews writer affirms, without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
There were 5 principal offerings in Israel and only those where blood was shed made atonement. The meal/grain offering did not (typically it spoke of the life of Christ as that but not his death; death was necessary for atonement Cf Jn 6).
Brother,
The conversation that you will participate in on Thursday with Albert Mohler, Denny and Justin Taylor is a cause for celebration.
Congratulations on having the courage and fortitude to combat the BIGGEST HERESY OF THE 21ST CENTURY.
You men are courageous warriors for the Lord.
I am praying for you to defeat this evil theology of Rob Bell.
Make No Mistake - the outcome of your conversation on Thursday will shape the debates on the Gospel for the remainder of the 21st century. It is that big, it is that epic.
My cheeks are wet with tears as I type this. The grace of God is at stake. Push back the forces of Satan. Hell exists, hell is majestic. Yes, even majestic because it shows the POWER and JUSTICE of a HOLY God.
Do not lose the battle. The Lord’s grace and glory is at stake.
Godspeed, Russell Moore. My prayers and tears are with you and your brave team.
@Mandingo,
These are true words, brother!!!
An epic debate is taking place.
Let’s arrange it: Rob Bell vs. Albert Mohler, D.A. Carson, Russell Moore, John Piper and Timothy Keller.
Truth must be pursued and glorified.
My brothers. How can you as educated men, play down the sacrifice of Jesus Christ? The death of Jesus SATISFIED the wrath of God. But you slate Rob Bell for magnifying the FULL SUFFICIENT sacrifice of Jesus. You clearly don’t understand God’s FATHER HEART. This was a pitiful snooty, self-righteous debate. How can you rip into someone in a ungodly manner, without the person being present. A basic godly leadership principle 101.
Dr. Moore,
Although you and I take issue on a few points here, I have to tell you, this was an absolutely brilliantly-written blog. I had the unfortunate experience of reading some of this ridiculous nonsense while I was waiting on a patient to show up (a lady had left it on the table, and I’d heard about it), and I could barely believe what I’d read. The contradictions reminded me of the rantings of Adolf Hitler vis a vis “Mein Kampf” and what was even more amazing to me was that this “pastor” was being touted as a minister of Christian theology. Where was his Divinity or Religious Studies degree from, anyway? Did you see the interview of him on Martin Bashir’s show? He could barely maintain his cool as Bashir calmly tried to keep him on task and focused. Anyway, my friend Tina sent me a link to this article you’ve written on my Facebook page, and although I’m a traditional Irish Catholic, lol, I really wanted to let you know what a PLEASURE it was to read such an intelligently-written, well-researched and refreshingly-poignant article from someone as young as yourself. You give me hope that Christians can one day tout the moniker of sanity once again and spread the word of God without sounding like one of Koresh’s stooges. Thank you for this, I’ll be reading your work henceforth.
clearly you have not read the bible in it’s original greek. Nor it appears have you looked at the old testiment where hell is not mentioned. Were the actions of man so horrible in the thousands of initial years after creation that between the time of the old testiment and the time of the new testiment God decided to create a Hell?
@joe,
The fact that it is not mentioned as the final state of unbelievers does not mean it did not exist. Heaven as the final state of the believer is not mentioned either. God in Christ puts on lights that were previously off or at best dimmed.
Brilliant! Thank you VERY much for sharing this.
Perhaps I misunderstand metaphor, but when I say “I’ve been washed in the blood of Jesus” I don’t mean that I’ve had Jesus’ actual blood poured on me. I mean that his sacrifice on the cross, whereby his blood was spilled, is the basis for my forgiveness and new life in Jesus by faith. So I can speak metaphorically about things that are also true. Trying to explain to someone on words that they would understand is not wrong. Nor does it mean that I deny orthodox understandings of atonement.
i was encouraged by your words and the Truth throughout. i don’t go all the way on every point made, and though i agree with certain critiques which i also raised while reading through bell’s book (such as that which i wrote in the margins of the page you quote, my notes reading: “but ‘atonement’ isn’t a ‘metaphor’… which is a big issue and needs to be discussed, as is the hope of this blog), i must also say that perhaps unlike many of the folks who have commented above, devoted brothers and sisters no doubt, i Have read bell’s book and have done the honest work that it takes to read any text well (which it seems you have respectfully also done), and that i was, truly, encouraged also by some of the Truth to be found in his book.
is bell a universalist? you could interpret the implicit, subversive undercurrents in some of his questions as such. does he explicitly make such claims? i don’t think so. does how we think about Christ’s claims to be the Way to the Father God bear importance? hugely, as bell would agree. does bell go too far at times in order to make his point or provoke questioning? i think so. does this disqualify his ministry or make him a heretic? now that’s a question (one that is being answered, very much so, above). what is the relationship of the Kingdom and politics, and how does that affect the conversation of where we place bell (and whether we need to place, or pigeon hole, or name him, at all) in attempts to be discerning and faithful to the holiness of God and His word?
would i suggest the book to a new or non bible-believing christian? most likely not. what is the value of discussion in the public forum, such as blog posts and comments in response? i am not sure. as previously mentioned, these are important and beautiful things to talk about (ie the revealed mystery of Christ, His glorious, literal atonement, the new thing God is doing in our lives as a result). but it does seem that in many of the comments above there is an awful lot of political hi-fiving and self-celabtratory back-patting that should not be mistaken for the outworking of the Kingdom communally, and of our faith personally. supporting a man in his ministry, if one sees God’s Spirit at work in and through it, is a beautiful thing.
i hope my words are not saltless. forgive if they be. may we continue to pursue speaking in all truth and in all grace, as our wondrous Savior has and does and forevermore shall.
let us remember 2 corinthians 3:6 -
He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
lastly, while there is no great ending to this response of mine, and while i wonder whether or not my sending it will bear any fruit, and while such a discussion would be the better were we to share one another’s presence over a lunch, i believe an appropriate ending is found in reference to the story of Acts 5, especially verses 33-39.
thank you, again, for hearing.
I know that I am going to offend here, but that is not my intention. I am not a proponent of Rob Bell nor am I a detractor. I am just a person who is sometimes interested in theological discussion.
I am also one who has escaped the clutches of an institution that is far too confident in its understanding of how the world works. I am a former evangelical pastor who, 15 years ago, stopped attending church altogether, not because of an all too common scandal, but because I couldn’t stand to be around Christians anymore. The bumper sticker, “Jesus is cool, but his followers give me the creeps” sums up my opinion of so many well-intentioned, yet overconfident believers.
I did not come here to argue, but merely express a different opinion. I actually stumbled upon this site after watching the youtube video of Rob Bell squirming on the television news show (the link was also provided in someone’s earlier post in this thread).
I would like to express my opinion with a question: Why does Rob Bell’s book scare Christians so much? What are you afraid will happen? I’ve learned that fear is not an easy emotion for Christians to express, so let me ask it a different way: Why does Bell’s message make you so angry?
I am highly educated (and still believe in hell by the way), but I’ve learned that the more I know, the less I know. As my love of others increases, the less life seems to fit into neat little boxes to check off my “Good vs. Evil” list.
Take your shots and quote scripture at me. Tell me how “the blood” will never lose its power and on and on. I’ve known the same verses since my childhood. I guess I just wish we all would sometimes just admit that we don’t know as much as we think we do about how this crazy thing called life works.
Thanks for listening.
@Benjamin Anderson,
I’m reminded of an Augustine quote, “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”
Mr. Bell’s frontal attacks on the essentials of the church reflects his hatred (or at least blatant indifference or unattended ambivalence) of his fellow man–diminished by his love of his own notions of the Bible–and anything related to True Truth. Perhaps Mr. Bell thinks he’s doing everyone with a twinge of guilt a favor by constructing a neon WELCOME sign above “the broad road” (Mt 7:13).
I admire that you report to love your fellow man. Would your love go so far as to simply turn your back on someone who might cling to false doctrine–and live a life of self- and other-destruction? How about one of your own children? Would you love them by helping them misinterpret the Bible because the truth might hurt their feelings (Proverbs 4:23)? Is no truth existent or worth defending any more, sir?
Post-modernism would have us believe that “doctrine divides”. In fact, history proves just the opposite: doctrine is the only thing that unites. The Bible (for what it’s worth to those who may well believe it’s an outdated document) is very clear about the importance of doctrine: http://www.4simpsons.com/doctrine_counts.htm Not because God is insecure about having it His way; but because God loves us enough to give us every chance NOT to destroy ourselves. But, given the chance to turn our back on God, we always will (Jeremiah 17:9).
Mr. Bell is a “divider of disproportionate proportion” because he uses a very public pulpit to feed the culture’s widespread skepticism, Biblical ignorance, misguided notions of exclusivity, pluralism, and disdain for authority… among other things.
Tired of “black and white”, we’ve decided to color all things gray… And it’s having the promised impact on our culture, “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.” (Friedrich Nietzsche).
In my opinion, Mr. Bell is simply fueling the fires of hell he doesn’t believe in. God’s love doesn’t need defending, and neither does its opposite.
“For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.” (Romans 1:18-32)