Before I start, I want to make clear something from an earlier blogpost. I wrote of future events from a premillennial, dispensational perspective. By no means am I implying that is the only orthodox position. I will leave it to others who comment to give other orthodox perspectives, if they wish. My issue with Bell is not orthodoxy but what I view as error and obviously many godly, conservative Christian scholars agree with that assessment. Our differences over orthodox doctrine are within the family. We believe that Bell’s is outside of orthodoxy. The title of chapter four reveals the depth of Rob Bell’s misunderstanding. God would love for everyone to come to a knowledge of the truth and be saved by faith in Jesus. However, even as Bell acknowledges, a loving God will not force anyone. Therefore, He provided the natural revelation of who He is and special revelation through the transmission of the Bible, visions, dreams, miracles and ultimately and most spectacularly t...
I was just reading a passage to the kids the other day aboout Lazarus (poor man) and the rich man. How the rich man didn't care about the poor man. They both die and Abraham and Lazarus are sitting together. The rich man is being tormented. Then there is a discussion about Lazarus helping the poor man and his family but Abraham tells him that neither of them can pass from side to the other. And he says he will not send Lazarus from the dead because if they don't believe the Bible now (or the laws of the prophets as is mentioned in scripture) than they won't believe a dead man either. I don't think I ever read that passage before or listened to it as I had this week. What does Rob Bell do with that passage, I wonder?
ReplyDelete