John Piper Changes His Diaper and Bids Rob Bell Farewell
This comment is mainly about John Piper’s tweet on Twitter “Farewell Rob Bell.” but I would like to start with Stephan Joubert’s comment on e-church as a kind of introduction.
Stephan Joubert’s emergent/paradoxical approach to the Bible radiantly shines through in his most recent comment on e-church. In his discussion of Rob Bell’s highly controversial book “Love Wins” he seems to want to tip-toe through a minefield without detonating one. To say this in a different way: He allows the scale to tip over a wee bit to Bell’s side of the fence, without him having to compromise his apparent love for the Bible. Allow me to explain. To prove that Rob Bell is not a universalist and that he firmly believes in the existence of a literal hell, he quotes him as saying:
“We see hell on earth all around us all the time. We actually see lots of people choosing hell. … We see oppression, we see tyranny, dictators using their power.”
Having affirmed with these words that he does in fact believe in a literal hell here on earth (as if that settles it), Stephan Joubert delivers his piece de resistance in his closing statement which, according to his own thinking, corroborates his own ‘conservative’ view of the Bible.
The only way to participate in debates such as this is to firstly read the book… unfortunately! it’s just not fair to respond to hear-say opinions of others. As for me, I love the Bible more… and believe it! (Emphasis added).
Ok! since we’ve now established that Stephan Joubert has read Rob Bell’s book but that he loves the Bible more, I ‘m sure he wouldn’t mind if we elaborated on his love for the Bible a little more. He loves it when Rob Bell says hell is not eternal but merely a temporal form of punishment on earth which mankind imposes on itself through oppression, tyranny, dictators and their overt powers but he loves the Bible more which declares without any hesitation that hell is eternal and the most horrendous place imaginable. The reason why Stephan Joubert must do this egg dance is because he cannot retract his past eulogies of Rob Bell. He must maintain a very high opinion of Rob Bell at all costs while claiming to love the Bible more. Let us now look at Joubert’s many eulogies of Rob Bell in the past and compare it with his “more-ish” love for the Bible.
|
STEPHAN’S LESSER LOVE FOR ROB BELL AND HIS BOOK “LOVE WINS” |
STEPHAN’S “MORE-ISH” LOVE FOR THE BIBLE |
|
Rob Bell, I have heard him preach many times. He walks on that stage with his black pair of spectacles and his weird clothes and his guitar, but when he opens his mouth it is the Gospel. . . . He says, “I believe in a literal hell,” “I believe in the resurrection, literally,” “I believe in the virgin birth,” I think homosexuality is wrong.” And yet he is regarded to be the leader of the emergent church. He only looks so weird . . . with mow hawk hair that stand erect. It looks as if something exploded in his head. But they are people who ask the question, “how am I going to reach the world for Jesus in 2008, 2009 and 2010. But I must transform the church in a new way.” |
Someone told me about their pastor’s greatest sermon ever. It was not a bunch of new Biblical insights that he shared with them. Indeed, that sermon was actually a fiasco. Halfway through the sermon the pastor got stuck. He then admitted that he wasn’t prepared thoroughly. And then a spontaneous tale unfolded about the pastor’s hectic schedule due to pressure to keep everyone in the congregation happy. In tears he confessed that he didn’t even have time to become quiet at the feet of the Lord anymore. “That day our pastor touched more hearts than in any other sermon because he shared himself with us,” (January 11, 2011) (Emphasis added) My comment: To share biblical insights with your fellowmen is actually a fiasco? Really? Jesus said we shall live by every word (every biblical insight) of God (Luke 4:4) and that everyone who hears and responds in faith to his word is blessed (Luke 11:28). And yet Stephan Joubert who claims to love the Word of God more says that when you share biblical insights with others it actually leads to a fiasco and that you should rather fill their minds and hearts with your own personal experience. Really? Shall we change Luke 4:4 to read as follows: “And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every hectic schedule he experiences” and Luke 11:28 as follows: “Yea rather, blessed are they that experience hectic schedules, and keep on experiencing hectic schedules for they shall touch more hearts than any other sermon because they share themselves with others.“ |
|
Stephan Joubert told Kerkbode the Bible makes it very clear that trees are known by their fruit. The fruits of Nelus Niemandt, Leonard Sweet, Rob Bell and others are known far and wide. It endures the Gospel test with flying colors. |
Leonard Sweet, world renowned futurist, theologian, author, speaker and the guru of those who seek God’s plans in new, meaningful ways, including myself, refuses to use the term retraite or retreat. He’ll immediately tell you that Christians never retreat. We advance. Therefore, the gatherings that he hosts at his island and mountain homes are called advances! Christians shouldn’t turn back to the Bible or the church. Then we’re heading in the wrong direction. We move forward to God. We advance.(Emphasis addded) My comment Well now! Fancy that! This is probably one of the most loving ways to express your “more-ish” love for the Bible. Don’t turn back to it. You only need to advance forward to God. How on earth can he know that the fruits of Nelus Niemandt, Leonard Sweet and Rob Bell endure the Gospel test with flying colors when he encourages people not to turn back to the Bible? He is shunning the source that attests to their fruits. More-ish love? |
Would you mind if I reminded you what Paul wrote?
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. (Romans 10:13-17) (Emphasis added).
Let us now return to Stephan’s “lesser” love for Bell and his book “Love Wins” to prove to you that he loves God’s Word more and believes it.
The ploy to equate the biblical description of an eternal hell with the temporal suffering of men, women and children at the hands of oppressive tyrants and dictators on earth is a very subtle way of suggesting that only a tyrannical and oppressive God would allow human beings to suffer the eternal pangs of hell. Allow me to repeat what Bell wrote:
“We see hell on earth all around us all the time. We actually see lots of people choosing hell. … We see oppression, we see tyranny, dictators using their power.”
Have you noticed the connection Bell makes between tyrants and dictators with the God of the Bible? The very first important thing to realize is that God did not create hell for human beings; He created it for the devil and his fallen angels (Matthew 25:41). Hell, therefore, is primarily a place of punishment for the devil and his angels who rebelled against God and ventured to dethrone Him (Isaiah 14:12-17; Ezekiel 28:13-19). If hell is already on earth then we must assume that the devil and his angels as well as those on God’s left hand (unbelievers) have already been cast into hell. That, in essence, would mean that the believers are living side by side with the devil, his angels and those on God’s left hand (unbelievers) in hell. Not even Christians with the most elementary knowledge of the Gospel (of whom I am one) would believe such nonsense because they know and believe what father Abraham said to the rich man who was tormented in the flames of hell (Luke 16:2—31), when he asked him to send someone from amongst the dead to warn his five brethren,. “. . . between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.” (Luke 16:26) Whoa! now we have a problem! If we see hell all around us all the time, as Rob Bell says, it would quite naturally mean that the great chasm which father Abraham said was fixed between paradise and hell has been removed. Ah! and that’s exactly what Rob Bell tries to do when he diligently morphs a chasm (gulf, abyss) into a heart. Listen to what he says on page 75.
Second, note what it is that man wants in hell: he wants Lazarus to get him get him water. When you get someone water, you’re serving him.
The rich man wants Lazarus to serve him.
In their previous life, the rich man saw himself as better than Lazarus, and now, in hell, the rich man still sees himself as above Lazarus. It’s no wonder Abraham, says there’s a chasm that can’t be crossed. The chasm is the rich man’s heart! It hasn’t changed, even in death and torment and agony. He’s still clinging to the old hierarchy. He still thinks he’s better. (Emphasis added)
The rich man would never have begged for mercy if he haughtily wanted Lazarus to serve him in hell. Someone who begs for mercy is hardly in a position to see himself as better than anyone else. If he’d been arrogantly commanding Abraham to send Lazarus to serve him, his plea to “have mercy on me” would have been completely at odds with his command for service. The Bible clearly says “And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.” (Luke 16:24). Was that the reason why the Roman soldier pressed a sponge filled with sour vinegar to Jesus’ lips in stead of water because he refused to serve Him?
If the chasm is the rich man’s heart, as Bell claims, what did the other inhabitants do to turn their hearts into chasms? Are they in hell because they too were clinging to the old hierarchy? In that case we are going to end up with a hell of a lot of chasms (billions of heartily buoyant chasms that demand to be served by those in heaven) while father Abraham distinctly mentions only one chasm. Or maybe there is only one heart-chasm – that of the rich man. Wow! who chose his heart to be the collective chasm that separates them all form God and the believers?
Rob Bell mentions several gruesome incidents to illustrate his view of hell on earth.
- He’d seen many kids in Rwanda who had their limbs hacked off by machete wielding soldiers. What kind of hell is this when the innocent are the ones who suffer the earthly pangs of hell whilst the perpetrators get off scot free? In God’s economy of righteous judgment the machete wielding culprits deserve to suffer this hell and not the innocent children, that’s if hell in all its ugliness is part and parcel of our earth.
- He’d also sat with a woman while she talked about what it was like to be raped. Once again, it is the innocent victim who suffers the pangs of hell on earth and not the rapist. What kind of justice is that?
- He’d also witnessed the “ugly” intentions of a man who realized that he was about to die and had his will rewritten to get back at his family members whom he despised. Once again, it was not the person who’d been spiteful who experienced hell on earth but his family members whom he despised.
- What about Hitler? He caused billions to suffer in an earthy hell he had created for others and not for himself. He lived like a king whilst others suffered the worst kind of atrocities. What kind of earthly hell is that?
In all of these instances Rob Bell suggests that hell on earth is usually experienced by innocent victims whilst the perpetrators who cause the hell escape it. That’s a very strange and unbiblical way to see hell, to say the least. Hell, in the biblical sense of the word, is not the result of something a human being does or has done to another human being. Hell is a creation of God. He made it for the devil and his angels. Nevertheless, every person who rejects Jesus Christ as the only Way to escape God’s righteous judgments, deserve to go there with Satan and his angels. Had people been cast into hell for what they had done on earth, each and every person who had ever lived on earth would have to go there (Romans 3:23). People are cast into hell for one and one reason only – the rejection of Jesus Christ as the only Person capable of saving you from an eternal hell.
To summarize Rob Bell’s rendition of hell, the following
- Jesus came to earth to bring a social revolution (page 75). What happened to: “I did not come to bring peace but a sword!” (Matthew 10:34) and “For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save the lost.” (Luke 19:10).
- Jesus came to call all people to human solidarity and to abolish the previous systems and hierarchies of clean and unclean, sinner and saved and up and down because these things no longer mean what they used to to God (page 75). What happened to: “For I came to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. A person’s enemies will be members of his own family.” (Matthew 10:35-36).
- Everybody is a brother, a sister. Equals, children of the God who shows no favoritism. (page 75, 76) What happened to: “ Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother. (Mark 3:34-35).
- To reject this new social order was to reject Jesus, the very movement of God in flesh and blood (page 76). What happened to?: “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. (1Corinthians 1:18). The rejection of his cross and not of an alleged new social order He supposedly inaugurated is equal to a rejection of God the Father.
Here now is Rob Bell’s final analysis of an “eternal hell.”
The best place to look for the meaning of “everlasting,” “for ever,” “eternal” is John 3: 16 because it articulates the meaning of eternal in a nutshell.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting (aiōnios) life. (John 3:16)
Rob Bell only quotes the first half of the verse on page vii in the preface of his book “Love Wins.” Why? Well, it is obvious that he wants to emphasize God’s love at all costs without giving equal primacy to his justice and his righteousness. Two other passages in Scripture we need to look at to understand the two radically diverse places people go to after death are the following:
In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. (John 14:2-3) (Emphasis added)
If Jesus Christ is eternal, which of course He is, the place where He is must also be eternal and that’s where He says all true believers in Him will be taken after death. The opposite thereof is also found in the Gospel of John.
Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come. (John 8:21) (Emphasis added).
To die in your sins simply means that you have not received/acknowledged by faith the fact that Jesus has already paid for your sins on the cross in this life. You cannot receive it by faith after your demise. His payment (tetelestai) is a universal payment for He has indeed paid the price for the sins of all mankind but only a few receive it by faith. Most people reject it (1 Corinthians 1:18). These are the ones to whom He says: “you cannot come where I am if you die in your sins.” Who do you prefer to believe — Rob Bell, who says you have a second chance even after death to be saved and go to heaven or Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God who said you cannot possibly come to where He is if you die in your sins?
It is interesting to note that the rich man didn’t ask for water to dowse the fires of hell but to cool his tongue. It is even more interesting to note that Stephan Joubert, who loves the Bible more and believes it, says that Jesus had come to earth to put out the flames of hell. Why would He want to put out the flames of hell which He created for the devil and his angels? Are they also going to be admitted into heaven eventually?
Furthermore, it would mean that the persecution, martyrdom and affliction the Christians are presently suffering at the hand of oppressive Communist dictators and tyrants are suffering the pangs of hell? Really? Whoa! now we’ve got another big problem. It would quite naturally mean that God’s own children are in hell together with all the Christ rejecters on earth. Allow me to remind you that not even the severest oppression and suffering at the hand of dictators and tyrants, the devastating holocaust under Hitler and the imminent great tribulation under antichrist can be compared to the horrendous and unspeakable horrors of hell. Whereas now on earth even the greatest Christ rejecters benefit from the grace and mercies of God (Matthew 5:45), in hell they are going to be separated from God for all eternity. Why do you think Jesus cried out on the cross: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me.” He was forsaken of God on the cross so that those who believe in Him should never in all eternity be forsaken by God. I can assure you that the Christians in Communist countries do not see their afflictions and suffering at the hand of oppressive tyrants and dictators as a condition of hell. Indeed they see it the way Jesus sees it – as a privilege and a blessing. (John 15:18).
Rob Bell is no pumpkin; he knows how to juggle the meaning of words. For instance, he is rather deft and clever to turn all the negative things people call him into something positive. Many critics call him a heretic. “Everybody is forced to believe or think or subscribe to a particular thing, but there are those who are able to choose — how awesome is that?” Bell said, laughing. Any normal dictionary defines a heretic as someone who is a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church. Not so, says Rob Bell, the etymological root of the word is the Greek word hairetikos which means “able to choose.” However, man’s divinely gifted gift to choose (Joshua 24:15) is not always that beneficial for the chooser, especially when he chooses to reject the truth, and that is what heretic actually means – the ability to choose against the truth. God who is the essence of love forces no one; he forces no one into heaven and neither does he force anyone into hell. Jesus, who is the essence of Truth forces himself on no one and neither does He force anyone to embrace his doctrines. If He is the Truth, the Life and the Way – and Rob Bell acknowledges Him to be just that in his book Love Wins – then He must of necessity be the only One with the prerogative to set the standard for true faith, genuine salvation and righteous judgment. It is rather silly to acknowledge that He is the essence of Truth but then to encourage people to make choices that contradict or reject his Truth. That is pure double-talk – “men with forked tongues” as the red Indians would say. Let me give you an example of Rob Bells double talk. In a video on TouTube called “Rob Bell comes clean” he boldly says that he believes in hell. Ok! that seems to settle it. But wait, he also has something else to say that underscores the emergent prerogative to state the opposite, a paradoxical “truth” without violating Jesus’ Truth. so they say! Listen carefully to what he says and decide for yourself whether he really believes in a literal hell.
For too many people, . . ., what they’ve been told is the good news is actually an ugly truth. They hear that God is full of grace and unconditional love, a God of endless second chances, infinitely patient. But then they hear that God’s grace, love and patience expires at death. “Too late,” they’re told. “You had your chance.” That schizophrenic idea of God is simply untenable, Bell says.
“It’s psychologically unbearable. No psyche can handle that,” he said. “It’s devastating.”
It’s also toxic and a lie. The Good News, Bell insists, is better than that.
“If we have the freedom to choose these things now, that Jesus came to offer us and show us, then I assume that when you die, you can continue to choose these realities because love cannot co-opt the human heart’s ability to decide,” Bell said. “But after you die, we are firmly in the realm of speculation.”
TBC has this to say about Rob Bell’s speculations.
Indeed, Rob Bell is making a fatal assumption that one may “choose reality” after life on earth. On this matter, God’s Word leaves no room for speculation: “It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” (Heb 9:27). Tragically, Bell’s “ability to choose” will lead all who place their hope and trust in this deception to their second death (cfPrv 14:12).]
And now, to John Piper. He has caused quite a stir on the internet with his tweet on Twitter when he succinctly wrote: “Farewell Rob Bell.” Nevertheless, both Rob Bell and John Piper are promoting the doctrine of election and irresistible grace. Rob Bell has elected all people to go to heaven whilst John Piper believes that God has only elected a select few to go to heaven. Here’s the irony. Despite Bell’s heretical (hairetikos) ability to choose, he actually leaves no room for anyone to choose. in fact, he deprives those who reject Christ and his cross (1 Corinthians 1:18) the choice of NOT wanting to go to heaven and brazenly forces them into a kind of cattle crush that forces them into heaven. The crush is called “the after-death-choice for-Christ.” Oh! but the choice is still theirs because “love cannot co-opt the human heart’s ability to decide” even after death. If love cannot co-opt the human heart’s ability to decide even after death then neither can it co-opt man’s ability to respond to or reject God’s love after death. The inherent character and quality of the word “choice” is to choose between to opposites. Wouldn’t it be reasonable to say that, if it were true that man still has the ability to decide for or against Christ after death, that some/many/most would nevertheless decide and choose to reject Him, even after death? Rob Bell’s non co-optic choice reminds me of Ford who said that his car is available in any colour but you must choose black.
Where will they end up in eternity – heaven? . . . hell? If Bell believes that all of mankind will vote for Christ after death, he is deliberately imposing on every single human the “choice” to choose Christ. He is actually imposing his will on them to choose Christ after death which is nothing less than coercion and any form of coercion or enforcement has nothing to do with love. Not even God forces his creatures. It is overt oppressive tyranny, the very thing Bell says he loathes. Having said this, we must once again come to the conclusion that there is no difference whatsoever between Rob Bell and John Piper. Both are proponents of the doctrine of irresistible grace. The mathematical equation of this would look something like this:
 |
 |
 |
|
Election (universal/s-elective) and Irresistible grace |
Follow @bereanfollower
