"Velvet Elvis" Repainting the Christian Faith?

This is filled with many Biblical and Scriptural erros. I just thought to post it because many people beleive this type of non sense. Now there are some things that this man says that seem right, but over all from his various letters that I have read Rob Bell denies the Gospel, calls heaven and Hell ways of living and many other things that are not true. there is no such thing as "repainting the Christian Fiath." It cannot be reapinted, for it it was it would not be of Christ and would be of man.)

The article below is found at:
http://www.relationalconcepts.org/long%20topics/Velvet%20Elvis%20Review.pdf

"Velvet Elvis"

Repainting the Christian Faith

By Rob Bell

Reviewed by Dr. David A. DeWitt

This book seems to be a merging together of four rather recent, unorthodox ideas. These ideas come from: Ray VanderLaan and Cornelius Plantinga (who are footnoted in the book), Brian McLaren and William Webb (not mentioned in the book). VanderLaan uses speculation, guess work, and unsubstantiated scholarship to change the clear meaning of Scripture because of supposed input from Hebrew, Greek, and Roman cultures (www.followtherabbi.com: "To Be a Talmid," Part 2: Jesus as a Rabbi). Plantinga defines Christian ministry as fixing the world to the point where this present physical earth, not heaven, is our eternal home ("Engaging God's World," p. 137). McLaren says the Gospel is not about personally receiving Christ but about joining with a church to serve the world ("Christianity Today," Nov. 2004, p. 39). Webb believes the Bible is a progressive record of the things God taught then, but now we (and God) have moved beyond that ("Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals," pp. 31-32). Mix these together and sprinkle in a little "new man" theology, and you have a stew which is "Velvet Elvis."

When reading this book, the reader must be aware of poor scholarship, questionable research, and a disregard for the authors' intended meaning of Scripture. For example, on page 164, Bell wrote, " … we rarely find these first Christians trying to prove that the resurrection actually occurred…. Everybody's god in the first century had risen from the dead. To claim a resurrection had occurred was nothing new: Julius Caesar himself was reported to have ascended to the right hand of the gods after his death. To try to prove there was an empty tomb wouldn't have gotten very far with the average citizen of the Roman Empire; they had heard it all before.… They understood that people are rarely persuaded by arguments but more often by experiences.… To the outside world, it was less about proving and more about inviting people to experience this community of Jesus' followers for themselves."

First of all, it is simply not true that Christians didn't make a big deal out of the resurrection of Christ. They celebrated His bodily resurrection from the beginning. It was the foundation of Peter's sermons in the first chapters of Acts. Paul called it of first importance (1 Corinthians 15:3). He said, and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain (v. 14) … and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins (v. 17).

It is certainly not true that the New Testament authors didn't think people were persuaded by arguments. [Remember, "argument" in this sense is not a fight with somebody, it's "a reason or reasons offered for or against something" (Webster's New World College Dictionary, 2002, p. 75).] All the epistles of the New Testament are arguments, the Sermon on the Mount, the Upper Room Discourse, the Olivet Discourse, and nearly all of Christ's encounters with people were arguments (see John 20:31; Luke 1:1-4). Rarely were any "experiences" with unbelievers except for the argument itself. I cannot find one example or command in the New Testament of anyone "inviting people to experience this community of Jesus' followers for themselves."

September 2005

1

It is also not true that a bodily resurrection was common to the culture. Plato's dualism and the Gnostics taught that spirit was good and body was evil. The idea of a bodily resurrection was completely contrary to the culture. It was totally unique to Christianity. The Roman Caesars may have talked about a spiritual resurrection, but their bodies were all still in the grave. To substantiate this point, Bell's footnote says: "find a book on Greek mythology and look up Dionysus." I read three different authors on Dionysus and found nothing about a bodily resurrection. Fact is, the Greeks and Romans thought the whole idea of a bodily resurrection to be "foolishness" (1 Corinthians 1:18-25).

Let's look at Acts 17. In verses 2-3, Luke wrote, And according to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead. It sounds to me like Paul used arguments and focused on the importance of the resurrection. The next verse says, And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas. It sounds to me like they joined Paul and Silas after being persuaded by their arguments about the resurrection of Christ. Later in the chapter we read, And some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers were … saying, "He seems to be a proclaimer of strange deities,"—because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection. And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus (Mars Hill), saying, "May we know what this new teaching is which you are proclaiming? For you are bringing some strange things to our ears …" (vv. 18-20). It sounds to me like the resurrection was something "new" and "strange" to the culture. At the end of Paul's sermon we read, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead." Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some began to sneer …" (vv. 31-32). It sounds to me like the focus of Paul's message was on the bodily resurrection of Christ and that was the reason they sneered at him.

Questioning

There are many incorrect statements in the book, which taken in isolation we are tempted to agree with, until we read on and find a different meaning for his terms. Bell follows a style which he terms "Subversive Preaching." I want to emphasize that this is his term for it, not mine. (Type "Subversive Preaching" into your internet search engine.) This is not mentioned in the book, but I thought you should be aware of it, since it seems to dominate Bell's writing style as well. This "Subversive Preaching" style includes an emphasis on "culture," "questions," "following the rabbis," and "storytelling to communicate … to an ever-changing culture" (Church Communication Network: "Subversive Preaching with Rob Bell, Marshall Shelley, and Mike Breaux," June 3, 2004). This communication style tempts us to read our understanding into his statements and say, "Well, there is a sense in which that's true." But as we read on, we find that he has something very different in mind.

I've heard people defend Rob Bell's approach by saying, "He's just trying to make people think." He calls it "questioning." But remember—a true teacher makes you think with things that are true. A false teacher makes you think with things that are false. A true teacher tells the truth. A false teacher questions the truth. Questioning is great if you are trying to understand the truth, but not if you are challenging the truth. Bell uses questions in much the way Satan used them in the Garden of Eden. He changes "God hath said!" into "Hath God said?"

2

The Purpose

As stated in the subtitle, the purpose of the book is "Repainting the Christian Faith." Bell puts it this way: "If you come across truth in any form, it isn't outside your faith as a Christian" (p. 180). That's Bell's explanation of Jesus' statement: I am the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). From the context, it is clear that Jesus meant He defined the way, the truth, and the life. Bell reverses Jesus' intended meaning and essentially says whenever you find any way, truth, or life, that way, truth, or life defines Christianity. He says this "truth" is to be found, not just in nature, but in the world in general (pp. 78-80).

But James says, You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God (James 4:4). If truth comes from the world, we have a real problem. The world's wisdom says God serves people (Exodus 17:1-2; James 4:3). The Bible says people are to serve God (Isaiah 60:2; Matthew 4:10; Revelation 22:3). This separates the Bible from any human wisdom. The world thinks the truth of God revealed in the Bible is foolishness, and God says the wisdom of the world is foolishness (1 Corinthians 1:18-21; Romans 1:21-22). It is precisely this worldly foolishness that Bell is suggesting we use to "repaint" Christianity.

There is a sense in which we are tempted to agree that all truth is God's truth, and true things can be found outside the Bible. But how would we know if something outside of the Bible is true if the Bible is no longer a sufficient standard for truth? Of course, factual observations can be made outside the Bible. (For example, most trees are green.) But the issue is the interpretation of those observations. (Were those trees created green for the glory of God or did they evolve that way by chance?) There can only be one true non-contradictory interpretation. That one correct interpretation is the perspective of the God of the Bible, revealed through the authors of the Bible (1 Corinthians 2:15). There can be many right applications but only one right interpretation.

Bell, however, says that, as time goes on and times change, our interpretation of the Bible should change. He even says: "Jesus took part in this process by calling people to rethink faith and the Bible …" (p. 11).

It seems as though Bell misunderstands the basic concept of new truth. New truth is stated every day. But that in no sense negates or changes old truth. If I get up in the morning and observe that it is Wednesday and describe the day—the news, the weather, my schedule—that does not change the fact that yesterday was Tuesday. New truth does not change or contradict old truth. New truth exists any time a new condition is accurately described. But if that description contradicts an old one, then one of the statements is false. Jesus stated some new truth, but He never called people "to rethink faith and the Bible."

Bell favors what he calls the methods of the ancient rabbis. He says, "Now the ancient rabbis understood that the Bible is open-ended and has to be interpreted" (p. 47).

Let's look at that statement. First, Bell and his source, Ray VanderLaan (p. 189) put authority in "ancient rabbis." These rabbis, who Bell thinks we should follow, are the

3

Pharisees whom Jesus called sons of hell (Matthew 23:15). Jesus said, They love … respectful greetings in the market places, and being called by men, Rabbi. But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers (vv. 6-8). They point out that Jesus was called a rabbi. But Jesus was called rabbi only in the general sense of teacher (John 1:38). For example, I am called a teacher, and a seminary professor is called a teacher, but that doesn't make me a seminary professor. The rabbis Bell refers to were sanctioned by the Pharisees as official teachers in the synagogues. These people hated Jesus. These rabbis also represent today's rabbinical Judaism, which is a development of Pharisaism and basically a cult off of Old Testament Judaism. Moses would have them stoned. But Rob Bell thinks we should follow them. Also, notice that he says they "understood that the Bible is open-ended." So, according to Bell, it seems the Bible has no objective, inerrant, authoritative, sufficient message. It only inspires many interpretations, being "open-ended." But when it comes to application, they call that interpretation and say it changes from rabbi to rabbi and with the development of the culture. (Notice a trend here? Argument means two different things, rabbi means two different things, interpretation means two different things….) So by ignoring the clear teaching of Christ, changing the meaning of words, imposing a supposed cultural framework on the Scripture, Bell ends up marginalizing or reversing the meaning of the biblical text (via a "Subversive Preaching" style).

The Bible

As I mentioned above, for Bell the Bible is like his painting of Velvet Elvis. It inspires you, it is something of beauty, but it is not the last word or best word. Its authorship is irrelevant. Its inspiration is in what it does for you. He describes the Bible as "the most amazing, beautiful, deep, inspired, engaging collection of writings ever" (p. 42). But notice how he doesn't say the Bible is infallible, inerrant, or sufficient. He also says: "But sometimes when I hear people quote the Bible, I just want to throw up" (Ibid.). "Is the Bible the best God can do?" (p. 44). "… part of the problem with continually insisting that one of the absolutes of the Christian faith must be a belief that 'Scripture alone' is our guide. Is sounds nice, but it is not true" (p. 67). "When people say that all we need is the Bible, it is simply not true" (p. 68). "So when we point to early lists of the canonical [New Testament] books, whether such lists come from individuals or church councils, these lists are not considered authoritative distinctions binding on us today but only as evidence that a loose consensus was developing through time among the people of God" (p. 185).

This last statement demands some clarification. What Bell is agreeing with here is blatantly false. He seems to be misinformed about the history of canonization. The reality is, there are in existence only 27 books written by apostles or prophets in the first century. These 27 are the New Testament. The statements of that fact by Athanasius in 367 and the Council of Carthage in 397 were meant to close the door on any further discussion on the subject of what is an authoritative text. In no sense was it a "loose consensus … developing through time." (See Norman Geisler, "The Canonicity of the Bible," Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, pp. 80-85.)

Theology

On page 26, Bell criticizes a speaker who says, "… if you deny that God created the world in six literal twenty-four-hour days, then you are denying that Jesus ever died on the

4

cross." The speaker's point was that the same Bible is the source of both. Bell says that's the wrong way to look at theology. He says that makes theology like "Bricks." Bell prefers to see theology as springs in "a trampoline." They just launch you up into inspired creative thinking, but they don't all need to be true. He explains with this example: "What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archaeologists find Larry's tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of the Mithra and Dionysian religious cults that were hugely popular at the time of Jesus, whose gods had virgin births." Bell's point is that it should not affect our Christianity because "the way of Jesus" is "still the best way to live … I'm far more interested in jumping than I am in arguing about whose trampoline is better" (p. 27).

This not only denies the sufficiency and inerrancy of the Bible, but it sounds like Hinduism (see 1 Corinthians 15:19). Apparently, for Bell it would not matter if the biblical authors lied about the virgin birth in order to get more followers.

On page 26 he goes on to say, "… the word virgin in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew language at that time, the word virgin could mean several things" (emphasis his).

This is part of the "Subversive Preaching" style that filters everything through the Hebrew. It also illustrates why you can't do that. The problem is, the New Testament is written in Greek, and the Greek word used by Matthew means "virgin." Besides that, the whole context describes how Joseph kept Mary a virgin until after the birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:18-25). In addition, Luke gives us the angel's explanation of the conception to Mary (Luke 1:30-35). So we can only conclude that Bell is asking us to believe that if Matthew and Luke lied to us about the virgin birth, it doesn't matter. But then who knows what else they lied to us about—but I guess that wouldn't matter either. If something mattered, how would you know what it was? Since the Bible is not the standard of truth, what is? Bell repeatedly tells us that truth is to be found outside the Bible, and all truth is God's truth (see "Movement Three," pp. 75-92). But he never tells us how to know if some idea is true. No standard is ever given to test truth. Since that standard is not the Bible, what is it? You? Me? Rob Bell?

Universalism

Rob Bell believes that becoming a Christian is not about receiving Christ (in direct contrast to what the Bible clearly teaches in John 1:12; 3:12-18; 5:24; 8:24; 14:6; Romans 10:9-10; Titus 3:5; 1 John 5:12; Revelation 2:21; and 9:20). Bell claims that not only reconciliation but also forgiveness is "true for everybody" (p. 146). Everybody is already forgiven. He says "inviting Jesus into your heart" is "a phrase that is not found anywhere in the Bible" (p. 109).

Well, the Bible says, But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name (John 1:12) and that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved (Romans 10:9). That sounds a whole lot like "inviting Jesus into your heat." (See also Acts 8:37 and Ephesians 4:18).

5

Bell tells about a couple he married who "said they didn't want any Jesus or God or Bible or religion to be talked about" in the ceremony. At the end of that chapter, Bell summarized the wedding by saying: "When they resonate with the peace and harmony of unspoiled nature … Jesus is the life force that makes it possible. So in the deepest sense we can comprehend, my friends are resonating with Jesus, whether they acknowledge it or not" (p. 92). Bell writes: "When Jesus said, 'No one comes to the Father except through me,' he was saying that his way, his words, his life is our connection to how things truly are at the deepest levels of existence" (p. 83).

What Jesus said is clear. When I read Rob Bell's explanation of it, I want to say, "Huh?"

Faith

With respect to faith, it would appear Bell believes that Jesus is more interested in us having faith in ourselves than He is in us having faith in Christ. Peter went out to meet Jesus, who was walking on the water. When Peter started to sink, Jesus said, "You of little faith, why did you doubt?" Bell then asks, "Who does Peter lose faith in?" Bell answers, "Not Jesus; Jesus is doing fine. Peter loses faith in himself. Peter loses faith that he can do what his rabbi [Jesus] is doing" (p. 133).

Obviously, from the context, Christ is referring to Peter's doubt in Christ's statement: "Take courage, it is I; do not be afraid" and His command to "Come!" (Matthew 14:27-29). The reprimand was for Peter's doubt in Christ.

Salvation/Missions

Bell wants to redefine a missionary as "a tour guide." He says, "So the issue isn't so much taking Jesus to people who don't have him, but going to a place and pointing out to the people there the creative, life-giving God who is already present in their midst" (p. 88).

For one thing, I wonder why anybody would be motivated to do that. But the real problem here is that this blurs the omnipresence of Christ with salvation through Christ. What people need to know is that they are lost and destined for hell because of their sins, and they need to receive Christ for salvation (Romans 3:20-25). Why do they need to know He is "already present in their midst"? True, missionaries find people who are worshipping a god something like Jesus by a different name. But those missionaries then attempt to lead those people to Christ because they are lost in their sin. As Paul said, How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? (Romans 10:14). In sharp contrast to that, Bell thinks we should simply tell the unbeliever that he is already forgiven. He concludes, "So this reality, this forgiveness, this reconciliation is true for everybody" (p. 146).

This liberal universalism confuses what Christ did on the cross with what is needed to become a child of God. Christ paid for the sins of the world on the cross. But that didn't save anybody. It just made everybody savable. Salvation, forgiveness of sins, requires a personal decision to appropriate Christ's sacrifice by personally receiving Him. It's as many as received Him who become children of God (John 1:12), not those who are informed that they are already "connected to how things truly are at the deepest levels of existence."

6

Sin

Those eager to find something to agree with Bell on can always go to page 107. Here he says, "Humans are guilty because of our sin, and God is the judge who has to deal with our sin … Enter Jesus, who dies on the cross in our place."

Well, that sounds good. How could that possibly be a problem? But remember, for Bell, Christ's death not only paid for our sins, it also forgave us, thus eliminating any need of repentance for salvation. Also, when we get to page 114, we learn Bell's definition of sin. He gets it from his therapist. Apparently, this is one of those "all truth is God's truth" things. His therapist said, "Sin." Bell then writes, "And then he said, in what has become a pivotal moment in my journey, 'Your job is the relentless pursuit of who God has made you to be. And anything else you do is sin and you need to repent of it.'" In the next paragraph he says, "And as this became more and more clear, I realized how less and less pleased I was with myself" (emphasis his). So Bell's definition of sin is that which is contrary to "himself." Not as in the Bible, where it is anything contrary to God (Romans 3:23). Bell's therapist says it is violating who God made you to be. The homosexuals have got to love that. If I am a homosexual, I need to repent of anything that keeps me from being a homosexual. We might say God didn't make us sinners, but we all seem to be that way, and such a view sure tempts us to justify a sinful tendency.

In case you think I have misread him on all this, let me give you his illustration on pages 138-39. Bell writes, "I was having lunch with a guy who was telling me about a struggle he had been having for a while. He said he knew he was a sinner and that he was fallen and that he would keep committing this one sin … because he was a sinner … because of what a sinner he was … I was so depressed I wanted to bang my head on the table … And what was so startling to me is that he said he had just become a Christian … I wondered if becoming a Christian had made his life not better but actually worse." On the next page, Bell says, "I can't find one place in the teachings of Jesus, or the Bible for that matter, where we are to identify ourselves first and foremost as sinners."

The word "sin" appears 430 times in the Bible, and even a general reading of those references sure sounds like it says we are first of all sinners and that sin separates us from God. For example, Paul, as a believer and an apostle, said, I am of flesh sold into bondage to sin (Romans 7:14; see also Psalms 32:3; 38:18; 51:3; 119:11; Proverbs 14:9; Luke 11:4; Romans 3:9; 1 John 1:8). What is going on in the example Bell gives, it seems, is that this new Christian is for the first time indwelled by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:12-16; 12:13) and being convicted by the Holy Spirit of his sin (John 16:8), and Rob Bell would talk him out of it. Jesus said, Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea (Mark 9:42). Of course, Bell believes we sin. But, as that great source of "all truth is God's truth"—his therapist—said, sin is anything other than "the relentless pursuit of who God made you to be." So are we to believe that this new believer, who is being convicted of his sin, is to think that his problem is that he is simply not being true to himself? After all, he just needs to remember that "all truth is God's truth" revealed that sin is not what is contrary to God but what is contrary to himself, and that Christianity is about happiness rather than holiness!

7

No. Unlike Bell and his therapist, the Bible says, repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray the Lord that, if possible, the intention of your heart may be forgiven you (Acts 8:22). It's those who confess our sins who are forgiven (1 John 1:9), not those in a "relentless pursuit of who God made you to be." (See also Acts 2:38; 3:19; and 17:30.)

Many parents, whose young people are being sucked into this, think: "Well, at least my kids are involved in something about Jesus, and Paul said he would not oppose people preaching the Gospel, even if they weren't always right."

No. That is not what Paul said. Paul said he would not oppose those who proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition rather than from pure motives (Philippians 1:17). It was their motives Paul was unconcerned about, not their message. I am unconcerned about Rob Bell's motives. It's his message that needs to be opposed. For those with a false message, Paul said, I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed (Galatians 1:6-8; see also 2 Corinthians 11:10-15). When the question was about those with the same message, simply functioning in a different group, Jesus said, Do not hinder him, for he who is not against you is for you (Luke 9:50). But concerning those with a different message, Jesus said, He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters (Matthew 12:30).

Heaven and Hell

Bell says this: "For Jesus, heaven and hell were present realities. Ways of living we can enter into here and now. He talked very little of life beyond this one … When people use the word hell, what do they mean? They mean a place, an event, a situation absent of how God desires things to be. Famine, debt, oppression, loneliness, despair, death, slaughter—they are all hell on earth—For Jesus, this new kind of life in Him is not about escaping this world but about making it a better place, here and now. The goal for Jesus isn't to get into heaven. The goal is to get heaven here" (pp. 147-48, emphasis his).

I'm not sure what Jesus he is talking about, but it sure isn't the One in the Bible. (And, by the way, who cares how people use the word hell.) Jesus said, I say to you that many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 8:11-12). … whoever says, "You fool," shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell … for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell" (Matthew 5:29-30). But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him" (Luke 12:5). In my Father's house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also" (John 14:2-3). Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment … (Luke 16:22-23; see also Matthew 19:29; 25:46; Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30; John 3:15-18).

8

Eternal life in heaven or hell is not just a footnote in the New Testament. The phrase "eternal life" occurs 41 times. The apostles spoke about the destruction of this present earth and the significance of seeing heaven and hell as a non-earth afterlife. Peter wrote, But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. … But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth (2 Peter 3:10-13). John says, Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away (Revelation 21:1). Paul described the future of believers, saying, For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17). He also wrote, If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied (1 Corinthians 15:19).

Does that sound like Bell's statement: "The goal for Jesus isn't to get into heaven. The goal is to get heaven here"? I know of not one single passage where Christ or the apostles commanded or suggested that we fix the world. Of course we should take care of the world we live in, just as we should take care of our car—but not to make it something eternally important. Of course we should have compassion for, and do everything we can for, the poor and suffering, but we should not think that it will bring heaven to earth.

Conclusion In this book, Rob Bell has told us about what he calls his "journey" (p. 114). He ends by saying: "I am not going to stop dreaming of a new kind of faith for the millions of us who need it" (p. 177). I suggest we tell Rob Bell that we don't need a new kind of faith. We just need to obey the one God gave us, instead of looking for reasons not to do that. I suggest we tell him—

If your journey ever leads you back to the Bible, let us know.

Do we have a sin nature? Lets see what God's Word has to say about it.

Do we have a sin nature? Lets let God’s word speak about that.
Ephesians, chapter 2
[1]: And you he made alive, when you were dead through the trespasses and sins
[2]: in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience.
[3]: Among these we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, following the desires of body and mind, and so we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
[4]: But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us,
[5]: even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),
[6]: and raised us up with him, and made us sit with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,
[7]: that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
[8]: For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God --
[9]: not because of works, lest any man should boast.
[10]: For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
[11]: Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called the uncircumcision [12]: remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
[13]: But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ.
[14]: For he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility,
[15]: by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,
[16]: and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby bringing the hostility to an end.
[17]: And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near;
[18]: for through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father.
[19]: So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,
[20]: built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,
[21]: in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord;
[22]: in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

Romans, chapter 5
[1]: Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
[2]: Through him we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in our hope of sharing the glory of God.
[3]: More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance,
[4]: and endurance produces character, and character produces hope,
[5]: and hope does not disappoint us, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us.
[6]: While we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.
[7]: Why, one will hardly die for a righteous man -- though perhaps for a good man one will dare even to die.
[8]: But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.
[9]: Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
[10]: For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.
[11]: Not only so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received our reconciliation.
[12]: Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned --
[13]: sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.
[14]: Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
[15]: But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.
[16]: And the free gift is not like the effect of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification.
[17]: If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
[18]: Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.
[19]: For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous.
[20]: Law came in, to increase the trespass; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,
[21]: so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans, chapter 6
[1]: What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?
[2]: By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?
[3]: Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
[4]: We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
[5]: For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.
[6]: We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin.
[7]: For he who has died is freed from sin.
[8]: But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him.
[9]: For we know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him.
[10]: The death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God.
[11]: So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
[12]: Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions.
[13]: Do not yield your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but yield yourselves to God as men who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments of righteousness.
[14]: For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
[15]: What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!
[16]: Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to any one as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?
[17]: But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed,
[18]: and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.
[19]: I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once yielded your members to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now yield your members to righteousness for sanctification.
[20]: When you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.
[21]: But then what return did you get from the things of which you are now ashamed? The end of those things is death.
[22]: But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.
[23]: For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Romans, chapter 7
[21]: So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand.
[22]: For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self,
[23]: but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members.
[24]: Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
[25]: Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

Romans, chapter 8
[1]: There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
[2]: For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death.
[3]: For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,
[4]: in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
[5]: For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.
[6]: To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.
[7]: For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law, indeed it cannot;
[8]: and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
[9]: But you are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Any one who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.
[10]: But if Christ is in you, although your bodies are dead because of sin, your spirits are alive because of righteousness.
[11]: If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you.
[12]: So then, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh --
[13]: for if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live.
[14]: For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
[15]: For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship. When we cry, "Abba! Father!"
[16]: it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
[17]: and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

No we do not have a sine nature. We are not "better looking sinners."

More from my Deviant Art profile

More of my photography.

My Deviant Art

These are from my own Deviant Art profile. Various photos that I have taken in less then one years time.

Beautiful fields of wheat

I really love fields of wheat or maybe they are just really attractive looking weeds. At any rate they look beautiful none the less. Found me a field near Wadhams. I couldnt beleive it myself. Reminds me very much of the heartlands of America where all the farms are.

My favorite Guitar

The best Guitar that I have played and that I own. It is a solid sounding Guitar. Not too trebiley or basey, just right. Made from the finest materials as well. I am so fortuniate to have owned this beautiful instrument.

About the Lord

The Lord gives, the Lord takes away. He is the gift for His saints. His Enemies tremble before Him. With His voice He descends upon them. Out of His mouth His sword comes forth.

His fire consumes His enemies. He thunders from Heaven as the sea before His throne worships Him. With one mighty praise, they exalt His name.

His saints are quenched in Heaven; In their sea, like thunder their voices resound, bearing up the Lord's promise. Reminded of the promise that the Lord avenges the lost.

His sword sleighs all of His enemies. Sharper then the mightiest, It's edge never dulling. He is the master smithy.

His saints give wings to His Word. Testifying of what He has done forever, the slain saints of the earth are forever remembered. Their cries never quenched for the generations.

The Lord shall act upon their requests. The earth shall tremble before the ascending of the Lord seated upon the praises of saints, never ending.

Their praise shall never be satisfied, for it is never ending and ever growing. Never in vain, but always ascending. Climbing ever higher to the ears of our Lord.

Hearing He delights with our praise. Like a father he sings over his people. They resound to the Lord and come together in one accord unto the Father's ears, ever increasing praises, each as differed as the one that came before it.

The clonevert vs the convert: Which one are you?

There are such people known as converts and then there are those who fall into the category of clonevert. Little clones or a.k.a.: soul conversions. These people have no fruit in their life. All they have is what a scribe has, head knowledge puffed up by their own emotions in able to make themselves believe or think that they have knowledge or experience of spiritualness. All these types of people do is steal others peoples words that those people who had been in a constant receiving state had received from God through revelation. Then the clonevert comes along and steals the person's words that that person had received from God. That person had been in constant communion with God and yet the clonevert hadn't, who had stolen the believers words. This is known as scribism(a Dominic La Pinta word.) Now to let you all in on what a scribe did, was this: Scribes were people appointed to copy down what others received form God through revelation. These scribes never received this knowledge through revelation or from God. They just wrote down what they were told to do. Sort of like a parrot who is taught how to speak, where as the Parrot has no idea what it is saying, but it is saying it regardless because it was taught to say it, despite the fact that it doesn't understand what language it is speaking.


So what I am really trying to say is that there is modern day scribal behaviorism that people don't even know that, that memorization is spiritual and that memorization of Scripture is having the Word of God written down on their hearts, when in reality, having the Word of God written on ones heart means that the Ramah of the Word of God is manifested within ones life, and that ones life makes it manifest for that person is completely surrendered or in aggreance and in constant communion with the Spirit of God. NOT INK AND PAPER, NOT MEMORIZATION!

You see through me, I see

When will we move on? Beyond roads of forgiveness for ourselves and beyond. The horrid messes of things. Compromising our walk within. This path to the holy presence of the Devine One's rescuing. I cannot see into these things. These things that are key. Can I move past futile frivolous self-centered things? These obsessive hole fillers bring with them to peace. They fester within our souls. Things we cannot control. What I cannot control.
I go down and yet down again these roads. These roads of smoke. These roads of mirrors. These roads of self centered tears. Oh Guinea Pig I see you in my room. Running around like your are on shrooms. Oh how we are like you. Drastically running, running, running. Running forever more, never able to sustain. Never able to stay unafraid. I look unto you oh Guinea Pig. Oh how you mirror us too much as Gods children. We cannot sustain. We cannot contain. What our impulses within ourselves rage. We are driven by hunger. Like animals we are by our hunger put asunder. We cannot help ourselves. We cannot stop our running. We cannot stop our impulsary living. We all need to be broken before you. Oh so broken unto complete rest. The end of ourselves. Looked up inside Your cage. Our broken legs. Before You we then contain. Before You we are given a Name.
Righteous You call our name. Righteous You call us, we have no shame. Righteous Your name is ours. Only by the spilling of blood is grace given us. You atoned for us. We have Righteous upon us. Your elect, righteous we are made in Your sight. I cannot truly delight. I see the sight. The sight of unholy light. That light contained in all men. How can we defend? We cannot defend. Yet You love us. You chose us before we were conceived. How can we cause You to be pleased? How can we serve You in such a sea? This sea called service. This sea, which seems drowning. It drowns me. I cannot see. The light of Your sovereign will in me. How can I compare unto You oh King. How can I compare unto You oh greatness? I cannot see. You see through me. That is how I see. I take in Your mind, which You give unto me. That is how I see. No man can free. Only divinity supreme.
You see through me… I see

Iona: Journey into the mourn

I have really been impacted as of late by a cd that I had for years. It was originally my brothers and when he left it passed onto me. The name of it, Iona: Journey into the mourn. It is a really unique and amazing cd. What really impacted me was the equal quality of musicianship and lyrics. Most people are very narrow minded when it comes to Christian music in general. IF the lyrics are good that is all that matters, when in reality Christianity is a equal work of our hands and our will. So Christian music should be the same. A double edged sword. Not a back sword. Not a single edged weapon.

Also what really impacted me was that these musicians really knew how to war in the spirit with their music and songs, unlike most Christian music that isn’t technically classified as "worship music." Just overall it is good to hear a truly great Christian group whose works and words are equal.

Iona is truly unique in the fact that each of their cds is unique and has its own feel to it. Both of their cds that I own have painted pictures of Heaven in my mind, and have blown me away. I have actually had HEavenly imagery when hearing soem of their songs. Especially the songs of ascent featured on "Open Sky", one of their later albums. Sigh... If only more Christian music was like this. But as long as people continue to be won over by someone trained to tickle their ears, despite the fact that most of them dont even write their own music, Christian music will not reach and ascend into the next level. That level where it takes us on an ascent towards our God.

New wine in old wine skins

Old hymns, are old hymns. They remain a foundational treasure of a time past, but holding just as much fervent honor and worship in song for the Lord as the hymns created in present day do. They are of different times, different people and different ways of expression. We should not try to compromise either’s integrity. It is not about taking the old hymns and putting them to new musical styles and the like. It is about the past and the present coming together to birth a future for us all.

Reason for me writing this is that I heard the other day about some new Christian artist taking old hymns and re-inventing them. In other words, this new Christian artist is unoriginal and uses the words of others and not his own that God gave to him. Stop trying to appeal to everybody and just say what God has given you to say. It’s not about loading up new wine in old wineskins.