27 Responses to In Defense of Rob Bell, A Guest Post by Bill Z. Bull

  1. Chris Borah March 14, 2011 at 10:15 am #

    Wow. That was difficult to read! All thise interrogative’s were throwing me off!

    • jim March 14, 2011 at 10:45 am #

      Do you “get it”?

  2. G. A. Dietrich March 14, 2011 at 10:53 am #

    Great piece of writing Jim! It took me a few moments to get it, but I got it and thought it was well done and creative.

  3. Dustin March 14, 2011 at 11:50 am #

    Well played…..

  4. Mitch Chase March 14, 2011 at 12:05 pm #

    Brilliantly, cleverly written. Point well made.

  5. Dan Phillips March 14, 2011 at 12:30 pm #

    Hey, he’s just asking questions.

    Isn’t that always good?


  6. Joel Bowen March 14, 2011 at 4:47 pm #

    “Would he not claim that if there were no justice mercy and love would have no meaning? Would he not explain that if he did not uphold his standards against those who refused to repent, he would be unworthy of trust, unrighteous himself, and unworthy of worship?”
    Great piece, if only those who see not, would see.

    I have been reading a lot of comments on the news blogs regarding the Japan tragedy and anytime there is any reference to God the “venom spewing” of the unregenerate begins…..so Bill Z Bull they are out there thinkin “we” have it al under control……it’s laughable…

    Again great piece!

  7. dustin germain March 14, 2011 at 4:57 pm #

    This is quite brilliant. It should be amply obvious by now that people can teach and convey their ideas of truth through questions.

  8. Robert March 14, 2011 at 4:58 pm #

    Where’s the hermeneutic of charity/sympathy you so often speak about? There’s a way to disagree with him without essentially calling him Satan’s right-hand man. I find it quite disturbing, Jim, and think you don’t practice what you demand of others when one of your conservative colleagues or heroes gets called to the carpet for something they’ve written or done. The book was claimed as heresy long before it was published, reviewed, or advertised, and I find the behavior among evangelicals quite embarrassing. It’s in our DNA to constantly give heresy trials and argue what we’re against, and this latest altercation has shown that all too well. Ironically, a letter from “Bill Z. Bull” can be written defending the behavior of yourself, Justin Taylor, Kevin DeYoung, Albert Mohler, John Piper, and a host of others. That’s the definition of irony, and there’s no “protecting Christianity,” “defending truth,” or “guarding Scripture” about it. You may not be Mr. Bull’s friend, but you sure do make him look good from time to time.

    • jim March 14, 2011 at 5:04 pm #

      NB: I did not call him Satan’s right hand man. I presented Satan’s right hand man defending him.

      I have applied the hermeneutic of charity/sympathy. Rob Bell is attacking the God of the Bible with his questions. I submit that I have heeded Proverbs 26:4–5.

      Jesus said that his opponents were of their father the devil. Jesus said that we would know the wolves by their fruit.

      Look at the fruit: those who attack the teaching of Jesus are not for him but against him.



      • Stan McCullars March 14, 2011 at 5:45 pm #

        Nice work!

        I’m not sure what to make of the charity police saying you make Bill Z. Bull look good from time to time. Perhaps he finds Bill Z. Bull attractive.

    • threegirldad March 14, 2011 at 7:37 pm #

      Ironically, a letter from “Bill Z. Bull” can be written defending the behavior of yourself, Justin Taylor, Kevin DeYoung, Albert Mohler, John Piper, and a host of others.

      Sure it can. But the real issue is whether is can be done without relying entirely on sheer falsehood. That, I seriously doubt…

  9. John March 14, 2011 at 9:41 pm #

    Devilishly clever. Pun intended. Seriously, well done!

  10. Tommie March 15, 2011 at 12:44 am #

    I thought C. S. Lewis died:)

  11. John March 15, 2011 at 2:26 am #

    Wore out the shift / keys, did you?

  12. Jim Chandler March 15, 2011 at 8:48 am #

    I loved this. I’ll confess it took me a moment to get it.

  13. Halcyon March 15, 2011 at 2:31 pm #

    It’s in our DNA to constantly give heresy trials and argue what we’re against….

    If that’s true, then what are you complaining about? Mr. Hamilton apparently did exactly what his genes dictated. What he did wasn’t mean or mean-spirited. It was just the way things are. Quit being so flustered about it.

    And quit chopping your legs out from under yourself with your own words. That’s embarrassing.

  14. Joel Carini March 15, 2011 at 3:28 pm #

    Is this not the most clever response to the Rob Bell controversy yet? Thanks Jim, and all the other reformed bloggers for standing by the truth, encouraging a young, restless, and reformed Wheaton College student (me) by their passion and love for the one true God.

  15. RD March 18, 2011 at 11:18 am #

    I thought Eugene Peterson’s remarks about Rob and the book were interesting….When asked, Do evangelicals need to reexamine our doctrines of hell and damnation?

    Peterson replied:

    Yes, I guess I do think they ought to reexamine. They ought to be a good bit more biblical, not taking things out of context.

    But the people who are against Rob Bell are not going to reexamine anything. They have a litmus test for who is a Christian and who is not. But that’s not what it means to live in community.

    Luther said that we should read the entire Bible in terms of what drives toward Christ. Everything has to be interpreted through Christ. Well, if you do that, you’re going to end up with this religion of grace and forgiveness. The only people Jesus threatens are the Pharisees. But everybody else gets pretty generous treatment. There’s very little Christ, very little Jesus, in these people who are fighting Rob Bell.


    • jim March 18, 2011 at 11:22 am #

      Shows us a lot about Peterson, doesn’t it?
      Last I checked, nobody talked more about hell than Jesus, and he offers the only way not to spend forever there–by repenting and believing in him.

      • Stan McCullars March 18, 2011 at 11:33 am #

        Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think Peterson has ever been known as a defender of the faith.

  16. Jack March 18, 2011 at 10:55 pm #

    This is like 90 shades of awesome. That’s a ridiculous amount of rhetorical questions. I am completely impressed. HarperCollins should publish THIS as a book. The Gospel Coalition, specifically Taylor and DeYoung, should simply post a link to this in their blogs and say, “Yea, what he said.” Love. This. Post.

  17. Informacje June 1, 2011 at 5:27 pm #

    I will forward this write-up to him. Pretty sure he will have a good read. Thanks for sharing!


  1. More correcting of Rob Bell « An Exercise in the Fundamentals of Orthodoxy - March 15, 2011

    […] the satirical response, Jim Hamilton is your man. You thought God told Adam not to eat of that tree? You thought he said that in the day […]

  2. More on “Love Wins” « Blog Stan the Man - March 17, 2011

    […] “In Defense of Rob Bell, A Guest Post by Bill Z. Bull” by Jim Hamilton* […]

  3. Anthony Hoekema on “the eternal punishment of the lost” « just after sunrise - March 27, 2011

    […] In Defense of Rob Bell, A Guest Post by Bill Z. Bull […]

Leave a Reply