- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (3/9)
- Next Post »A La Carte (3/10)
Love Wins - A Review of Rob Bell's New Book
- 03/09/11
- 219
Questions matter. They can help you to grow deeper in your knowledge of the truth and your love for God--especially when you're dealing with the harder doctrines of the Christian faith. But questions can also be used to obscure the truth. They can be used to lead away just as easily as they can be used to lead toward. Ask Eve.
Enter Rob Bell, a man who has spent much of the last seven years asking questions in his sometimes thought-provoking and often frustrating fashion. And when he's done asking, no matter what answers he puts forward, it seems we're only left with more questions. This trend continues in his new book, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, where Bell poses what might be his most controversial question yet:
Does a loving God really send people to hell for all eternity?
The questions you probably want answers to as you read this review are these: Is it true that Rob Bell teaches that hell doesn't exist? Is it true that Rob Bell believes no one goes to hell? You'll just need to keep reading because, frankly, the answers aren't that easy to come by.
How he asks the question is just as important as the question itself. "Has God created billions of people over thousands of years only to select a few to go to heaven and everyone else to suffer forever in hell? Is this acceptable to God? How is this 'good news'?" They say that the person who frames the debate is going to win the debate. That is especially true when the debate is framed in this way, through these particular questions. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't. No offense, and no pun intended.
The Toxic Subversion Of Jesus' Message
Bell begins the book with surprising forthrightness: Jesus' story has been hijacked by a number of different stories that Jesus has no interest in telling. "The plot has been lost, and it's time to reclaim it." (Preface, vi)
A staggering number of people have been taught that a select few Christians will spend forever in a peaceful, joyous place called heaven, while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better.... This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus' message of love, peace, forgiveness, and joy that our world desperately needs to hear. (ibid)
You may want to read that again.
It really says that. And it really means what you think it means. Though it takes time for that to become clear.
Heaven Is A Place On Earth--and We Are Making It
Bell frames much of the book around time and place, around what the Bible means when it speaks of the when and where of heaven and hell. He points to Revelation 21, citing that the heavenly city, the New Jerusalem, is coming down to the new earth. He also affirms that heaven is a real place where God's will alone is done and that at present, heaven and earth are not yet one (pp. 42-43). These are points that few Christians could seriously question.
His argument progresses to this: Because heaven will eventually come to earth, if we're to take heaven seriously, we must take the suffering that exists in the world seriously now. Therefore, we are called to participate "now in the life of the age to come. That's what happens when the future is dragged into the present" (p. 45). In light of this, humanity's role within creation is redefined so that we are not so much stewards as we are God's partners, "participating in the ongoing creation and joy of the world" (p. 180), and engaging in creating a new social order with Jesus (p. 77). This language of partnering and participating is frequently applied by Bell to causes of social justice.
But what about hell? Is hell a future reality or a present one? Is it an earthly reality or one that exists elsewhere?
Hell appears to be more about what we do to each other than what we've done to God. Bell reads Jesus' warnings of divine punishment as addressing only the temporal, rather than both the temporal and the eternal. These warnings were for the religious leaders of the day, and had very little to do with some other reality or some other time, he argues (pp. 82-83). Instead, hell is "a word that refers to the big, wide, terrible evil that comes from the secrets hidden deep without our hearts all the way to the massive, society-wide collapse and chaos that comes when we fail to live in God's world God's way" (p. 95). There's no fire and no wrath, at least, none that is extrinsic to us.
Does Rob Bell deny the existence of hell? He would say no. We would say yes. He affirms, but only after redefining. And that's just a clever form of denial.
Exegetical Gymnastics
Understanding what Bell truly believes and what he is truly seeking to teach can be a battle. The reader will find himself following many rabbit trails and arriving at several dead ends. It seems that where Bell's arguments begin to break down, he simply walks away instead of pursuing consistency and logic. This book could not stand the rigors of cross-examination. It has little cohesion, little internal strength.
The reader will also find broad statements offered as fact. "At the center of the Christian tradition since the first church has been the insistence that history is not tragic, hell is not forever, and love, in the end, wins." Is that true? It is easy to say, but can it be proven? Again and again Bell turns to the original languages but he quotes no commentaries, points to no sources. He says things like "'forever' is not really a category the biblical writers used." But he offers no proof. Again, it is easy to say, but can it be proven? Can it be proven from a legitimate source?
Throughout the book he engages in what can best be described as exegetical gymnastics, particularly in dealing with the Greek word aion, a small word that is crucial to his arguments.
While this word is commonly translated as "eternal" or "everlasting," Bell argues that it can also mean "age" or "period of time," or even "intensity of experience." Using this approach, he briefly argues from the parable of the sheep and the goats (Matt. 25:31-46) that eternal punishment isn't eternal, but rather an intense period of pruning.
Now here's the thing: aion and aionos definitely can mean "age" or "period of time," they also mean "eternal." The word's context helps us to determine its meaning. So if we assume that these words primarily mean "age" or "period of time," what happens when we apply that definition to John 3:16 where aionos is used?
For God so loved the world that He sent His only Son so that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have life for a period of time.
Not as encouraging, is it? While Bell might argue here that "life abundant" might be a better fit (playing on the "intensity of experience" angle and tying it to John 10:10), at the end of the day, we're left with an approach that gives more credence to living your best life now than it does to worshipping Jesus.
The Good News Is Better Than This
Throughout the book, there are a number of points where we would agree with Bell, particularly when he identifies some of the goofy things that people have concocted to make God's absolute sovereignty palpable. But his answers are equally unsatisfying. Even his good critiques are simply a bridge to bad conclusions.
As he makes his case, Bell seems to delight in being obtuse, creating caricatures of opposing views that lack logic and compassion. He paints himself as the victim of the hateful, toxic, venomous denizens of certain corners of the Internet that believe "the highest form of allegiance to their God is to attack, defame, and slander others who don't articulate matters of faith as they do" (p. 185).
Thus, Rob Bell appoints himself a martyr for his cause, and anyone who disagrees with him is preemptively silenced. It's a useful technique, that, but hardly a fair one. Meanwhile he acts as if those who hold to the belief that, in Bell's words, "we get this life and only this life to believe in Jesus," a view passionately held to by the vast majority of Christians throughout history, are blowing smoke rather than dealing honestly with the Scriptures. He subtly redefines the questions and answers, and in doing so, also shifts the battle lines.
As he moves those lines, he moves closer and closer to outright blasphemy. Turning on 1 Timothy 2 (where Paul states that God desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth) Bell reflects on a traditional (orthodox) view of hell and asks:
How great is God?
Great enough to achieve what God sets out to do,
or kind of great,
medium great,
great most of the time,
but in this,
the fate of billions of people,
not totally great.
sort of great.
a little great.
A God who would allow people to go to hell is not a great God, according to Bell, and the traditional belief that He would is "devastating … psychologically crushing … terrifying and traumatizing and unbearable" (pp. 136-7).
God is at best sort of great, a little great--great for saving some, but evil for allowing others to perish. Dangerous words, those. It is a fearful thing to ascribe evil to God.
So what of the gospel? Where is the gospel and what is the gospel? Ultimately, what Bell offers in this book is a gospel with no purpose. In his understanding of the Bible, people are essentially good, although we certainly do sin, and are completely free to choose or not choose to love God on our own terms. Even then he seems to believe that most people, given enough time and opportunity, will turn to God.
In This Is Love
If Love Wins accurately represents Bell's views on heaven and hell (at least if our understanding of the book accurately represents his views on heaven and hell), it reveals him as a proponent of a kind of Christian Universalism. He would deny the label as he tends to deny any label. But if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, well, you know how it goes.
As soon as the door is opened to Muslims. Hindus, Buddhists, and Baptists from Cleveland, many Christians become very uneasy, saying that then Jesus doesn't matter anymore, the cross is irrelevant, it doesn't matter what you believe, and so forth.
Not true.
Absolutely, unequivocally, unalterably not true.What Jesus does is declare that he,
and he alone,
is saving everybody.And then he leaves the door way, way open. Creating all sorts of possibilities. He is as narrow as himself and as wide as the universe.
...
People come to Jesus in all sorts of ways.
...
Sometimes people use his name;
other times they don't....
Some people have so much baggage with regard to the name "Jesus" that when they encounter the mystery present in all of creation--grace, peace, love, acceptance, healing, forgiveness--the last thing they are inclined to name it is "Jesus."
...
What we see Jesus doing again and again--in the midst of constant reminders about the seriousness of following him living like him, and trusting him--is widening the scope and expanse of his saving work.
That is what we know as universalism. And it is cause for mourning.
Christians do not need more confusion. They need clarity. They need teachers who are willing to deal honestly with what the Bible says, no matter how hard that truth is. And let's be honest--many truths are very, very hard to swallow.
Love does win, but not the kind of love that Bell talks about in this book. The love he describes is one that is founded solely on the idea that the primary object of God's love is man; indeed, the whole story, he writes, can be summed up in these words: "For God so loved the world." But this doesn't hold a candle to the altogether amazing love of God as actually shown in the Bible. The God who "shows His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom. 5:8), who acts on our behalf not so much because His love for us is great, but because He is great (Isaiah 48:9, Ezekiel 20:9,14,22,44, 36:22; John 17:1-5).
That's the kind of love that wins. That's the kind of love that motivates us to love our neighbors enough to compel them to flee from the wrath to come. And our love for people means nothing if we do not first and foremost love God enough to be honest about Him.
This review was co-written with my friend Aaron Armstrong who writes at Blogging Theologically. All quotes are taken from an Advance Reading Copy of the manuscript that was provided specifically for review purposes; they will be verified against a final bound copy of Love Wins following the book’s release.

I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Comments (219)
Thanks for the review; this was very informative.
at a recent conference, Peter Jones says “Before we introduce people to the love of God, we need to introduce people to God.” According to both the promo video and the book (granted I have not read it per se so I can’t pass too much upon the book), but w/ the video, love does win, but only to the ones who knows the love that God is…
Exactly right, Alan. You made the very point that I was going to make until I saw your comment.
If kolasis aionios means some kind of “painful pruning” and not “eternal punishment,” then zoe aionios necessarily must bear some antithetical sense but not “eternal life” with the sense of “everlasting.”
Nice review, Tim.
The only other time I’ve heard the word “Obtuse” was in the Shaw Shank Redemption!
I think most Christians knew the conclusion of this matter long before the review came out.
If Error is Harmless then Truth is Useless!
When I attended MHB the first few years after it started he was pushing the same kind of literature and would have speakers discussing 1st century rabbinical traditions and it’s connection to the gospels. Some of the stuff was interesting but there did not seem to be any rigorous data to back up what the speakers and authors were suggesting.
This is a great comment. The “Ready, Fire, Aim” crowd is just as ugly as the message they condemn.
Tim,”The Great Divorce” is one of my favorite books. It would be great to read your review of it! I used to write book reviews for a daily newspaper years ago, so I love a good book reviewer.
Thanks for this great review. It confirms, without a shadow of a doubt, all the speculations that have been whirling around since the promo video.
A God who would allow people to go to hell is not a great God, according to Bell, and the traditional belief that He would is “devastating … psychologically crushing … terrifying and traumatizing and unbearable” (pp. 136-7).
I believe this paragraph gives us clear insight into why Bell has denied (directly of indirectly) the doctrine of hell: it wasn’t because he suddenly came across the word aionos and felt it had been incorrectly translated; it was because the thought of eternal punishment was to big a concept for his narrow-minded view to accommodate. Maybe instead of deciding to pretend hell doesn’t exist he should have used his influence to save people from this terrible place. Unfortunately, all he is doing is helping them on their way.
Perhaps this is beyond the scope of the thread since your post was simply a review of the book. - But I’ll ask anyway
Tim, what then do I make of a Rob Bell? I consider myself a Christian who is gaining in spiritual maturity and is earnestly asking God daily for discernment. So an item like this is relevant to me. What is to be discerned from the book, Mr. Bell and subsequently the church he pastors? Do I reject him as a Christian? Is he a Christian who is currently a slave to deception? Should I pray that his eyes are opened to truth so that his flock is not misled? Does he really know the truth and is simply out to make a splash and sell books? What do I tell friends who see/hear/read the book and ask my opinion? Do I just say its blasphemy and dismiss it? What is an appropriate response that could be truthful but loving? To me, that’s where the rubber hits the road.
Sorry for the ton of questions, but you wrote “Questions matter” :-) There is so much being done in the name of Christianity that it’s hard for believers to keep it all straight - can’t imagine what the unbelievers think of it all. Well, I can - they dismiss Christianity.
Thank you sir.
Thanks for posting your review. I was watching for it!
> That is what we know as universalism. And it is cause for mourning.
You’re mixing universalism with pluralism.
“When I attended MHB the first few years after it started he was pushing the…”
Mike, you CLAIM to have gone to Rob’s church…so answer these:
1) Is Rob a universalist or not? If yes what is your proof?
2) did you take your concerns directly to Rob, or the church…or are you GOSSIPING just like Tim, who has failed to contact Rob directly before posting this “review”? So much for the bible and what it says about confronting your brother first…
If you had listened to any of what Rob Bell teaches before this book. It was no *jump* to a conclusion as you say. Rather, this book only affirms what he has been saying all along.
Does anyone else hear some Catholic undertones of purgatory in his idea of the “pruning period”? Just curious.
Thanks for the review, gentlemen. Well done.
For those that would prefer to have Bell labeled as an “inclusivity” or “radical inclusivity,” you must realize that most inclusivist do not eliminate the Biblical reality of hell in the manner the Bell appears to do so in this new book. Most inclusivist expect some “religious” grappling with the reality and existence of a god and their accountability to him/her/it, whereas, a universalist has no expectation for the creatures response or search for a god and simply believes that all will be saved in the end.
The difference is that with the inclusivist, there is still a need for some sort of response to general revelation and sincere seeking, yet with the universalist, your “salvation” is as sure as your existence, regardless of your response or seeking of general revelation.
With that said, I cannot make a final vote one way or the other as to which camp Bell finds himself in (both being deplorable and heretical), but maybe Tim can shed some light on this.
Tim, you wrote, “Meanwhile he acts as if those who hold to the belief that, in Bell’s words, “we get this life and only this life to believe in Jesus,” a view passionately held to by the vast majority of Christians throughout history, are blowing smoke rather than dealing honestly with the Scriptures.”
The “vast majority” of Christians throughout history have been Roman Catholic or some form of Eastern Orthodoxy — both of which have strong traditional teachings on “purgation” which teach that people do, in fact, get more than just this life to believe in Jesus. Most Reformed folks don’t believe purgatory (that I know of) but I’d be willing to bet that most Catholics (still the largest Christian body in the world) still do. So your appeal to apparently widespread historical orthodoxy isn’t entirely accurate.
Just having read Greg Boyd’s review, I can hardly call it a review. He claims to have read it, but I can’t see real evidence of that in his review. The four major points could be made (changing out words and inserting “universalism” here) about almost anything Bell writes.
It appears to be just a propaganda defense without dealing with any real aspects of the book. Again just like most everything Bell does, Greg Boyd can only answer the question, “…I know many readers will want my opinion on whether or not Rob is in fact a Universalist. I’m tempted to say — and probably should say —” I’m not sure; read the book for yourself and figure it out.”
“NOT sure” is the key word about Bell, but buy his book! Is that the real motivator? $
Tim, I’d love to see you review some older Christian classics some time!
Thank you for writing this review and bringing clarity to the issues.
The “don’t judge a book by its cover” defense is toast.
What’s next?
The “Matthew 18:15 defense” in 5, 4, 3, 2,…
From my perspective, a major difference is that Bell’s book is “non-fiction.” It’s not a fable. These are ostensibly Bell’s theological beliefs. Lewis’ The Great Divorce is presented as an allegory that illustrates the conflict between ‘my will be done’—“Hell”—and ‘Thy will be done’—“Heaven.” I gleaned from it reasons unsaved people give for staying unsaved, and the transformation that Christians go through when they turn toward Christ. I didn’t see it as a treatise on the way the literal heaven and hell are.
I am much, much less familiar with Macdonald’s work, but my impression is that his ideas were in a vein of Christian universalism.
Thanks for the review, Tim.
A few years ago, I had to start asking myself what unorthodox teaching and praxis say about orthodox teaching and praxis. Most people in the Church almost never ask that question, though.
Why does Rob Bell command the positive attention that he does? Perhaps orthodox teaching and practice are failing to address a very real need that Bell has latched onto. While it is true that many people will not listen to orthodox teaching no matter how good it is, the orthodox are losing people and it would pay great dividends for us to know why.
Personally, I believe that orthodox teaching and practice do have some holes that need to be patched, if we would only admit our lacks. That we tend not to is one reason why unorthodoxy has crept in and Bell has found an audience he might otherwise not have.
We have something to learn about orthodoxy by examining unorthodoxy, but only if we are humble about the ways in which we have let orthodoxy down.
Tim, you do need to read “The Great Divorce.”
(You have read “The Last Battle,” right?)
I, too, appreciate that you took the time to read this an analyze it well. As others have stated, your Reformed bias shows, and that is fine. You don’t try to hide it.
Craid @34: “This actually seems very similar to the traditional conservative Wesleyan position on the related themes.”
Indeed. And that is one reason that many who adhere to Reformed theology do not appreciate this book. It’s not 100% surprising.
It’s going to be interesting to read it when it arrives. What a firestorm!
If nothing else, this certainly shows that all of us within evangelical circles need to start thinking carefully about this topic. The fuss indicates that it’s an area that people are thinking about.
‘Anonymous’:
Commenting publicly on remarks made from the pulpit or in a book is not gossiping. If you believed so, why didn’t you get Mark or Tim’s phone number and talk to them directly, instead of commenting on this public blog?
At Antioch Paul confronted Peter “before them all”, because Peter was veering from the gospel and leading others astray (Gal 2:11-14). That’s what’s happening here.
Much appreciated Tim & Aaron, I felt the same way about Bell’s book “Velvet Elvis,” the universalist’s-red-flags went off several times. I would like to encourage you (Tim & Aaron) keep this sort of ministry going, I’m going to share it on my FB page b/c I know there’s a lot of brothers and sisters in Christ who are on the fence w/ Bell but don’t know how to articulate why and this review does this very well! Keep it up!
You’re mixing universalism with pluralism.
Not necessarily. There are a few different ways to be a universalist (one possible way is through pluralism), but if you believe that there is no such thing as eternal punishment—or eternal annihilation, I suppose—then you are a universalist.
Thank you for this review! I’m a regular reader of this blog and DiscerningReader, and have been following the Rob Bell controversy with interest. The conclusion that Rob Bell is basically espousing universalism doesn’t surprise me, but I am surprised (and I shouldn’t be, considering Bell’s habit of vague avoidance) that he doesn’t talk about the exceptions to the “you make your own heaven/hell” rule. While I think that for the most part, people in sin don’t have a rewarding life, what about those who do? Those like (sorry) Charlie Sheen who revel in their debauchery and unbelief and whose sins go unpunished by law or conscience?
And what about the martyrs, who live a life of terrible suffering for Christ in the hope of future glory? Is their heaven on earth too? Maybe one of the greatest disservices of Bell’s ridiculous book is its implicit insult to the past and present persecuted saints.
Dang.
Unfortunately, it looks like most of the “hyper fundamentalist knee jerk” concerns were right all along. Well, there are some things I rather not be right about and this type of veiled heresy is one of them.
Hopefully, reviews such as this one will keep this book somewhat at bestseller bay as far as the monstrous PR campaign Bell has created. I’d rather not waste my money confirming its presence.
It looks like I for one will not be issuing my promised public apology to Mr. Bell. http://chiefofleast.com/2011/02/27/rob-bell-does-universalism-really-win…
Oops.
“You’re mixing universalism with pluralism” should have been in quotes. And that’s a quote from Matt Parkin (#62).
Andrew T.,
Historically the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox doctrine of purgatory was only for those who believed in Jesus, but needed further suffering to purge their remaining sin away. It was not a second chance for non-Christians: they held that unbelievers went directly to hell. Of course Catholics have modified that since Vatican II in the 1960s.
Very helpful review. Thank you - I have been looking forward to hearing from someone who has read the book. Thank you for your courage and boldness to speak truth!Courtney
liberal theology is attractive to most, because it takes all the offensiveness out of the gospel and makes the christian life “easier” and because of this i can see you have already caught some flack for this review, but thank you for standing on God word as truth and giving us an honest, biblical review.
liberal theology is attractive to most, because it takes all the offensiveness out of the gospel and makes the christian life “easier” and because of this i can see you have already caught some flack for this review, but thank you for standing on God word as truth and giving us an honest, biblical review.
One other reason for reading The Great Divorce that’s relevant here is the extended scene where the biblical scholar (who went to hell) tries to deny heaven and hell even while he’s there. I think he even wrote a book about hell. It’s chillingly similar to Bell. The scene is in Chapter 5.
And echo what people have said about Lewis’ goal in writing the book. The preface speaks for itself.
“I beg readers to remember that this is a fantasy. It has of course - or I intended it to have - a moral. But the trans-mortal conditions are solely an imaginative supposal: they are not even a guess or a speculation at what may actually await us. The last thing I wish is to arouse factual curiosity about the details of the after-world.” - C.S. Lewis
The next person here who brings up…
A) The Inquisition, or B) burning heretics at the stake, or C) stoning people to death…
…owes everyone here a coke.
I just called it.
I feel the need to comment that a half-dozen one-to-two line snippets doesn’t give the context for the argument. While advance reviews are helpful, without being able to read the argument I find myself still wanting for true engagement of Bell’s work and theology.
Our next Reading the Classics Together?? : ]
Hi Tim and Aaron,
Thank you for taking the time to read and then write a well thought through review. Helping Christian who are still growing in discernment steer clear from books such as this is a commendable task.
I have been accused of standing against others without knowing what I really stand for and not having enough “love” for others perspectives. I would therefore not be surprised if you also are accused such. I would however like to encourage you that you have consistently display an attitude of love when dealing with tough reviews such as this one.
Regards,Berns
Craig Thompson beat me to it - the last quote given seems to indicate inclusivism. This is anti-Biblical, I believe, but it is a different beast altogether than universalism.
Of course I suspect that Bell, like McLaren is a postmodern navel gazing timewaster who uses language in order to obscure thought, rather than to come to ever more precise understandings of the truth. No time should be wasted on him, beyond pointing out to the gullible that all he’s doing is to try to muddy the clear texts of scripture in order to endorse his own personal theology. He’s not pointing to legitimate ambiguity, rather, he is engaging in sophistry in order to promote his own (unambiguous) theology that stands in opposition to Biblical Christianity. Let’s not fall for his game.
Thanks Berns, this encouragement is very much appreciated. Take care.
Thanks guys,It does seem that he’s developed his views beyond the ones in Velvet Elvis about there being “forgiven people God loves” in hell. The whole way he couches things, as you note, is meant to put Conservatives on the defensive lest we sound barbaric.I’m glad the publisher had the guts to give review copies to people who would not agree, and point out flaws in his thinking. I can sleep well never having read it. :-)
That depends. Would you consider “The Shack” to be completely based in Scripture? Because that’s what you’re suggesting with these other fictional works
I will(if you give me permission) translate this article into Spanish.
Please feel free.
Kudos for speaking of cross-examination and the idea that we ought to test everything and hold on to what is good. Personally, I like the idea that Bell doesn’t appeal to theologians to back up his view. People have the ability to do their homework and the Spirit (our Teacher) for help in gaining an accurate understanding of the Word. I feel the your “framing the argument” idea might hold some merit, but I would like to point out the the institutional church has been framing the argument and systematically silencing opposing viewpoints for over 1500 years.
Try an experiment… Look up the different forms of logical fallacy in argumentation. Then, ask your orthodox friends some of the very pointed questions from Bell’s book. Don’t preface your questions with anything (like “I disagree with this, but…”). Just put the questions out there as if you actually want everyone to seriously come up with an answer. Be persistent in this approach for a full fifteen minutes, if you can - none of my fundy friends have lasted longer than 10 minutes in such a conversation without having some kind of emotional outburst and finding a way to end the discussion. Meanwhile be intentional about noticing what kind of push-back you get. Is everyone willing to have a calm, rational discussion, or are they more concerned with shutting down the discussion? Please try this experiment to get a small taste of what it is like to swim against the theological current (just like Jesus had to do with the religious experts in His ministry).
Finally, a word about aion. Your rebuttal to Bell’s claim regarding aion suggests that if Bell is correct, then this means we will not live forever. I think it would be fair for you to either remove your comment from the blog or add an additional comment explaining that there are other Greek words (aidios, for example) that actually do mean forever. The places where these words are used in reference to the Christian belief that He gives us life without end, incorruptible, etc, nullify your suggestion that without aion meaning eternal, our hopes of living forever are dashed. This is absolutely not true. It is also noteworthy that aidios is never applied to punishment, by Jesus or anyone else for that matter.
If you want more info or further discussion, stop by my youtube page and post a comment on one of my vids or read my “martyr” story as you call it…
www.youtube.com/user/alicespicer
“They can be used to lead away just as easily as they can be used to lead toward. Ask Eve.”
Except a lot of Christians believe Eve and the story of the fall of man is metaphorical. Just like the Noah’s flood is metaphorical, and now hell is metaphorical. .
When we have questions do we solely rely on books and blogs to sort out what the bible says instead of actually going through scripture themselves? Yeah I know that question sounds very “fundamental” and “institutionalized”. But seriously what is the cornerstone we build off of?
I personally love the idea that hell is empty or will eventually be empty. But comparing that idea to the scriptures they do not co-exist. Unless I either redefine words in scripture, or redefine the context in which they are used, or only reference certain scripture that support my idea and leave out others that don’t support it. When either of those things happen, let alone ALL THREE, I need to ask myself am I adjusting my idea to the God’s word or am I adjusting God’s word to my idea?
That is a question nobody seems to be asking.
Good grief…he even writes like Captain Kirk talks.
The Great Divorce is a character driven story. Not a theological treatise on the nature of the afterlife. It is about the nature of sin shown in a many interesting stubborn characters. To read it otherwise is a real misinterpretation.
thanks for the book review and thanks for having the integrity to read the book before making a call about Bell’s theology.
“I would like to point out the the institutional church has been framing the argument and systematically silencing opposing viewpoints for over 1500 years. ”
1 wrong + 1 wrong = right?