- 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
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (219)
Hey Rob,
Nobody is telling you not to ask questions. But asking questions like “what if they found Jesus’ body?” (just an example - not that you asked it) aren’t helpful.
Why aren’t they helpful? Because the bible clearly answers it in 1 Corinthians 15:14 -
“And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.”
Tension is fine in cases where the scriptures are silent. But the scriptures reveal much about God. It is an error to hold things in tension that God has clearly and plainly revealed.
Funny, I taught on this just two Sundays ago. In talking about God’s absolute sovereignty, I referenced this passage:
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, 8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight 9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ 10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. (Ephesians 1:3-10, ESV)
Paul is talking about predestination, in fact he is talking about a specific kind of predestination - election. And in the context of election, he says this:
“making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose”
So, even the great “mystery” of election has been made known to us. Yet, people are still content to call it a mystery and avoid discussing it.
Keep in mind though, that even in these clear things, we can only go as far as the bible goes. It is clear THAT God elects. It is also clear WHY He must (we hate Him.) What is not clear however are God’s internal motivations, desires, decisions, etc. as to WHY He elected me and not others (other than for His glory, according to His plan, and for the good of those who love Him.)
So, the goal is not to limit God. The goal is to accept the truth of God as He has revealed to us in scripture. Saying God is Trinitarian is not limiting God - it is how He revealed Himself to us. Saying that those who are not covered in Christ’s blood as the only propitiation for their sin will suffer an eternity in hell is not limiting God’s love - it is how God’s love has been revealed to us in scripture. Saying that God elects is not putting God in a box - it is how He revealed Himself in scripture.
The problem seems to be that people assign “mystery” to the clear things and try to make the “mysterious” things clear.
My God is not so small that I can define Him. He communicated some of Himself to me through the scriptures.
And if I say God is other than that, I am dreadfully wrong.
To Nicholas T,I loved what you shared. I too left a post about “aionios” .Yes, I am blessed by all those who are workmen of the Word…showing themselves approved.My prayer is that many that are commenting here will finally do some research on their own by searching in a concordance as to the true meanings of the words hell and eternity. Boy, has the KJV sown alot of error in regards to how these two words have been interpreted.
Once again I give the Lord Jesus glory that He has opened your eyes…. Hopefully many more eyes will be opened too.His love&peace to you.
So many mega-church pastors today are addicted to “pushing the envelope.” By challenging orthodoxy they expand THEIR name, not Christ’s. While such tactics may sell more books and broaden their fame, they, like the essence of their teachings, are focused on getting their best life now. In their own deluded way they relish critques like Tim’s because they feel they are being persecuted for doing right. After all, it is hard for emergent mega-church pastors to be persecuted when they are constantly tickling ears by preaching that God Almighty is fair. God is NOT fair. He is just. “Fair” implies we have rights, and having rights leads to all sorts of hogwash, from syncretism to universalism. However, when we realize God is absolutely “just,” and that his justice demands penalty for sin, we see our need for a Savior, Jesus Christ, not so our life on earth is better, but so we are saved from the wrath to come. Enough. True believers who love Jesus Christ should be angered by Bell’s false teaching. We should call it what it is, heresy, say “No” to Nooma, and quit giving Bell the time of day.
The masses do not want to know that God Almighty is NOT fair. If He were, we would all go to hell. God is just. Fairness implies we have rights, our rights matter, and that Thanks to Zondervan for not publishing falsehood. That would have been a travesty.
Amen, my brother!
Thank you for defending truth with a well written and thought out review.
It does not matter how it is different from Lewis’ view….it only matters how it is different from the bible. That is the only truth….John 17:17Sanctify them through Your truth: Your word is truth.
Your logical dissection of this book is compelling. I enjoyed the review, and I guess it turns out that many of Rob Bell’s critics, though premature, were correct. However, I think it is worth considering what Bell is reacting against. Though the doctrine of hell is biblical and true, there is right and a wrong way to use it. If we paint the message that Jesus died to save us from God, which many do, then we’ve missed the biggest point of all: Jesus IS God, and defines what he is like. Hell IS the rejection of Jesus. God doesn’t force people into hell, they go there willingly because they can not stand the awful presence of God. He is not being vindictive, but merely conceding to our chosen disposition (doctrines of grace aside). I think Bell has failed to address the presentation on hell given by Tim Keller in his book. Though many might say Keller represents the fringe of orthodoxy on that point, I believe someone like Bell ought to give it serious consideration before throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
JMH, I for one am a “You haven’t even read it” person. And I think many of us have a valid point. Justin Taylor himself said that he jumped too early at calling Bell a universalist. Mohler gave an excellent blog on the dangers of Bell’s video, but Taylor wasn’t attacking the video primarily. He was attacking Bell and his execution of attack was poor.
I agreed with Taylor that most likely Bell’s book would be different from our theology, but I think his (along with Piper’s) response was not only premature, but immature.
Challies gives an excellent review and states the facts; Piper and Taylor seemed all to quick to push Bell off a cliff. Challies writes that this is grievous; Taylor and Piper showed no sign of grief or mourning for the loss of a strayed brother who is shepherding thousands.
It’s not that we “You haven’t even read it” folks were ALL taking Bell’s side theologically - it was that we were disappointed in the style of confrontation from the folks on the “Farewell Bell” side. It was neither godly nor edifying.
I, for one, will not be telling Taylor or Piper “they were right” for their behavior was very wrong.
Blessings brother.
Bell writes that the idea of hell is “devastating … psychologically crushing … terrifying and traumatizing and unbearable.” And to that I say, yes, absolutely… and that’s the point; and I think that was the point Jesus was getting across when He discussed it.
But it seems that because of a western, upper-middle-class emotional sympathy that cannot compute with that it means that it must be incorrect. And it seems that more and more read the Scriptures through this same emotional lens. A lot of people just don’t like the God, or Jesus, of the Scriptures.
JR,”it seems that more and more read the Scriptures through this same emotional lens.”
This is the key point in all of this postmodern liberalism Rob Bell espouses.
As far back as 13 years ago evangelical churches made a huge mistake exposing their Young Adult groups and Youth ministriesd to people like Bell’s friend, universalist Doug Pagitt.
In what’s now grown into a cult of neo-liberal/progressive pseudo-Christianity they were systematically deprogrammed from sola Scriptura to the emotional, highly subjective approach the Bible as you see with Rob Bell.
Sad to say, from monitoring websites covering this subject of Bell’s forthcoming book, the maojrity of people jumping to Bell’s defense are actually more evangelical than emerging.
Universalism usually stems from one’s view on Hell and/or the love of God.
What Rob misses, is that God does not “send” anyone to Hell. A person sends him or herself there. God believes in human freedom and values it so highly that he won’t “force” people to choose Him. After all, coerced love is no love at all.
This probably stems from his Calvinist background (Baptist) which emphasizes God’s sovereignty over against that of human freedom. Unfortunately, when one has believed that God picks and chooses whom he will save and whom he won’t, the contradiction in the character of God is obviously apparent. God, if he is all-powerful and if His will is that “none will parish” and there is no real such thing as “human free will”, then the obvious conclusion is that He wills to save everyone. Origen and many others have found this viewpoint throughout history. But if it alleviates some of the mental tension and anguish created by distorted doctrinal beliefs in the first place, than how can such a belief (universalism) be legitimate?
Rob more than likely doesn’t adhere to a literal view of Hell that consists of eternal punishment like most people throughout church history have believed.
I haven’t read the book, but by changing one’s view on Hell, it is easier for someone to reconcile with the seemingly apparent view of His sovereignty. Hell can be non-eternal (conditional/annihilationism), metaphorical (descriptions are figurative, not literal), or purgatorial (temporary giving God more time to pursue those who are not “holy enough” to enter his presence). All these views can be viewed in the book Four Views on Hell by William Crockett.
The question then becomes, if one doesn’t believe in the traditional view of Hell, does he really believe in Hell? The answer to some is yes, the answer to others is no.
I think you can believe in Hell without embracing a literal eternal torment. However, when so much of Scripture and tradition seems to support this view, where is someone far enough off course that he or she could be viewed as embracing an incorrect or false teaching?
I have enjoyed Bell’s books up to this point. He pushes the envelope and causes people to re-evaluate why they believe what they do. I pray and hope that his new book doesn’t have him departing from orthodox Christianity (which I don’t think he has yet done in his previous books) which would cause me to reconsider me endorsement of him as a good teacher of theology.
@Matt Dailey touched on another C.S. Lewis book, The Last Battle, but I think it deserves a closer look. [Spoilers ahead]
And let me make a big disclaimer first. I like Lewis. A lot. If you visit my house and check out my bookcases, you’ll see more works by CSL than any other single author. But his theology sometimes leaves a lot to be desired. A lot. One page, he’s hitting it out of the park, and the next page (or the next sentence!), he’s out in left field somewhere. This often leaves me scratching my head, but such is the case when reading Lewis.
There was a character in TLB named Emeth who served Tash, the antithesis of Aslan. At the end of the book, which was the end of time, at least in Narnia, Emeth wound up in “heaven” alongside all the other good Narnians. Aslan told him “all the service thou has done to Tash, I account as service done to me”. Emeth, you see, was not only a very faithful servent of Tash, but also he was a very honest and benelovant one too. Aslan also told him “unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.” This is not universalism, but, to me, it sure seems to resonate strongly with what Rob Bell said in the quotes above, like “And then he leaves the door way, way open”, “Sometimes people use his name; other times they don’t.”, “… the last thing they are inclined to name it is ‘Jesus.’”
Now concerning TLB, you can say “It’s only an allegory” till you’re blue in the face, but something tells me that if Rob Bell wrote such a fictional account, we evangelicals would be quite upset over it. That same something also tells me that you don’t reject this statement by Lucy in TLB as a mere allegorical device that points us to no *real* truth: “In our world too, a stable once had something inside it that was bigger than our whole world.” Same goes for Aslan in The Dawn Treader: “There [in England] I have another name. You must learn to know me by that name.”
Why does Lewis (almost) always get a free pass?
This review actually made me much more hopeful, and excited to read the book. I was raised a pretty orthodox evangelical and have been grappling with the bad news for some time now. I’ve considered outright abandoning Christianity for something more loving and fruitful. For some actual good news. So the hope that perhaps the man and the God I’ve devoted myself to are far more loving than I’ve been repeatedly taught is very reassuring. And well-timed, for me.
I don’t agree that universalism is a threat to virtue - an invitation to party since it doesn’t matter anyway. Can’t speak for anyone but myself, but the prospect that not only my friends but even my worst enemies will someday be perfected before God makes me want to serve Him with every ounce of my being. The prospect of Hell (as it’s usually understood) on the other hand, fills me with despair. I fear constantly that I may die having accidentally believed the wrong thing, or not said the right thing. And that despair has often led me into sin - from a sort of “what’s the point anyway?” attitude. The threat of going to Hell and suffering forever doesn’t scare me into following Jesus - it makes me want to give up.
I do think it’s important to define Hell, when you ask if someone believes in it. In the range of Christian literature I’ve read, I’ve seen a really broad spectrum of uses of the term. Personally, the best understanding of Hell that I’ve come to - the one that, in mind, helps me bear good fruit - is the kind of Hell we create on earth thru sin: Most obvious in war, concentration camps, factory farms, and devastated landscapes, but also in our hearts and neighborhoods. Hell is destruction and isolation. In the same way that the Kingdom of God is active in this world, being built up thru acts of love and forgiveness, Hell is also being built up, thru acts of hatred and apathy. Anyway, that notion of Hell (suggested in the works of Christian writers such as Shane Claiborne or Wendell Berry) is quite a bit different than a place of eternal torment where non-Christians go. So we ought to be clear about what we’re talking about. It is possible to believe in one and not the other.
Excellent review - thorough, reasoned, and biblical. Well done, guys!
re 133:The Greek word used in Matt.25:46 for eternal is “aionios” found in Strongs concordance #166 and means “Without beginning and end, that which Has always been and that which will always be”
This is a case of the doctrinal tail wagging the textual dog !!
“I’d like to think…” Of course, you’d like to think it’s different, or, at least, that it can be. So would I. The conflict arises from what we would “like to think”, and the way it really is in God’s Word.
Wide is the road that leads to destruction, and narrow is the gate that leads to life.
Thank you for the review. It confirms for me that I do not have to, or necessarily want to read through books just because they create controversy. Sounds like this one is best left alone. “Don’t waste your time reading good books, but do devote yourself to reading and rereading the best books.”
I think that comment was in relation to some of the comments that have had an “I told you so!’ air about them. While I don’t think we should glory in being right, those who have blasted the early commentators for making a judgement before reading the book need to acknowledge that the likes of Justin Tailor and Piper were corrct and that they weren’t just responding to the video, but a history and trajectory that the video and now the book confirmed.
not surprised by what the book seems to be saying.still sad though.
“As he makes his case, Bell seems to delight in being obtuse, ”
Seems to doesn’t he. He makes a lot of stuff up to.
Why do people flock to him? As a saint of Christ I desire, and even long, to know the Bible; and the deep things of Scripture. The Word of God, every book is a treasure to me. I long for teachers whom our Lord has appointed and set in the midst of His saints.Rob Bell is not one of these teacher, that’s certain to me.
Thanks for the well done review. You are an excellent writer, and you write from your heart with integrity and humility.
From the sound of it, Rob Bell’s beliefs fly in the face of a lot of Scripture. One quote says that Jesus is “as narrow as Himself and as wide as the Universe,” and he goes on to talk about how even though it’s Jesus saving people, there are a lot of different ways of finding Jesus. But Jesus said, not only, “I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except by Me,” (John 14:6), but also, “Narrow is the gate and difficult is the way that leads to life, AND THERE ARE FEW WHO FIND IT.” (Matthew 7:14) Like it or not, God did promise that there would be few who would enter in to eternal life. But to put into perspective how a loving God can punish people for eternity in hell, a couple of factors have to be considered. First, we are given the ability to choose God or not to choose God. Sure, the Holy Spirit must do a work in our hearts to make us able to choose Him, but the fact remains, that the choice is ours. And if we do not choose Him, there is only one alternative, and that’s eternity in hell. Second, and I have to give credit for this example to I believe it was Benjamin Nolot at the International House of Prayer, but I really liked it, so I’m going to use it. If a burglar breaks into your home and threatens your family, what are you going to do? Are you not going to defend them with any means possible, possibly even shoot them if you have a weapon available? And it’s not that you would necessarily shoot them out of hatred toward them, but out of love for your family, right? So do you think that God is going to let a bunch of unrepentant murderers, theives, liars, etc. come into His house and be with His family? No, He’s going kick them out into eternal punishment, not because He hates them, but because He loves His children and would not want to see them come to harm. The fact remains that there are some people who even if God appeared in front of them, would still choose to reject Him. In fact, I believe there are many people in this world of whom that is true. Another though, how is it that God best shows His love for us? Isn’t it by fighting for us? And if there were no enemy to fight and rescue us from, in what way would He best be able to show us His love? He laid down His life for us to rescue us from Satan, Sin, and Death. But there are also those people whom God has made as “vessels of wrath” (Romans 9:22) whom God uses to show His mighty power when He defeats them and takes His righteous vengance upon.Anyway, all that to say, that I love this review and I agree with the authors wholeheartedly, and I really hope that Rob Bell is shown the truth before it’s too late for him.
I would hardly call this book review by Tim “gossip”. Rob posted a public video to promote his book and I’m sure they knew exactly what the response would be. People were then given the chance to publicly express their comments and concerns. Because they had not read the book yet, they were publicly scrutinized for it, even if a pastor, a shepherd, concerned for believers being misled. Due to backlash, they then publicly stated that they would give it a fair trial and hope that they were wrong. Now that some have read the book and given direct quotations, at which point one can within reason come to a conclusion on the basis of the book, guys like Tim are still being scrutinized and called gossipers? I suppose everyone will have to personally contact Rob to confront him over these issues. Don’t cowardice behind Anonymous and then attack two people you don’t know much like your claim that Tim and Mike are doing to Rob. I think your questions are fine until you read the undertone and call them gossipers.
Rob Bell would have to say that he is does not believe in “Mans Free Will”. How may non-believers will be forced to spend eternity with some one in whom they do not believe and or have put their trust in! Better yet how many Muslim, Budhist, etc will have to do the same! God would be performing Spiritual rape-forcing men to believe-participate in His heaven :)
Brothers … if any of you are convinced that Bell is a heretic of the most vile sense — then please pray for him. Please. Pray for him.
Pray that God might restore him. Pray for those close to him who will be forced to confront him — to speak truth clearly. Pray that he chooses to listen. And pray for those who choose to follow him over Christ.
Regardless what happens, the true Christ will be glorified. The love the world speaks of does not win… Christ wins.
Universalism does not negate the need for Christ’s sacrifice. If anything, it proves Christ’s sacrifice is more powerful, more deep and wide than the pea brain ideas in the comments here who’d like to lock their little Jesus up and keep him safe to themselves. Their notion of his powerlessness is the kind that keeps them out of hell while they can keep their noses in the air and throw anyone who doesn’t agree with them word for word in a giant lake of fire forever.
Why is God great? Is God just great or is there a reason for God being great? Does God through the Bible tell us why He is Great? I think it might help us if we know why God is great and how God backs up the saying God is great.
How clear is the Bible about who goes to “Hell” and who goes to “Heaven”? Would we have to look at each person’s life, confession, relationships, brain activity to find out who is going to Heaven?
Number one, if God is great, He probably is a great judge.Number two, if God is great and He is a great judge - and I would argue the only God and the best judge - lets let Him judge.
Until God judges, maybe we should let Love Win in our hearts, lives, theology (love rejoices in the truth) and view of salvation. Maybe if we do that our lives will look more like Christ’s… And isn’t that the point?
Yes, I think I agree with this statement based on what the review says. “Radical Inclusivism” seems appropriate. If Bell believes that Jesus is the only true one who can bring salvation then “radical inclusivism” might be the best term. However, universalism is close as well. It depends, I think, on what his views are about those that hear of Jesus and still reject him. If he thinks that people can hear of Jesus, reject Him, and continue being Muslim, Hindu, etc., until they die and still to to heaven (whatever that is for Bell) then it probably is universalism. With Bell’s apparent vagueness its hard to tell. Either way, its heresy. I really appreciated the review!!!
How do we send a copy of this to Todd Friel at todd14@wretchedradio.com?
“How clear is the Bible about who goes to “Hell” and who goes to “Heaven”? ”
Pretty clear.
John 3:36
I’m sorry, but I don’t buy the notion that God does not force people to go to hell, that they choose to go there. The rich man in Luke 16 strikes me as someone who would give anything to get out of hell. Also the people in Matt. 7 are trying to protest the decision to go to hell. And “weeping and gnashing of teeth” is hardly indicative of people going to hell of their own free will. I do know that God does not send anyone to hell that is good, for “no one is good but God alone.” And I do know that people make volitional choices which determine their destiny. But people will not look at hell directly and say “That’s cool. I’d like to go there.” Certain foolish people may say something like that now, but that won’t be the case later.
Lewis wasn’t intending to present a theological argument about heaven and hell. He never claimed that it was supposed to be. The Great Divorce is about what keeps people from fully surrendering to God, not what heaven and hell are actually like.
My main thing is when Rob talked about the world needing to desperately hear the message of Jesus. Why does the world need to so desperately hear it if there’s no hell? If there’s no hell and everyone spend eternity in heaven, then there is truly no need for anyone to need to desperately hear the message.
I’ve read through all the comments (a daunting feat, in and of itself!) and so far haven’t come across a Scripture passage that surely acts as an admonishment to the “I’m just asking…!” crowd, i.e. 2 Timothy 3:6 “For among them are those who worm their way into households and capture idle women burdened down with sins, led along by a variety of passions, always learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth”.
Clearly we are, in fact, able to “come to a knowledge of the truth.”
Really excellent post, Tim. Thank you so much for your unstinting work for the Church.
I appreciate this, Adam. I’m in the process of examining, re-evaluating, and studying this subject and find that credibility is greatly undermined by those who adopt an “I told you so” position or who judged the book based on the video alone (which I do not find fault with. I’ve asked many of those questions myself). Speaking for myself and I hope for all who read the book, we genuinely desire to seek truth and listen to the Holy Spirit as we “test all things, hold fast the good.” A graceless approach is very off-putting and I would not be inclined to continue conversation or study with someone who as you stated, has such arrogance. My plea is that we, through humility, “bear with one another in love.”
(I refer to Adam and comment 41)
Great stuff Tim. Thanks.
The difference between Rob Bell and, Tentmaker’s, Gary Amirault is that Gary is not deceptive when he tells everyone that there is no Hell. Bell dances around it. When I hear either of them talk I am eerily reminded of a voice from the past saying “surely you will not die.”
How can *you* say it is “obviously a departure” if you haven’t read it?
On the backlash - I think it’s warranted. People like Piper (and his faithful followers) have deemed him a heretic based on vapor and teasers. The H-word is not something to be bandied about lightly.
This is an interesting article, as are some that counter Aaron’s argument. I think a few things. Before I start I’d like to say that I am very thankful for the ability we have to engage with each other in conversations that must be had. Learning comes from the conversation, not necessarily the conclusion.
1. It will be interesting to read and I think we should read it before dividing over it (in response to so many hate tweets that went out).
2. Aaron’s argument makes a statement that says: “Christians do not need more confusion. They need clarity.” I disagree with this. If this statement means that Christians need “teachers” to explain every nook and cranny of their faith to them then I completely disagree. I think confusion and questions are more important and inspire greater growth. I’d rather grapple with questions and confusion in order to reach conclusions (or not) in a greater way than be limited by the “clarity” or human made parameters of God offered by (sometimes unqualified) teachers.
3. I’m glad I don’t have to decide anything about heaven or hell to partake in engaging with God.
Interestingly enough, Greg Boyd (a link to his page comes a bit further) uses CS Lewis’ book “The Great Divorce” to bolster the “traditional” view of hell.
Quote/And if you want a sound defense of the tradition view of hell as eternal conscious suffering, see R. Peterson, Hell on Trial and (with an interesting twist) C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce./
Rob Bell’s doctrine and methods seem to be a syncretism of Zen Buddhism and Christianity. He often speaks in paradoxical statements like “He is as narrow as himself and as wide as the universe” (referring to Jesus). Such puzzling statements are like the riddles called koans in Zen Buddhism. A well known example is “what is the sound of one hand clapping?” Truth is not revealed, but supposedly self-realized during the process of enlightenment. I believe that is why you won’t get straight answers from Rob Bell.
In contrast, the teachings of Jesus are crystal clear. Even the parables of Jesus reveal a moral or religious truth that is clear for those who are in the kingdom of God, because “the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given” to them.
Really, really well done, brothers. Thanks to both of you.
1Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree of the garden’?”
“Rob Bell’s doctrine and methods seem to be a syncretism of Zen Buddhism and Christianity. ”
I’m sorry to say that I think you are right.
Christ and Christ ALONE, has always been the stumbling block.
“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.”
Challies didn’t use his aion interpretation without context. It was not his understanding of the word, but Bell’s, that was under scrutiny.
Second, the word aionios, which is like aidios, is almost always coupled with chronos or another qualifier giving force to its meaning, and is used by Jesus and the other writers of the NT, quite often, and often when describing both blessing and curse juxtaposed to one another. In fact in Matt. 25:46, the work is aionios, and not aion, nor aidios, is used. So there is no getting around it. It can only mean eternal damnation there by the meaning it gains in jusxtapostion to eternal life. Challies was accurate, you’re not, as he admitted that in certain contexts aion means a finite period of time, “The word’s context helps us to determine its meaning,” but that in others it takes on the meaning as deepened by the context of the entirety of Scripture. You show that you didn’t know what you’re talking about by referring to the use of aidios. Broaden your horizons. You missed a lot by not considering the full context.
But Jesus commands us to judge with righteous judgement.
Beside, the alternative is to remain silent, for anything we say renders a judgement.
This is not a private issue and so the confronting your brother first principle cannot apply. Public teaching was always confronted publicly!
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2011/02/28/bell-brouhaha/
thanks for the review. found it interesting and helpful, but would also take you back to your early comments about framing the argument. Rob Bell has never written in the style of linear theological arguments, but rather asked the questions and alluded to answers. so to take his text and contrast with linear theological arguments is to ‘frame the argument’ rather in your favour i would suggest. i love that these questions are being asked. i think it is great that this debate can be had, whichever conclusion you come to. I would encourage people to embrace he questions . what is most distressing is the hostile judgemental language that some use. for me response to that, please read jesus’ response to the pharisees in any of the gospels.i would encourage you to spend more time guarding your hearts and less time guarding your minds.
I have not read Bell’s book, so I am basing my understanding of his ideas solely on this review. However, I have read most of MacDonald’s books, and some of the ideas presented in this review do sound similar to MacDonald, but it sounds like Bell has pushed WAY farther than MacDonald ever intended. MacDonald does seem to have believed that, eventually, everyone would get to heaven. But, to my knowledge, he NEVER denied that the only way is through belief in Christ. Salvation comes through belief in Jesus, which he defined as recognizing that one has sinned against God, repenting of that sin, and following Jesus by being obedient to his teachings. MacDonald believed that it is only through the absolute surrender of the self to the will of God, something made possible by Christ’s death, that we get there.
He just didn’t believe that this life is the only chance people have. He believed in Hell. He believed that Hell is absolutely real, but he doubted that it is permanent. It’s purpose was to bring to the point of repentance and acceptance those who did not get there in this life. It might take untold millions of years for some people, but eventually, MacDonald thought that everyone would eventually repent and that a loving God would never reject true repentance even if it happened millions of years too late.
MacDonald argues his claim VERY logically and thoroughly (See the Unspoken Sermons). He doesn’t take shortcuts and he doesn’t cheat. He may be wrong in some of his conclusions (and as much as a part of me would like to believe he’s right, it does go counter to everything I’ve ever been taught), but he gets there honestly.
Bell has been manipulating us in his pre-launch of the book. To learn that manipulation is running through the book tells us that Bell has rejected love and turned to the manipulator himself - the devil.
Note WHERE in NYV he is pre-launching - at a Humanist temple!