Having read
examined
and digested
this pamphlet in book’s clothing on my Kindle …
Where the publisher gouged me for more than the usual amount proving in publishing love may not always win, but Harper-Collins does.
I wondered if the older brother “getting it all” in the Father’s will made the prodigal son feel bad.
Would Bell have rebuked the Father for those words and told a better story?
And I realized that sin having forever consequences did not fit Bell’s message and so it was forgotten.
And I actually laughed out loud
LOL
Partied
Enjoyed
seeing Origen cited, that old neo-Platonist heretic,
who would be shocked to discover this world, sex affirming fellow giving him credit when normally Origen’s influence is derided by these same folk.
Origen would view Bell’s earthy and eternal heaven as hell.
Bell failed to note his views on hell are rejected by Orthodoxy, Rome, and every historic Protestant creed. Someone always had his view, but that someone was always rejected in the end by the folks and most of their shepherds.
I had one starting thought: Couldn’t all Bell’s arguments in favor of “leaving hell” also apply to heaven?”
If we can always join the party then can we always leave? Can’t his linguistic work be applied to Heaven?
Evidently Love “always winning” allows for historical evils which can never be changed… and that eternal fact is compatible with God winning, but not a human nature that cannot change after death. Evidently God can live with the eternal memory of the Fall and wounds on His hands, but not Hell or Love would lose.
Love always gets it’s way evidently… except right now when we can see what Love is doing.
My favorite part of the book is the use of anecdotes that shows the evil disagreeing with Bell has brought the folks… with strong language then used on those who used strong language.
I know a woman stalked by a lover who will not take “no” as “no” who will hear Bell and recoil in horror.
I once sat with a student escaping a church where the pastor sat on the edge of the stage and asked leading questions and loved Art and could swear and mocked his grandmother’s taste. That student wept to discover books with paragraphs
And exegesis
And arguments
And orthodoxy.
They would find a pastor like a Benedict, Bartholomew, or Billy Graham unafraid of questions but also giving clear answers.
But don’t take from this that I did not like Bell’s book. I just pose questions and wonder if he is repeating the mistakes of so many mainline groups that left them up to date and forever dated. Is his love more like Victorian cloying smothering than the ancient robust love that can say “no”and mean it?
Or not?
March 19th, 2011 | 1:28 pm | #1
This is definitely
one of the best
if not the best
review
of Bell’s book
I have read.
At least so far.
March 19th, 2011 | 2:54 pm | #2
Any takers when C. Ehrlich shows up to call JMR:
Uncharitable
Angry
Intellectually dishonest
A loser professor
All the above?
March 19th, 2011 | 5:53 pm | #3
Okay.
I must admit.
You made me laugh.
March 19th, 2011 | 7:14 pm | #4
JMR said,
‘…sin having forever consequences…’ And ‘failed to note his views on hell are rejected by Orthodoxy, Rome, and every historic Protestant creed.’
Having said all that, I’m sure the hell deniers who call themselves Christians, will find some plausible way without using any shred of Christian Scripture in support, to garner a lot of warm fuzzies that the God they worship in their world (whatever world that is) (remember we’re not the only ones in the universe) could never be like that. Impossible. Phone home?
March 19th, 2011 | 7:22 pm | #5
JMR,
You’re a better man than me. After skimming the book in a local bookstore, I could not bring myself to purchase it. It might be the equivalent of 2 grad papers in length although not in content.
I would say, though, that Bell’s views don’t seem all that controversial to me. At the end of the day, he is a synergist, not an Origenist.
He does hold out the idea of hell as a state of existence beyond this life and thus he is not a universalist. His real problem is that he is a good communicator with a pastor’s heart who is out of his depth on these issues.
March 19th, 2011 | 7:46 pm | #6
“Having said all that, I’m sure the hell deniers who call themselves Christians, will find some plausible way without using any shred of Christian Scripture in support, to garner a lot of warm fuzzies that the God they worship in their world (whatever world that is) (remember we’re not the only ones in the universe) could never be like that. Impossible. Phone home?”
While I’m not a universalist, I don’t think the only justification for universalism is the “warm fuzzy” desire to have no one hurt in the end. I’ve heard some decent (really only decent; nothing great) arguments for universalism, none that have to with merely trying to come up with a theory where no one gets hurt.
March 20th, 2011 | 12:27 am | #7
It’s hard to believe that the adulation in this thread is any more appropriate than the fanfare over Rob Bell’s little book. The mocking and dismissive tone of Mr. Reynolds’ rambling response does not merit celebration. If nothing else, Mr. Bell is pressing against a difficult doctrinal issue, asking his contemporaries to confront it. Since the doctrine of hell is indeed a serious and highly problematic issue for evangelicals, it is a shame that Mr. Bell hasn’t written a better book. But it is an even greater shame, and far less excusable, to find such childish responses to Mr. Bell’s attempt.
I expect Mr. Reynolds’ smitten fans to impulsively reject my comments. For those less smitten, I recommend what is looking to be a mature and productive contrast: http://shoredfragments.wordpress.com/
March 20th, 2011 | 9:33 am | #8
Nikolai,
I don’t think it’s really a matter of coming up with a theory where no one gets hurt. My point was in relation to Bell and Love Wins, and others who hold to the position that God would never be so unloving to send someone to a place of eternal damnation and gnashing of teeth, would he? That’s not the God they worship. Yet JMR rightly points out in the article above that this view of ‘no hell’ is rejected by Orthodoxy, Rome, and every historic protestant creed. You cannot find a shred of evidence in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures that there will be no hell, quite the opposite, the Scriptures are full of references to hell, Jesus making most of the references Himself. Thus this ‘no hell’ view is rightly condemned and labeled heresy.
March 20th, 2011 | 4:28 pm | #9
Cute.
March 20th, 2011 | 4:56 pm | #10
In other news Eugene Peterson and Richard Mouw laud the book and extol Bell’s orthodoxy. Hhhhmmmm, Eugene Peterson and Richard Mouw vs John Mark Reynolds…who should I care about more…?
March 20th, 2011 | 5:37 pm | #11
My simple point:
The Church East and West overwhelmingly believed hell was a place of eternal punishment. Any form of universalism was almost unknown until recent times.
Creedal statements make this clear.
I take my stand with the Church historic.
March 20th, 2011 | 9:17 pm | #12
My simple point:
I don’t disagree on the Church’s historic position on universalism.
And there are two solidly “orthodox” evangelical leaders who do not find that Bell’s book contradicts this position.
So all I’m suggesting is that you may not be reading the book as closely as they are. Or at least that there are other ways to read it.
March 20th, 2011 | 9:43 pm | #13
[...] John Mark Reynolds over at Evangel does his best Rob Bell impression. [...]
March 21st, 2011 | 10:58 am | #14
[...] John Mark Reynolds [...]
March 21st, 2011 | 1:57 pm | #15
Tony:
In the interviews I have read Peterson does not in fact say he agrees with Bell, just that Bell is a great guy, a Christian, and we should discuss things.
He even says he disagrees with some parts of the book.
The term “universalism” is ambiguous as Bell uses it (or as I use it). It could refer to being saved without Jesus and Bell is not doing that. It could refer to “everyone goes to heaven in the end” and Bell seems (?) to believe that. At least the burden of his argument is showing that this is likely. . .
I agree with Peterson that Rob Bell is a Christian, a good guy, and has brought up an important topic. I don’t see much else that he has said.
March 23rd, 2011 | 9:20 am | #16
“pamphlet in book’s clothing” Now THAT is devastating!
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact