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.

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.

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.

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/

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.

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.

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?

You made me laugh.

Uncharitable
Angry
Intellectually dishonest
A loser professor
All the above?