Eugene Peterson wrote a blurb for Rob Bell’s new book on hell.
His comments in a recent interview are worth noticing, because it points to a problem. He is careful not to agree with Bell, but makes it very hard to disagree with him.
Rob Bell has views that are (at least) similar to those that early founders of Evangelicalism explicitly rejected (as their college creeds indicate). Now the Evangelical founders may have been wrong, but Bell is disagreeing with them at one of the points where they agreed with the vast majority of the Christian tradition.
Rome agrees. Orthodoxy agrees. Evangelicals all agreed that hell was a place of eternal torment. Bell (perhaps?) does not agree. Noticing this shift is not bad manners and disagreement that is not stronger than Bell’s own language (or that of Jesus) can be pretty potent!
Here are some comments on the interview. I have added (Question:) to indicate questions given to Peterson, (Peterson:) to show his response, and (JMNR:) to indicate my comment.
Now the interview:
Question: What are your thoughts regarding Rob Bell’s book and the controversy it ignited? What inspired you to endorse the book?
Peterson: Rob Bell and anyone else who is baptized is my brother or my sister. We have different ways of looking at things, but we are all a part of the kingdom of God.
JMNR: Peterson is framing the issue as if disagreeing with Bell means you think him damned. No man is competent to say who is damned, but we may be competent to decide which views are damnable.
Bell says he is a Christian. As I hope people do with my own claims, I take him at his word. He has written a book, however, presenting questions, claims, exegesis, and arguments.
If one thinks some of his claims are false, his exegesis sometimes bad, and his arguments unsound, the critic need make no arguments about Bell’s personal salvation. His views can be wrong without the man being evil.
If as Bell points out, good people can do bad things, then good people can also believe bad things.
Peterson: And I don’t think that brothers and sisters in the kingdom of God should fight. I think that’s bad family manners.
JMNR: Rob Bell has written a book that is hard toward those who don’t agree with him. His rhetoric is loaded from the start. This is fine, but to complain when people make strong arguments back is inconsistent. Jesus used tough rhetoric so I am not complaining, but do think it weird for defenders of Bell to become faint over parodies or pointed questions.
Heated argument is not “fighting.” No blood is flowing.
Bell called for a discussion. He says his views are Biblical and claims they are historical. (Origen!) Disagreeing is not fighting.
Peterson: I don’t agree with everything Rob Bell says.
JMNR: It would be helpful to know exactly “what” Peterson disagrees with.
I am sure Peterson is not doing this, but blurbs like this can sound like the college president who agrees with a controversial faculty member, but doesn’t want to lose a donor. He lets the faculty member take the hits and then stands on the sidelines.
Peterson: But I think they’re worth saying. I think he puts a voice into the whole evangelical world which, if people will listen to it, will put you on your guard against judging people too quickly, making rapid dogmatic judgments on people. I don’t like it when people use hell and the wrath of God as weaponry against one another.
JMNR: I read Bell’s book. As a former Anglican, I have heard all this multiple times in my own forty-odd years. Can Peterson point to one thing Bell says that is different than what has been said by universalists since Victorian times? Isn’t the only thing new “who” is saying it (a popular preacher who is Evangelical) and not what is said?
Is the Evangelical church such a cult of personality that old ideas from cool people are suddenly worth hearing?
I challenge anyone to find anything new in Bell that has not been better said in scholarly and popular books in the past.
The book is not about “rapid dogmatic” judgments. It is about the afterlife. Nobody should make rapid dogmatic judgments. My considered, Socratic judgment is that Bell has written a book that adds little but sound to a serious issue. His views are not new and have been rejected by the mainstream of the Church on countless occasions.
Peterson: I knew that people would jump on me for writing the endorsement. I wrote the endorsement because I would like people to listen to him. He may not be right. But he’s doing something worth doing.
JMNR:
Exactly what is he doing worth doing? I am not jumping on the endorsement Professor Peterson if you can tell me why I should listen to Bell. Is his scholarship impressive? Is his exegesis? Is he a great writer? Why is an attack on eternal punishment worth doing?
Peterson: There’s so much polarization in the evangelical church that it’s a true scandal. We’ve got to learn how to talk to each other and listen to each other in a civil way.
JMNR: I agree.
But Peterson cannot think all “polarization” bad or there would not be an Evangelical (as opposed to say Roman) Church.
Charity doesn’t mean we cannot have hard talk . . . just no tougher than Jesus.
In philosophy we will use tough talk and then go have drinks. . . and that is a good model.
Bell has written a book that leaves the impression that he thinks hell is impermanent. I stand with the Pope, the Ecumenical Patriarch, the Councils, Billy Graham, the Founders of Biola . . . and almost everybody else in Church History in saying, “We have thought about that, heard the arguments, and reject it.”
What has Bell added that is new for me to consider? George McDonald even told the story better. If he did not convince me, Bell never will.
Question: Do evangelicals need to reexamine our doctrines of hell and damnation?
Peterson: Yes, I guess I do think they ought to reexamine. They ought to be a good bit more biblical, not taking things out of context.
JMNR: Who could be against this? Is the use of the Prodigal Son story by Bell an example of good use of Scripture and taking things in context?
Peterson: But the people who are against Rob Bell are not going to reexamine anything. They have a litmus test for who is a Christian and who is not. But that’s not what it means to live in community.
JMNR:
I am not against Bell. I like the fact he has helped people I know. I like his style. I like some of what he says. I like his glasses, but I dislike this book and these views. They are wrong and the Church has condemned them multiple times, in multiple places, at multiple times.
Of course, that assumes one can get to his views in a book so vaguely written that it is hard to be sure. I am assuming Bell thinks Hell is not a place of eternal torment of men who are aware of their state. He also thinks that one can “leave” hell. Both ideas have been tried many times and found (generally) wanting, though the first view is vague enough to depend on how it is teased out.
I will reexamine everything and do. Every year I try to challenge my most basic beliefs, but it takes a new idea to challenge those beliefs. Rob Bell has said nothing new.
To live in a community means to have no “litmus test?” What does this mean? Can one believe just anything and be in community? Can one deny that Jesus is Lord knowingly and be in communion with a Church community? What is this community?
A litmus test is after all a valuable thing for telling what is acid and what is base. Some people misuse a test, but some tests help define the bounds of community and help us choose.
Peterson: Luther said that we should read the entire Bible in terms of what drives toward Christ. Everything has to be interpreted through Christ. Well, if you do that, you’re going to end up with this religion of grace and forgiveness. The only people Jesus threatens are the Pharisees. But everybody else gets pretty generous treatment. There’s very little Christ, very little Jesus, in these people who are fighting Rob Bell.
JMNR: Those certainly are not fighting words or judgmental words Professor Peterson. Disagreeing strongly with Bell means we have very little of Christ? Is that a litmus test?
Preach Jesus. See Jesus. Love Jesus. Jesus is full of grace, love, and forgiveness. His is also King, Warrior, and Judge. He is just and holy. He offers all sinners a chance to repent, but he stands in judgment to all sinners.
The notion that Jesus only threatens “Pharisees” is absurd. The Communist who rejected God and Jesus and killed millions in the name of science and Marx is threatened by Jesus. The whoremonger is cast into the lake of fire. The liar goes to Hell. The person who hates goes to hell. Many people go to hell, including the pharisaical.
There is no doubt that my own soul is dirty. Every day and every hour I pray, “Lord Jesus Christ son of God have mercy on me a sinner.”
That is not incompatible with saying Bell’s book is no good and Peterson’s defense fatuous. That is too bad, because from what I can see both Bell and Peterson are great men wasting time on a bad cause.
March 20th, 2011 | 7:28 pm | #1
Now having read about half of Bell’s book, I’m really not sure why so much ink has been spilled by so many over so sophomoric a work. Better men than Bell have addressed the question of eternal punishment and been given considerable latitude for speculation as long as they have remained within the parameters of the theoretical. Bell’s worst transgression, it would appear, is presumptuousness and an inflated sense of his own importance.
March 20th, 2011 | 7:32 pm | #2
JMR,
I guess you think Rob Bell does endorse universalism, which I do not. I have said this elsewhere, but Bell is using a rhetorical strategy that he has effectively honed in oral contexts. Part of the problem is that such a strategy does not translate well into a written format. The formatting of the book itself is patterned on mimicking the oral context with its pregnant pauses, etc. Again, it makes Bell look elementary in his approach because the format does not translate.
In the chapter the deals most with Origen, Bell actually seems to reject the universalist option in the final few pages where he says that a better question is not whether God gets what God wants, but whether people get what they want. Bell seems to suggest that they do.
So, I would say that a) Bell wants a view of hell more closely connected to free agency; b) in good synergist fashion he wants to say that humans create their own hell and thus hell is more a state than a place; c) he wants more continuity with the kinds of earthly “hells” people create by their destructive behavior and “hell” in the afterlife; d) he wants speculation on the destiny of any single human being like Socrates, et al. after they die to end.
Bell is doing what so many synergists have done before him. He is rejecting penal substitutionary models of the atonement because they link up to divine wrath and juridical models of salvation. Instead, he is calling for therapeutic models of salvation that would fit more naturally with Christus victor ideas of the atonement.
This, it seems to me, is all Bell is saying if you read between the mush and rhetoric. Admittedly you’ve got to look hard, but it’s there, and it means he is no heretic.
March 20th, 2011 | 8:16 pm | #3
I hope you are right.
I don’t think so, however. The entire force of his argument and rhetoric runs the other way. For example, in one weird exegetical moment he points to the fact that the gates of the eternal city are “open” and allows that this means people can always choose to enter.
I think he believes (though the book is so badly written that it is hard to be sure) that people can (and some do) “leave” hell. He seems to have adopted the notion of a voluntary time in purgatory without calling it that . . . and without any sacramental idea of who ends up there.
For over a century the majority of the Advent Christian community (the church where I was baptized) taught “short hell” and made exactly arguments like those Bell makes. I love and admire and owe a great debt to many of those folk. Quite a few are so much better people than I am that it is amazing.
My point in saying this is that the reason Bell concerns me is that either:
1. he has written a book so badly that he appears to endorse ideas he does not believe
OR
2. he endorses bad ideas.
Look I teach and write Socratically all the time, but try to make it clear what I actually think as well. Sometimes I fail. All this could be cleared up by Bell saying, “Some people are condemned to Hell and will stay there forever by their own choice. Judas is a good candidate given what Scripture says of him.”
March 20th, 2011 | 8:22 pm | #4
Mr. Gibson,
I wanted to add something about Bell and why I wrote on him.
I am for theological speculation. I encourage it. I applaud it. However, pop works are not a great place to do it as speculative ideas are easy to misunderstand.
A second problem is that if I believe in God in three persons and then speculate on a non-Trinitarian view, this is healthy. What would not be healthy would be to reject Trinatarian beliefs and then write in a manner where nobody was quite sure whether I had or had not rejected them.
Every year some Torrey class examines views like Bells or C.S. Lewis and discusses them. We are all tempted by them at some point or another. We wonder if they are right. . . . pretending that such discussions is new or needed courage is ludicrous. I assure you that Socratically I have made these challenges every year to thoughtless students and my job is not at risk and nobody is protesting the exercise.
Bell, however, has gone all over television and left secular folk thinking that belief in eternal punishment is a bad idea. That is too bad and not helpful.
March 20th, 2011 | 8:25 pm | #5
Dale,
I may have caused some confusion by my use of the term “universalism.” Bell does not think that one can be saved by any name but that of Jesus. He is brave and right to take this un-PC stand. (His Christology is confusing, but that is different.)
By universalism I meant: all men will (universally) eventually go to the City of God and no men will (likely) be punished forever.
If this was an eccentric definition of the term, I hope this clarifies my beliefs.
March 20th, 2011 | 9:23 pm | #6
JMR,
Ultimately, the problem it seems to me is that Bell is writing theological goo.
This allows for multiple interpretive trajectories depending upon a) how you understand his rhetorical strategy and b) what statements you place the most weight on.
I admit that I have not read this book carefully. I just can’t bring myself to do more than skim it because it’s too painful an experience. And I’ve only done this in the local bookstore; I can’t pay money for something like this.
But, it does seem to me that Bell’s rhetorical strategy is to complicate issues by posing all kinds of questions and then offering alternative points of view. I think his ultimate aim is to paint a picture of Christianity broad enough to allow different folks to find themselves.
In light of this strategy I noticed that Bell sneaks in toward the end of the chapters where he lands in so many words.
So, in the chapter on hell, he pursues a line of questioning centered on what pastoral counsel one might give to the parents of a daughter who has been raped. Do you tell the parents that the rapist will not face justice? He concludes the chapter by saying that we need to keep hell because it conveys in graphic terms the need for justice in this world.
Now, if you put that together with statements that are laced throughout the book from chapter 4 on in which Bell says that God’s love can be resisted and that God’s love respects human freedom, then there is a trajectory toward the conclusion I outlined above.
I would place all the other statements in the Bell rhetoric category, i.e., to complicate the issue by offering alternative view points. I would add that Bell did explicitly disavow universalism of the variety you have in mind in the interview with Martin Bashir.
And, one more note, a heretic is technically someone who willfully persists in a theological deviation even after examination by a group of theologians and bishops. If the person says he does not hold to something, normally the questionable work would be burned and that would settle it. Bell says he is not a universalist. Shouldn’t we take him at his word if we can make what he says fit with an interpretive trajectory in the book?
March 20th, 2011 | 9:29 pm | #7
Let me add one thing. Bell may very well hold to Lewis’ version of events in The Great Divorce, and thus may have endorsed a version of purgatory. But this still does not put him outside of the broad tradition, only an oddity in evangelicalism. In other words, I would not call my Catholic brothers and sisters heretics because they hold to purgatory.
March 21st, 2011 | 12:21 am | #8
Dale,
That all seems helpful.
I think Bell shifts his terms enough that your reading is possible. Again, I hope you are right, but still am unpersuaded given his last chapter.
If all he is saying, is: let’s think about some ideas, then this is just a badly written Torrey freshman paper. I refuse to believe a seminary trained man could be that unclear on his own views.
John Mark
March 21st, 2011 | 2:06 am | #9
I just purchased the book and began reading it; indeed, it seems like he’s edging universalism, despite the specific claim he made in the Bashir interview to the contrary. He says he’s not a universalist, so that leaves me to a few possibilities, a few of which JMR has pointed out:
(1) He could be equivocating on the word “universalism,” and is rejecting a notion of that doctrine that the people who are attacking him for it are against (which seems unlikely);
(2) He knows universalism, disagrees with it, and is trying as hard as he can to get his point across without totally sounding like a universalist (which is what I’m trying to find evidence for, but am currently not succeeding);
(3) He is a universalist.
It’s either (2) or (3), but I’m about a fourth into the book and I’m sadly getting more of (3). I’m inclined to agree with JMR on the fact that it’s unlikely that he’s that unclear on his beliefs. While Bell’s views toe over to the “unorthodox” side of Christianity, I am aware that he is a highly educated Christian and I doubt he’s confused on this matter.
What I find interesting about the book is the soteriological concepts he’s reacting against. The reason he seems (or is) so universalist is that he rejects the notion of only a “select few” getting into heaven. NOT TRYING TO START A CALVINIST DEBATE, I repeat NOT, but that seems more of a Reformed conception of the afterlife, and it’s not a conception that I ascribe to. I don’t believe only “a select few” get into heaven, but I also don’t believe that all, including the devil (Origen’s view) will be saved. However, I don’t see those as the only two options. I suppose then, I have a problem with how Bell frames the issue of heaven and hell, as if those two were the only soteriological frameworks that God could operate on.
And to echo another comment of JMR: Bell’s prose is reeks of hipster-ness and is kind of irking, given that I was not one who was swayed by the NOOMA series and this reads like a transcript to an unaired NOOMA special on heaven and hell. Not the most engaging of reads. Although I must say, the packaging of the book is quite lovely. The dust sleeve is actually not annoying.
March 21st, 2011 | 2:06 am | #10
Sadly, a Calvinist debate will probably start. But hey, such is the nature of blog comment sections.
March 21st, 2011 | 8:35 am | #11
Well, I tried. Thanks for your engagement John Mark.
I am afraid that I have come to the end of my knowledge of the book. To engage further would require another tour of those pages, which I am disinclined to do.
I wonder, and this is only a wistful musing, if Rich Mouw supports Rob Bell because he has had enough personal conversations to know what Bell is trying to say, even if Bell does not say it well.
In conclusion, I really do think Bell likes the rhetorical strategy of asking provocative questions that push people, and I do think the book is modeled on the oral context from which this strategy stems. I note that Bell’s preview “ad” in which he talks about the book is straight out of the first chapter or introduction (I can’t remember). If you compare the “commercial” with the lines in the book, you can see how the oral context brings the words to life in a way that simply does not happen in the book.
This also explains to my mind why Bell does not do well in interviews. He seems to prefer the “high” rhetoric of the monologue where he can soar on lofty vocabulary to the “low” craft of debate in which words are dissected and beauty sacrificed.
Thanks again for the exchange, from east coast to west coast and back again.
March 21st, 2011 | 11:11 am | #12
Well said.
March 21st, 2011 | 12:08 pm | #13
In light of the other books that Mr. Bell has written, it’s hard to believe this man has an orthodox view about anything at all.
And I’m sorry, but the more I read and learn of him, the more I wonder whether or not this man is actually a Christian. Charity in judgment is good, but there comes a point when charity must give way to evidence.
To tell the truth, I get the impression that Bell is flirting with universalism, but backpedaled on it when called on the carpet, like Joel Osteen did after his interview with Larry King, in which he waffled on whether or not trusting in Christ for salvation was the only way to God.
March 21st, 2011 | 12:24 pm | #14
“Everything has to be interpreted through Christ. Well, if you do that, you’re going to end up with this religion of grace and forgiveness. The only people Jesus threatens are the Pharisees. But everybody else gets pretty generous treatment.”
John 3:18 says “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” The test for who bears the wrath is not if your are a Pharisee not. The test is whether or not you believe in Jesus. Everybody who believes in Jesus will not go to hell, everybody who doesn’t will. It’s sad to see how these simle biblical truths get twisted by these teachers that so many respect and follow. Revelation shows Jesus as the final judge, standing over the eternal punishment Himself, vindicating His own glory for eternity.
March 21st, 2011 | 12:37 pm | #15
“Sadly, a Calvinist debate will probably start. But hey, such is the nature of blog comment sections.”
Yes, especially when one person presents a caricature of reformed theology immediately before claiming they don’t want that debate. It’s like saying, “Seems to me the Catholics are basically Nazis, but I don’t want to start a Catholic debate. Sadly, some of you cretins are probably going to start one now.” It’s already started, and you started it!
“the notion of only a “select few” getting into heaven… seems more of a Reformed conception of the afterlife”
The word “seems” suggests confirmation bias. “I don’t like such-and-such, therefore I bet those calvinists believe it!”
I’m reformed, and yes, I would affirm the “elect” part, but as for the “few” part, it’s speculative at best. We don’t know what the proportions of saved/lost are or will be. 50-50? 70-30? 20-80? The only real related text is Jesus’ statement Matt 7:14 which I don’t think is a statement on the relative populations of heaven and hell, but rather an observation that falsehood is easy and popular and truth is difficult and “uncool”.
Ultimately, yes, many will be lost, but many will also be saved, and we cannot really speculate on the proportions. Indeed, Scripture assures us that an innumerable throng of the redeemed, from every tongue, tribe, and nation, will be worshiping before the throne.
March 21st, 2011 | 12:39 pm | #16
I don’t doubt Bell’s Christianity. His stand for Jesus as the only way is brave in his social context.
I know he has helped people I could not with my more inflexible (sounding?) orthodoxy. If he keeps some in the Faith, then blessings. I don’t like C.S. Lewis view of the Bible much at all, but still admire the man greatly.
Rob Bell is a confusing writer, muddled thinker, and has a dim grasp on Church history, but friends say he is an excellent pastor. Fuller made him ready to preach and comfort, it just did not make him ready to think.
March 21st, 2011 | 12:44 pm | #17
To me, one of the major issues is the fact that Rob Bell is a pastor. He’s supposed to speak with clarity, not ambiguity in a cutesy art form that will attract people. It is a great disservice to his congregation and the church as a whole.
And an excellent post there, Mark. It doesn’t seem that complicated, does it.
March 21st, 2011 | 1:01 pm | #18
Perhaps Bell is, indeed, weaving a more orthodox tale hidden in the midst of vaguely written arguments… but I don’t think so. Rob Bell knows his audience, and he knows that the vast majority of them already begin with negative presuppositions of church, Christians, and judgment. He writes for the popular audience (nothing wrong with that as long as you are writing truth) and knows that his arguments will be taken at face value. To an audience that is cynical towards the pharisaical and desirous that ALL APPEARANCES of truth be given equal credence, he offers them the same hope that he apparently believes Jesus had for the city of Sodom (in one moment of bad exegesis he suggests that Jesus was talking about Sodom getting a second chance when He said that it would be more tolerable for Sodom at judgment than for Capernaum).
Many, many folks will read this. Just because it’s a popular work doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be taken seriously. That’s why so many have correctly refuted Bell’s arguments.
March 21st, 2011 | 2:09 pm | #19
“I’m reformed, and yes, I would affirm the “elect” part, but as for the “few” part, it’s speculative at best. We don’t know what the proportions of saved/lost are or will be. 50-50? 70-30? 20-80? The only real related text is Jesus’ statement Matt 7:14 which I don’t think is a statement on the relative populations of heaven and hell, but rather an observation that falsehood is easy and popular and truth is difficult and “uncool”.”
I apologize on the “few” part; that was my error for not correcting that. I’m aware that Reformed beliefs do not have it that only a few people are saved; my thought was more on the “select” part. I wasn’t trying to caricature Reformed theology; I was just noticing that Bell was responding to one conception of salvation that doesn’t necessarily speak to all of Christianity. Thank you for pointing that out.
And it is far too true that often the truth is uncool. This is why the Emergent Church movement often runs into problems: that movement tries so hard to be cool that it’s unclear if they are actually getting at the truth. Only time will tell, I suppose.
March 21st, 2011 | 4:12 pm | #20
Rob Bell is drawing non academics and those that would normally not look into theology into the subject and this is a very good thing. What makes his approach special is that he doesn’t make the conclusion for you, but trusts that every person that thoughtfully looks at the information will be able to form their own conclusion. Most preachers don’t trust that their congregant’s have the capacity to do this.
March 21st, 2011 | 4:54 pm | #21
This is getting said a lot around the internet these days, but I’ll say it again. I’m not someone who’s read the book, so I’m just going based on what I’ve seen and heard in interviews, blogs, reviews, etc.
I’ve never been a particular fan of Rob Bell’s, though not an anti-fan either. Just not particularly interested.
I’ve found this whole uproar immensely frustrating, however, and I’m generally with Eugene Peterson on this one.* However, I think my understanding of what’s being said by Peterson are somewhat different.
The problem here, isn’t criticism of Bell’s views. I disagree with them. The problem as I see it, is the quickness to jump to calling him a heretic. People have been accusing him of heresy, and claiming that what he says utterly undermines the gospel and destroys Christ. Kevin DeYoung’s review says “one of the reasons the blogosphere exploded over this
book, is that we really do have two different Gods”(DeYoung).**
When you say someone is a heretic, you might not be questioning their Christianity, but a lot of what’s being said very much is. I could be wrong though.
I also think that Bell’s clarified universalism versus a classic universalism is extremely important. The first view is certainly not typical in Christian history, but it does at least fall broadly within the scope of orthodoxy, in that Bell could still affirm the creed, I doubt a full-blown universalist could.
Regarding the muddiness of Bell’s claims, I’d like to quote something Greg Boyd said (perhaps not the best person to quote given many think him a heretic, but whatever) “Rob is first and foremost a poet/artist/dramatist who has a fantastic gift for communicating in ways that inspire creativity and provoke thought. Rob is far more comfortable (and far better at) questioning established beliefs and creatively hinting at possible answers than he is at constructing a logically rigorous case defending a definitive conclusion” (Greg Boyd). This seems accurate to me, and it seems like a lot of people are responding as if he were trying to be a systematic theologian.
In the end, I think my frustration with what’s been going on is that people seem to be appropriating the word “heresy” to simply mean “doctrine I don’t like.”
When I read Peterson’s interview, I felt like he was giving voice to these concerns.
I do want to close by saying that, of all the criticisms of Bell I’ve read in the past week, yours is the one I have found most reasonable. It’s certainly worlds better than that absurd Bashir interview.
*I think his comment saying Bell’s opponent’s have “very little Christ” in them is completely uncalled for.
** Another thing going on in this whole uproar, beneath the accusations that Bell is a universalist, is that Piper’s crowd is very upset that Bell would dare to question penal substitution. DeYoung says “The bad news of our wrath-deserving wretchedness is so absent that the good news of God’s wrath-bearing Substitute cannot sing in our hearts.” There seems to be an underlying thought that penal substitution is the only orthodox view of the atonement, which is certainly isn’t.
March 21st, 2011 | 5:14 pm | #22
J. Dean said,
To tell the truth, I get the impression that Bell is flirting with universalism, but backpedaled on it when called on the carpet, like Joel Osteen did after his interview with Larry King, in which he waffled on whether or not trusting in Christ for salvation was the only way to God.’
” I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me’ (John 14:6).
” He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him”(John 3:36).
Could Christ have said it any clearer?
March 21st, 2011 | 5:28 pm | #23
You wrote: “In philosophy we will use tough talk and then go have drinks. . . and that is a good model.”
I think you have modelled this well here. Thanks.
March 21st, 2011 | 5:51 pm | #24
P.S. I was speaking of Bashir’s interview of Bell, not what Bashir said when he was being interviewed.
March 21st, 2011 | 7:26 pm | #25
Eugene Petersen: “But he’s doing something worth doing.”
JMNR: “Exactly what is he doing worth doing?”
I just love this question by JMNR!
In a way, Eugene Petersen is being vague and ambiguous like Rob Bell.
March 21st, 2011 | 8:40 pm | #26
I thought your running comments on Peterson’s words were excellent.
There is a time and a place for a Eugene Peterson. His gifts include breaking down barriers to the gospel and expanding us out of narrow categories of thought that cut us off from other believers both now and in history.
However, when we are approaching a theological cliff, we do not need a Eugene Peterson with his “expansive” vision. We need scholars and theologians (including pastors) whose gifts can penetrate the fog and show us the consequences of where we are heading.
Sure, these ideas have all been heard before and have been rejected by orthodox thinking Christians of many confessions. But many do not recognize this and to them they seem new, hip, and attractive. In this context endorsements of the book by people of the stature of Peterson (and Mouw for that matter) are not helpful.
March 22nd, 2011 | 2:58 am | #27
I, too, like Bell’s glasses.
@Greg Williams: Well, should most preachers trust their congregations that much? :)
March 22nd, 2011 | 1:58 pm | #28
Greg Williams, pastors are shepherds caring and protecting their flocks, not merely spiritual advisers hired by a congregation. At least they should be. This means certain conclusions are not left for individuals to figure out on their own. I can get that from the internet.
March 22nd, 2011 | 2:01 pm | #29
Hmm that wasn’t clear; to rephrase:
Greg Williams, pastors are shepherds caring for and protecting their flocks, not merely spiritual advisers hired by a congregation. At least they should be shepherds. This means certain conclusions are not left for individuals to figure out on their own. I can participate in that unauthoritative mode of learning on the internet.
March 25th, 2011 | 3:08 pm | #30
http://rogereolson.com/2011/03/25/the-promised-response-to-bells-love-wins/
March 25th, 2011 | 5:02 pm | #31
Professor Olson managed to see Bell as a non-universalist. I hope he is right, but the book is unclear as are Bell’s later comments. Professor Olson unhappily continues the tradition of simply labeling those who disagree a “neo-fundamentalist” or whatever the buzz word is of the moment.
I read the book. The entire thrust of the book is to argue that (possibly) hell can be “exited” . . . and not just “if” but when. There are some disclaimers, but Bell could end much of the confusion today by saying: “I think Scripture teaches that some are damned for eternity. Judas is a good candidate.
As to C.S. Lewis. . . many of us who appreciate Lewis disagree with him. He was trying to move the Church away from the liberalism of his day. Sometimes his movement was not far enough. . . other times he picked the wrong target.
Olson and Bell like the parts of Lewis that most traditional Christian have liked least. We gave him a pass because his instincts were never to side with the trimmers or the fashionable but to defend the mainstream Faith.
Whatever fights happened in a seminary long ago and far away, I have little sympathy for narrow people on the right or the left. This is a narrowness in me that I will try to get over by the end of Lent.
March 26th, 2011 | 3:19 am | #32
I think that one can make a credible case that, the notion of universal salvation, is consistent with the bible. Clearly, Jesus talks about people, who don’t repent, going to “Hell”. But there’s no reason to believe that this place, will be occupied, by its residents, forever.
One could argue that Hell is a place, where sinful people go, to be redeemed, similar to Catholicism’s notion of a purgatory. Indeed, Hell would be indistinguishable from purgatory, in that both contain individuals, who will eventually reach heaven.
To argue that some people are forever lost, seems to restrict God’s salvific power. If God (through Christ’s resurrection) saves, this saving power is not contingent on anything outside itself. Hans Urs von Balthasar, the swiss Catholic twentieth century theologian, argues that, Christ’s salvation, may extend to all, and we should hope that it does.
Some argue that, due to God’s respect for our freedom, He allows people to choose Hell. But if one is choosing something that is, without doubt, the worst possible choice, one could ever make, in one’s life, it cannot possibly be in one’s interest, to have this radical form of freedom.
March 26th, 2011 | 11:28 am | #33
Bret, you also thought one could make a credible case in favor of Mormonism, which is entirely contradictory to the “credible case” you think can be made for universalism. You keep repeating, “One could argue…” and “some argue.”
Your credibility suffers badly from this.
One could also argue in favor of mass suicide of virtually all humanity (this “one’s” name is Eric Pianka, in case you’re wondering). My point? “One could argue” means nothing. For every conceivable viewpoint there’s someone who “could argue.” Therefore, that “one could argue” for viewpoints x and y tells us nothing about whether x is relatively wiser or more foolish than y. x could be utterly inane and idiotic and still have “one” arguing for it.
So I have real trouble taking any of your arguments seriously because (a) so often you refuse to own them for yourself, but attribute them to “one” or “some,” and (b) you argue for contradictory positions.
What do you believe, and what are you willing to argue for?
March 26th, 2011 | 10:01 pm | #34
Tom, we discussed mormonism, and I believe that mormonism is Christian, you don’t. Fair enough. Certainly one can believe that mormons are Christian, and believe that everyone is saved. Where’s the contradiction?
How about you adress my arguments, for universalism? “one could argue”, is merely my writing style. I think it’s clear that these are my views.
Arguments speak for themselves. Whether one “owns” them, is irrelevant to their credibility. And, for the record, if I present a case for something, rest assured that I believe it.
March 26th, 2011 | 10:07 pm | #35
“your credibility suffers badly from this.” Really? Perhaps you could address the actual arguments, I’ve provided, for universalism, and show where the flaw is?
March 26th, 2011 | 10:21 pm | #36
One argument that, I think is in favor of Universalism is, freedom, presupposes that its possessor knows what’s in his/her best interests, and is capable of rationally making that decision. Someone with schizophrenia, for example, cannot rationally choose to not take his medication, because the rational, choosing faculty, that’s necessary to make such an informed choice, is dysfunctional.
Similarly, if one “chooses” to not accept Christ, this is sufficient evidence to show that this person is incapable of deciphering what’s in his best interests (since it cannot possibly be in anyone’s interest to deny Christ, or choose Hell). Therefore, it would be unjust for God to grant this person permenant residence in Hell, because, to do so, presupposes that this person can rationally determine what’s in his own interests, but to deny Christ, shows he’s incapable of it, at least with respect to his eternal fate.
Tom, this is my argument, I own it, and please consider addressing what you consider the flaw, or flaws, so we can have a debate. I’m confident in it.
March 26th, 2011 | 10:28 pm | #37
Also, Tom, don’t forget to address how my belief that mormons are Christian, is “entirely contradictory” with my belief in universalism. i’m looking forward to this. If I remember correctly, I wanted to continue the “whether mormons are Christian debate”, but you didn’t, for whatever reason. Like I’ve said, anytime you want to continue the debate, I’m all for it. You seem very confident. I’m very confient too, and think you’re wrong, on this issue, and universalism.
March 26th, 2011 | 10:56 pm | #38
For the record: I never argued “that one could make a favorable case for mormonism”. I argued that one could make a favorable case for mormonism being Christian.
March 26th, 2011 | 11:05 pm | #39
Because I do believe in nuance, i want to refine my previous comments. I do not believe that one can make a favorable case for mormonism, to the point that it should be accepted as truth. But I do believe that one (as shown by the Neal A. maxwell Institute. I would suggest you read them) can make a favorable case for mormonism, but not enough for it to be accepted as truth. I do believe that one can make a favorable enough case for mormonism being Christian, that one should accept this as true (that mormonism is chrisitan). I do believe that the case for universalism, is strong enough, that it should be accepted as true.
March 27th, 2011 | 7:03 am | #40
Bret, you have misunderstood me. For example you wrote in #34,
But I was not saying (this time) that your argument was flawed. I said your credibility suffers from:
(a) not owning the arguments you make, and
(b) arguing in favor of positions that contradict each other.
It is those two factors in your comments here that led me to wonder whether you believe what you write. You present what appears from your own language to be someone else’s position, or at least a position you are not committed to (“one could argue” or “some argue”); and then you present an argument that disagrees with it (although see my concession below). How are we to believe that either position is your own?
Now you have revealed for us,
Sometimes, yes. But I’m sure you know the actual English meaning of one could argue is not, this is the argument I am committed to. It is, I am aware of an argument to the effect that x, and I think there could be some credibility to it. That’s a much weaker commitment to the argument, and it is the actual meaning of one could argue. As I’m sure you know, the phrase is frequently used in constructions of the form:
You might want to take more careful note of that. Otherwise we’ll continue to have reason to wonder whether you yourself believe what you’re writing.
You write,
Now on this point I will concede my own error. You never argued that Mormonism is true. If you had, then your support now for universalism would be self-contradictory. If Mormonism is true, then universalism cannot be true, and vice-versa; for Mormonism denies universalism. Instead you were taking up a position that Mormons are Christian. How that fits into your stance of not committing to Mormonism being true, I don’t know.
I don’t want to start debating Mormonism again. I’m just calling on you to be more clear about what your own position actually is.
March 27th, 2011 | 6:22 pm | #41
Tom, if you’re committed to intellectual engagement of these issues, I’m hoping you will wish to debate the legitimacy, or lack thereof, of universalism. After all, this is what this thread is about (specifically on Peterson’s view of Bell, but the veracity of universalism, is a reasonable debate to be had, from here).
I must confess, that I find it unusual that you would be concerned, as to what my personal views are, and not about the issue i address. After all, my personal views, are irrelevant, to the soundness of the arguments.
also, my credibility is not the issue. You’re wrong to say my credibility is at issue, for using language, that could be construed to mean I don’t really mean what I write. This is irrelevant.
My credibility would suffer, only if my arguments were unsound.
And, as I pointed out, I believe what I write. I believe Universalism is true.
My hope is that, you will decide to address the arguments presented, so we can have a debate.
March 27th, 2011 | 6:52 pm | #42
Bret,
I am not only concerned with arguments. I care about persons, too.
March 27th, 2011 | 7:05 pm | #43
Christianity is not, after all, about arguments, as I think you’ll agree. They’re important in their place, but they are not the pre-eminent concern.
I am especially not interested in arguing for argument’s sake. That’s why I asked for some clarification that you really believed what you were writing.
March 27th, 2011 | 7:26 pm | #44
Tom, I understand. But, clearly, if Christianity, cannot survive rigorous argumentation, it should not be believed. I believe (as do you, I’m sure) that Christianity can.
And, I believe you, when you say you care about persons. But wouldn’t it be better to explicitly state that, initially, rather than say they’re “credibility suffers”? after all, what you’ll generally accomplish with this, is not the conveyance of your caring, but rather that you may wish to offend.
March 27th, 2011 | 7:46 pm | #45
Did I offend you, Bret?
March 27th, 2011 | 7:59 pm | #46
you said my credibility suffered, because of how I used my words, which seemed to question my commitment to the views I expressed. I believe that you could have asked why I used the words, that I did (“one could argue”) without stating that my ‘credibility suffers”. So, yes, I was. But not now. After talking with you, these few months, I’ve concluded that, you mean the best.
But, after reflecting on it, it makes sense to write as clearly as possible, so the “it could be argued”, habit, isn’t the best way to phrase things, so you make a good point.
March 27th, 2011 | 8:17 pm | #47
I regret the offense I caused you for a while, Bret. But I believe that sharing the hard truth is not always bad for one another.
March 28th, 2011 | 11:07 pm | #48
None of this debate is terribly new, as I discuss here: http://easternchristianbooks.blogspot.com/2011/03/is-rob-bell-right.html
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact