Rogue pastor Rob Bell's argument about salvation and judgment has Evangelicals in a fury and a young generation rethinking Jesus ...
However, Rob Bell's book is worth reading. I recommend that you read the whole book to discover for yourself what the hype is all about.
Jeff
Pass - I have grasped his view since Velvet Elvis......not much has changed
Bonnie
My understanding is that Jesus does not change
Craig
Jeff, I have not read VELVET ELVIS, so I cannot dispute your opinion that "not much has changed." However, I did read LOVE WINS, and found myself thinking, "Rob Bell is trying to communicate a theological truth to his generation." One thing it seems "his generation" (whoever that is) seems to think is that the Gospel has not been presented in a way that emphasizes very well the overwhelming love of God. Word and action have not been congruent with one another in those who claim to be preaching the Gospel. God's love has been distorted in the process of delivering the message which was to tell of God's love. I am willing to give Rob Bell the benefit of the doubt regarding his Christian orthodoxy.
Jeff
Craig, having read much of Rob Bell, including interviews where he espouses his views, your willingness to give him the benefit of the doubt as to his orthodoxy is somewhat misplaced. Bell takes a low view of Scripture and sees it as a "human product" rather than a product of "divine fiat" - his words He points to Brian McLaren's book "A New Kind of Christian" as being the sole factor in how he now views the Bible. Obviously I can't give you a full picture of McLaren's book in this comment, but I would recommend taking a look at it in order to better understand Bell's underpinnings. One reviewer put it this way and is pretty accurate in his assessment; "The message of McLarenism is pretty simple: God is love and wants everyone to be kind and inclusive and care for the poor and the environment… In McLarenism there is no original sin, no wrath, no hell, no creation-fall-redemption, no definite future, no second coming that I can see, no clear statement on the deity of Christ, no mention of vicarious substitution or God’s holiness or divine sovereignty, no ethical demands except as they relate to being kind to others, no God-offendedness, no doctrine of justification, no unchanging apostolic deposit of truth, no absolute submission to the word of God, nary a mention of faith and worship, no doctrine of regeneration, no evangelistic impulse to save the lost, and nothing about God’s passion for his glory." I agree that too often Christians are out front preaching what we are against rather than speaking the plain truth of the gospel and the love of God. However, Mr. Bell is not a voice calling us back to Biblical balance - but rather one that seeks to repackage and reshape it into a Postmodern and Syncretistic model.
Nick
Jeff's insights resonate with my own.
Bonnie
Mine too but I do take Craig's point to heart...new theologies scare me, when I know God's message does not change. I do agree that we often preach negatively about do's and dont's rather than starting with the love of God who saves me and causes me by His Holy Spirit to respond by wanting to change my behaviour to conform to His will and not my own.
Craig
As I said, my opinion is based mostly on my reading of LOVE WINS. Given my own high view of Scripture, I find what Jeff writes disturbing - if Bell is so influenced by Bruce McLaren, he is a young fool. However, this does not diminish the worth of Bell's book because he has written truely at least about one thing - being with God (the essence of Heaven) begins here and now in how we respond to the love of God in Christ. Do we love God? Do we love one another? If yes - heaven; if no; hell. All theology must form itself around the firm fact of God's love.
Bonnie
I did not think heaven was conditional for those who are saved..did I misunderstand you? You are such a fantastic writer and thinker.
Craig
Salvation simply means our destiny is not determined by OUR deeds but by what CHRIST did through the Cross. God delivers us from death to life, just as the children of Israel were delivered from slavery in Egypt to freedom of following Moses to the Promised Land. The question is - will we continue to follow until the end or will we fall away?
Must God force us to follow or are we free to fail? God can keep us from falling; are we willing to be kept from doing so? The controversy seems to be about the assurance of salvation - how is Hell a possibility if Heaven is a guarantee?
Bonnie
Heaven is not guaranteed for all..only those who want it and place their faith in Jesus..hell is certainly a possibility..non Christians always think I am arrogant to be assured of my salvation
Craig
Relationship with one another is both a blessing and a bother. The other person is always an "other." As soon as one resists "otherness" to insist on "sameness," one's insistence gets in the way of the Gospel message. We who follow Christ must co-operate with the Spirit in overcoming the distinctions between "us" and "them." However, it is only IN CHRIST that such distinctions are overcome - that is non-negotiable. Outside of Christ, any effort to overcome the distinction between "us" and "them" can only APPEAR to be working; such appearance may give a false sense of unity that is deceptive and deadly. We become satisfied with merely social communitas when we should be praying for spiritual koinonia. Humans yearn for intimacy with one another, but will find themselves estranged from one another without first yearning for intimacy with God in Christ through the Holy Spirit.
Hoping to be in Heaven, one has to be in Christ. Outside of Christ is Hell.
Bonnie
I totally agree..how does that work itself out in families?
Craig
Families exemplify how self becomes related to other. Two become one (husband and wife) ... one bears another (mother and child) ... the other discovers the difference between oneself and another (maturing child with nurturing parents) ... others come to consider themselves as one family (siblings and parents and other relatives). The reality of self and other is significantly essential to human being.
It is interesting to consider this question of "self and other" while reading John 13-17. For example, Jesus promised to ask the Father to send "another Paraclete" so that His followers (now called "friends") can be one with God and one another. Jesus speaks to "each one" while including "all" who will believe. The whole philosophical dilemma of "the one and the many" is resolved in Christ.
Bonnie
... and then one has to allow their children to make their own choices and pray
Craig
http://adampowers.wordpres
A special session at this years Gospel Coalition conference convened in light of Rob Bell’s book Love Wins. The panel, moderated by Kevin DeYoung, included D. A. Carson, Tim Keller, Crawford Loritts, and Stephen Um. Below is a summarized transcript of their discussion. It is worth your time reading through.
Carson framed the discussion giving a brief and clarifying overview on universalism:
- Be clear about definition of universalism, don’t muddle what it is.
- Universalism is built out of several different assertions: a) everyone is savingly loved by God and is reconciled to God already; b) because of the wideness of God’s mercy, people of other religions will somehow find their way to heaven; c) initially, the only lost people are those who reject God’s love; d) despite their rejection of his love, these people are still loved by God.This set of beliefs invariably teaches other things that are often not articulated. It affects your view of atonement, impoverishes the love of God by disconnecting it from his holiness, and it assumes that Scripture always speaks the same way about God’s love.
- Despite different claims to the contrary, universalism is a later development. It has never been accepted in confessional Christianity.
- A few notes on biblical texts thought to defend and justify universalism:
2 Corinthians 5:19—“world” is not everyone without exception, but everyone without distinction.
Romans 5:18—“all” does not refer to the same locus of people. The broader context deals with two humanity, one in Adam and one in Christ. There is a contrast to these two different humanities.
John 12:32—“draw all people to himself,” in the context we see that Gentiles try to approach Jesus understands this as precipitated the cross. They do not come on the basis of past covenants, but on a new covenant rooted in the cross.
Revelation 21:25—”its gates will never be shut.” The symbolism of the gates open is not about whether people can get in day or night. Gates were shut for defense, but in the new heavens and new earth there is no more threat for violence.
Carson pastorally asserted that universalism’s handling of the atonement itself is deeply manipulative—even blasphemous. We must not talk flippantly about the cross of Christ, explaining that penal substitutionary atonement is not built on a proof text but is woven through the entire biblical narrative.
Panel Discussion (led by Kevin DeYoung)
To Keller — Is our response to this subject worth it?
Yes. It’s sort of like the bird in the ecosystem who if goes extinct throws off everything. Anything other than endless punishment lessens sin and the God who has been sinned against. If you take away the infinity of punishment, everything diminishes.
To Keller — There is one thread that says Bell is saying the same thing as C. S. Lewis. How do you respond?
Lewis was rebelling against the spirit of the age, which said that Hell is bad. His whole project was to tweak his contemporary scene and show that Hell and judgment make sense. It appears that Bell does just the opposite and acutally sympathizes with the spirit of the age.
To Carson — In John 10:16, does the phrase “many sheep are not of this fold” refer to other religions?
Although there are more recent readings that try to take it this way, the context is clear that “fold” refers to the Jewish people. “Not of the this fold” refers to Gentiles who are outside of the old covenant. It is about becoming one new people, Jew and Gentiles, as the church.
To Carson — What do you think this reemergence of universalism may or may not signify about underlying shifts in Christianity in North America?
This is not new. The early twentieth century and the rise of liberalism started the project of trying to defend Christianity by jettisoning everything the age considers unreasonable.
Evangelicalism is so broad and diverse, and also thinner. The newer generation is making choices: many who want to be more acceptable to this age and others who are embracing the gospel, wanting it to be heard as it is. There is a big division taking place and Bell’s book is a marker to this.
To Um — Respond to Bell’s statement that the position saying only a certain number will be saved is “misguided, toxic, and ultimately subverts Jesus’ message of love.”
There are several assumptions that need to be addressed. One assumption is that God is obliged to show favor to a sinful humanity. We should remember that Jesus spoke more about Hell than anything else. Rejecting Hell has serious implications for what we think about Jesus, undermining his entire ministry. I understand the heart: no one delights in seeing people in eternal conscious torment.
To Loritts — What would you say to someone who has cut their teeth on Bell? They are not committed to this view, but are sympathetic to it.
We all need to be careful when we talk about these things not to overcorrect. We are to love unbelievers and we are to preach the love of God. I would encourage this person, not only to pursue right exegesis on this issue, but to the study of the nature of God altogether. Look at the wholeness of who God is. Secondly, look at how we really view Scripture. Thirdly, we need to understand that God does not need a PR agent or marketing firm. The whole idea of wanting to have a Jesus who the world can embrace is wrong.
DeYoung — ”God does not need a publicist, he calls preachers.”
Teachers will be judged more strictly(James 3:1). Questions are one thing, let’s talk about them all. Allow people to ask them, ask them yourself. But we must stay in the realm of mystery. If you are a teacher, at some point you need to let clarity be king.
To Keller — In light of your commitment to the gospel, how did Bell’s book make you feel?
The first thing that disappointed me was not the content so much as the attitude. There is an immediate ridicule of apparent “close-minded” people. A conversation about conflict cannot begin with ridicule.
We should not pit the doctrines of God against one another. At the cross, the love and holiness of God both win.
To Carson — What advice can you give about receiving criticism? Does disagreeing immediately make you the bad guy? Where does the younger generation need tweaking here?
First, I worry about ministries that focus just on correcting everyone. What I hope to do in all my writing is to promote the truth and proclaim it positively. When we correct, we do it because we think that the glory of God is being diminished.
Part of a positive faithfulness to proclaiming the truth involves refutation. Our articulation of right doctrine also involves saying what it is not. And all our correction should be done thoughtfully and humbly.
Concluding words:
Um asserted that universalism is unhelpful for sinners in need of atonement. Universalism subverts the work of Jesus on the cross. This whole situation is a wonderful opportunity for correction, for us to understand the finished work of Christ.
Loritts encouraged those considering universalism to write down all the issues their struggling with and go to the word of God. We should ask the Spirit to illumine our minds. We have listened to too many other voice. Go to the source.
Keller agreed with with Loritts and DeYoung and closed in prayer.
No comments:
Post a Comment