THE ROAD OF MYRRH

The Magi too did dream. I heard them speak
Of being warned to go some other way
Back to their own country and not to Herod,
Who will reckon now without their counsel;
He seems determined now to slay all boys
The same age as my son. (He is
My son, you know - he was given
To me, the husband of his mother Mary,
and I shall be his father until his Father takes me.

The Magi had been delighted to find this child
Given to me to protect and raise and teach.
Gifts they brought will certainly be some help
To carry out my holy obligation from on high,
Although those precious three are just burdens now
On the donkey Mary rides with Jesus
As we flee from Herod's fury;
For he was fooled by wiser men
Who wisely failed to follow that darkly false command.

The Magi were just gone from the house which sheltered us
When again I dreamed of Gabriel appearing.
Though miles and days away from Bethlehem,
My blood still rises to recall that urgent word;
The angel of the LORD told me to get on up,
To take my boy and Mary away from there
And flee that very night to Egypt.
So have we fled, up Hebron's hills and down
Across the Brook of Egypt into the Wilderness of Shur.

The Magi spoke of the mad king's conversation,
How perturbed he was that wise men came
To do homage to some rival and yet infant king.
They remarked how careful Herod was to ask
About the precise time the eastern star appeared.
Herod desired to go also to pay homage,
Or so he wanted them to believe.
Thus did the angel bid me stay in Egypt until told,
For Herod sought to kill and not to worship Christ.

The Magi took their caravans away
Returning home to mystery lands there in the East
Where frankincense and gold is found, and myrrh
To lure the living and bury the dead.
This tiny caravan I lead travels roads another Joseph trod
When he, too, was compelled to leave that promised land
On myrrh-bearing beasts. His brothers, too, despised him
And sought to do away with whom they would not worship.
His mother, Rachel, says the prophet, weeps
Because her children are no more.

The Magi did worship, though, and it is well
that I should imitate their humble wisdom,
For though I now may be my small boy's haven,
And though we fly to find refuge now in Egypt,
I marvelled then when Simeon spoke and do realize now
That this little one of mine is destined to save me.

- Craig R. Tavani, Epiphany 1991
(Giovanni Domenico Tiepolo, The Flight with Obelisk at the Left , from the series "Picturesque Ideas on the Flight Into Egypt", 1753, Etching)

THE INTRACTABLE DUALITY OF THE INCARNATION

A Musical Mystery for Christmas

What profound truth is found here? *









This bit of Bach canon represents, in musical language, the dual nature of the Messiah, the top line his divinity, the bottom line his humanity. Together they show how the unique Godman, Jesus, is truly God and truly man. Let us briefly explore the realms of culture, nature and scripture to discover how each might reveal something of this mystery, this Christ of Christmas.

CULTURE
Bach expresses emotion – such as joy or sorrow – and theological concepts, such as the Trinity (1), by using various musical motifs (2) in his many works which he composed Soli Dei Gloria(for the glory of God alone). Here we examine just the duality we celebrate at Christmastime when “God became flesh and dwelt among us”. For Bach, the “Fifth Evangelist”, the music was the message, the words and notes being inextricably intertwined, not unlike the “two natures” of Christ Himself.

Bach’s Christmas Oratorio contains, in the first chorale, a subtle reminder that Christ, God’s promised Messiah, was born to die in that this melody was linked to the Passion in the ears of the listeners.
We find even more in Cantata 23 which “is interesting in that it uses two vocal solos and two oboes in the first movement as a musical representation of Christ’s dual nature: human and divine. The cantata also incorporates the chorale (hymn) tune for the “German Agnus Dei,” the traditional threefold petition to the Lamb of God.” The lyrics draw from this text:

Jer 23:5 5Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.

The concept of the Godman Jesus as part of the Triune Godhead is given complex expression by Bach as well by using something known as the Trias Harmonica (not the instrument but rather the idea):
BWV 1072: Trias Harmonica

“The triad, often called triunitas in the Lutheran tradition, stood for the triunity of God - three in one and one in three. The major and minor forms of the triad represented, moreover, the dual nature of Christ as both God and man. Bach's contemporary, Weckmeister, developed a musical theory in accord with such allegory, and Bach's own Trias Harmonica was undoubtedly intended to be heard as a musical representation of Deity.”

Realize Canon

“It is revealing that when Bach set the foregoing words to music in the Creed of his Mass in B Minor (interesting YouTube), he utilized canonic processes. While not technically a canon, the movement is very canon-like, but with pitch and time intervals continuously mutating. These mutations bring to mind the Trinitarian doctrine...three in one and one in three...in much the same manner as the third canon of the Variations on Vom Himmel hoch portrays heaven and earth by its mutating consonant and dissonant intervals separating leader and follower. Underlying both movements is the Christian doctrine of the dual nature of Christ incarnate, one with God, yet fully human. As sign of this duality, Bach does not allow the canonic followers to engage in unthinking mimicry but gives them independence. Yet, in its independence of time and pitch interval, the follower (Christ) is audibly generated by the leader (the Father), and always doing the Father's will.”

The duality upon which Bach was reflecting shows up in lots of places besides theology – although I would say that the Messiah who is both Son of God and Son of David (which we discuss later on) constitutes a unique duality unto Himself comprehension of which only allegory can approach. This is why it remains, along with the Trinity and Redemption itself, among the most profound of mysteries. Yet, through allegory and analogy, we can appreciate far more about our Savior than rote creedal recitation at first allows and there discover much for infinite awesome reflection.

NATURE
Nicene Creed

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Having looked at the art of music, let us now turn to the science of physics where dualities abound. (see List below). Wikipedia lists dozens of dualities from math, science and philosophy. One must come to acknowledge them, believe, if you will, in their existence for any hope of progress in understanding the nature of reality. To ignore or doubt them is to deny the very world in which we live. None is perhaps more popular than the well-known “wave/particle” nature of light. Looked at one way, light is a wave; looked at another, it is a particle. While they appear to be mutually exclusive, neither dominates the other and light exists as both, simultaneously, manifesting itself according to how we choose to observe it. So the mystery must be that of our mental limitations rather than of reality itself. No matter what we think, Nature happens anyway. For an entertaining demonstration of how a particle must be a wave, and visa versa, see this short video from Dr. Quantum:
(For a brief explanation from world renowned physicist Dr. Feynman, see

HISTORY
Is it then any wonder that Jesus should declare Himself the “Light of the World” and that the Bible says “God is Light”. Or that his confused impatient listeners should try to stone him for it! Just who Jesus really is stirs up controversy to this day with the problem going back at least several thousand years to the ancient heresies threatening the early Christian church. Let’s take a look at some church history summarized for us by an Orthodox author (David Bentley Hart in The Story Of Christianity, Illustrated):

“The great debate of the fourth century concerned the divinity of Christ; the great debate of the fifth century (and after) concerned his humanity. Or, rather, it concerned the unity of his Person, and the relation of the divine to the human within that unity. And this, as it happened, would prove to be the most contentious doctrinal dispute in Christian history prior to the Reformation, and the most divisive.

All the Christians of the time, of course, believed that Jesus was the incarnate Son of God; and all faithful members of the Nicene church believed the divine Son to be co-eternal and co-equal with the Father. But in what sense then had he become man? Had he merely assumed human flesh? Or had he assumed also a human soul, a human mind, a human will? If Christ was both God and man, did this mean that he was somehow a composite of the two, producing some sort of ‘third genus’? Or did his divinity ‘swallow up’ his humanity? Or was he a kind of harmonious alliance within one body between two distinct personalities, one divine and one human?

The ‘Christological crisis’ began in Constantinople n 428, though its initial cause was adispute not over Christ – at least, not directly – but over his mother.“

(For details about Nestorius and the Theotokos controversy, see references.)

Over-emphasis of one over the other, or novel assertions or denials, could be dangerous. For instance, the Monothelite (belief Christ had but one nature) Maximus the Confessor (c580) had his tongue torn out, his hands hacked off, and his person banished for opposing imperial policy. Holding to wrong doctrines at the wrong times could cost you your life. (And teaching “doctrines of demons”, for instance, carries with it a stern warning in scripture; see 1 Timothy 4:1) A summary of the Christological controversies can be summed up by the heresies often named for those who taught them. (Here is one list ) However, some Christian traditions (such as the Oriental Churches who resented imperial power and rejected the Council of Chalcedon’s defining Christ as bearing “two natures” while still holding to his full divinity and full humanity ) might stop short of labeling one or another as heretics, instead invoking cultural and language barriers as explaining the differences.

“There are three major heresies regarding the Lord Jesus Christ:
(1) The denial of Christ's Divinity - which lead to the heresies known as Ebonism, Arianism (Jehovah's Witnesses), Nestorianism, Socinianism, Liberalism, Humanism, Unitarianism.
(2) The denial of Christ's two natures -- which created heretical groups such as Monophysitism, Eutychianism, Monothelitism. These all confuse the two natures of Christ; i.e., absorbed one of His natures into the other.
(3) The denial of Christ's humanity -- which gave rise to Docetism, Marcionism, Gnosticism, Apollinarianism, Monarchianism, Patripassianism, Sabellianism, Adoptionism, Dynamic Monarchianism.

All of these heresies in some way ended up by "dividing" the theanthropic (God-Man) Jesus Christ!” – according to this author anyway.

The Council of Chalcedon responded to several heresies at once by simply stating that Christ’s divinity and humanity are not to be confused, changed, separated or divided. (This brings to mind the physical and mathematical constraints used to narrow the search for the Higgs boson, for example, by graphing as out of bounds all energy levels where it cannot exist…or, as Michelangelo purportedly said, when asked how to carve an elephant, “sculpt away everything that doesn’t look like one.” The Apostle Paul uses this same “via negativa” approach in 2 Cor 13 when he describes love by what it is not. “Love is not envious…” While it may leave healthy “elbow room” for various ways of understanding who Jesus is, it erects clear barriers concerning who he is not. If you bump up against one, you’ve gone too far in that direction.


SCRIPTURE
Having looked at examples of duality from culture and nature we now turn to Scripture where we behold the greatest of all dual manifestations: the incarnation of God as a newborn human baby who lives, and dies, a singularly human life. There are many deep mysteries here such as the angelic announcement, the virgin birth, the nativity events and the pre-existence of the Logos, but we focus on just one – how the Bible reveals the Godman in clear and simple language which, while extending our understanding and adding to our knowledge, nonetheless, profoundly preserves the great mystery of the Godhead beyond our human comprehension.

Come to the manger…
First we see, in this particular baby, that we are no longer in the realm of intellect or imagination alone but in the very real and smelly world of animals – our world of gold and straw. Next we see it’s not just physical reality but a human one – life itself presenting biophysical wonders of great complexity, compounded by consciousness! None of these animate things is fully understood by anyone – believer or skeptic – and, were we to delve into the subject, we would discover yet more mysteries, more dualities popping up all over the place. The more we learn, the less we know - such are the questions raised by every new discovery. Yet this doesn’t stop scientists from making models they believe will work or prevent philosophers from philosophizing or hinder artists from expressing emergent beauty. These things are intrinsic to nature, manifest in culture every day. Neither does it fluster the Bible’s human authors who choose their words carefully when describing Jesus.

Matthew opens his Gospel like this, emphasizing his humanity:

"This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham …" Matthew 1:1

Mark opens his Gospel like this, emphasizing his divinity:

"The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God, as it is written in

Isaiah the prophet…" Mark 1:1-2 NIV

Luke opens his Gospel like this, providing historical context:

"In the time of Herod of Judea…" Luke 1: 5

John opens his Gospel like this, expressing both his divinity and his humanity:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…The Word became flesh…” John 1: 1, 14

Then John records this confrontation:

" 'Very truly I tell you,' Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I AM.' At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds." John 8: 58-59

Paul deepens the duality when he writes:

"Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness." Philippians 2: 6-7

So, when considering Jesus, heed the angel’s directive to “Fear not”. Do not stop thinking about Jesus or asking searching questions about his Person. Embrace all He is and, most of all, allow Him to embrace you in a personal encounter. His Spirit at work in you will quiet doubt, stir you to act in love and lead to that peace which passes understanding even as the Spirit leads us into ever deeper truth about this Prince of Peace.

- Dr. Nick Tavani, Christmas Day 2011

* When I distributed this “musical mystery” passage to my family this Christmas, they struggled to solve it by studying the notes, singing through the lines and examining the music. The solution only became evident when the composer – Bach himself – was taken into account and the piece looked at in the context of his life work as the “Fifth Evangelist”. This might be analogous to the need for considering the observer in quantum physics. Or the intelligent humans designing origin of life experiments. Whether in theology, physics or biology (or any other “objective” discipline”, a person - or Person – is involved.

List of Dualities (retrieved from Wikopedia)
Science:
Physics
Complementarity
Dual resonance model
Duality (electricity and magnetism)
Englert–Greenberger duality relation
Holographic duality
Kramers–Wannier duality
Mirror symmetry
Montonen–Olive duality
Mysterious duality
String duality

Mathematics
In mathematics, a duality, generally speaking, translates concepts, theorems or mathematical structures

into other concepts, theorems or structures, in a one-to-one fashion, often (but not always) by means of aninvolution operation: if the dual of A is B, then the dual of B is A.

Alexander duality
Alvis–Curtis duality
Araki duality
S-duality
T-duality
U-duality
Beta-dual space
Coherent duality
De Groot dual
Dual abelian variety
Dual basis in a field extension
Dual bundle
Dual curve
Dual (category theory)
Dual graph
Dual group
Dual object
Dual pair
Dual polygon
Dual polyhedron
Dual problem
Dual representation
Dual q-Hahn polynomials
Dual q-Krawtchouk polynomials
Dual space
Dual topology
Dual wavelet
Duality (order theory)
Duality (projective geometry)
Duality theory for distributive lattices
Dualizing complex
Dualizing sheaf
Eckmann–Hilton duality
Esakia duality
Fenchel's duality theorem
Haag duality
Hodge dual
Jónsson–Tarski duality
Lagrange duality
Langlands dual
Lefschetz duality
Local Tate duality
Opposite category
Poincaré duality
Twisted Poincaré duality
Poitou–Tate duality
Pontryagin duality
S-duality (homotopy theory)
Schur–Weyl duality
Serre duality
Spanier–Whitehead duality
Stone's duality
Tannaka–Krein duality
Verdier duality

Philosophy
Dualism (philosophy of mind)

Engineering
Duality (electrical circuits)
Duality (mechanical engineering)

Examples Art

Bach’s Christmas Oratorio:
highly recommended listening for physical and spiritual content (yet another duality – that of body and soul).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3sBCuK1CIQ

Movie:
“Terrence Malick’s The Tree of Life, in its broadest sense, transposes the gospel narrative. Through three stories that together cover creation, fall and redemption — specifically via Jesus Christ as a didactic church scene suggests — the film ultimately states that humankind can only find hope and life in a reconciled relationship with creator God.Within the metanarrative, though, live countless themes and ideas which enhance and flesh out the greater story being told. The concept of suffering and the significance of family may be the most prominent of these elements.”

The doyen of death dies.

The headline reads: "Jack Kevorkian Dead: Assisted Suicide Advocate Dies At Age 83"
Such a sad chapter in medical history. His "healthcare" was not "help" but homicide.

This comment caused one correspondent to comment, "Only if you view end of life decisions in a simplistic, black and white way. It isn't."

My reply:
Simplistic? Black and white? I don't think so. I consider life to be complex and colorful, comprehending decisions about death within that context.

The problem of euthanasia [eu (good) + thanatos (death)] is the problem of all ethics: what is good? That which one considers to be good gives definition to everything that one chooses to do. If good is simply what accords with one's own wishing, then the word "good" is meaningless. Good goes beyond what any one person wills to be so. So it is with suffering and so it is with death. Living for the greater good gives meaning to even the most grievous death.

My correspondent wrote:
"Simplistic, in that you sit in your world of theoretical ethics, translating Greek, and pronouncing all euthanasia evil no matter what. Only in a childish world of black and white is anything that clear cut and devoid of context. I am grateful that you nor anyone who thinks like you has any say over my life or the life of anyone I love, so that you can't condemn us to a horrific, meaningless death simply to serve some 'greater good' that you have no proof even exists."

My reply:
Uh ... I did not mention evil nor did condemnation come into my conversation. The greater good of which I write begins beyond the boundaries of whatever constitutes one's self. One does not make up one's own meaning - that would be nonsense. To serve some greater good is to acknowledge more than what one wills oneself. Any person other than oneself is proof enough that some greater good does exist.

My correspondent:
"You called euthanasia 'homicide,' which I took as something you would consider evil. What was your point in calling it 'homicide' if not to condemn his actions? Stop playing word games. You have determined that euthanasia, in every possible circumstance, is homicide since it is a purely selfish act only serving yourself. The universe does not lend itself to global moral pronouncements. The 'greater good' is not served in the same way in every circumstance. To claim so is to greatly simplify the complexity of life in this universe. Life is not a board game with rules written in the lid of the box, even if you label that lid 'scripture.' "

My reply:
I was questioning what the "good" in "good death" (euthanasia) means. I am not playing word games. I am asking questions.

My correspondent:
" 'Good' used as a relative term and not as an absolute can easily be applied to death. In asking the question in this context, you are, in fact, implying that euthanasia is not a good death, so your question seems somewhat rhetorical, which is why I didn't bother to answer it."

My reply:
What Kevorkian did was homicide, not suicide. My understanding of his method of operation leaves me with the opinion that there was not much good about what he was doing.

The word "euthanasia" is too often merely a euphemism for ending life in whatever manner one wills. The question of what is good is not really considered, but rather what is convenient or comfortable or cost-efficient.

The end of life must be considered in the context of life itself. What is a good life? This matters most for understanding what a good death may be. Since suffering is so much a concern when euthanasia is the subject of conversation, perhaps it would be helpful to consider how one is supposed to cope well with suffering in life so that one may be better able to cope with suffering in death. The question then is, "how is one to suffer?"

Trying to connect to www.familyradio.com

Oops! Google Chrome could not connect to www.familyradio.com

Try reloading: www.­familyradio.­com

http://www.familyradio.com/

www.familyradio.com

• • This webpage is not available
    The webpage at http://worldwide.familyradio.org/
    might be temporarily down
    or it may have moved permanently to a new web address.
  • Try reloading:
    www.­familyradio.­com/­graphical/­literature/­judgment/­judgment.­html
    Other users are also experiencing difficulties connecting to this site,
    so you may have to wait a few minutes
    .

Where is the promised parousia?

Scoffers in their scoffing have come in these last days

- worldly people,

driven by deep distorted desire, divisive, devoid of the Spirit.

Jesus said

“You are not permitted to know the times or periods

that the Father has set by his own authority.

But you will receive power

when the Holy Spirit has come upon you,

and you will be my witnesses ...

to the farthest parts of the earth.”

After this,
he was lifted up while they were watching,
and a cloud hid him from their sight.
They were still staring into the sky while he was going,
when suddenly two men in white clothing stood near them
and said,

"Men of Galilee,

why do you stand here looking up into the sky?

This same Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven

will come back …"

It seems many people are being caught up in this Camping craze (see what I did there - "rapture" means "caught up"). If not Raptured, people will find their phony faith ruptured.

In regard to Harold Camping's prediction of the Parousia (predicated on his piss-poor hermeneutical approach): it takes wisdom to critize without mocking. Come Sunday, my criticism shall turn to ridicule (for Camping's ridiculous hermeneutics are deserving of just that!), but for now I do not want to appear in agreement with those scoffers who are using this fiasco for the purpose of denigrating the promise of Christ's parousia.

More discussion on Rob Bell

Time magazine article not worth reading, so don't waste your time.

Is Hell Dead?

www.time.com

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.wordpress.com/2011/04/15/god-abounding-in-love-punishing-the-guilty/

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:

1. Be clear about definition of universalism, don’t muddle what it is.
2. 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.
3. Despite different claims to the contrary, universalism is a later development. It has never been accepted in confessional Christianity.
4. 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.

A thread of discussion with MARROW & friends concerning Rob Bell's book, LOVE WINS

Alright. Let's stop quoting what others have to say about Rob Bell; everyone has their own agenda for writing as they do. What do YOU say? How do YOU read it? READ THE BOOK and comment on what is written therein given the context of THE WHOLE BOOK. Picking and choosing just the provocative parts is to take intellectual cheapshots. The thing that gets me upset is that just quoting articles can merely be provocative without being productive. I really wonder how many of Bell's critics have real relationships with others different from themselves, others who do not share their worldview, others who challenge how they think.

Let me be very clear - I am not a Rob Bell fan and will agree that his way of communicating sure does appear to contradict traditional evangelicalism, even going so far as to seem unorthodox concerning Biblical Christianity itself. BUT READ THE BOOK and see for yourself how he gets it right. Then you can criticize where he goes wrong in what he writes. THAT would be worth a MARROW discussion, rather than these second-hand musings by writers with who-knows-what agendas. I will be glad to submit everything I have written concerning the Rob Bell book, LOVE WINS, to MARROW for criticism. BUT AT LEAST I HAVE READ THE BOOK!

The following has a collection of my comments excerpted from just one thread of discussion on FACEBOOK:

I was not so sure I wanted to spend my time on Rob Bell, mostly because I did not like the hipper than thou vibes I got from the products put out by him. A friend, however, asked me to join a group of others to take a look at his book, LOVE WINS, and participate in a theological discussion. After reading the his book, I thought that perhaps Rob Bell was trying to emphasize that God's love is boundless and that it is us who set boundary markers which God Himself proves to be graciously willing to move beyond. We have become too much conformed to this world and our minds have thus failed to become renewed by transformative cooperation with the Holy Spirit and others in the Body of Christ. We forget that who gets to heaven is God's call rather than ours. We are to represent God's love, yet it is a wonder that any "glimpse" of the Kingdom can be seen in our dysfunctional relationships with others. This makes Heaven Hellish.

There is a great quote on p182: “Let's be very clear, then: we do not need to be rescued from God. God is the one who rescues us from death, sin, and destruction. God is the rescuer. This is crucial for our peace …” Bell, decrying “the gospel of the goats” that shrivels one's imagination, goes on to write, “We shape our God, and then our God shapes us. A distorted understanding of God, clung to with white knuckles and fierce determination, can leave a person outside the party, mad about a goat that was never gotten, without the thriving life Jesus insists is right here, all around us, all the time.” This brings to mind the concept of “God-image,” that way we imagine God to be that drives our theology.

God has willed that we be His Body, presenting His Loving Truth to the world. We have at our disposal for this divine representation our own human bodies as the means we manage to communicate with others, be it verbally or otherwise. Through this bodily communication we create relationships, hoping we are cooperating with the Holy Spirit in doing so, depending on God's intervening grace to compensate for our shortcomings. By the revealed Word of God do we calibrate our communicative skills. God's revelation and our communication act in collaboration to make God present to others.

Each of us is accountable for the relationships that we create in living with others. Even children are held accountable according to their maturity – if Suzy slaps Sammy, then Suzy's mommy holds Suzy accountable for that slap, teaching Suzy in the process about right relationship so to mitigate the possible consequences of the slap. One would hope that Suzy's mommy is wise enough to be loving in her correction (choosing not, for example, to immediately behead Suzy for her transgression). Thus does Suzy learn how humans are to live in right relationship with one another and by extension, with God.

One of the most compelling things in Bell's book is on on p169-70: "Hell is being at the party. That's what makes it so hellish. It's not an image of separation, but one of integration." God that “only He knows the heart of a person.” His knowledge is absolute and His judgment is sure – if the desire of one's heart is to be with God, then God will act to make it so. However, if one desires otherwise, how does God to act to redirect one's wayward desire? God woos us with the love He manifests in Christ Jesus. Our response to His wooing determines whether our destination will be Heaven or Hell. What seems to disturb a number of us is that God is so promiscuous in His wooing – Rob Bell seems to be making this point in chapter 6. God really wants everyone to respond, to want Him as much as He wants us.

There is no too much with God. “The Spirit is given without measure” according to Acts (I think). We cannot comprehend how much God loves us and what He is willing to do to win our hearts to Him. I do not mean, in using “promiscuous,” to highlight the sexual wantonness associated with promiscuity, but rather the non-selectiveness in regard to any single class or person: indiscriminate – not marked by fine distinctions. The use is intended to be positive, not negative; consider God as the one who chooses not to say “No!” (cue music from the musical OKLAHOMA! “I’m just the God who won't say no ...”) According to 2 Corinthans 1:19-20 – “For the Son of God, Christ Jesus, ... was not yes and no, but is yes in Him. For as many as are the promises of God, in Him they are yes; therefore also through Him is our Amen to the glory of God through us.”

In Acts 15;10 we read: “He made no distinction between us and them.” It is we who are the ones who make that distinction, seemingly so ready to divide "us" from "them." We are the ones who say, “No!” We rashly judge others without first wisely considering how God judges us with justice AND mercy. We write people off using our own version of “the book of deeds” (see Revelation 20:11-15) without ever referring to the hope proffered by the “Book of Life.” Would that we rather imitate Christ Jesus in how He confronted the woman caught in adultery (John 8:10-11) – Jesus said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more.” Consider Romans 8:1 – “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” Let that be the Gospel we preach, holding out the hope of Heaven rather than hollering about the horror of Hell.

Yet another thread of discussion follows (initiated by my brother on his FACEBOOK page):Nick

‎"And it is by His authority and His Word I choose to stake my life; not that of Rob Bell, who in the end -- despite undoubtedly earning earthly wealth and fame for doing so -- has accomplished nothing more than adding the latest chapter to the sorry text of humanism.."

Rob Bell goes off the deep end (OneNewsNow.com)

www.onenewsnow.com

A few years ago I overheard some friends talking about a new minister named Rob Bell. They were watching some of his videos online and when I asked what they were doing, they told me...before following it up with, "But we don't think you'd probably care for him too much."

Carol
We have been using the videos to spark discussions, and were really disappointed he went universalist.

Jeff
He didn't go Universalist recently.

Chris
According to Rob Bell's theology, Good Friday and Easter are meaningless. To take a universalist position includes many implications that Bell and his type do not come out and state (in fact they will state the opposite) but their position and style insinuate. For example, if there is an opportunity for salvation outside of this life, then what is the point of the Cross and Resurrection? Bell's theology has all of the hallmarks of a false teacher, that being the eventual denial of the Cross. Even Satan quoted scripture in a manipulative manner when he tempted Jesus in the desert. Bell's theology and approach to this subject are exactly like Satan's. It is meant to create doubt about the very essence of our faith, which is the Cross and Resurrection. I could write a book about this, so I better stop.

Hebrews 9:26-27

Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment...

Craig
Have any of you actually read Rob Bell's book? I am not trying be an apologist for Bell, but I do think that he would deny your accusations against his orthodoxy. I've commented elsewhere about this, but let me repeat the gist of what I wrote reflecting on what I think Bell intended: The Gospel is good news for the living and our presentation of the Gospel too often dwells on death rather than life (especially our triumphalist "us" vs. "them" attitude), making God's love look like doom rather than delight. The way we've made the Gospel sound too often sounds something like this: "God loves you. Go to Hell."

The death of Christ on the Cross opened the way for all of us to live with Him in Resurrection power. The just God is merciful and always ready to forgive NOW (the only time we have). If we do not communicate that overwhelming love, we are not speaking/living the truth. We must be wise in what we say and do in the world lest our our words and actions contradict the way God's Spirit chooses to work among us through His Word.

Heaven is the realm of God - none of us have a say in how He reigns in His own realm. However, we have the priviledge, because of the Cross of Christ, to interceed on behalf of others, praying for their salvation. How do we spend our time instead? Howling for their condemnation! Hmmm ... rather than imitating the Advocate we have in Heaven, it appears that we are emulating the Accuser in Hell, doing the work of Satan rather letting the Spirit work through us to love others as Christ loved us.

Evangelicals who act as though the verdict is theirs to pronounce should rather identify themselves as dysangelical, for it is not good news but bad. Only God in Christ gets to make the Last Judgment on anyone!

Chris
This is from TIME.

"When we get to what happens when we die, we don't have any video footage," says Bell. "So let's at least be honest that we are speculating, because we are." He is quick to note, though, that his own speculation, while unconventional, is not unprecedented. "At the center of the Christian tradition since the first church," Bell writes, "have been a number who insist that history is not tragic, hell is not forever, and love, in the end, wins and all will be reconciled to God."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2065080,00.html#ixzz1KI2JmliH

Is Hell forever? Are we only to speak of parts of the Bible? Are you suggesting you agree that since we have no videotape that we can't tell for sure if "Love Wins" after death, and therefore it is possible to go to Heaven outside of believing in Jesus in this life? I also completely disagree with your suggestions that to call out false teaching for what it is, means that those people are judgmental finger wagging condemnation spewing emulators of Satan. No one that I am aware of in this conversation is passing judgment (meaning heaven and hell) on anyone. That judgment is entrusted to Jesus. But that judgment does exist. Hell does exist. To just "ask questions" and create doubt about subjects that the Bible clearly addresses, creates issues of credibility for the entire Bible, including Christ on the Cross. The issue here is not "getting" to pass judgment and spew fire and brimstone, but the veracity and infallibility of the Word.

Jeff
Personally, I am trying to live out Paul's admonition to Timothy in 1 Tim 4:16 where he says,

"Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers."

because I believe we are living in the times Paul talks about in 1 Tim 4:3,4. It is not a lack of love to point out false teaching - we are instructed to do so, to confront, correct it, and hopefully win that person back to the truth as Paul did Peter.

Chris
Agree completely with Jeff. However we must always be careful to be not to be come the Church in Ephesus as addressed here (Craig, I think this is what you are intending to address, those that are only making various judgment but are without love)

Revelation 2:

2 I know that you cannot tolerate wicked people, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false. 3 You have persevered and have endured hardships for my name, and have not grown weary.

4 Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken the love you had at first. 5 Consider how far you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place.

Sam
This statement by Bell speaks volumes:

I have long wondered if there is a massive shift coming in what it means to be a Christian. Something new is in the air.

God's definition of a Christian has not changed since Christ first said "“If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me." Luke 9:23 Of course when the spirit of antichrist that envelopes the earth at the end of the age is present, as now is upon us, the definition changes not because God changed it but because those not led by the Holy Spirit will gladly listen to doctrines of devils. Also if Ron is right, Christ's warnings about plucking eyes out and cutting off limbs to avoid Hell Fire were more than extreme!

Nick
We take heart attacks more seriously than Hell. Can you imagine stopping traffic to perform spiritual CPR?

Okay, Mr. Bell. I take it you are married? Imagine presenting your proposal of marriage to your future wife the way you present Jesus' proposal of eternal life to others?

Jeff
John 3:17 is just as true as John 3:16 and it is not unloving to share both of these truths.

Craig
Jeff informed me, by way of comment on my own FACEBOOK wall, that Rob Bell is deeply influenced by Bruce McLaren's "emergent" approach to theology and hermeneutics. This I find troubling as that approach, it seems to me, so readily accepts worldly assumptions about Scripture and the Church which I believe are unacceptable. This is why I do not mean to defend Rob Bell; however, I do want to defend the title of his book, LOVE WINS, because it is true. The question to be discussed is, "How is it true that LOVE WINS?" Reading through the whole book is something everyone on this thread should do - not just to pick out the parts where Bell is wrong, but to benefit from the many places in which what Bell writes gets it right.

"Is Hell forever?"
How do you read it? I've been taught to understand Hell as a place of eternal damnation, of everlasting punishment, of being cast out of the presence of God forever. I have yet to come to a full understanding of what this means.

"Are we only to speak of parts of the Bible?"
The problem is that we can ONLY speak of parts of the Bible. Biblical theology [according to what I learned at the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary] is contained within the framework of Christ, Canon, and Community; much lies within that frame that no human system of thought can comprehend (thus the challenge of Systematic Theology).

"Are you suggesting you agree that since we have no videotape that we can't tell for sure if 'Love Wins' after death, and therefore it is possible to go to Heaven outside of believing in Jesus in this life?"
I am not suggesting that I agree for I think this is a stupid way to argue. I am suggesting that we need to be more careful in communicating what is meant by "going to Heaven" and by "believing in Jesus" and other religious phrases that mean nothing to many who are just confused about what Scripture actually has to teach. The problem is that communication is just what we are not doing - if it was, then that communication would create relationships in which further communication can take place as we interact with one another. Rather than communicating, we often are merely talking past one another, reporting rather than responding, trying to win an argument rather than hoping to find agreement.

We are called to live at peace with all people, if possible. Without the Spirit of Truth leading us, such peace is impossible. While we are in the world, let us love those interacting in the world with us, creating right relationships through Christlike communication, forming friendships when enmity was formerly expected. Jesus did it and we are to follow his example.

Rick
I take it that some of you think the teaching of the good Mr. Bell cannot be safely ignored? I have no interest in reading his book or entertaining the idea of no Heaven or Hell anymore than entertaining the idea of no Resurrection. Those things are quite real for me - if a man's Faith means anything. Some will say this makes me closed-minded, too dogmatic. But certain things in our Faith are settled - quite, and we cannot go back without undoing everything. It seems oxymoronic but it is not - dogma is most freeing.

Nick
Bell poses absolutely no threat to my beliefs so I am with Rick on that score.
My concern is his influence especially upon Christians within the church - that so many would even be following him to begin with, let alone about this book's topic, astounds me! They barely spend time studying their own copy of God's Word let alone the amazing discoveries in God's world supporting it. It is this popular aspect that leads me to suspect Bell as much as anything he says. They should first engage the great questions before tackling some transient upstart trying to repackage old heresies settled long long ago.

Sam ‎
"Love Wins" only if the "Love" we are talking about is the Love of Jesus! The Love 'of money,' the love of 'unrighteousness,' the love of fame and loving the list of bad things enumerated in Galatians 5:19-21 Will NOT win! On the other hand 2 Peter 1:5-11 gives a list that when done “Love Wins” always as 2 Peter 1:10(NLT) assures “Do these things, and you will never fall away.”

Chris
I do wonder if the supporters of Bell or the "open minded" readers would read a book called "Judgment Wins." It seems to me the real issue at hand here is the struggle of many to reconcile the many attributes of Jesus; the primary attributes in question being his love versus his sovereign nature and just judgment. You could absolutely write a book exactly like Bell's and inverse the premise. Instead of arguing how Love Wins, and questioning how God "flips a switch," at death and becomes harsh and unloving, why not make the argument that judgment wins, manipulating scripture through selective admission, and making the case that love fails, and judgment wins? I am pretty sure the people complaining about others crying heresy, would freak out.

My point is that to embrace one part of Jesus' nature and to claim Biblical clarity about it, that being love, and then to question another part of his nature, that being just and sovereign, and then state Biblical confusion, is an inconsistent, prideful, and dishonest approach. The honest approach would be a confession of attempting to define Jesus to a point that we are comfortable, and not receiving who He fully is. This is not easy and is a constant challenge. It ultimately involves the complete submission of all we are to Him. The prideful approach is something to humbly repent of. So many people think that the God of OT (think Joshua) is totally different than Jesus, and therefore can’t receive Him. Once we understand God’s just nature, and the depth of our depravity, it in turn gives so much more depth to our understanding of His love. The apostles and Jesus were crystal clear that rejection of Jesus, was to choose his wrath. Jesus spared me the wrath I was due as I was dead in my sins, the wrath he himself will carry out by his judgment.

I would point you all to what Paul writes in Romans 9:

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—

All of us in our pride and sin do not enjoy ideas like correction, rebuke, and repentance for us, and the judgment of those we have loved or love, but have rejected Jesus. It is a heartbreaking thing to consider a loved one is in Hell. But I would challenge you to embrace this aspect of God as a revealing component of HIS LOVE and greatness. I am just now learning to DESIRE His correction and rebuke. I am just now getting to a point where I am truly open to the call of repentance, and thank the Holy Spirit for conviction. That is just another way he shows his love for me. As for Hell, and everlasting punishment of those that reject Jesus, they are without excuse. We must be reverent in our questioning. I would point all of you to read God’s response to Job.

The root of this issue is not Rob Bell, and it is not even his false teaching, it is people choosing the Woodstock Jesus, instead of the Biblical Jesus. Jesus’ love is deeper than the deepest sea, and His judgment is a part of that love. Because his ways are higher and better than ours, and we struggle with understanding His nature, do we then have the right to demand an explanation from Him or else we will pick and choose what attributes He will posses in our understanding? Peter thought he understood better than Jesus and even rebuked him. Anyone remember what Jesus said to him?

Love to all, and Happy Easter. Although we disagree on some things, we all agree on Jesus is Alive!

Craig
TRYING to repackage old heresies? That's rough, Nick. To call a teaching heretical is one thing, but to attribute heretical intent to the teacher is another thing altogether. This crosses the line. It is frustrating, I agree, that Bell will not make an explicit statement about Hell; for example, the following is typical of how Bell writes:

Will everybody be saved,
or will some perish apart from God forever because of their choices?

Those are questions, or more accurately, those are tensions we are free to leave fully intact. We don't need to resolve them ore answer them because we can't, and so we simply respect them, creating space for the freedom that love requires.

Hmmmm .... Such irresolution is bad hermeneutics, but is it heresy?

As for me (who some of you may fear is in danger of heresy), let me confess here my own position:
I do not delight in the dangers of Hell but the promise of Heaven. Does God who is Holy want us unholy humans with Him? Yes (amazing grace!), which is why the Gospel proclaims that God's love became Incarnate in Christ Jesus to make friends with those who were otherwise His enemies. Do we want to be with God? That question is significant because I think it determines how we respond to the wooing of God's Spirit - hard-heartedness will pave our way to Hell. If the desire of my heart is to be with God, than that desire will be fulfilled as the Spirit works in me to will and to do God's good pleasure - beginning with repentance at the foot of the Cross and continuing in obedience as I follow the way of Christ Jesus. Intersecting my path will be many others to whom I am called to communicate the good news that there is one true way to life, inviting them to go along that way with me. In this living with others I learn what God's love is all about and others can learn how God is love. The relationships I create with others (the One Other who is God in Christ and the many others with whom I interact) take place as a performance to be reviewed by God as recorded in the Book of Rememberance, that Book which shall be opened on the Last Day when our eternal destiny will be justly determined. If my name is written in that Book of Life, than eternal life in the glorious Presence of God is mine; if not (my name having been blotted out), then I am doomed to death in Hell, the place for all that is unholy. Heaven holds a place only for the holiness.

Jeff
Has anyone ever been "intentionally" heretical? Just wondering.......

I will say, Craig, that Bell does lean on Origen a great deal to give historical foundation to his views - but I don't think genus being intentionally heretical - it's just a natural byproduct if his view of Scripture

Bob
Great thread of discussion...it is so simple for me. I follow Jesus...I follow the One who went into hell and who spoke His infallible words concerning hell. That's it, period. We need to pray for those who have wondered away....Happy Easter....Jesus Is Indeed Alive!

By the way, I wrote a personal letter to Rob Bell and have yet to hear back from him.

Craig
Bob is doing it right! I pray that your letter will provoke a personal response from Rob Bell - such considerate communication is much more Christ-like than the gossipy sniping to which many others have reverted in "discussing" Bell's admittedly controversial book. Without communication, community is impossible. The Body of Christ must be committed to communicating the love of Christ to one another lest we devolve into divisive factions of "us" and "them."

Jeff
Craig - I am not sure I understand your underlying point at all. It is clear to me that you don't agree with Bell and are trying to relate his thoughts to how you see the Christian walk. I understand your concern that we not separate ourselves from non-believers and make it, at best, an adversarial relationship. However, when it comes to standing against false teachers who claim to be of the faith - we have no choice but to oppose them. In fact, 1 John 2:19 puts it exactly in an us versus them context. Love is not simply an absence of conflict, but it is iron sharpening iron in love. When it comes to sharing the gospel - it is not an absence of the concept of God as love that keep many from yielding their lives to Christ. It is because they have no concept that they are a slave to sin and are in need of a Savior who can free them from eternal death. All through the New Testament we see the call to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Peter's cry at the day of Pentecost when he said, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation" still resonates today - but so many preachers have abandoned this truth. We would never say to someone like Peter said to Simon the Sorcerer - "For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin." You can read the web sites of New Age churches, black magic groups, cults, and many others and see that they believe God is love. What they don't believe is in the reality of sin and that God's love can only be entered into through the cross of Christ (which I know you believe). There is indeed an "us" and a "them". We are alive - solely through his grace and mercy. Those who have not surrendered to his grace remain objects of his wrath - it is our duty to Christ to tell them how to escape this wrath isn't it? I don't mean in a way that makes it seem we are superior - Ephesians 2 makes it clear we have nothing about which to boast. So.....all that to say that I am confused about your underlying point.

Nick
Gossipy sniping?! As a physician I feel obliged to warn my patients if they are buying somebody's snakeoil cure for or misdiagnosis of their dread disease. How much more then do I feel the urge to call 'em like I see 'em in matters spiritual. And I seriously doubt Mr Bell would agree with your view, which you so well expressed. In fact, that is the very message he is trying to wriggle away from.

Craig
The nut to be cracked in Bell's argument about Hell is his understanding of the Hebrew word "olam" (found on pp. 92-93 of LOVE WINS) :

But "forever" is not really a category the biblical writers used.

The closest the Hebrew writers come to a word for "forever" is the word olam. ... It's a versatile, pliable word, in most occurrences referring to a particular period of time.

So when we read "eternal punishment," it's important that we don't read categories and concepts into a phrase that aren't there. Jesus isn't talking about forever as we think of forever. Jesus may be talking about something else, which has all sorts of implications for our understandings of what happens after we die ...

To summarize, then, we need a loaded, volatile, adequately violent, dramatic, serious word to describe when we reject the good and true and beautiful life that God has for us. We need a word that refers to the big, wide, terrible evil that comes from the secrets hidden deep within 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.

And for that, the word "hell" works quite well. Let's keep it.

Jeff
Well put - hard to do thoroughly with Bell though because, as you pointed out, ge exhibits a certain slipperiness to some of his positions - a trait of some postmodern theologians.


Craig
It may be slanderous gossip to speak of Bell as a heretic if it is merely our misunderstanding that provokes such an accusation. Consider the Latin theologians misunderstanding of how Greek theologians used the word "prosopon" - the Son is merely a "mask" of God rather than a "person" at one with God - this misunderstanding leading to charges of "Heresy!" Rather than resorting to calling another person, who confesses to be a Christian, a "heretic," would it not be more fruitful to pinpoint where the teaching seems to differ, then continue the conversation from that point?

As for what I mean about "us" and "them" - it is imperative that we remember that all humanity is "us" (unless you are hyper-calvinist and believe radically in an elect "us" that are the chosen sheep distinct from a cursed "them" who are goats unworthy of inclusion in God's fold). All of "us" are born into the world that God loved so much. Those in heaven are "they" who can look on the face of God and live. The Word became flesh to recreate "us" in order to join "them" in being present with God. We then live as both "us" and "them" in the here and now, the kingdom already-not-yet come, in the world yet not of it. Because of the work of the Spirit through Christ Jesus, God makes no distinction between "us" and "them" as He is willing to pour out His Spirit on ALL flesh!

Nick
God prepared a place for Lucifer and his fallen rebel angels and it here to which all reference to Hell and those who choose to reject Christ must ultimately refer. Hiding behind post-modern labels doesn't work as real scholarship nor for common(sense) people. Besides, I think Bell is reacting against a strawman (the kind of preaching he despises faded from the scene years ago, for instance - which why a lot of his audience may be hearing about Hell for the first time - other than as a cusrew word

Craig
Strawman? The vitriol being spewed out by "brethren" such as the pastor of Westboro Baptist Church (almost a parody of itself) can be readily found in many other places, even in discussions regarding Bell's book. Let's not fall into that sort of foolishness (I confess that I have been foolish like this myself with my overuse of the word "hate" and with my intensity of expression when describing that which displeases me).

Consider 1John 2:9-11

The one who says he is in the light but still hates his fellow Christian is still in the darkness. The one who loves his fellow Christian resides in the light, and there is no cause for stumbling in him. But the one who hates his fellow Christian is in the darkness, walks in the darkness,and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.

As for "the eternal fire that has been prepared for the devil and his angels" - let's look more closely at that Scripture (Matthew 25:31- 46):

Then they too will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not give you whatever you needed?’
Then he will answer them,‘I tell you the truth, just as you did not do it for one of the least of these, you did not do it for me.’ And these will depart into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

The accursed are those who do not DO what the Lord wills to be done. Reading Bell's book, one is continually challenged to consider this very thing.

The question, of course, is whether the reader is led to realize that it is only what Christ has done that justifies us before God, that Christ alone is our righteousness, that we are dead without His resurrection power to give us life. Bell would not deny the crucial position of Christ in saving us, but he seems to want to expand our understanding of Christ in such a way as to make Him less than unique. Consider this passage from the book,

As obvious as it is, then, Jesus is bigger than any one religion.

He didn't come to start a new religion, and he continually disrupted whatever conventions or systems or establishments that existed in his day. He will always transcend whatever cages and labels are created to contain and name him, especially the one called "Christianity."

Within this proper, larger understanding of just what the Jesus story even is, we see that Jesus himself, again and again, demonstrates how seriously he takes his role in saving and rescuing and redeeming not just everything, but everybody. ...

Jesus is supracultural. He is present within all cultures, and yet outside all cultures. He is for all people, and yet he refuses to be co-opted or owned by any one culture.

That includes any Christian culture. Any denomination. Any church. Any theological system. We can point to him, name him, follow him, discuss him, honor him, and believe in him - but we cannot claim him to be ours any more than he's anyone else's.

Bell writes more, but this gives you the idea. I am somewhat sympathetic to what Bell has written here, but I believe Bell is mistaken if he is dismissing the significance of culture in comprehending Christ.

Culture is created from how humans communicate with one another, the product of cultivated human relationships over time. The Spirit of Christ intervenes at a certain time in the process of creating culture, and from that time begins to transform that culture being created. Christians, led by the Spirit, are called to be agents of cultural change. How can we know that the culture being created conforms to the character of Christ? It is by the Word of God found in Scripture. Thus is one's hermeneutical approach to Scripture so important, for without the wisdom of God's word, we will create a crooked culture that distorts the image of Christ.

Nick
Hey, Bell made it into the Easter sermon.
Wonder how many other mentions he got today.