Rob Bell: Universalist?

[Ian]

And I'm not even supposed to BE here

Why Rick C?
Have you been banished from here?
You`ve never struck me as out of order.

[RickC]

Hey Ian.
No, I'm not banned or anything like that.
Just kinda hoggin-up-space, posting a lot, acting silly.
My doc has me on steroids too...so I'm a little weird(er) for a few more daze!

Be well.

[RickC]

Patheos: Multi-Resource for "Love Wins"
(Can read ch. one, etc., discussions, other/misc.)

[Michelle]

Hey everyone,

This guy Rob Bell is probably the most popular preacher and leader of the Emergent Church Movement. Although I don't agree with all 'Emergent' ways of doing things (both practically and doctrinally)... this guy seems to be the first one to come out and advocate universalism. I'm not sure if it is evangelical universalism, but I sure hope it is. If it's a watered down "no-hell" position, it could be very damaging to the body of Christ. Check out this article on the topic...

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/jus ... versalist/

I read the book yesterday. Rob Bell isn't a universalist, nor does he advocate a "watered down 'no-hell'" position. He does say (and repeats it often in the book) that there may be more who share in this new life than you might think, and after raising the question of whether a person can accept Christ even in the afterlife, he refuses to give a definite answer because he just doesn't know (which I appreciate.) Both of those positions are going to (and have) raise the hackles of those who take firmer, sterner stance. And so the controversy will rage on.

The book only took me, a slow-ish reader, an afternoon and evening to read, interrupted by errands and making and eating dinner. A friend and I had agreed to start it on Monday - he also read it all, starting when he got home from work and finishing well before bedtime. What I'm saying is that this is not a difficult book to read. It's kind of a meditation on the unfailing, expansive, remarkable love of God. My friend believes that Rob Bell's singular purpose was to "reclaim the story of God." Bell does these things well with his book, and I feel enriched for having spent the time to read it.

The book is not a scholarly tome on the theories of hell. Statements about wishing another thinker had been onstage to answer the questions, or, indeed, even calling the raging blog-debate "Hellgate" miss the point that it's around Rob Bell that this controversy swirls. Maybe it's my own personal coincidence that I have been reading and discussing the views of hell over the past five years or so. Maybe it IS time for the discussion to heat up (sorry about the pun) and be discussed broadly. I just have a nagging suspicion that it's not so much what is being said, as it is who is saying it.

Or maybe the reasons don't matter as long as the discussion is interesting?

[look2jesus]

Thanks for that, Michelle!

[mattrose]

Thanks for the review above Michelle!

I take the conditional immortality view and had someone ask me today whether I could still agree to the Wesleyan articles of religion. Here is my response...
..........

A good friend asked me a good question today. In my own words, the question was "Can you, as a Wesleyan who has agreed with the Wesleyan articles of religion, in good conscience believe and/or teach the conditional immortality view of Hell?" Here is my response:

The Articles of Religion section XXI is about the destiny of all people.

I will quote it below with my comments in CAPS

250. We believe that the Scriptures clearly teach that there is a conscious personal existence after death.

I ALSO AGREE THAT THERE IS A CONSCIOUS PERSONAL EXISTENCE AFTER DEATH FOR EVERYONE. I AM NOT ENTIRELY CONVINCED THAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS UNBROKEN FOR THE WICKED (THEY MAY BE UNCONSCIOUS UNTIL JUDGMENT DAY) NOR AM I CONVINCED THAT THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE WICKED CONTINUES ON FOREVER (THEY MAY EVENTUALLY CEASE TO EXIST).... BUT SINCE I DO BELIEVE THERE WILL BE AT LEAST SOME PERIOD OF CONSCIOUS PERSONAL EXISTENCE, MY BELIEF FALLS WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE STATEMENT.

The final destiny of each person is determined by God's grace and that person's response, evidenced inevitably by a moral character which results from that individual's personal and volitional choices and not from any arbitrary decree of God.

I CERTAINLY AGREE WITH THAT

Heaven with its eternal glory and the blessedness of Christ's presence is the final abode of those who choose the salvation which God provides through Jesus Christ,

CERTAINLY AGREE WITH THAT

but hell with its everlasting misery and separation from God is the final abode of those who neglect this great salvation.

OBVIOUSLY THIS WOULD BE THE STATEMENT MOST AT ODDS WITH MY OWN VIEW. I WOULD HAVE LITTLE PROBLEM WITH THE 'SEPARATION FROM GOD' PHRASE. MY ISSUE IS WITH THE PHRASE 'EVERLASTING MISERY.'

I THINK THE PEOPLE WHO MADE THE STATEMENT CERTAINLY BELIEVED IN THE ETERNAL TORMENT VIEW, BUT I ALSO THINK I CAN, IN GOOD CONSCIENCE, SUPPORT THE STATEMENT WITH MY OWN INTERPRETATION.

NOTICE IT SAY 'ITS' (HELL'S) EVERLASTING MISERY. IT DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY SAY THE WICKED WILL RECEIVE EVERLASTING MISERY. I DO BELIEVE THAT HELL WILL FOREVER BE A PLACE OF TORMENT (FOR SATAN AND HIS MINIONS), BUT I DO NOT BELIEVE WICKED HUMANS WILL FOREVER REMAIN CONSCIOUS IN HELL.

IN OTHER WORDS, I DO SUPPORT THE STATEMENT THAT HELL IS A PLACE OF EVERLASTING MISERY, BUT I DO NOT NECESSARILY THINK THAT HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS REMAINS FOREVER THERE. AND I THINK THE STATEMENT IS FLEXIBLE ENOUGH TO ALLOW THIS INTERPRETATION.

SO WHAT SAY YOU? AM I TAKING TOO MANY LIBERTIES? SHOULD I RESIGN THIS VERY HOUR?

[darinhouston]

Matt, your response sure calls such creeds and statements into question -- if one is still left with the ambiguity around which the disagreements center as to the scriptural language giving rise to the need for the statement in the first place, then what good are they? I guess I'll have to leave your assent to your conscience, but I'd say personally they would need to be more explicit if they expected perfection.

Heaven with its eternal glory and the blessedness of Christ's presence is the final abode of those who choose the salvation which God provides through Jesus Christ,

CERTAINLY AGREE WITH THAT

As to this statement, I know what they mean, but I'd disagree that heaven is the final abode. It may be splitting hairs, but that's the whole point to creedal statements isn't it?

I guess I'd have to assume their intent in the one case, and disregard their intent in the other.

[mattrose]

You raise a good point. Again, I'd just assume that they are using 'heaven' as a synonym for the place where God is / will be (the New Earth).

I think articles of religion such as this are alright (they serve a purpose to a point), but are best left somewhat ambiguous when it comes to details. They should provide a way of knowing what is out of bounds, but they shouldn't give details about the game on the court, so to speak.

I am probably a bit too lax on my denominational loyalty in some ways. I just ignore certain 'rules' b/c I just don't see denominational loyalty as a super important thing. I am thankful that I'm in a denomination that seems to share my emphasis on the kingdom. I guess I've just always considered my denominational affiliation to be somewhat accidental.

[RickC]

The book is not a scholarly tome on the theories of hell. Statements about wishing another thinker had been onstage to answer the questions, or, indeed, even calling the raging blog-debate "Hellgate" miss the point that it's around Rob Bell that this controversy swirls. Maybe it's my own personal coincidence that I have been reading and discussing the views of hell over the past five years or so. Maybe it IS time for the discussion to heat up (sorry about the pun) and be discussed broadly. I just have a nagging suspicion that it's not so much what is being said, as it is who is saying it.

Or maybe the reasons don't matter as long as the discussion is interesting?

Earlier I made a mistake about a question asked to Rob in Lisa Miller's interview: (It wasn't asked by a seminary prof). But, rather, taken from the full transcript --

Here’s a question from Ben from Ohio. Is there a hell? And if not, does that take anything away from the cross?

I actually think there is hell, because we see hell everyday. We can resist, and we can reject what it means to be fully human and good and decent and compassionate. So yes, I think there is. We have that choice now, and I assume we have that choice on into the future. Yes, thank you Ben.

This was where I thought to myself, instantly: "Wow. Wouldn't it be great if N.T. Wright could answer this right now?!?!" -- (if Wright could get this kind of 'press/coverage', etc.). But Rob Bell, as you say, Michelle, was representing himself. I just thought it would have been an excellent place to tell about the significance of the cross and resurrection of Jesus!

Btw, the "Ben from Ohio" might be a friend of mine (not sure, will ask him).
==============================

Like you, Michelle, I've been 'questioning hell' (what it really is, was, or will be) for some time.

By "was" I mean with reference to gehenna as in the recorded words of Jesus: Was gehenna - (at least in some cases) - merely referring to the destruction of the Temple?

By "what hell is": I'm undecided if anyone is "there" now, am unsure about "soul sleep".

"What will hell be?" Again, undecided. I've been CI-by-default for a while, but still have questions about that, and am willing to change and/or improve my view(s). Actually, I'm concentrating on this right now in my studies.
===============================

Bell's defining "hell" as "hell on earth" could leave much to be discussed (as it surely will be). "Hell on earth" is a popular expression/idiom/metaphor, as opposed to it being biblical. Yet we could say Jesus spoke of a "hell/(gehenna) on earth" - (at least in some cases, perhaps) - if and when gehenna references 70AD. But this would be a "hell/(gehenna)" as a judgment of a backslidden people of God in history, not of a potential some of 'every person who ever lived' (to borrow from Rob's book title). The point I'm making here is that God's judging His own people who have backslidden is one thing, and His judging those who have not heard of Him is another.
================================

I'll read Rob's book later (when my library gets it). I'm sure Rob expected some controversy with his book. Not at this level, though. But regardless of what Rob's 'theology' is, at least he's got a lot of people thinking (and I'm assuming himself, too, as I hope he continues to read and study N.T. Wright's ideas)!
================================

Another link, poss. point of interest:
Martin Bashir Follow-up Interview, Paul Edwards Program
(37 mins)

Bashir gives 'insights' on Rob Bell's use of quotations in the book, noting a 'misquotation' of Martin Luther, which could lead one to think Luther was a universalist. (I haven't finished this interview yet).
================================

Thanks

[RickC]

Hi Matt -

I can understand how you must feel as I had to leave a denomination over doctrinal issues. But I left it before entering into ministry with them, while you're already there.

You and I have touched-base on related topics here on the forum and I saw your posts on:
BW3's blog: Matt 10:28 -Why Annihilationism is not Universalism
(But as blog posts go, they die out fast)....

In any event, I asked Dr. Ben if the UMC would consider CI and/or Annihilationism as 'orthodox'. He probably doesn't have time to answer (even if he's seen my question). I haven't researched to see if the UMC has an official position. Though there are theological liberals in the denomination, I doubt the UMC would consider universalism as 'orthodox'.

I asked you some stuff, too, on BW3's blog, but, well, it's died down....
Not sure how busy you are as far as internet stuff goes.
Not really asking for replies on BW3 either.
=============================

The Wesleyan Church, from what I've gathered, not only from you, but from some folks here, seems 'open-minded' in the ways Christians should be: Open to Change, if the Bible says so. They/you seem to have a really good focus toward 'reasonableness' in terms of the scriptures.

Part of the reason I asked BW3 about the UMC was to see what Wesley may have had to say about this. Was Wesley 'open' to CI and/or Annihilationism? Did he accept as 'orthodox' others who who believed in it? (I don't know my Church History well enough, or if it was considered an 'orthodox option' when he lived). But if I know the 'Wesleyan' folks at all, they would ask, "What would Wesley think?"
==============================

Points to ponder....
I'll be praying for you, Matt.