Rob Bell: Universalist?

[RickC]

An Aha! moment.....

Re: the UMC position on universalism, from an earlier thread.

Direct link: Does The United Methodist Church believe in universal salvation?
Excerpt:
The Articles of Religion of The Methodist Church make the same point. Article XX - Of the One Oblation of Christ, Finished Upon the Cross affirms the salvific act of crucifixion and resurrection of Christ for salvation for all persons. The added Article "Of Sanctification" states that position in other words. The Confession of Faith of the Evangelical United Brethren Church echoes the beliefs stated in the doctrinal statements of The Methodist Church (see particularly Articles VIII, IX, XI, and XII).

While these statements of doctrine state that salvation is AVAILABLE to all persons, they stop short of saying that salvation is GUARANTEED to all persons. There is the stated or implied condition that, while God's grace is necessary for salvation and that humankind cannot in any way attain salvation without God, that there is certainly an element of awareness and cooperation on our part to order our lives after the image of Christ if we have the capacity to do so.

There are persuasive arguments that include the faithful, thoughtful, and respectful use of Scripture on both sides-- affirming and denying universal salvation. The Book of Discipline, which is the only official printed voice of the UMC, does not make a statement specifically about universal salvation. This places the question in a possible gray area, but the Discipline says what it says. One must read the doctrine there and attempt to understand it as well as possible.

Hmmmmm....(just FYI).

[mattrose]

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.

Actually my tone didn't come across very well in text format, haha. I'm not worried about this at all. I feel very free in the Wesleyan denomination to follow the truth wherever it leads. I also feel very free to present findings/views that go against the majority. Heck, I taught through the 3 views of hell at our district wesleyan camp and received no criticism. Perhaps that is b/c I was in charge of the seminars in general (and now I am in charge of the camp as a whole).

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.
=============================

Yeah, blog posts come and go. Sorry I didn't see your question on there. You asked

I was wondering if you could explain why you think ‘annihilationism’ seems to indicate that people would be ‘eternal’ if they were not to ‘come to nought’.

My response to this is not very sophisticated. Annihilation simply sounds aggressive to me, like someone is violently eliminating someone else. But I don't think God is violently getting rid of people. People just die as a consequence to sin. They don't need to be 'taken out' so to speak, they are already on their way out. The cure for this is the free gift of eternal life. Eternal life is the exception, not the rule.

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.

I can only say that I've never felt pressured to not teach what I felt was true. That may be an environment they've created or it may be my own lack of concern for the possible consequences of teaching something different.

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?"

Wesley, not surprisingly, believed in Eternal torment
"believe that, as the unjust shall after their resurrection be tormented in hell for ever"
-taken from his "A Letter to a Roman Catholic."

Or, from his sermon "on Eternity"

It is a vain thought which some have entertained, that death will put an end to neither the one nor the other; it will only alter the manner of their existence. But when the body "returns to the dust as it was, the spirit will return to God that gave it." Therefore, at the moment of death, it must be unspeakably happy, or unspeakably miserable: And that misery will never end.

There is evidence that he read opposing views from his journal

Sun. 8. — At night I set out in the machine, and on Monday reached Bristol. In the way I looked over Mr.——’s Dissertations. I was surprised to find him a thorough convert of Mr. Stonehouse’s, both as to the pre-existence of souls, and the non-eternity of hell. But he is far more merciful than Mr. Stonehouse. He allows it to last (not five millions, but) only thirty thousand years!

It would he excusable, if these menders of the Bible would offer their hypotheses modestly. But one cannot excuse them when they not only obtrude their novel scheme with the utmost confidence, but even ridicule that scriptural one which always was, and is now, held by men of the greatest learning and piety in the world. Hereby they promote the cause of infidelity more effectually than either Hume or Voltaire.

So we can be confident that he was aware of other views, but we certainly have no idea about how strong (or weak) the argument was that he encountered. From the little we are told here, it sounds like it was a pretty weak argument.

But I'd make the case that even if Wesley was a backer of Eternal Torment, the "Wesleyan" position is not necessarily so. I refer to the "Wesleyan quadrilateral" (Outler's term for Wesley's epistemology). It posits that Wesley saw Scripture as the primary means to truth, but also considered reason, tradition & experience as significant influences.

We've established that the Scriptural case for conditional immortality is quite strong
The traditional case is somewhat weak (as far as I can tell)
The reasonable case seems very strong to me
The experiencial case is, of course, undetermined (unless you like really popular books)

So I would say that as a "Wesleyan" I am quite comfortable holding to the conditional immortality view. Wesleyan's are not obligated to agree with John Wesley about everything, they are encouraged, rather, to use his same epistemology.

[RICHinCHRIST]

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?

I just finished the book today and I agree with your review. Although he believes in a literal suffering after death, there was one chapter entitled "Does God get what God wants?" where Bell seems to strongly push a universal reconciliation position. He backs out at the end of the chapter saying that it is not possible to know for sure which view is correct, thereby leaving us with the choice to believe what we want. He does give a lot of great reasons why the eternal torment view is inconsistent with God's character. I agreed with him on those points.

However, he did use a lot of Scriptures, in my opinion, out of context or with just bad exegesis. He quoted a lot about God's restoration of backslidden Israel as proof that God will reconcile or restore all people whether in this life or the next. Those passages I see as being fulfilled in Israel's return from Babylon and they are fixed prophecies about the people of God, not all people from all times and cultures. The worst case of bad exegesis was when he spoke of Sodom's restoration in Ezekiel 16. The text speaks of the city being rebuilt, but Bell tends to apply that to referring to the individuals who were judged in Sodom had a post-mortem second chance. These kinds of stretches of the text can be seen throughout the book.

Overall, I think it is a good book to get people thinking about other alternatives to the traditional view. Hopefully it will spark some interest and discussion. Who knows, maybe after Steve writes a more thorough treatment on the subject, it will become a popular read! I also agreed with RickC when he mentioned how great it would be if NT Wright had this kind of publicity to speak on this subject!

[darinhouston]

Bashir's interview goes into great lengths on the bad exegesis and unfair partial quotes from Luther and such.

[Michelle]

Hi Rick,

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!

This would have been and excellent place for Rob Bell to answer Ben's question instead of ignoring most of it.

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

I'd like to say, for the record, that I'm not questioning hell - although perhaps you surrounded the phrase questioning hell with single quotation marks to indicate that it doesn't mean what I'm hearing in my head. The questions you provided are more along the lines of the types of questions that frame your studies than they are indications of a person questioning (i.e., doubting) hell. I just like to read, listen, and discuss the various views, and I don't really ask questions at all.

By the way, the professor, Dr. Ron Walborne, dean of Alliance Theological Seminary in Nyack, NY (my most recent denominational affiliation) asked a good question as well:

My seminary and my stream that I come from is very focused on the great commission – and hopefully with the Great Commandment spirit as we go. But if we lose the concept of hell, and I’m not sure I understood – do you believe that hell is a real place? OR is it just hell on earth? And if we do deemphasize the doctrine of hell, what does that do to the motivation of Christian mission?

This is (coincidentally, I believe) the subject of a fascinating discussion on Glenn People's blog.

"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.).

I also agreed with RickC when he mentioned how great it would be if NT Wright had this kind of publicity to speak on this subject!

I love N.T. Wright. I love listening to him and reading his books. He did cover much of the same ground in Surprised by Hope. However, do you really think he needs more publicity or press/coverage?

Here are some articles from the secular press:
Time
Newsweek

A Christian journal:
Christianity Today

Bloggers:
Ben Witherington III
Justin Taylor, et al

And a radio interview (100 Huntely Street):
Youtube
(You can click on related videos to hear more.)

[kaufmannphillips]

http://www.patheos.com/community/jesusc ... jeff-cook/

[Ian]

Thanks for the link KP. I`m not sure I`ll pour through all 186 comments but the short article itself is a keeper!

[Sean]

I didn't notice if it was mentioned but there is an interview with Rob Bell on the UK Unbelievable radio broadcast. There is a link to it from their main page here:

http://www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable

It would seem that Rob Bell is putting forth a "what if" proposition. Sort of a What if God want's to give people a chance to repent after death? question.

Just asking the question seems to really irritate people.

It's at least valid to consider that although God clearly stated He would cut off the unfaithful in Israel, He, at various times did give them multiple chances to repent. At the same time, once judgment started, it destroyed the unfaithful permanently.

[Todd]

It's at least valid to consider that although God clearly stated He would cut off the unfaithful in Israel, He, at various times did give them multiple chances to repent. At the same time, once judgment started, it destroyed the unfaithful permanently.

The unfaithful died, but they will be resurrected. I would not call this a "permanent" destruction.

Todd

[steve7150]

It's at least valid to consider that although God clearly stated He would cut off the unfaithful in Israel, He, at various times did give them multiple chances to repent. At the same time, once judgment started, it destroyed the unfaithful permanently.









I think the NT pretty clearly says everyone in their graves will be raised to judgment (John 5) , & Ezekial 16 says even Sodom & Gamorrah will be raised , so then it's a matter of what the word judgment means to God.