Rob Bell: Universalist?
Re: Rob Bell: Universalist?
If I could sidetrack a little.
Paidion, you directed me to an essay that you wrote, a central thesis to which seemed to be that God sometimes commands something that He does not actually want - in this case, animal sacrifice. The phrase "an aroma pleasing to the Lord" has always bothered me. Are you saying that in your opinion this has to mean in effect "the Israelites merely thought this was an aroma pleasing to the Lord" (when in fact it actually wasn`t)?
Paidion, you directed me to an essay that you wrote, a central thesis to which seemed to be that God sometimes commands something that He does not actually want - in this case, animal sacrifice. The phrase "an aroma pleasing to the Lord" has always bothered me. Are you saying that in your opinion this has to mean in effect "the Israelites merely thought this was an aroma pleasing to the Lord" (when in fact it actually wasn`t)?
- darinhouston
- Posts: 3123
- Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am
Re: Rob Bell: Universalist?
I haven't read the essay, but I would suggest that it may be that there is a "sense" in which their obedience is pleasing, but that the system and scheme is not the sort of thing that, per se, pleases him.Ian wrote:If I could sidetrack a little.
Paidion, you directed me to an essay that you wrote, a central thesis to which seemed to be that God sometimes commands something that He does not actually want - in this case, animal sacrifice. The phrase "an aroma pleasing to the Lord" has always bothered me. Are you saying that in your opinion this has to mean in effect "the Israelites merely thought this was an aroma pleasing to the Lord" (when in fact it actually wasn`t)?
Re: Rob Bell: Universalist?
Hmmm. So the sacrifices do not please Him but He kills someone who doesn't perform the sacrifice correctly?
Re: Rob Bell: Universalist?
Homer wrote:
However, there are verses in the Bible that suggest God instituted the sacrificial system out of necessity(not sure if this is the right word) and not necessarily because that was His first choice.
TK
Well, rules are rules.Hmmm. So the sacrifices do not please Him but He kills someone who doesn't perform the sacrifice correctly?
However, there are verses in the Bible that suggest God instituted the sacrificial system out of necessity(not sure if this is the right word) and not necessarily because that was His first choice.
“Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the LORD?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams. 1 Sam 15:22
But Homer -- I see your point. For something God does not seem crazy about, He certainly is very strict about it.You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it;
you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.
My sacrifice, O God, is a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart
you, God, will not despise. Ps. 51:15-16
TK
Re: Rob Bell: Universalist?
Ben Witherington has been posting quite a bit about this issue. It seems, now, that he is leaning towards the annihilationist view. This is interesting b/c I took a class under him 2 years ago and he seemed reluctant to answer some of my questions that were headed in that direction. Good evidence that he's been thinking hard and has remained open to change, a mark of the good scholar that he is.
http://www.patheos.com/community/biblea ... versalism/
A quote of Witherington from the comments section:
http://www.patheos.com/community/biblea ... versalism/
A quote of Witherington from the comments section:
I am open to persuasion either to eternal torment or anihilationism, but I just think on the whole the latter view explains more of the Biblical evidence and is more consistent with the full character of God. But I freely admit, I could be wrong.
- darinhouston
- Posts: 3123
- Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am
Re: Rob Bell: Universalist?
Detailed reviews are beginning to emerge. I would sure like to see Steve join in the public "conversation."
20 page review, noting his non-universalism but heavily critiquing his historic claims and exegesis in support of what appears to be a hybrid between annihilationism and UR.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kev ... Review.pdf
20 page review, noting his non-universalism but heavily critiquing his historic claims and exegesis in support of what appears to be a hybrid between annihilationism and UR.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kev ... Review.pdf
Re: Rob Bell: Universalist?
Easy links for in depth: (that is, not these cheap sound-bites!) -
Lisa Miller interviews Rob Bell (1 hour, doesn't start till about 12 mins in)
Comments
When the seminary prof asked Rob about the Cross and Hell...I wished N.T. Wright was up there! I haven't read the book, but plan to, and Bell's view of the Cross (at least in this question) seemed Pelagian. Especially since Bell didn't reply about the Cross at all, as asked; just about how 'hell' should or can be avoided. And, btw, I don't necessarily think Pelagius was a really 'bad heretic'. I just think Wright could have said a lot more about Jesus' cross and resurrection: The unveiling of God's New World! Maybe Bell covers this in the book? We'll see, we'll see.
Al Mohler "Love Wins" Panel, yesterday (Mar 17, 2011, 1.5 hrs)
Comments
Totally better than the really lame (and essentially cruel!) panel they had on 'N.T. Wright and Justification'. When Denny Burk read Matt 10:28...to prove 'eternal conscious torment' (huh???)...without explaining anything??? At one point someone said "Conditional Immortality leads to liberalism"...(huh???)....reading the Bible literally (cf. Matt 10:28) is "liberal" now??? Mkayyyyyyy....but well, at least these fellows acknowledged what 'good' stuff Bell said, and where they can and do agree with him. As well as disagree (obviously).
CT article "Rob Bell's Bridge Too Far" by Mark Galli
Comments
Larger in scope than the above. Astutely observes how Bell is within the Classical Liberal Theological Tradition. Has good to say, as well as negative criticism.
===================================================
My library is supposed to be getting the book in soon.
'Don't think it's worth buying (nothing new it it, even Bell says).
Thanks
Lisa Miller interviews Rob Bell (1 hour, doesn't start till about 12 mins in)
Comments
When the seminary prof asked Rob about the Cross and Hell...I wished N.T. Wright was up there! I haven't read the book, but plan to, and Bell's view of the Cross (at least in this question) seemed Pelagian. Especially since Bell didn't reply about the Cross at all, as asked; just about how 'hell' should or can be avoided. And, btw, I don't necessarily think Pelagius was a really 'bad heretic'. I just think Wright could have said a lot more about Jesus' cross and resurrection: The unveiling of God's New World! Maybe Bell covers this in the book? We'll see, we'll see.
Al Mohler "Love Wins" Panel, yesterday (Mar 17, 2011, 1.5 hrs)
Comments
Totally better than the really lame (and essentially cruel!) panel they had on 'N.T. Wright and Justification'. When Denny Burk read Matt 10:28...to prove 'eternal conscious torment' (huh???)...without explaining anything??? At one point someone said "Conditional Immortality leads to liberalism"...(huh???)....reading the Bible literally (cf. Matt 10:28) is "liberal" now??? Mkayyyyyyy....but well, at least these fellows acknowledged what 'good' stuff Bell said, and where they can and do agree with him. As well as disagree (obviously).
CT article "Rob Bell's Bridge Too Far" by Mark Galli
Comments
Larger in scope than the above. Astutely observes how Bell is within the Classical Liberal Theological Tradition. Has good to say, as well as negative criticism.
===================================================
My library is supposed to be getting the book in soon.
'Don't think it's worth buying (nothing new it it, even Bell says).
Thanks

Last edited by RickC on Sat Mar 19, 2011 6:37 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Re: Rob Bell: Universalist?
Addendum/Errata -
During Mohler's panel someone may have said "Arminianism leads to liberalism" (instead of the Conditional Immortality View, as I wrote above).
I wrote the CT article by Galli was "larger in scope" (than Mohler's panel). What I meant was that Galli's observations traces things in the broader context of Church History. Mohler's guys talked about this a little, but were painting in broad strokes, too broad, imo.
I guess maybe I should be quiet now, till I read this book, huh?
OK
During Mohler's panel someone may have said "Arminianism leads to liberalism" (instead of the Conditional Immortality View, as I wrote above).
I wrote the CT article by Galli was "larger in scope" (than Mohler's panel). What I meant was that Galli's observations traces things in the broader context of Church History. Mohler's guys talked about this a little, but were painting in broad strokes, too broad, imo.
I guess maybe I should be quiet now, till I read this book, huh?
OK

Re: Rob Bell: Universalist?
Denny Burk, who was on Al Mohler's panel, has added a vid (6 mins):
Rob Bell on "Morning Joe"
I just posted what "heresy" and "heretic' originally meant.
(It doesn't seem Denny Burk knew)....
========================
And in a related story....
Scot McKnight will be reviewing "Love Wins" by around April 1st.
On his Jesus Creed blog, @ Rob Bell Reviews, someone recommended the book:
The Formation of Hell: Death and Retribution in the Ancient and Early Christian Worlds
by Alan E. Bernstein.
Reviewed by Jerry Walls: here.
========================
For the money, I'd go with Bernstein, myself.
And I'm not even supposed to BE here, OK Bye
Rob Bell on "Morning Joe"
I just posted what "heresy" and "heretic' originally meant.
(It doesn't seem Denny Burk knew)....
========================
And in a related story....
Scot McKnight will be reviewing "Love Wins" by around April 1st.
On his Jesus Creed blog, @ Rob Bell Reviews, someone recommended the book:
The Formation of Hell: Death and Retribution in the Ancient and Early Christian Worlds
by Alan E. Bernstein.
Reviewed by Jerry Walls: here.
========================
For the money, I'd go with Bernstein, myself.
And I'm not even supposed to BE here, OK Bye

Re: Rob Bell: Universalist?
In case my post doesn't get posted:
heretic
early 14c., from Fr. hérétique 14c.), from Church L. hereticus, from Gk. hairetikos “able to choose,” the verbal adj. of hairein
=========
heresy
“an opinion of private men different from that of the catholick and orthodox church” [Johnson], early 13c., from O.Fr. heresie, from L. hæresis, “school of thought, philosophical sect,” used by Christian writers for “unorthodox sect or doctrine,” from Gk. hairesis “a taking or choosing,” from haireisthai “take, seize,” middle voice of hairein “to choose,” of unknown origin. The Greek word was used in N.T. [and by Josephus, mine] in reference to the Sadducees, Pharisees, and even the Christians, as sects of Judaism described , but in English bibles it usually is translated sect. Meaning “religious belief opposed to the orthodox doctrines of the Church” evolved in Late Latin in the Dark Ages.
===========
Thus, the original meaning of “heretic” or a “heresy” is about the same as a “sect” or “denomination”: Points to individuals and/or groups who “choose differently from others.”
===========
Source: Online Etymology Dictionary
heretic
early 14c., from Fr. hérétique 14c.), from Church L. hereticus, from Gk. hairetikos “able to choose,” the verbal adj. of hairein
=========
heresy
“an opinion of private men different from that of the catholick and orthodox church” [Johnson], early 13c., from O.Fr. heresie, from L. hæresis, “school of thought, philosophical sect,” used by Christian writers for “unorthodox sect or doctrine,” from Gk. hairesis “a taking or choosing,” from haireisthai “take, seize,” middle voice of hairein “to choose,” of unknown origin. The Greek word was used in N.T. [and by Josephus, mine] in reference to the Sadducees, Pharisees, and even the Christians, as sects of Judaism described , but in English bibles it usually is translated sect. Meaning “religious belief opposed to the orthodox doctrines of the Church” evolved in Late Latin in the Dark Ages.
===========
Thus, the original meaning of “heretic” or a “heresy” is about the same as a “sect” or “denomination”: Points to individuals and/or groups who “choose differently from others.”
===========
Source: Online Etymology Dictionary
