Rob Bell: Universalist?

[RICHinCHRIST]

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/

[darinhouston]

To be the devil's advocate, how would a "no-hell" position be damaging to the body of Christ? Assuming it's true for the moment, it strikes me that were it advocated widely, then we'd have many less professing unbelievers than we do today, and those coming to Christ would be doing so for His benefit and not out of a sense of "fire insurance." (I assume by "no hell" you mean no "eternal torment in hell" -- I don't know anyone who would seriously sustain an utterly no hell position based on the bible). If it's not true, what would the real harm be (we certainly have limited aspects of untruths in all of our teaching). I mean, what's particularly damaging about such a doctrine in itself (true or not)?

What seems damaging to me is teaching certainty on subjects like this where there is such ambiguity and uncertainty in the Scriptures.

[Homer]

delete

[look2jesus]

Was just wondering when Calvin had been proved correct previously?!

[TK]

Rich wrote:

If it's a watered down "no-hell" position, it could be very damaging to the body of Christ.

and Darin wrote:

To be the devil's advocate, how would a "no-hell" position be damaging to the body of Christ?

I think I know what you mean, Darin, but i think in actuality the UR position is ONLY damaging to the body of Christ, because certain members in the body of Christ seem to take special glee in the idea of eternal torment. Thus, arguments for UR threaten this fondly held doctrine of theirs. I have seen this personally.

We have been over this ad infinitum in this forum; I am not sure where I stand on this topic although I lean away from the eternal torment view. But like Darin said, I dont see how a doctrine of UR would have a negative effect on non-believers. If they are non-believers even though they know there may be eternal torment(or are oblivious to any doctrine of hell at all- i.e. remote tribes), I am not sure how it would affect them negatively if they were taught that the torment was something less than eternal.

People are supposed to come to Christ for HIS sake, not theirs.

TK

[Perry]

People are supposed to come to Christ for HIS sake, not theirs.

I wonder how many that could apply to. I can't honestly say it applies to me. I can hope that I'm becomming less and less self-centric in my walk, and more and more Christ centric. I think I'm more Christ centric now than when I was first converted. But I don't think it's that uncommon among christians to view Christ first as Savior, and only later come to realize He's also Lord.

[Perry]

This guy Rob Bell...

I'm not at all familiar with the guy, but I'm not sure how fair it is to introduce us to him by way of his detractors. I didn't see much in the video with which to object. I'd be curious to know if you saw something in it that I missed.

[RICHinCHRIST]

To be the devil's advocate, how would a "no-hell" position be damaging to the body of Christ? Assuming it's true for the moment, it strikes me that were it advocated widely, then we'd have many less professing unbelievers than we do today, and those coming to Christ would be doing so for His benefit and not out of a sense of "fire insurance." (I assume by "no hell" you mean no "eternal torment in hell" -- I don't know anyone who would seriously sustain an utterly no hell position based on the bible). If it's not true, what would the real harm be (we certainly have limited aspects of untruths in all of our teaching). I mean, what's particularly damaging about such a doctrine in itself (true or not)?

What seems damaging to me is teaching certainty on subjects like this where there is such ambiguity and uncertainty in the Scriptures.

In the evangelical UR position there still remains a meting out of God's justice upon the unregenerate. Although it is temporary and restorative, it doesn't advocate a position in which no one is judged for their sin. This idea in and of itself I could see being a damaging doctrine because it is clear that God will render to each one according to his works.

I agree, however, that there would most likely be less unbelievers. But on the other side, one could argue that if there is no hell, why would unbelievers want to repent at all? We know that Hell is a wrong reason to motivate someone to become a Christian, but I could see a lot of unbelievers still reject the message just because they feel they can get away with their sin and never be punished for it. The evangelical position of UR would at least keep the idea intact that God is a just judge. The no-hell position seems to misrepresent the justice of God. I'm not sure which position Rob Bell will advocate in his book.

[RICHinCHRIST]

This guy Rob Bell...

I'm not at all familiar with the guy, but I'm not sure how fair it is to introduce us to him by way of his detractors. I didn't see much in the video with which to object. I'd be curious to know if you saw something in it that I missed.

I didn't see anything to object with in the video, I personally lean more toward the conditional immortality view myself. But I just posted the article for a discussion.

[darinhouston]

hey, Rich -- I think you may misunderstand my position re: unbelievers. I'm not at all interested in making Christianity more attractive (artificially) for unbelievers -- it is those unbelievers who are professing Christians living in the so-called "visible church" whom I would love to give a way out of their false professions and let them turn back to their ways until such time as they recognize who Christ is and come on His terms so that the church isn't tarnished by their presence/self-identification within the church (the Lord knows those of us believers in the church already give it a bad enough name at times).

I think I know what you mean, Darin, but i think in actuality the UR position is ONLY damaging to the body of Christ, because certain members in the body of Christ seem to take special glee in the idea of eternal torment. Thus, arguments for UR threaten this fondly held doctrine of theirs. I have seen this personally.

As for those in the body of Christ, it would seem to me a "good" thing to damage this special glee even if ET is correct (and especially if it is not).

So, for both parties (the body of Christ and the false professors), it would seem that the evangelical UR view would be healthy (not so much the "no-consequence" view).