Pastor Rob Bell Leaving Mars Hill Church

[awakeningaletheia]

These are no longer my views

 

[awakeningaletheia]

God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. (1 John 4:16)

The old cliche, God is love, but love is not God, seem to just be people trying to put Him in a box. Everything God is, love is, and everything love is, God is. We shouldn't be afraid of this, if John can say "abide in love and you abide in God", well then I would have to conclude that love is God. But not the human form of love we have in mind, but the true divine love that is above all description. Why are people so afraid of love? People sure aren't afraid of hating people, why is love the one that sends terror through us? Sure think on love, but not too much! There still wrath and justice and all sorts of scary stuff! Have you ever thought that maybe love is holy? That love is just and angry at injustice? Ponder that one with me =)

 

[brightmorningstar]

Hell is a mistranslation of 3 Greek words and 1 Hebrew.

Not really mistranslation. The words still mean what the Bible holistically describes.

So why are the gates open? Because the nations and kings of the earth (previously enemies of God) will come in (Rev 21:24-26).

Reasonable assumption considering the verse also says
On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there. 26 The glory and honor of the nations will be brought into it. 27 Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

One could also assume that if the verse mentions no-one impure will enter and only the names in the book of life then there must be some who fall into that category. And if one looks at the rest of the Bible one sees there are. Lazarus and the rich man, there was no crossing after physical death, Matthew 25, eternal life/eternal death.
But if you read on to Rev 22, then the river of life is shown and
14 "Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. 15 Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.
There are still some outside, and still a warning that the name will be removed from the book of life.

That everyone is saved is the same deception as Adam and Eve fell for in the Garden of Eden. 'You surely wont die'

Deception is too near the truth to be seen as false without examination to expose it.

 

[brightmorningstar]

The old cliche, God is love, but love is not God, seem to just be people trying to put Him in a box.

In His rightful box perhaps. He ordains a people set apart from the world and His Kingdom is not of this world. The usual cliche is 'God is love, not love is god' the second god with a small 'g'

But not the human form of love we have in mind,

Yes that is it. Many have the human idea of love, but if its not of God its not actually love.
This is one excellent thing about the KJV version (which I use as an occasional backup for reasons like this) in that is often uses charity instead of love. Even that has different connotations today rather than the holitistic Biblical meaning. but it make one reflect.

 

[ebia]

... and His Kingdom is not of this world.

More precisely, Jesus said "... my kingdom is not from this world.

 

[brightmorningstar]

ebia,

More precisely, Jesus said "... my kingdom is not from this world.

Irrelevant, the word in Strongs is 'out of' or 'from', both the NIV and KJV say 'of' and as far as I can see from would probably be better but wouldn't chnage the 'not'

I find your remark is unhelpful it just throws potential confusion into a debate where one set of scriptures is being taken to ignore another set.
One cannot imply all will be saved by ignoring the texts that say not all will be saved.

 

[ebia]

ebia,
Irrelevant, the word in Strongs is 'out of' or 'from', both the NIV and KJV say 'of' and as far as I can see from would probably be better but wouldn't chnage the 'not'

I find your remark is unhelpful it just throws potential confusion into a debate where one set of scriptures is being taken to ignore another set.
One cannot imply all will be saved by ignoring the texts that say not all will be saved.

That text has nothing to do with saying "not all will be saved". His kingdom is not from this world but it is for this world. That's why "of" isn't wrong but it's less precise than the Greek is and leaves the text open to common misinterpretions.

Saying all will be saved is considered heresy. To say all may be saved has a long and honorable tradition among some of history's finest theologians including Gregory of Naziansus and has always been considered within the range of acceptable opinion across the historic church.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Ebia,

That text has nothing to do with saying "not all will be saved".

Irrelevant, that wasnt the point made.

His kingdom is not from this world but it is for this world. That's why "of" isn't wrong but it's less precise than the Greek is and leaves the text open to common misinterpretions.

Agreed

Saying all will be saved is considered heresy. To say all may be saved has a long and honorable tradition among some of history's finest theologians including Gregory of Naziansus and has always been considered within the range of acceptable opinion across the historic church.

This is true, but of course in the context of not saying all will be saved which means some wont. The danger is when all may be saved is used not as it should be to show the availability but to imply all will be saved.

 

[ebia]

Ebia,
Irrelevant, that wasnt the point made.
Agreed

This is true, but of course in the context of not saying all will be saved which means some wont. The danger is when all may be saved is used not as it should be to show the availability but to imply all will be saved.

You misunderstand. When one says "all may be saved" one isn't expressing a hypothetical that won't ever come true - one is is expressing uncertainty. That it may be that God can and will save all. To phrase it differently "it may be that all will be saved". That's the position of Gregory etc, and that is historically acceptable within E Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Anglicanism. The heresy is to say that "it is certain that God will save all" - that does NOT mean that it is certain that some will not be saved.

One can hold that there will be some unsaved
Or
One can hold that there may or may not be some unsaved and hope for the latter

One may not hold as definite that all are saved.

 

[Timothew]

Ebia and Bright,
This is interesting because I just read on Bill Mounce's Blog (Author of Basics of Biblical Greek), where Dr. Mounce is contemplating the use of "May" in phrases like "all may be saved". Here is the link to his blog.
My Second Thoughts about Subjunctives in Purpose Clauses | BillMounce.com

 

[brightmorningstar]

Ebia,

You misunderstand.

No I dont.

When one says "all may be saved" one isn't expressing a hypothetical that won't ever come true - one is is expressing uncertainty.

Then it is heresy as it contradicts the ‘not all will be saved’
‘Not all will be saved’ can only mean not all with be saved, ‘all may be saved’ cannot mean therefore that all might be saved otherwise it makes ‘not all will be saved’ false. All may be saved means the doors are always open for ‘whoever’ believes.
The scripture affirms that.
Dont bother throwing early church fathers into the argument, they made some crass errors as well as foundational and true statements.

 

[ebia]

Ebia,
No I dont.
Then it is heresy as it contradicts the 'not all will be saved'
'Not all will be saved' can only mean not all with be saved, 'all may be saved' cannot mean therefore that all might be saved otherwise it makes 'not all will be saved' false. All may be saved means the doors are always open for 'whoever' believes.

"it may be that all may be saved" and to hope they will be is what Gregory and others meant, what many great theologians think, and officially within acceptable thinking for EOs, RCCs and Anglicans. It is not heresy. The heresy is to be certain that they will be. Your misunderstanding of how is sometimes phrased is irrelevant.

That's a matter of history and official doctrine. You may disagree with it but it's historical and doctrinal fact.

The point of quoting someone like Gregory of Naziansus is not that it proves the point correct, but that it proves the position is not heretical.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Ebia,
Sorry what you are saying simply doesnt work, its a contradiction.
All may be saved can only mean its open to all when the scriptures also say some wont.
This is not liberalism trying to bend reality again.

The point of quoting someone like Gregory of Naziansus is not that it proves the point correct, but that it proves the position is not heretical.

But it doesn’t prove anything, except perhaps he was deceived. If some are saved all may be but some aren’t. You cannot change scripture by tradition and reason.

God wishes that none should perish and promises all who believe will be saved.

And isnt it notable that liberalism which usually involves 'do not judge' who can be saved, and universalism, combine the two to judge that all will eb saved.

 

[ebia]

Ebia,
Sorry what you are saying simply doesnt work, its a contradiction.

no it is not.

All may be saved can only mean its open to all

that's simply not what it means, whether or not you can fit what it does mean into your schema

when the scriptures also say some wont.
This is not liberalism trying to bend reality again.

it's not liberalism - it's an ancient admissable position in all three apostolic churches and beyond.

You may think such a position is mistaken, but you cannot say it is heretical or liberal.

And isnt it notable that liberalism which usually involves 'do not judge' who can be saved, and universalism, combine the two to judge that all will eb saved.

we aren't talking about liberalism nor saying that all will definitely be saved. We are talking about the historic and acceptable position that God may save all and that it's appropriate to hope that he will.

Let repeat so hopefully you can see the distinction. There are three possibilities of belief:
A. All will be saved
B. Some will be saved and some not
C. We do not know whether a is true or b but we hope for a.

A is heresy. B and C are acceptable positions. That is fact - it's not up for debate.

You can debate whether B or C is the better position to hold (I'm not going to) but you cannot call either heresy or liberal within reasonable meaning of either word. Being wrong does not make something heretical.

 

[ebia]

It would not make sense to hope that all are saved if one knew that was not the case, would it?

 

[CGL1023]

I've been a Christian over 30 years now and there's one consistent thing I've observed in those who've fallen away from Christ - the first serious belief they adopt is the non-existence of hell.

Just this evening I have encountered the "non-existence of hell", as you put it, in a big way on CF forums. I had heard of this individual, Bell,and his book being lauded by the liberal media, them using his quotes etc.

One individual above said ..."pray for him (Bell)"... but I am reminded of Paul calling out Hymenaeus and Alexander 1 Tim 1:20 NLT. "Hymenaeus and Alexander are two examples. I threw them out and handed them over to Satan so they might learn not to blaspheme God". Sounds like a plan for Bell.

The tendency of many is to give false teachers a pass. False doctrine is lying about God and subverting the Gospel.

This evening I was on a web site that I got on a CF forum concerning the "non-existence of hell". I could feel the evil while on that site and rushed to get away. I invoked the power of the Blood, Name of Jesus, etc. in cutting off any demonic attachments, assignments etc. It was the worst I had experienced. I had only heard of this phenomenon; never met it face to face.

How I have rambled on. Pardon me.

 

[Gnarwhal]

Just this evening I have encountered the "non-existence of hell", as you put it, in a big way on CF forums. I had heard of this individual, Bell,and his book being lauded by the liberal media, them using his quotes etc.

One individual above said ..."pray for him (Bell)"... but I am reminded of Paul calling out Hymenaeus and Alexander 1 Tim 1:20 NLT. "Hymenaeus and Alexander are two examples. I threw them out and handed them over to Satan so they might learn not to blaspheme God". Sounds like a plan for Bell.

The tendency of many is to give false teachers a pass. False doctrine is lying about God and subverting the Gospel.

This evening I was on a web site that I got on a CF forum concerning the "non-existence of hell". I could feel the evil while on that site and rushed to get away. I invoked the power of the Blood, Name of Jesus, etc. in cutting off any demonic attachments, assignments etc. It was the worst I had experienced. I had only heard of this phenomenon; never met it face to face.

How I have rambled on. Pardon me.

Have you actually read the book? It appears as though you haven't and if that's the case your judgments and accusations have no merit, and thus it makes your assertion that Bell should be "dealt with" like Hymaneaus and Alexander all the more offensive.

I have read the book. I've found it to be a wholly compelling and biblically sound book. It appears as though you have arrived at your conclusions without doing any honest research on your own, and simply pass on the tired old rhetoric that has spilled across the internet for months now.

The biggest, and most ignorant claim is that Bell denies the existence of hell. He never says that. Ever. In Love Wins he—rightfully so—calls into question the nature of hell as preached by Americanized Christianity. He intelligently lays out a variety of Scriptural, literary and cultural evidence that challenges the archaic understanding of eternal torment and simply asks the question: how can we know this for sure?

Bell has gone on record several times starting long before Love Wins was even at the drawing board (and long after it hit book stores) as affirming everything that the historic and orthodox church has ever affirmed. He is not a universalist, which he has repeated explicitly a number of times.

Yet, I would wager that in spite of the inappropriately large amount of flack that has been directed his way from leaders who's status quo and fat paychecks were threatened, he still on a daily basis manages to profoundly impact the world and the Kingdom of God in ways that are astronomically greater than all of his detractors, let alone 99.9% of us here on CF.

 

[woodpecker]

he is a universalist, he believes all will be saved and spend eternity with God.

read and watch a video made by Rob Bell below. After watching this video I am amazed he was a pastor of a mega church, for in the video he proclaims he does not know how to be "one of the few" who Will be saved from Gods judgment.

Brothers and sister, we are living in a time where there are many false teachers, please read the bible, pray and ask God to show you the truth, for their is truth that will set you free from judgment of sin.

Something Bell does not understand...our God is a holy, a righteous God,...in the OT we had sacrifices of animals,...why...for someone had to be die for our unholy behavior...then came the ultimate sacrifice....God himself, Jesus...his blood covers the sins of those who surrender their lives to this sacrifice of love

but Rob Bell says this type of God is not good, he claims why would we want a God who could send Gandhi to hell....

Rob Bell: Universalist? – Justin Taylor

 

[Lord Herdsetk]

he is a universalist, he believes all will be saved and spend eternity with God.

read and watch a video made by Rob Bell below. After watching this video I am amazed he was a pastor of a mega church, for in the video he proclaims he does not know how to be "one of the few" who Will be saved from Gods judgment.

Brothers and sister, we are living in a time where there are many false teachers, please read the bible, pray and ask God to show you the truth, for their is truth that will set you free from judgment of sin.

Something Bell does not understand...our God is a holy, a righteous God,...in the OT we had sacrifices of animals,...why...for someone had to be die for our unholy behavior...then came the ultimate sacrifice....God himself, Jesus...his blood covers the sins of those who surrender their lives to this sacrifice of love

but Rob Bell says this type of God is not good, he claims why would we want a God who could send Gandhi to hell....

Rob Bell: Universalist? – Justin Taylor

To be fair, Jews believe...or at least its a belief... is that whoever lives a righteous life will be rewarded righteously. That includes the righteous of all nations, not just Jews. The wicked will either be purified and go to Heaven or be destroyed if they are just utterly wicked without hope of being restored. (google Olam Ha-Ba)

Seeing as Yeshua claimed not to do away with the Law but to fulfill it, I tend to view it in the same way. I believe our actions have just as much consequence as our faith, if not doubly so. I believe that's why he preached so much on how to live our life here and now.

 

[Gnarwhal]

he is a universalist, he believes all will be saved and spend eternity with God.

read and watch a video made by Rob Bell below. After watching this video I am amazed he was a pastor of a mega church, for in the video he proclaims he does not know how to be "one of the few" who Will be saved from Gods judgment.

Brothers and sister, we are living in a time where there are many false teachers, please read the bible, pray and ask God to show you the truth, for their is truth that will set you free from judgment of sin.

Something Bell does not understand...our God is a holy, a righteous God,...in the OT we had sacrifices of animals,...why...for someone had to be die for our unholy behavior...then came the ultimate sacrifice....God himself, Jesus...his blood covers the sins of those who surrender their lives to this sacrifice of love

but Rob Bell says this type of God is not good, he claims why would we want a God who could send Gandhi to hell....

Rob Bell: Universalist? - Justin Taylor

Once again he never says "I believe [XYZ]", XYZ being the tenants of universalism. He says it's possible that all may be saved. The operative words here are "possible" and "may".

Furthermore, he cleared the air once and for all back in March with the opening to a sermon which can be listened to hear:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfboAzw-XGU&feature=youtube_gdata_player

At 0:05 he says "I believe Jesus is the way"
At 0:15 he says "I'm not a universalist"
At 0:28 he says "I believe in salvation"
At 0:32 he says "I believe there's been a resurrection"
At 0:37 he says "I also believe its best to only discuss books you've actually read"

Proof positive that he's not a universalist and those that insist he is do so because admitting otherwise would disrupt and shatter not only their own theology but their entire worldview.