Pastor Rob Bell Leaving Mars Hill Church

[brightmorningstar]

Ebia,

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.

No thats a contradiction, we know some will not be saved as the scripture says so.
A and C are both false.

 

[ebia]

Ebia,

No thats a contradiction, we know some will not be saved

You may "know" that but it is not heresy to disagree and say "I do not know that". All 3 apostolic churches officially allow that and have done as far back as we can tell.

Even if the position were incorrect, incorrect does not equal heresy.

 

[Avelina777]

Ebia,

No thats a contradiction, we know some will not be saved as the scripture says so.
A and C are both false.

Agreed brother

 

[woodpecker]

Does Bell believe in hell, yes, bul not the bibles definition of hell.

Does Bell believe in heaven? Yes.

Is Bell firmly rooted in Christian orthodoxy, he says yes, but his ideas and teachings say something else

. Does Bell think that Jesus is the way? Yes, but who does Bell say Jesus is? the Jesus Bell worships is a universalist. Bells Jesus, is reconciling all creation to God, ''and that we shouldn't assume that God will fail at this''. (how arrogant for Bell to make such an accusation, that God would be a failure if people went to a literal hell)

Bells definition of hell:

''Suffering exists and God cares about those in pain, yet God loves us enough to allow us to continue to live in the hell of our own choosing''.

'' Hell is real, but it is a place WE CREATE for ourselves as we reject the gift of life God offers to us here on earth''.

''But in the scriptures judgment is always connected to restoration. God's essence is love and that essence can never change. The gates of heaven never shut, for even as God will not abide injustice and sin in God's realm, God by nature is always desiring the reconciliation and restoration of all things. God can never stop being God which means that in the end, love has to win, all are saved.''

 

[Gnarwhal]

Does Bell believe in hell, yes, bul not the bibles definition of hell.

Does Bell believe in heaven? Yes.

Is Bell firmly rooted in Christian orthodoxy, he says yes, but his ideas and teachings say something else

. Does Bell think that Jesus is the way? Yes, but who does Bell say Jesus is? the Jesus Bell worships is a universalist. Bells Jesus, is reconciling all creation to God, ''and that we shouldn't assume that God will fail at this''. (how arrogant for Bell to make such an accusation, that God would be a failure if people went to a literal hell)

Bells definition of hell:

''Suffering exists and God cares about those in pain, yet God loves us enough to allow us to continue to live in the hell of our own choosing''.

'' Hell is real, but it is a place WE CREATE for ourselves as we reject the gift of life God offers to us here on earth''.

''But in the scriptures judgment is always connected to restoration. God's essence is love and that essence can never change. The gates of heaven never shut, for even as God will not abide injustice and sin in God's realm, God by nature is always desiring the reconciliation and restoration of all things. God can never stop being God which means that in the end, love has to win, all are saved.''

I agree with him. I also follow the Jesus of the Scriptures, which say that God is reconciling all things to himself on earth and in heaven. He is redeeming creation through Christs resurrection which will culminate in his return and the resurrection of the dead.

Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner

 

[brightmorningstar]

ebia,

You may "know" that but it is not heresy to disagree and say "I do not know that".

I know it because Jesus NT teaching affirms it. How do you ‘know’ it isn’t the case?
Nor do I think you are representing the position of the church, but rather factions who do not agree with scripture on this.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Now of course Christ is reconciling all things to Him, but that doesn't mean all things will choose to be saved, the way is made but the choice is still there, as it has been throughout the Biblical testimony from Genesis 3 to Revelation 22.
Why would God wish that none should perish if none are going to?

 

[ebia]

Nor do I think you are representing the position of the church, but rather factions who do not agree with scripture on this.

Well you are incorrect about that. You can check Timothy Ware for the Orthodox position. For the Catholic one you could try reading Hans Urs Von Balthasar, or JPII, or Cardinal Murphy O'Connor.

Or check out the early fathers like Gregory - they can be incorrect but they can't be heretics in either E Orthodox or Catholic thinking.

 

[ebia]

Now of course Christ is reconciling all things to Him, but that doesn't mean all things will choose to be saved, the way is made but the choice is still there, as it has been throughout the Biblical testimony from Genesis 3 to Revelation 22.
Why would God wish that none should perish if none are going to?

"Wish" does not imply "will not happen".

 

[brightmorningstar]

ebia,
Well I wont check the early fathers, whilst they affirmed profound truths from the scriptures they also made some dubious statements.
All may be saved cant mean all will be saved if the NT says some wont.

"Wish" does not imply "will not happen".

Nor does it apply that it will happen. And I was using that together with the passages that say some will go to eternal death.

This is pretty fundamental, God said to Adam and Eve that if they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they would surely die, the serpent deceived them into thinking they wouldn’t. In Revelation 22 right at the end we see some names are not written in the book, and some are outside. How can one say no one will die and some will not be outside, when the Biblical testimony says they will?

 

[ebia]

ebia,
Well I wont check the early fathers, whilst they affirmed profound truths from the scriptures they also made some dubious statements.

dubious, sometimes
Wrong, sometimes
Heretical - not by definition.

All may be saved cant mean all will be saved if the NT says some wont.

all may be saved means what it says even though you disagree with it and think scripture supports you. It means that "it is possible that god will save everybody" and is usually accompanied by the hope that God will save all (which also confirms it's meaning if there were any doubt).


You can repeat your disagreement all you like - its an historically acceptable position in all 3 apostolic churches.

 

[brightmorningstar]

ebia,

all may be saved means what it says

I agree it means what it says as long as other scripture means what is says.
There is nothing wrong with the statement ‘all may be saved’. On the face of it ‘all may be saved’ not only means the way is open to all to be saved but also the possibility that all will be saved. As the scripture also says some will not, the former holds true but the latter does not.
So

It means that "it is possible that god will save everybody" and is usually accompanied by the hope that God will save all (which also confirms it's meaning if there were any doubt).

incorrect. It cannot mean it is possible that God will save everyone when God’s Biblical testimony says not all will be saved. Its contradicting God's word with God's word.

 

[ebia]

ebia,
I agree it means what it says as long as other scripture means what is says.
There is nothing wrong with the statement 'all may be saved'. On the face of it 'all may be saved' not only means the way is open to all to be saved but also the possibility that all will be saved. As the scripture also says some will not, the former holds true but the latter does not.
So
incorrect.

that's what it means. It's possible to write a false statement. "all may be saved" is just a common way of saying it. It's often said in other ways or other languages where it cannot be forced into the meaning you want to give it (which properly would be "each may be saved" anyway.

It cannot mean it is possible that God will save everyone when God's Biblical testimony says not all will be saved. Its contradicting God's word with God's word.

it does contradict what you think scripture says. We aren't talking about a quote from scripture here - we are talking about church teaching.


Is that why you're going in circles - you are trying to fit what you think is a scriptural quotation into what you think scripture says elsewhere?

If we were talking about a scriptural quotation it's meaning would be resolved not by what your theology demands but by what Greek lexicography and syntax told us.

 

[katherine2001]

ebia,
I agree it means what it says as long as other scripture means what is says.
There is nothing wrong with the statement ‘all may be saved’. On the face of it ‘all may be saved’ not only means the way is open to all to be saved but also the possibility that all will be saved. As the scripture also says some will not, the former holds true but the latter does not.
So
incorrect. It cannot mean it is possible that God will save everyone when God’s Biblical testimony says not all will be saved. Its contradicting God's word with God's word.

God desires that all will be saved, but in the end, He also respects our free will. Unfortunately, not all people choose to be saved--there are some that will say no to Him and He respects that no. That doesn't mean that He gives up on us and that He doesn't keep trying to get us to say yes, but if we never say yes to Him, He will respect that.

 

[brightmorningstar]

ebia,

It's possible to write a false statement. "all may be saved" is just a common way of saying it. It's often said in other ways or other languages where it cannot be forced into the meaning you want to give it (which properly would be "each may be saved" anyway.

What false statement.? ‘All may be saved’ is not a false statement. The issue is it cant be the meaning it appears you want to give it because scripture holistically doesn’t allow it.
It cannot mean it is possible that God will save everyone when God's Biblical testimony says not all will be saved. Its contradicting God's word with God's word.

it does contradict what you think scripture says.

Sorry I don’t do liberal. The scripture says what it says. Matthew 25 and Revelation 22 say some will go to eternal death and some are outside.

 

[brightmorningstar]

God desires that all will be saved, but in the end, He also respects our free will. Unfortunately, not all people choose to be saved--there are some that will say no to Him and He respects that no. That doesn't mean that He gives up on us and that He doesn't keep trying to get us to say yes, but if we never say yes to Him, He will respect that.

Yes agreed.

 

[ebia]

ebia,

What false statement.? 'All may be saved' is not a false statement. The issue is it cant be the meaning it appears you want to give it because scripture holistically doesn't allow it.
It cannot mean it is possible that God will save everyone when God's Biblical testimony says not all will be saved. Its contradicting God's word with God's word.
Sorry I don't do liberal. The scripture says what it says. Matthew 25 and Revelation 22 say some will go to eternal death and some are outside.

Let's forget the string of words "all may be saved" because you are determined to mean something different by them and they arent a direct quote from anything that matters. Getting bogged down on that wording is a red-herring.

It is legitimate and with historic precedent in the apostolic church's to hope that God will save everybody and to believe that might turn out to be the case. See Timothy Ware, JP II, Balthasar, Gregory of Naziansus, Gregory of Nyssa, Rowan Wiiliams if memory serves me correctly, ...

You are perfectly at liberty to disagree with that and insist that some will not be saved. But it cannot be termed heresy without redefining heresy. Something can be incorrect without being heresy so whether or not you can show it as incorrect is irrelevant to whether or not it's heresy.

It is technically heresy to say all will definitely be saved (at least in the west)

 

[brightmorningstar]

ebia,

It is legitimate and with historic precedent in the apostolic church's to hope that God will save everybody and to believe that might turn out to be the case.

How can one hope that God will save everyone when Jesus teaching is that some will go to eternal death and some are outside?
You haven’t explained how.

You are perfectly at liberty to disagree with that and insist that some will not be saved.

No, I am perfectly at liberty to present what the scriptures say and ask you to respond. The scriptures, say (not me, but the scriptures) that some will go to eternal death and some are outside. (Matt 25 and Rev 22) So the question to you is how can all be saved if some aren’t?

 

[ebia]

ebia,

How can one hope that God will save everyone when Jesus teaching is that some will go to eternal death?
You haven't explained how.

I'm not interested in persuading you it's a correct position. I have not even said whether it is my position or not.

I'm interested in pointing out that it is not heresy and is considered a legitimate position to hold by the 3 apostolic churches.

You are at liberty to say it's wrong.
You are not at liberty to call it heresy.

 

[brightmorningstar]

ebia

I'm not interested in persuading you it's a correct position.

I don’t need persuading of scripture I believe thank you.

[FONT=&quot]

I'm interested in pointing out that it is not heresy and is considered a legitimate position to hold by the 3 apostolic churches.

they do not hold what you claim. [/FONT]