Thoughts on Rob Bell?

[KingCrimson250]

If you're talking about the neo-Reformed camp in general, I think the general idea regarding hell is that no hell means no gospel. It's not that it has to exist but that it's biblical.

Unfortunately this strikes me as more theological bullying, and more or less the modus operandi of the neo-Reformers in general: tie everything in with the Gospel, and then attack views you don't like by saying they undermine the Gospel. They tend to do the same thing with PSA (penal substitutionary atonement) and in some cases, even Calvinism (as ludicrous as that might sound): If you don't believe it, the Gospel doesn't work.

Of course I would point out that their view of the Gospel is sorely limited, and speaks only to its soteriological aspect, which is but a fraction (albeit an important fraction) of the whole picture. But that's getting too far afield.

It is very possible to have the Gospel without hell. It's not a view I would agree with - I would not say I believe in hell in the classical sense (i.e. Satan ruling over a torture chamber for sinners, that's hardly Biblical), but I do believe that there does seem to be some sort of eternal torment for those who reject God, so if you put a gun to my head I suppose I would say I do believe in "hell," as it were, but not as it is often meant.

To return to the earlier digression (unfortunately), I think the issue stems from this faulty understanding of the Gospel. They make it out to be only about salvation, only about "heaven and hell," so of course it falls apart when you take hell out of the picture. If they were to look at an understanding of the Gospel that's more deeply rooted in Scripture, they would see that it's about the establishing of Christ's kingdom, again of which our salvation is only a small part. This more theocentric Gospel certainly does not hinge on the idea of hell.

The problem with their view of the Gospel is that they try to understand Christ in the light of Paul, and not the other way around. If there's one thing I've noticed about evangelicalism in general, actually, it's that 80% of the preaching seems to come from the Pauline epistles - this can't help but lead to a wildly unbalanced theology.

 

[Paulie079]

Unfortunately this strikes me as more theological bullying, and more or less the modus operandi of the neo-Reformers in general: tie everything in with the Gospel, and then attack views you don't like by saying they undermine the Gospel. They tend to do the same thing with PSA (penal substitutionary atonement) and in some cases, even Calvinism (as ludicrous as that might sound): If you don't believe it, the Gospel doesn't work.

Of course I would point out that their view of the Gospel is sorely limited, and speaks only to its soteriological aspect, which is but a fraction (albeit an important fraction) of the whole picture. But that's getting too far afield.

It is very possible to have the Gospel without hell. It's not a view I would agree with - I would not say I believe in hell in the classical sense (i.e. Satan ruling over a torture chamber for sinners, that's hardly Biblical), but I do believe that there does seem to be some sort of eternal torment for those who reject God, so if you put a gun to my head I suppose I would say I do believe in "hell," as it were, but not as it is often meant.

To return to the earlier digression (unfortunately), I think the issue stems from this faulty understanding of the Gospel. They make it out to be only about salvation, only about "heaven and hell," so of course it falls apart when you take hell out of the picture. If they were to look at an understanding of the Gospel that's more deeply rooted in Scripture, they would see that it's about the establishing of Christ's kingdom, again of which our salvation is only a small part. This more theocentric Gospel certainly does not hinge on the idea of hell.

The problem with their view of the Gospel is that they try to understand Christ in the light of Paul, and not the other way around. If there's one thing I've noticed about evangelicalism in general, actually, it's that 80% of the preaching seems to come from the Pauline epistles - this can't help but lead to a wildly unbalanced theology.

That is no surprise though, is it? Since the majority of theological teaching in the New Testament comes from Paul's writings. But I know there are theological inferences we can make from the four gospels as well. And actually, I really think you have the neo-Reformed understanding of the Gospel completely wrong. It's an over-arching theme in all blogs, books, etc. that seem to come from that camp that the Gospel applies to our everyday life and not just our initial entrance into a relationship with God. Newer books like The Explicit Gospel and Jesus + Nothing = Everything are written specifically to emphasize that idea.

And I think I could make a long post out of this and elaborate, but I'll just keep it short and say that if there were no hell (and when I speak of hell I'm just considering it in a general sense as eternal separation from God) or if nobody went there, then there is really no justice or consequences in relation to our sin is there? Would we really be saved from anything if there is no hell? Against what you seem to insinuate, they don't tie everything to the Gospel in a way that says "If you disagree with us, you disagree with the Gospel." This is one of those topics where that argument is legitimate, though, because the Gospel does pertain to salvation and when we talk about salvation, there is something that people are being saved from.

 

[SnowyMacie]

That is no surprise though, is it? Since the majority of theological teaching in the New Testament comes from Paul's writings. But I know there are theological inferences we can make from the four gospels as well. And actually, I really think you have the neo-Reformed understanding of the Gospel completely wrong. It's an over-arching theme in all blogs, books, etc. that seem to come from that camp that the Gospel applies to our everyday life and not just our initial entrance into a relationship with God. Newer books like The Explicit Gospel and Jesus + Nothing = Everything are written specifically to emphasize that idea.

And I think I could make a long post out of this and elaborate, but I'll just keep it short and say that if there were no hell (and when I speak of hell I'm just considering it in a general sense as eternal separation from God) or if nobody went there, then there is really no justice or consequences in relation to our sin is there? Would we really be saved from anything if there is no hell? Against what you seem to insinuate, they don't tie everything to the Gospel in a way that says "If you disagree with us, you disagree with the Gospel." This is one of those topics where that argument is legitimate, though, because the Gospel does pertain to salvation and when we talk about salvation, there is something that people are being saved from.

No, the majority of theological teaching comes from the gospels, Paul is secondary and should be used in light of the gospels.

I know several universalists, known of them deny the existence of Hell. Rob Bell doesn't deny Hell existences either. I don't know anyone who says Hell doesn't exist.

The point of gospel isn't about us or our salvation from Hell. Don't get me wrong, that's a big part of it. The gospel is about bringing the Kingdom of God/Heaven to Earth.

 

[Paulie079]

No, the majority of theological teaching comes from the gospels, Paul is secondary and should be used in light of the gospels.

We may be straying off-topic, but it's all Scripture. Paul's writings essentially elaborate on the spiritual by-products of what happened in the gospel accounts and so it's true that his writings are only validated by what's written in the gospels, but his writings are just as divinely inspired as the gospels and in that sense are not secondary at all. They should be given the exact same weight.

 

[SnowyMacie]

We may be straying off-topic, but it's all Scripture. Paul's writings essentially elaborate on the spiritual by-products of what happened in the gospel accounts and so it's true that his writings are only validated by what's written in the gospels, but his writings are just as divinely inspired as the gospels and in that sense are not secondary at all. They should be given the exact same weight.

We are straying off topic, and I'm going to stop because I'm one report away from getting a temporary ban.

 

[Holden Caulfield]

Rob Bell has been one of the most profound and influential leaders for my faith. My church attendance has been somewhat sporadic the last 4-5 years, mainly because differing perspectives between myself and the various churches. Throughout all the turmoil and "church hopping", it's been nice to have that constant with Mars Hill Bible Church and tuning into their sermons every week.

I find Bell's theology to be completely on point, and just like he asserts in the preface of Love Wins, nothing he's presenting hasn't been presented before. I've read all of his stuff and it's always helped shape my faith, and sometimes redefine it for the better.

The argument that he's an out-and-out universalist is tired at best, he's confirmed time and again that he's not. People just intentionally choose to ignore this because they have a personal axe to grind against anyone that's challenged the worldview they've committed to. If anything at all, he's merely suggesting that it would be fitting for a Christian who follows in Christ's love, compassion and generosity to hope for the possibility that all may be saved. There's operative words there that his detractors like to gloss over like "hope" and "may".

 

[KingCrimson250]

And I think I could make a long post out of this and elaborate, but I'll just keep it short and say that if there were no hell (and when I speak of hell I'm just considering it in a general sense as eternal separation from God) or if nobody went there, then there is really no justice or consequences in relation to our sin is there? Would we really be saved from anything if there is no hell? Against what you seem to insinuate, they don't tie everything to the Gospel in a way that says "If you disagree with us, you disagree with the Gospel." This is one of those topics where that argument is legitimate, though, because the Gospel does pertain to salvation and when we talk about salvation, there is something that people are being saved from.

But again, that's a faulty notion of the Gospel, I think. I agree that the Gospel is something that influences every aspect of our lives, but as I said, it is primarily the initiation of the reign of King Jesus and the fulfilment of the OT covenant. Our deliverance from sin and our salvation from hell is a part of that, but only a small part, and were the hell we are delivered from to be a metaphor (for death, perhaps) rather than an actual place of eternal judgment, that would do nothing to undermine the truths of the Gospel I named above.

This might seem a bit like straining gnats, since we both seem to more or less agree on the issue of hell itself, but it's an important issue from an ecumenical perspective. Once we start saying "Listen, if you don't agree with my stance on hell, you're not preaching the Gospel," we've started creating divisions that are, in my opinion, rather unnecessary. Yes, hell is relevant to the Gospel, but the Gospel does not hinge upon it. To argue against those who hold different views of hell is one thing. To accuse them of undermining the Gospel (as some of the neo-Reformers have) is something entirely different.

And again, not to keep coming back to this, but I can't help but notice that they were a lot more gracious to T.D. Jakes than they were to Rob Bell. There is no way that some sort of ambiguous hopeful universalism is more damaging to the Gospel than modalism. The list of things that I would consider to be heresy or antithetical to Christianity is very short (basically, if you can agree with the Apostolic Creed, I'm happy), but denying the Trinity is one of them.

 

[SnowyMacie]

But again, that's a faulty notion of the Gospel, I think. I agree that the Gospel is something that influences every aspect of our lives, but as I said, it is primarily the initiation of the reign of King Jesus and the fulfilment of the OT covenant. Our deliverance from sin and our salvation from hell is a part of that, but only a small part, and were the hell we are delivered from to be a metaphor (for death, perhaps) rather than an actual place of eternal judgment, that would do nothing to undermine the truths of the Gospel I named above.

This might seem a bit like straining gnats, since we both seem to more or less agree on the issue of hell itself, but it's an important issue from an ecumenical perspective. Once we start saying "Listen, if you don't agree with my stance on hell, you're not preaching the Gospel," we've started creating divisions that are, in my opinion, rather unnecessary. Yes, hell is relevant to the Gospel, but the Gospel does not hinge upon it. To argue against those who hold different views of hell is one thing. To accuse them of undermining the Gospel (as some of the neo-Reformers have) is something entirely different.

And again, not to keep coming back to this, but I can't help but notice that they were a lot more gracious to T.D. Jakes than they were to Rob Bell. There is no way that some sort of ambiguous hopeful universalism is more damaging to the Gospel than modalism. The list of things that I would consider to be heresy or antithetical to Christianity is very short (basically, if you can agree with the Apostolic Creed, I'm happy), but denying the Trinity is one of them.

What is the apostolic creed?

 

[crishmael]

What is the apostolic creed?

I believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried; he descended into hell; on the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty; from there he will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen.

 

[SnowyMacie]

I believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried; he descended into hell; on the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty; from there he will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen.

oh okay.

 

[Paulie079]

But again, that's a faulty notion of the Gospel, I think. I agree that the Gospel is something that influences every aspect of our lives, but as I said, it is primarily the initiation of the reign of King Jesus and the fulfilment of the OT covenant. Our deliverance from sin and our salvation from hell is a part of that, but only a small part, and were the hell we are delivered from to be a metaphor (for death, perhaps) rather than an actual place of eternal judgment, that would do nothing to undermine the truths of the Gospel I named above.

This might seem a bit like straining gnats, since we both seem to more or less agree on the issue of hell itself, but it's an important issue from an ecumenical perspective. Once we start saying "Listen, if you don't agree with my stance on hell, you're not preaching the Gospel," we've started creating divisions that are, in my opinion, rather unnecessary. Yes, hell is relevant to the Gospel, but the Gospel does not hinge upon it. To argue against those who hold different views of hell is one thing. To accuse them of undermining the Gospel (as some of the neo-Reformers have) is something entirely different.

And again, not to keep coming back to this, but I can't help but notice that they were a lot more gracious to T.D. Jakes than they were to Rob Bell. There is no way that some sort of ambiguous hopeful universalism is more damaging to the Gospel than modalism. The list of things that I would consider to be heresy or antithetical to Christianity is very short (basically, if you can agree with the Apostolic Creed, I'm happy), but denying the Trinity is one of them.

The thing is, though, the Gospel is emphasized so strongly in the neo-Reformed camp because life change emerges from the Gospel. Through a greater emphasis on it, more people are coming to understand it (which up until recently was an problem in the evangelical world) and more people are giving their lives to Christ and growing in relationship with him. But also, we as human beings are, by the grace of God, an important piece to the kingdom of God coming to earth. It was through people that sin came into the world and God has chosen to settle the matter through the Gospel and hell. I think, then, where we differ is that I see the Gospel as being a large part of God's kingdom and Christ's reign coming to earth. That has happened through Christ ruling in the hearts of people, after all. And without the Gospel, Christ would not be ruling in the hearts of people because we wouldn't have relationship with him at all.

As for T.D. Jakes, the circumstances were a bit different for him than they were for Rob Bell. Rob Bell was writing and promoting a book while someone from within the neo-Reformed camp (James McDonald) had invited T.D. Jakes to participate in his Elephant Room conference. So really, James McDonald took the brunt of the force of the opposition in that matter moreso than Jakes did. There were blog posts written in opposition to what he was doing and ultimately, he left the Gospel Coalition because, while he believed that what he was doing was right, he also felt as though he wasn't reflecting the overall principles of the organization by doing what he was doing, which is why he left. Also, much of this uproar happened within the context of the Gospel Coalition and the Elephant Room whereas Bell releasing his book took place in a much broader context. I really don't think you can take the reactions of the two situations and say that they felt more strongly about one doctrine than another.

 

[Verve]

Blind Post: Who? Sorry, never heard of him.

 

[Holden Caulfield]

Blind Post: Who? Sorry, never heard of him.

Rob Bell? He's the founding pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He's authored three books (Velvet Elvis, Sex God and Love Wins) and co-authored a book with Don Golden (Jesus Wants to Save Christians). He's also the featured speaker on a series of spiritual short films called NOOMA and has a few lectures/sermons/teachings on video like Everything is Spiritual, The Gods Aren't Angry and Drops Like Stars.

He was the subject of significant controversy just prior to the release of Love Wins because people thought or misinterpreted his thesis as advocated universalism, which isn't the case.

Last year he handed Mars Hill over to his fellow pastor on staff Shane Hipps and moved to LA to pursue a new endeavor.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

[Verve]

Rob Bell? He's the founding pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He's authored three books (Velvet Elvis, Sex God and Love Wins) and co-authored a book with Don Golden (Jesus Wants to Save Christians). He's also the featured speaker on a series of spiritual short films called NOOMA and has a few lectures/sermons/teachings on video like Everything is Spiritual, The Gods Aren't Angry and Drops Like Stars.

He was the subject of significant controversy just prior to the release of Love Wins because people thought or misinterpreted his thesis as advocated universalism, which isn't the case.

Last year he handed Mars Hill over to his fellow pastor on staff Shane Hipps and moved to LA to pursue a new endeavor.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

Thanks! Well, I don't think it's bad to pick books/sermons based on how much they line up with the Bible. I think we focus too much sometimes on supplements rather than basing things directly on what it says in the Bible.

 

[Holden Caulfield]

Thanks! Well, I don't think it's bad to pick books/sermons based on how much they line up with the Bible. I think we focus too much sometimes on supplements rather than basing things directly on what it says in the Bible.

You're absolutely right, a healthy balance should be struck. I think the opposite is also a risk and the bible can be idolized (see: bibliolatry). When we neglect to consider the historical and cultural elements of the Scriptures there's a significant chance we'll wind up off course. That's one reason I appreciate authors like Bell is that they don't forget those things and it results in a hermeneutic that's far more holistic, one that gets us to the core of the Jesus message.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

[Holden Caulfield]

Double post.

 

[welshman]

In my opinion, one of the most dangerous teachers out there. If in doubt watch "The Real Roots Of The Emergent Church" documentary by Elliott Nesch from start to finish. Gives a comprehensive insight into who influenced people such as Bell, McClaren, Chalke, Pagitt et al. Mind boggling stuff.

 

[Rhamiel]

the video you posted dispages the desert fathers....

 

[SnowyMacie]

the video you posted dispages the desert fathers....

wrong thread?

 

[Rhamiel]

wrong thread?

oh my mistake, the documentary he referanced was like two hours long
watching it i forgot that he did not link it lol
i went on youtube and watched "The Real Roots of the Emergent Church"
blah, a lot of hype