Rob Bell: Heaven, Hell...the Fate Of Everyone Who Ever Lived

[gman]

Anybody following this. Apparently it's quite the controversy around the net and the media. The NY Times even weighed in on it. The promo video for Bell's new book raises a number of questions, among them: is Gandhi in hell, is the Gospel really faith in Christ alone otherwise eternal punishment, and what kind of God is that? Presumably the answers are in the book. I noticed quite a stir about it on facebook. Prominent movers and shakers like John Piper have weighed in on the book, allegedly without reading it, and the word on the street is that Bell comes very close to full blown universalism, though not mentioning it by name.
Ahh, the potential dangers of large scale movements like Mr. Bell's Mars Hill church.
I sensed an attitude among some of the younger folks on facebook that basically said it doesn't matter what he believes. He's a rockstar and we like him, so leave him alone.

[Preacherman777]

I've been reading some reviews from people who actually have advance copies of the book and have read it. From what I'm getting, he is taking a position that is essentially the same as what has come to be known Christian Universalism. It's the same belief system that Dale Thompson of "Bride" now holds to. The idea being that there is a Hell and that those who don't accept Christ will go there, but the purpose of Hell is to refine them and fit them for Heaven and that no one spends eternity there. Without a doubt it conflicts with Biblical teaching, although they will tell you it doesn't and that the orthodox understanding of Hell is a misunderstanding. I am finding this shying away from any notion of eternal Hell to be pretty common in the emergent church.

[zak89]

We can't? Not sure I got your meaning. I seem to notice plenty of people questioning both.

[CatNamedManny]

I haven't read much of this blog, but I know and respect the guy who writes it, and it seems germane to the discussion:

He's discussing the forthcoming book if you scroll down to "Musings About Universalism, Part 1."

http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/

[Preacherman777]

Just speaking for myself, personally, me and this fellow are too far apart theologically for me to take his musings seriously. Plus, based on the reviews I've read, I think he's in the wrong ballpark so far as what he's supposing that Bell is probably teaching. I could be wrong, but it's not the impression I have gotten.

[CatNamedManny]

Just speaking for myself, personally, me and this fellow are too far apart theologically for me to take his musings seriously. Plus, based on the reviews I've read, I think he's in the wrong ballpark so far as what he's supposing that Bell is probably teaching. I could be wrong, but it's not the impression I have gotten.

I can't say I understand this. I understand being far apart theologically, but there are many people who have vastly different views on life, faith, art, politics, etc., whom I take seriously because they present their arguments in compelling and respectful ways. Simply dismissing them because they are far afield of where I am at this moment would be easy for me to do, but I am the first to admit I don't have things figured out. I'm always willing to learn what I can from those who present their arguments well.

[Preacherman777]

I read what he had to say, but his suppositions are based on his theological views (which I feel are flawed) and therefore, I can't take take his suppositions seriously. It would be like asking me the theological suppositions of a Mormon seriously.

[Jonathan]

Haven't read the book. Probably won't. I'm trying to figure out what scripture says at this point. But I know enough about the guy, being in the church's neighborhood.

I seem to remember a certain Bible character saying "Did God really say..." as Bell often does.

[Preacherman777]

Excellent point.

[brent]

I never understood why so many people forced me to read books. I don't like to read anything other than technical or how-to, and that is most generally after I have not been able to figure things out on my own. When I have exhausted all of my resources THEN I go to the manual. I retain things better that way. Also, I must see and hear it. Aside from that, books are merely printed speeches of man. Man speaks with the tongue. The tongue is the reflection of the heart. No man can tame his tongue or his heart on his own. So, there is this idea that books bring enlightenment. I think many books bring ignorance.

Some of the most educated people I know read WAAAAY too much and know very little. They no longer know what to think. They just end up with more questions and less street smarts, which gets them into trouble. I don't buy books often. I get audio books. Most of the books I have are concordances, lexicons, books published by denominations, religions and cults themselves, vs what someone from the outside says about them. I don't buy books that tell me what is in the bible. I don't know those people. They could be of the devil. I know my pastor. I know my elders, deacons, etc. I can read, but I am selective. Just because it is a book doesn't validate it or demand your time and consideration.

Last I checked, the Holy Spirit has something to do with enlightenment when we study, looking hard for the lost pearl. Anyway, I blah-blahed on to say that I don't know what the dude is talking about. All I know is what the bible says. We are not born with a clean slate. We are born children of the devil, condemned, sinful, without faith, unsaved. If we die like that, we get what we get. If we don't die that way, we don't. Seems pretty simple to me. God would love it for all to accept him freely, as he has freely accepted us. He knew some would and some wouldn't. He knew how it would all go south before he started it, yet he proceeded anyway. All do not go to heaven. Some will. Some won't. If all go to heaven, you must throw out Revelation, Jesus ruling from the throne with the redeemed ruling over those who are not. There is so much that would not matter. Why have an anti-Christ? Why have salvation to begin with? Why even go through all of this if we all go? What kind of sick God gets his jollies with people dying of sickness, disease, lack of food and water, children being molested and murdered, etc, etc?

[gman]

Some people wrestle with the fact that not everyone who is going to hell lives like it. If they're going to hell and living like it, that's okay, but if they're living the kind of life that every Christian should strive for, then it's not fair for them to go to hell. There is only one standard, Christ. The verse in Matthew says, "didn't we do these things in your name?", and Jesus says, "depart fro me...I never knew you.". Scripture clearly teaches that one can live a good life and still be lost for eternity. God is not fair. If he were, we'd all be toast.

[Preacherman777]

Exactly. It's not fair that any of us get to go to Heaven cuz none of us deserve to, but we don't seem to mind that side of things not being fair.

[brent]

Right. It is hard to accept that a being is created by two other parties, sin nature is imbedded in it because of a previous decision/action, and as a result is headed for hell unless the being is exposed to God and God reveals himself and the being accepts God, while living on the same planet as other sinful beings, experiencing the same causes and effects. It is a matter of perspective. Christians have not done a great job of showing the proper perspective. They have traditionally yelled and accused people of going to hell, like the lost people with no knowledge of God had a choice in the matter. That's like yelling at a baby for not being able to walk without aid and instruction. Had the sane ones HEARD of a choice from a reputable source, been aided and instructed with the same care as a fragile baby, they might not choose to go there.

[CatNamedManny]

I think these posts miss the point of evangelical universalism, which is not that people don't go to hell, it's that hell lasts a finite period of time, and that in the end every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord, thus earning them salvation.

To phrase it a different way, the argument is that death is not the end of God's work to bring a human to salvation. There seems to be little difference between traditional Arminian theology and universalism on this front. The only difference is whether death is the cutoff point or whether God can work beyond death to bring souls to salvation.

I think that along with the struggles of good people going to hell (the Gandhi scenario Bell cites in his teaser video, or when Richard Beck notes that under this theology Jewish victims of the Holocaust are likely in hell while at least some of their Nazi murderers are in heaven), the more problematic one for me is that a consistent rendering of traditional soteriology/eschatology is that those who have never heard of Jesus are also going to hell despite never having the chance. Somewhere in between those two "problems" is the problem of those who were abused by a priest or otherwise wounded by the church before they had the chance to encounter the saving grace of God for themselves.

I'm willing to be proven wrong, but I've done a lot of studying of this the last couple of days, and I don't see any verses in the Bible that clearly rule out evangelical unitarianism as an answer to the age-old question, "What happens after we die?" It maintains the constructs of Christ-centered salvation, Christ as propitiation for our sins, hell as a punishment for those who refuse to accept Christ in this life and the ultimate victory of God over death and hell. What am I missing?

[CatNamedManny]

What kind of sick God gets his jollies with people dying of sickness, disease, lack of food and water, children being molested and murdered, etc, etc?

Of course this question can be asked regardless of our religious belief, as long as we believe in an omnipotent creator-being. Those who believe in universalism would probably argue that their answer makes much more sense: These people ultimately receive everlasting life in heaven with the God who loves them more than we could ever comprehend. Their suffering, while horrible in this life because of the corruption of the world, is not in vain.

They might restate the question to ask those who reject universalism: What kind of sick God gets his jollies with people dying of sickness, disease, lack of food and water, children being molested and murdered, etc, etc, and then allows them to be tortured forever in hell when it's all over?