Post Tenebras Lux: Rob Bell

Now, I’m not going to attempt to decipher Bell’s personal intentions. I don’t know the man; in fact, I’ve never even met the man. And, to be sure, we should remember the hailstorm that came when bloggers began attempting to decipher his recent bestseller, Love Wins, a bit too early (which, in retrospect, was more often than not a critique of his public promotional video, which I am convinced, in the end, was appropriate). Still, it is with a bit of trepidation that I try to offer a few thoughts regarding the public news of Bell’s departure.

What concerns me most is what appears to be a relinquishing of any kind of Christ-exalting, gospel-centered, accountability-infused pastoral ministry.

Let me explain.

First, in regards to relinquishing a Christ-exalting gospel-centeredness, all that has been offered regarding the spirituality of Stronger is that it will include “spiritual overtones”. What does that even mean?! (I suppose that is on par for Bell, though, as he leaves us with more questions than answers.) Instead of providing a robust, Christ-centered gospel, we are left with vague and opaque “spiritual overtones”. I have no doubt that Bell wishes to share “the message of God’s love with a broader audience”; however, if Christ is not intrinsically present, then there is no salvific value to any of it. If we relinquish the gospel, it is because we have relinquished Jesus Christ, for he is the gospel. I’ve written previously about what I think the message of the gospel is, so I will leave you with that.

Second, Bell (along with others) has already been criticized for leaving his ministry to “pursue a growing number of strategic opportunities”. Now, if you are being called by God to pursue something else, you better do it. Moreover, we ought to pause when questioning someone’s calling, for only God and the individual know their true calling (in these situations I often remember the statement made by my Bibliology/Prolegomena professor regarding claimed spiritual experiences; he said, “You cannot tell someone that they did not experience what they claimed to have experienced, for only God and that person truly know what, or if, they have experienced). And yet, my concern, to echo Stetzer and Warren, is the potential for ego-feed and/or lack of pastoral accountability in completing future projects. My hope and prayer is that Bell will come under a good church to keep him accountable as he pursues these future strategic opportunities.

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Take a Moment...

Who is and is not an E/evangelical?

Gospel or Justice - Which?

Should "Broader Interests" Preclude Pastoring?

Why Young Adults Are Walking Away From Church...

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Take a Moment...

More thoughts on the arguments of Bell's and Chan's books...

What does it mean to serve God?

Some encouragement for the New Calvinists...

Mistaken Monotheism...

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Take a Moment...

Biblical Authority in an Age of Uncertainty...

Erasing Hell and Erasing Bell...

Is it ok to believe in hell and not like it?

How to talk about the afterlife (if you must)...

A word about C.J. Mahaney's leave of absence...

Also, don't forget to check out my post on Hero Admiration v. Hero Worship...

Monday, July 11, 2011

A Concise Theology of Hell

The following is a capstone/summary of some of my previous blog posts (which can be found here and here). Moreover, the following will be provided as a lecture to my church’s college group this coming Wednesday. I pray it will be fruitful.

Introduction

In recent months, the traditional/historical understanding on the doctrine of hell has come under scrutiny. This has been primarily through the release of Rob Bell’s newest book Love Wins. Although I disagree on most points with this book, our discussions over the next two weeks will not necessarily be a critique of his book, per se, but, rather, will be about hell itself. If you are interested in a direct critique of Bell’s book, you can read that here.

Now, most people will agree that hell is a nasty subject.

So why talk about hell at all?

Here are five reasons why we need a theology of hell:

1. God’s glory deserves it:

Note that God’s glory does not need it, but deserves it (Acts 17:24-25). Therefore, although God does not need our help in anything, we owe it to God to live in and declare the truth that has been revealed to us.

2. The Bible talks about it:

If we affirm that the Bible is revealed, inspired, inerrant and authoritative – then we must be willing to think through every issue, idea, proposition, and story the Bible talks about.

3. Theology is important:

If we need to think through Biblical topics, then, what necessarily follows is theological thinking. In other words, thinking theologically is important and it helps us as we seek to understand God.

4. Eternal destinies are at stake:

The Bible, as we shall see, discusses the eternal destinies of all humanity. Although I believe that salvation has present implications, we should not belittle the eschatological (the last things) implications.

5. Our evangelism needs it:

If, at least partially, salvation is about the eternal destination of human souls, then, this must be one of the motivators behind our evangelism. Why evangelize if everybody will eventually be saved?

Now that we have addressed the “why”, let’s address the “what”.[1] And, as a reminder, as we study this doctrine (or any doctrine), we need to affirm that the Bible is true, right and the ultimate authority on all matters of life and faith…especially the hard topics.

Will Everybody Be Saved?

The first issue we need to address is whether or not everyone will, in the end, be saved.

This teaching is known as Universalism. Universalism teaches that “every human being whom God has created or will create will finally come to enjoy the everlasting salvation into which Christians enter here and now”.^[2]

Those that hold to Universalism normally are “prompted partly…by direct compassion for one’s fellow humans, but mainly by the thought that inflicting eternal punishment is unworthy of God, since it would negate his love”.^[3]

Some texts that would appear to support this position are: John 12:32; Romans 5:18; 11:32; and 1 Corinthians 15:22-28 (amongst others).

And yet, we find that:

[T]he universal terms in these texts (forms of pas, “all,” and kosmos, “world”) are all limited or generalized by their context in such a way that it is nowhere possible to maintain that every human being everywhere, past, present, and future, is being clearly, specifically, and inescapably spoken of as destined for salvation. The most that standard commentaries find in these passages is that God will…restore his world, and that the summons and invitation of the gospel of Jesus Christ is equally applicable to, and valid for, everyone to whom it comes.[4]

More so, “[m]ost universalists…concede that universalism is not clearly taught in the Bible…”^[5]

Therefore, although this teaching empathizes with our compassion, we need to be sure that if Universalism is true, then “[b]loody-handed practitioners of treachery, genocide, and torture, and bloody-minded devotees of personal cruelty and child abuse are included; no one is left out. Universalism thus asserts the final salvation of, for instance, Judas, Hitler, Genghis Kahn, Stalin, and Saddam Hussein, to name a few.”^[6]

Moreover, we should be sure to note that Universalism was recognized as heretical since AD 500.^[7]

So, if we can agree that the Bible teaches that not everyone will be saved…then what?

Annihilationism

Another potential outcome raised by those who do not support the traditional doctrine of hell is a teaching known as Annihilationism.

“Annihilationism is the belief that those who die apart from saving faith in Jesus Christ will be ultimately destroyed.”[8]

Clark Pinnock summarizes why he, and others, affirm Annihilationism:

“Obviously, I am rejecting the traditional view of hell in part out of sense of moral and theological revulsion to it. The idea that a conscious creature should have to undergo physical and mental torture through unending time is profoundly disturbing, and the thought that this is inflicted upon them by divine decree offends my conviction about God’s love.”[9]

Now, although most of the core tenets regarding Annihilationism will be refuted in our analysis of the traditional doctrine of hell, I want to briefly observe God’s love in relation to Annihilationism, along with observing the following quote:

“[W]e cannot cite one saying that speaks plainly of an end to the punishment of the finally impenitent. Those who look for a different teaching in the NT must point to possible inferences and alternative interpretations. But if Jesus wished to teach something other than eternal retribution, it is curious that he has not left one saying that plainly says so. In the NT there is no indication that the punishment of sin ever ceases.”^[10]

Moreover, we should be sure to note that Annihilationism was recognized as heretical as early as the Second Council of Constantinople (553) and, again, by the Fifth Lateran Council (1513).

So, then, what about God’s love?

God’s Love

God is love (1 John 4:8). I, in no way, want to discount this fact. It is God’s love that draws, saves, reconciles and keeps believers; however, that fact does not negate that God is also many other things: patient, merciful, just, holy, righteous, kind, creative, wrathful, etc. And, what we must reconcile is that God’s attributes work together in perfect unity. In other words, although God is love, his love is patient, merciful, just, holy, righteous, kind, creative, wrathful, etc. What this indicates is that God’s love cannot be separated from his holiness; God’s love cannot be separated from his righteousness; and God’s love cannot be separated from his wrath.

Tradition, Tradition

One traditional definition of hell is “a place of eternal conscious punishment for the wicked”.[11] It will be this definition that we will stick with and attempt to explain.

Eternal

Michael “Squints” Palledorous, one of the characters in The Sandlot, always knew he was going to marry Wendy Peffercorn. However, some time before they had their first kiss on the side of the community pool, “Squints” made his famous quote about the Beast’s sentence to its backyard fortress as he uttered, “For-ev-er”.

Rob Bell, in Love Wins, aptly describes the feeling of The Beast’s owner upon learning of its sentence:

“Remember sitting in class, and it was so excruciatingly boring that you found yourself staring at the clock? Tick. Tick. Tick. What happened to time in those moments? It slowed down. We even say, ‘It felt like it was taking forever.’ Now when we use the word ‘forever’ in this way, we are not talking about a 365-day year followed by a 365-day year followed by another 365-day year, and so on. What we are referring to is the intensity of feeling in that moment. That agonized boredom caused time to appear to bend and twist and warp.”^[12]

Bell also states that, “[w]hen we use the word ‘age’ like this, we are referring less to a precise measurement of time, like an hour or a day or a year, and more to a period or era of time. This is crucial to our understanding of the word aion, because it doesn’t mean ‘forever’ as we think of forever.”^[13]

To begin, we ought to note that there are two different words (and their many derivatives) used to address “an age” or “eternity”: aion and aionios. With that said, we ought to next look at how these terms are defined.

Aion has four definitions: (1) a long period of time, without reference to beginning or end (of time gone by/the past/earliest times, or of time to come which, if it has no end, is also known as eternity); (2) a segment of time as a particular unit of history, age (the present age or the age to come); (3) the world as a spatial concept; and (4) the Aeon as a person.^[14]

Aionios has three definitions: (1) pertaining to a long period of time, long ago; (2) pertaining to a period of time without beginning or end, eternal; and (3) pertaining to a period of unending duration, without end.^[15]

With those definitions in place, it would certainly seem absurd to attempt to persuade someone that aion never has a temporal sense, as the following texts demonstrate: Luke 20:34-35; John 9:32; Acts 15:18; Rom. 16:25; 1 Cor. 2:8; et al. All of these texts (and many more) certainly point toward a temporal or historic sense when using the word aion.

However, the issue at hand is whether, at times, aion, aionios, and their derivatives can have a non-temporal meaning (i.e. specifically, contextually and correctly defining the term as eternal, eternity or everlasting). For instance, consider the following texts:

Rom. 9:5 – will God’s praise be only temporary?

Rom. 11:36; 16:27; Eph. 3:21; Phil. 4:20 – will God’s glory be only for an age?

2 Cor. 9:9 – is God’s righteousness momentary?

Based on this evidence, is anyone really willing to continue arguing that aion, aionios, and their derivatives do not, at times, convey a non-temporal sense?

Therefore, if we are willing to concede that there might be instances where the sense is non-temporal, then, what should follow is a reminder that we ought to read, interpret and understand Scripture in its context. In other words, we ought to translate aion, aionios, and their derivatives as temporal when it fits contextually (e.g. Luke 20:34-35), and as non-temporal when it fits contextually (e.g. 2 Cor. 9:9).

Moving now to two specific New Testament texts:

In Jesus’ parable in Matthew 25:31ff, the term aionion is used, which Jesus uses both to point to the eternal life of the righteous and eternal punishment of the cursed (Matt. 25:41, 46). Therefore, if we are to read this portion of Scripture in context, unless we are going to conclude that the eternal life of the righteous is also temporal, we must conclude, rather, that the eternal life of the righteous and the eternal punishment of the cursed are, in fact, eternal. Moreover, Jesus uses the same word aionion to address the “eternal fire” reserved for the “cursed”.

Next, within Revelation 20:10, John uses the phrase tous aionos ton aionon (translated “for ever and ever”), to describe the eternal torment received within “the lake of fire and brimstone”. Now, those who wish to argue for a temporal meaning of this phrase must also consider Revelation 22:5, which describes the eternal, or unending, reign of God’s servants. Therefore, if an argument is made for the temporal nature of the torments of hell in Revelation 20:10, then we must conclude that the reign of God’s servants in Revelation 22:5 is also temporal. Surely, no one is willing to contend for that part of the argument.

Conscious Punishment

Conscious can be described as “aware of one’s own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.”

Punishment can be described as “a penalty inflicted for an offense, fault, etc.”[16]

Before we look at the consciousness of hell, let’s take a moment to consider punishment.

An argument rejecting the traditional/historic understanding of God’s wrath answers the question, “how we would respond if an earthly father did to his children what God will eventually do to part of humanity?”, with “we would throw that father in jail for life” (i.e. surely a loving, kind and merciful God could not be involved in something this heinous). However, if this is the criteria by which we judge God, then should we not have already thrown God in jail for “murdering” Uzzah (2 Sam. 6:1-11), or Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11)? Of course not, because we know that God, in his holiness, justice and righteousness, must respond to sin (Habakkuk 1:13). Therefore, the critical error in this reasoning is that our eternal fate ought to rest on the (often) triteness of our sin, rather than the majesty of the One sinned against. For instance, if I attempted to attack a regular “Joe”, I might end up in prison for a short while; however, if I attempted to attack the President of the United States, I would, most likely, remain in prison for the remainder of my life. This is because the crime, although the same, has a different consequence when committed against someone of greater renown. Therefore, we surely ought to not place Almighty God on the same level as our earthly fathers.

Matthew 13:49-50 – note that the evil will be thrown into fiery furnace, where they will experience weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Mark 9:47ff – note that sinners will be thrown into hell where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.[17]

Luke 16:19ff – note that the rich man is experiencing torment (vs. 23).

Revelation 14:9ff – note that those who worship the Beast will be tormented with fire and sulfur (vs. 10).

Conclusion

So, I’m still convinced that hell is a nasty subject; but, I’m also still convinced that hell is something we need to consider (see introduction).

Something else to consider: don’t let your philosophy trump your exegesis. Now, please note that I am pro-philosophy (in fact, I teach several philosophy classes at a local community college), and I am well aware that philosophy and exegesis are linked; however, my concern is when we allow our philosophies (appropriately compassionate as they may be) to trump proper exegesis of hard texts.

Lastly, remember that the Bible is true, hell is for real, and God is good in all things.

[1] Please note that a theological study on hell could take many weeks; I have two. With that said, I want to focus on some of the key biblical ideas, propositions and objections towards the historic version of this doctrine.

[2] Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson, Hell Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 170.

[3] Ibid., 172.

[4] Ibid., 187.

[5] Ibid., 171.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Origen and his doctrine of apokatastasis (the universal return to God and restoration of all souls) were anathematized (deemed as heretics) at the Second Council of Constantinople (553).

[8] Morgan and Peterson, Hell Under Fire, 196.

[9] William V. Crockett, Four Views on Hell (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 164.

[10] Walter A. Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 395.

[11] Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 499.

[12] Rob Bell, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived (New York: HarperOne, 2011), 31.

[13] Ibid., 57.

[14] Frederick William Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 32-33. It should also be noted that BDAG is arguably one of the premier language resources. With that said, one must be willing to grapple with the evidence provided therein in order to claim reputable scholarship.

[15] Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 33.

[16] Both definitions found at www.dictionary.com

[17] Jesus is quoting Isaiah 66:24.

Thursday, June 30, 2011

Take a Moment...

Should pastors share everything with their wives?

Why Kurt Willems doesn't celebrate July 4th...

Some other thoughts on Christian Patriotism...

Bell, Hell, and what we did well...

Was Paul a sex addict? (disclaimer: I don't think he was...)

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Why I Still Trust John Piper More Than Rob Bell

This is also overdue…but still pertinent…

You’re right; perhaps John Piper made a mistake with his now infamous tweet.

However, until, if ever, Piper comes out and specifically indicates why he tweeted what he tweeted, we will never know the true substance and purpose behind his tweet. Although we can know the general purpose behind why Piper uses Twitter.

With that said, I still find a proclivity within myself to trust John Piper, despite his potentially flagrant “sin”, more than Rob Bell.

Why?

Three reasons:

Although Piper might have had a lack of judgment, let us not forget that we are all sinners (Rom. 3:23), which does not preclude those within popular ministries.
Despite the fact that Piper is a sinner, and that his tweet might have been uncalled for, I agree with his apparent concern regarding the path Bell is choosing to take.
Based on Bell’s latest monograph, it is quite evident that Piper’s skill in exegesis, history and logic is quite superior to Bell’s.

So I ask, what is the greater sin? A momentary lack of judgment? Or bad exegesis that dishonors God and leads others astray?

I suppose that is your decision to make.

My review of Bell's Love Wins can be found here.

Resources by John Piper can be found here.

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Take a Moment...

Did we really blow the Rob Bell situation?

Some musings on baptism...

Dan Kimball on Francis Chan's Erasing Hell...

10 myths about introverts...

Tim Keller's interview with World Magazine...

Sunday, June 19, 2011

A Review of Rob Bell's "Love Wins"

I get it.

I’m late…really late with this review.

In fact, both Tim Challies and Kevin DeYoung (amongst others) had actually written reviews on Rob Bell’s Love Wins prior to its public release. Along with these two reviews, I’ve provided a few additional reviews that were helpful: Ben Witherington, Scot McKnight, Jim Spiegel and Mark Galli. Or, if you want to pay to read some refutations, you can pick up books by Michael Wittmer, Mark Galli and/or Francis Chan. With those reviews in mind, please note that it will be my goal to not belabor certain points that have already been addressed by other reviewers; rather, my intent will be to focus on some issues that concerned me personally.

For those that don’t know…

Rob Bell, founder of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grandville, Michigan (not to be confused with Mars Hill Church in Seattle, Washington, led by Mark Driscoll), has a church following of 8,000+, is a renowned speaker and author of several books, to include Velvet Elvis, and has been described as a winsome, provocative, creative and engaging communicator.

HOWEVER, when we enter into the arena of Biblical scholarship, it is not enough to only be winsome, provocative, creative and engaging (emotively charged qualities), we must also be, and perhaps should primarily be, prudent and astute historians and exegetes (cognitively charged qualities); for, to be winsome, provocative, creative and engaging is, at best, empty without the use and foundation of accurate historical and contextual exegesis.

Quickly though, two preliminaries before we get to the review:

First, a word on making judgments: I think we need to be careful in assuming that someone is being judgmental simply because they disagree; or, for that matter, that someone is being judgmental just because they are a Calvinist. It certainly seems ironic to me that the criticism, vitriol and “judgmental” attitudes claimed to come from those within the “neo-Calvinist” or “neo-Reformed” movement towards the “emergent” or “neo-liberal” questioning of “traditional” biblical/theological interpretation is absolutely similar to the criticism, vitriol and “judgmental” attitudes demonstrated by the “emergent” or “neo-liberal” movement towards the “neo-Calvinist” or “neo-Reformed” movement when they question the questioning of the “emergent” or “neo-liberal” biblical/theological interpretation. For, when those within the “emergent” or “neo-liberal” movement take personal jabs at the “neo-Calvinist” or “neo-Reformed” movement for being the claimed “key holders of orthodoxy”, they are, in fact, making an assertion that they are the “key holders of orthodoxy”. In other words, there are opportunities for healthy disagreement and reflection if we can contest the position, rather than the person (although “attack” is a violent term which causes most people pause and concern). For instance, within the same paragraph Jesus calls us not to judge and then calls his opponents dogs and pigs (Matt. 7:1-6).

Second, Bell's YouTube video, wherein he “comes clean” has a critical error to it. If I say that I believe in the color “green”, and yet my understanding, interpretation and conception of “green” is actually the color “blue” (or some made up color) then I have misunderstood, misinterpreted and misconceived the color “green”. Therefore, if Bell’s understanding of heaven, hell, salvation, etc., are misunderstood, misinterpreted and misconceived as compared with historical/traditional orthodoxy, then the statements made in his “coming clean” are, in fact, quite inadequate.

Now, onto the review…

One concern that is, perhaps, overall in tone is permitting philosophy to trump exegesis. Now, please note that I am pro-philosophy (in fact, I teach several philosophy classes at a local community college), and I am well aware that philosophy and exegesis are linked; however, my concern is when we allow our philosophies (appropriately compassionate as they may be) to trump proper exegesis of hard texts. For instance, before he even gets out of the preface Bell is already allowing his philosophy to trample upon exegesis:

“A staggering number of people have been taught that a select few Christians will spend forever in a peaceful, joyous place called heaven, while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better. It’s been clearly communicated to many that this belief is a central truth of the Christian faith and to reject it is, in essence, to reject Jesus. This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus’s message of love, peace, forgiveness, and joy that our world desperately needs to hear.”[1]

Or, consider this example:

“[I]t’s important that we be honest about the fact that some stories are better than others. Telling a story in which billions of people spend forever somewhere in the universe trapped in a black hole of endless torment and misery with no way out isn’t a very good story. Telling a story about a God who inflicts unrelenting punishment on people because they didn’t do or say or believe the correct things in a brief window of time called life isn’t a very good story.”[2]

More so, Bell’s exegesis, when employed, is quite disconcerting. For instance, Bell insists that “[t]he…meaning of this word aion refers to a period of time with a beginning and an end”; or, that “[w]hen we use the word ‘age’ like this, we are referring less to a precise measurement of time, like an hour or a day or year, and more to a period or era of time…it doesn’t mean ‘forever’ as we think of forever”.[3] Now, I have addressed aion previously, so I will not belabor the point other than to say that I agree with Bell that at times this word can have a temporal meaning, however, it can also at times have an eternal meaning.

Furthermore, Bell’s historical accuracy is lacking:

“Gehenna, in Jesus’s day, was the city dump. People tossed their garbage and waste into this valley. There was a fire there, burning constantly to consume the trash. Wild animals fought over scraps of food along the edges of the heap. When they fought, their teeth would make a gnashing sound. Gehenna was the place with the gnashing of teeth, where the fire never went out.”[4]

Although, this has been a common myth throughout Christian history, other scholars would argue that “[t]here is no convincing evidence in the primary sources for the existence of a fiery dump in this location”.[5]

Now, although I am pretty certain that we are all flawed (including me!) to some degree as historians and exegetes, my concern is that, whereas our flaws might take place in the home, or small group, or even larger church congregation, Bell’s flaws are done via world-wide monograph publication. With that said, Bell should have employed a bit more scholastic due diligence within his monograph; and, henceforth, anything I (and you too) read or hear from Bell should be scrutinized for historical and exegetical accuracy.

An additional concern of mine is Bell’s apparent rehashing of liberal Christianity. Liberal Christianity is generally thought to emphasize social justice at the expense of doctrine/propositional truth. Now, although I certainly affirm that a critical aspect of Christianity is to care for the orphan and widow (Jam. 1:27), I would also affirm that this is not the ultimate or final goal to the Christian life. Consider the following quotes by Bell:

“Compassion for the poor, racial justice, care for the environment, worship, teaching,

and art are important, but in the end, for some followers of Jesus, they’re not ultimately

what it’s all about.”[6]

“Taking heaven seriously, then, means taking suffering seriously, now…[a]round a billion

people in the world today do not have access to clean water. People will have access to

clean water in the age to come, and so working for clean water access for all is

participating now in the life of the age to come… [i]t often appears that those who talk

the most about going to heaven when you die talk the least about bringing heaven to

earth right now…[a]t the same time, it often appears that those who talk the most

about relieving suffering now talk the least about heaven when we die.”[7]

Should access to clean drinking water (in this life) trump our eschatological (and perhaps more urgent) need for a Savior (in this life and the one to come)? In other words, we ought to be cautious in espousing a Christ-less, moral, therapeutic deism, wherein, at best, our actions (as important and compassionate and charitable as they might be) are empty, and, at worst, are simply an attempt at self-aggrandizement.

But why…?

It’s because, although I partially agree with Bell that “eternal life is…about a quality and vitality of life lived now in connection to God”, I also believe there are serious eschatological implications regarding the future destinations of all humanity.[8]

In fact, at times, Bell actually seems to be agnostic toward his position on hell.

“[i]n other stories he tells, very religious people who presume that they’re ‘in’ hear from him: ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’”[9]

“[h]e tells entire villages full of extremely devoted religious people that they’re in danger, while seriously questionable ‘sinners’ will be better off than them ‘in that day’”.[10]

“Those are questions, or more accurately, those are tensions we are free to leave fully intact. We don’t need to resolve them or answer them because we can’t, and so we simply respect them, creating space for the freedom that love requires.”[11]

“This invitation to trust asks for nothing more than this moment, and yet it is infinitely urgent. Jesus told a number of stories about this urgency in which things did not turn out well for the people involved. One man buries the treasure he’s been entrusted with instead of doing something with it and as a result he’s “thrown outside into the darkness.” Five foolish wedding attendants are unprepared for the late arrival of the groom and they end up turned away from the wedding with the chilling words “Truly I tell you, I don’t know you.” Goats are sent “away” to a different place than the sheep, tenants of a vineyard have it taken from them, and weeds that grew alongside wheat are eventually harvested and “tied in bundles to be burned.”[12]

But if Bell believes in ultimate reconciliation, then why these warning passages? Where are the evildoers going? What are these devoted religious people in danger of? Is it only about not living your best life now? Or is there more to it?

Another concern is that Bell seems to make a critical error in over-emphasizing the love of God as the ultimate attribute. Yes, God is love. God is love. However, that statement does not negate that God is also many other things: patient, merciful, just, holy, righteous, kind, creative, wrathful, etc. And, what we must reconcile is that God’s attributes work together in perfect unity. In other words, although God is love, his love is patient, merciful, just, holy, righteous, kind, creative, wrathful, etc. What this indicates is that God’s love cannot be separated from his holiness; God’s love cannot be separated from his righteousness; and God’s love cannot be separated from his wrath. Let’s pause a moment and reflect on a few quotes from Bell regarding this subject:

“That’s how it is – because that’s what God is like, correct? God is loving and kind and full of grace and mercy – unless there isn’t confession and repentance and salvation in this lifetime, at which point God punishes forever. That’s the Christian story, right? Is that what Jesus taught?”[13]

“[I]f your God is loving one second and cruel the next, if your God will punish people for all of eternity for sins committed in a few short years, no amount of clever marketing or compelling language or good music or great coffee will be able to disguise that one, true, glaring, untenable, unacceptable, awful reality.”[14]

“But there’s more. Millions have been taught that if they don’t believe, if they don’t accept in the right way, that is, the way the person telling them the gospel does, and they were hit by a car and died later that same day, God would have no choice but to punish them forever in conscious torment in hell. God would, in essence, become a fundamentally different being to them in that moment of death, a different to them forever. A loving heavenly father who will go to extraordinary lengths to have a relationship with them would, in the blink of an eye, become a cruel, mean, vicious tormenter who would ensure that they had no escape from an endless future of agony.”[15]

What these statements mock is the apparent “Jekyll and Hyde” characteristics of the traditional/historical conception of God: loving and desiring a relationship with all of humanity during life and damning, with hateful vengeance, all those who die apart from a relationship with God, in Christ. Moreover, an argument rejecting the traditional/historic understanding of God’s wrath answers the question, “how we would respond if an earthly father did to his children what God will eventually do to part of humanity?”, with “we would throw that father in jail for life” (i.e. surely a loving, kind and merciful God could not be involved in something this heinous). However, if this is the criteria by which we judge God, then should we not have already thrown God in jail for “murdering” Uzzah (2 Sam. 6:1-11), or Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11)? Of course not, because we know that God, in his holiness, justice and righteousness, must respond to sin. Therefore, the critical error in this reasoning is that our eternal fate ought to rest on the (often) triteness of our sin, rather than the majesty of the One sinned against. For instance, if I attempted to attack a regular “Joe”, I might end up in prison for a short while; however, if I attempted to attack the President of the United States, I would, most likely, remain in prison for the remainder of my life. This is because the crime, although the same, has a different consequence when committed against someone of greater renown. Therefore, we surely ought to not place Almighty God on the same level as our earthly fathers.

Furthermore, Bell’s emphasis on the love of God promotes his confidence in post-mortem opportunities for reconciliation:

“And so they expand the possibilities, trusting that there will be endless opportunities in an endless amount of time for people to say yes to God.”[16]

“At the heart of this perspective is the belief that, given enough time, everybody will turn to God and find themselves in the joy and peace of God’s presence. The love of God will melt every hard heart, and even the most “depraved sinners” will eventually give up their resistance and turn to God.”[17]

“In the third century the church fathers Clement of Alexandria and Origen affirmed God’s reconciliation with all people. In the fourth century, Gregory of Nyssa and Eusebius believed this as well. In their day, Jerome claimed that “most people,” Basil said the “mass of men,” and Augustine acknowledged that “very many” believed in the ultimate reconciliation of all people to God.”[18]

“Central to their trust that all would be reconciled was the belief that untold masses of people suffering forever doesn’t bring God glory.”[19]

My concern with the above statements is the lack of biblical evidence to support such claims. I have already, albeit briefly, addressed post-mortem evangelism, and therefore will instead stress that although some argue that Scripture is silent on the possibility of future (post-mortem) opportunities for reconciliation, I would contend that if we affirm that God is sovereign, why would he not have found it relevant to indicate these future opportunities? In stark contrast to this argument from silence, it seems more appropriate to affirm the New Testament writers’ emphasis on the “faith decision” in this life.

Two additional issues raised by Bell, which certainly deserve more space and thought, are inclusivism, which Bell addresses here:

“As obvious as it is, then, Jesus is bigger than any one religion.”[20]

“Within this proper, larger understanding of just what the Jesus story even is, we see that Jesus himself, again and again, demonstrates how seriously he takes his role in saving and rescuing and redeeming not just everything, but everybody.”[21]

“What he doesn’t say is how, or when, or in what manner the mechanism functions that gets people to God through him. He doesn’t even state that those coming to the Father through him will even know that they are coming exclusively through him. He simply claims that whatever God is doing in the world to know and redeem and love and restore the world is happening through him.”[22]

“Sometimes people use his name; other times they don’t.”[23]

…and Bell’s apparent denial of penal substitutionary atonement addressed here:

“Many have heard the gospel framed in terms of rescue. God has to punish sinners, because God is holy, but Jesus has paid the price for our sin, and so we can have eternal life. However true or untrue that is technically or theologically, what it can do is subtly teach people that Jesus rescues us from God. Let’s be very clear, then: we do not need to be rescued from God. God is the one who rescues us from death, sin, and destruction. God is the rescuer.”[24]

So that’s it. There’s my review. Those are my concerns with Bell’s most recent monograph. I believe Rob Bell is a Christian brother who simply allows his philosophies to trump his exegesis. Ergo, it is my hope and prayer that those reading Bell’s book, those reading this blog, and those reading any other reflections on biblical matters will approach them with critical minds, examining their content historically, exegetically and theologically.

[1] Rob Bell, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived (New York: HarperOne, 2011), viii.

[2] Ibid., 110.

[3] Ibid., 31-32.

[4] Ibid., 68.

[5] http://blog.bibleplaces.com/2011/04/myth-of-burning-garbage-dump-of-gehenna.html

[6] Ibid., 26.

[7] Ibid., 45, (cf. 78-79).

[8] Ibid., 59.

[9] Ibid., 52.

[10] Ibid., 53.

[11] Ibid., 115.

[12] Ibid., 196-197.

[13] Ibid., 64.

[14] Ibid., 175.

[15] Ibid., 173-174.

[16] Ibid., 106-107.

[17] Ibid., 107.

[18] Ibid., 107-108.

[19] Ibid., 108.

[20] Ibid., 150.

[21] Ibid., 150-151.

[22] Ibid., 154.

[23] Ibid., 159.

[24] Ibid., 182.

Post Tenebras Lux

Friday, July 27, 2012

Friday's Funny

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Take a Moment...

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Top five most viewed blog posts (2011)

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Take a Moment...

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Take a Moment...

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Take a Moment...

Friday, November 4, 2011

Take a Moment... (A Day Late!!)

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

Take a Moment...

Friday, September 30, 2011

Here We Go Again, Rob...

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Take a Moment...

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Take a Moment...

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Take a Moment...

Monday, July 11, 2011

A Concise Theology of Hell

Thursday, June 30, 2011

Take a Moment...

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Why I Still Trust John Piper More Than Rob Bell

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Take a Moment...

Sunday, June 19, 2011

A Review of Rob Bell's "Love Wins"