Bell's Hell

Bell's Hell

A couple of years ago, a friend of mine introduced me to a theological concept that I had never heard of before; Universalism.  I remember reading a link that he sent me written by someone that had embraced this concept and had posted a paper about it on Scribd.  

I remember the paper was a rather lengthy explanation as well as including several biblical passages and rationale for his un-orthodox belief.  For those that do not know, universalism is the belief that, in the end everyone gets saved or receives salvation.  I am by no means an expert and at the time I read my friend's article, I was not even familiar with any variations of this belief.  I do remember, however, the paper that I read on Scribd didn't say that persons wouldn't ever go to hell; only that they wouldn't stay there for eternity.  The paper I read, made a correlation between the symbolic imagery of fire associated with hell in orthodox teaching with the fire that a smelter uses to extract impurities from metal.  It appears, according to this belief from the paper that I read, that sinners have a set amount of sin in them and if said sin could be extracted then an individual would be sanctified.  Through sanctification, the newly cleansed person would be worthy of attaining salvation and gain admittance into Heaven.  


If you really want a more detailed and a more authoritative look into Universalism, I strongly recommend for you to start your search with a visit to the CARM site.   There you will learn the basics about universalism as well as different variations pertaining to it as well.  For the purpose of this article, my reference to universalism is in regards to Christian Universalism.  In Christian Universalism, Jesus died for everyone's sins and in this act salvation is available to everyone.  A just and loving god cannot or would not damn sinners to eternity because this act would be void of love.  God, instead, offers salvation through Jesus irrespective of having faith in Jesus.  For those that have faith, they avoid hell altogether.  For those that do not have faith in Jesus, they go to hell for a period of time.  It is in the afterlife that god eventually brings sinners to repentance, etc.  


If you do not keep up with the current events that take place in Christendom, you may be unaware of the controversy that surrounds Rob Bell and his new book.  Rob Bell is a Wheaton College graduate, the Harvard of Christian schools as CNN puts it, and pastors a non-denominational Christian Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan called Mars Hill .  CNN describes Bell as "a pastor and author who has achieved rock star status in the Christian world".  


Irrespective of attaining the status of a rockstar pastor or not, Bell has stirred up quite a controversy in the land of Christendom with the announcement of his new book that is called "Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived".  In this book, Bell puts hell on trial and examines the afterlife.  The book description from Amazon is as follows;

"Fans flock to his Facebook page, his NOOMA videos have been viewed by millions, and his Sunday sermons are attended by 10,000 parishioners—with a downloadable podcast reaching 50,000 more. An electrifying, unconventional pastor whom Time magazine calls “a singular rock star in the church world,” Rob Bell is the most vibrant, central religious leader of the millennial generation. Now, in Love Wins: Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, Bell addresses one of the most controversial issues of faith—the afterlife—arguing that a loving God would never sentence human souls to eternal suffering. With searing insight, Bell puts hell on trial, and his message is decidedly optimistic—eternal life doesn’t start when we die; it starts right now. And ultimately, Love Wins." 

Shortly after the announcement of Bell's book, Justin Taylor of the Gospel Coalition, responds with a blog piece, "Rob Bell: Universalist?" This blog post, needless to say, has sparked a dialogue and in some cases, a heated debate pertaining to Rob Bell. CNN reports that on the Saturday that Taylor's article was published, Bell reached the status of being the top ten in trending topics on Twitter; a status that is rare for theological debates to reach on Twitter, etc.

Some people argue that it isn't fair to judge a book before it has been released.  To be fair to Justin Taylor, however, his response was mostly directed at a promotional video that Bell has put out for his book and not the book that hasn't been released yet.  It is also presumptuous for us to believe that Taylor, a VP editorial at Crossway, does not have access to the book in its entirety and has read enough of the book that he is indeed qualified to make statements thereof.  

In further defense of Bell, others argue that the promotional video is mostly void of making any authoritative statements in which Bell mostly asks questions for effect.  Proponents of this viewpoint then commonly ask, is it wrong to ask questions?  They purport that Bell is only asking the questions that many others are also asking in hope of finding answers.

It's not wrong to ask questions.  In fact, we know from 1 Peter 3:15 that we are to make a defense and be quick to give a reason for the hope that lies within us.  If we are to be in the position to offer answers then it stands to reason that we should ask questions if it is used to advance our knowledge of the hope that we have in Christ.  Critics of Bell's use of questions in his presentation are quick to point out that it is rhetoric and its intended use is deployed as a method of instruction. I tend to fall, however, in the camp of the critic.  I don't buy for one minute that Bell is simply asking rhetorical questions for the sake of stimulating thought.  For those that want to insist that asking questions in of itself is innocent and has no real consequence or lacks the powers of insinuation then I challenge you to try this with your wife.  The next time you see your wife, rhetorically ask your wife a series of questions that addresses the issue as to if you really love her and examine her reaction.  Tell  her that you ask yourself everyday you come home from work if you love her and that you ask yourself if you are happy and if you should stay committed to this relationship and see if she's just assuming that you are playing the academic devil's advocate or if you're trying to propagate another message altogether.  Let me know how that turns out for you.

Is it possible that all of this hysteria or panic over Bell being a Universalist is premature given that we don't know what is in the book that is yet to be released?  Some skeptics are saying that they suspect that there are going to be a lot of people that are going to owe Bell an apology once the book is released.  This may be true but at the same time I'm at a loss as to why there are so many people that truly appear to be so shocked that Bell could be a Universalist.  It's not as if an assessment on Bell is taking place in a vacuum.  There are numerous reports of Bell and his theology.  There are numerous reports that warn of Bell being a "dangerous false teacher."  

In Rob Bells "Gospel" Presentation Critiqued, Bell not only gives an atrocious and libel account of the history of Christianity but gives a corrupt account as to what constitutes the Gospel.  Bell, in this presentation of deconstructionism, espouses the same lies that is most often heard from atheists as opposed to a pastor from the pulpit.  Bell claims that the early Christians borrowed or ripped off accounts from Helenistic mystery religions like Mithra and Attis and attributed said accounts to Christ making Mithra and Attis an archetypal Christ; accounts such as, being born of a virgin, being born on December 25th, the resurrection as well as dying to pay for the sins of his followers.  Bell goes on to argue that the resurrection story is not unique.  Bell claims that someone giving the account of the resurrection at the time the early Apostles were evangelizing would've been met with, "so what?" because they've heard all of this before, etc.

In contrast to Bell's account of history, renown historian and Christian Apologist, Edwin Yamauchi, explains in Lee Strobel's book, "The Case for the Real Jesus" that Mithraism did not show up as a religion of practice until the middle to late second century. The timing, in other words, is off if the early Christians were to use the account of Mithra as a template for Christ.  As far as Mithra's birth story is concerned, Mithra was born of a rock and not a virgin.  Like Jesus, Mithra was born naked but unlike Jesus, Mithra was born fully grown and posses a cap upon birth.

 As far as being born on December 25th to link Jesus with Mithra, we don't know the date that Jesus was born per the Bible not giving us the date.  Celebrating December 25th is tied into the Roman Emperor Aurelian setting this date for a sun god celebration per the Winter Solstice.  When Constantine came to power, Christians began celebrating Christmas on December 25th circa 336 A.D.  Constantine prior to becoming a Christian was accustomed to celebrating on this date when he participated in sun god worship.  He now set this date for Son God worship.  I highly suspect that if Rob Bell put forth a serious study of the history that he presents his Christian congregation with then he too would have been aware of the historical account that contradicts his teaching.  At the very least, he could have warned his congregation that the historical account he was about to present was refuted by academic scholars as opposed to presenting it as the authoritative truth.  

The Christian faith as a whole rests on the resurrection and Rob Bell carelessly tries to negate its significance by downplaying its unique account in history.  Unlike Christ, Mithra didn't sacrifice himself, he killed a bull.  There is no historical account of Mithra's death.  If Mithra didn't die, then it goes without saying that this mythical god could not even possibly have anything in resemblance of a resurrection story.  According to Ronald Nash, the same goes for Attis.  According to scholars, there is not a resurrection account in any of the Hellenistic mystery religions.  Yet, at the same time, Rob Bell is trying to tell us that there is nothing unique about the resurrection.  If the resurrection account was as common as Bell makes it out to be then it is fair to ask why Paul wasn't challenged with this when he preached to the philosophers in Athens (Acts 17:16-21).  Instead, Paul was said to be a

"proclaimer of strange deities,"--because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection."

Can you imagine why this could have been said of astute philosophers of Athens if resurrection accounts were as common as Rob Bell makes them out to be?

Rob Bell not only has a strange account of history but one of the Gospel as well.  In "Rob Bell's Gospel Presentation Critiqued", as previously mentioned, Bell says the Gospel is the good news that God hasn't given up on the world.  This in of itself is not the best description  I have heard but it's not exactly heretical either.  The Gospel is the good news; the word "Gospel" means good news.  Bell is adding to the definition and although it seems innocent enough, I always have a red flag go up if something is being added to the all sufficient word of God.  Bell, however, is a spin master and it quite frankly wouldn't be his style to say something as conventional as the word "Gospel" means "good news."  No, for Bell, it has to have some extra bit of revelation.  The Gospel is good news and if one wanted to take a loose interpretation of it, I suppose that it is fair enough to say that it is good news because God hasn't given up on the world.  Wouldn't it, however, be more accurate to say that the Gospel is good news because as a sinner, you earned death (for the wages of sin is death) and instead of giving you what you deserved (hell), God gives grace and saves through faith in Christ Jesus that paid for your sin-debt when He was nailed to a tree?  Perhaps Bell wouldn't say something like this because according to Bell, Jesus is not saving us from God's wrath, He is saving us from our sins, our mistakes, our pride, etc. 

 Perhaps Bell wouldn't present a reiteration of the Gospel in a similar fashion as mine because according to Bell, "you" are the good news.  You "are the gospel".  What?  I"m the gospel??  What in the world is Bell talking about?  

According to Bell, when others want proof of the resurrection, all that they should have to do is to look to us.  They should look to us because we are the good news, we are the gospel and we are the resurrection.  Bell saying this with pretty music in the background sounds like he is delivering love to his audience.  Pretty music, however, does not save and Bell's gospel has us exalting ourselves because he would have others looking at our deeds as opposed to the work of Christ performed on the cross.  Bell would have others looking to us instead of Christ.

With all of the background that has been presented in reference to Rob Bell and the controversy pertaining to his new book, please allow me to leave you with an important piece of information.  Scott Dixon, also known as "SaltyDawg" on Twitter has a website called "The Tenth Leper".  Somehow, Mr. Dixon has received an early copy of Rob Bell's book and in response to all of the controversy in regards to Bell's book, has decided to publish an early book review.  It was my intention to address the content of this book review in this post.  I had not, however, anticipated that this piece would be as long as it has turned out to be, etc.  In light of additional information that still needs to be examined, I will end this post here with the hope of addressing the content of Mr. Dixon's review in an upcoming post.

For the meanwhile, please visit The Tenth Leper and read the book reviews that have been posted thus far and by all means please return to this blog for a follow up post.  

In the love of our Heavenly Father, 

God bless.

W.