Rob Bell's Heresy Summed by Wretched

Bell Denies That He Is A Universalist

Bell Denies That He Is A Universalist

Image  Credit

After all that has been said and written about Bell's new book, “Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived”, Bell denies being a Universalist in a recent CNN piece entitled - "Rob Bell Punches Back at the Claims of Heresy".

How can this be when he clearly meets the guidelines for being one?  Although there are various definitions for universalism, the term is not so elusive that it gives way to ambiguity if it is framed in an appropriate context. In Bell's book, he has claimed that hell is not eternal and that eventually everyone goes to heaven.  This clearly meets an understanding of universalism as it is understood by some in a traditional sense and with that being said, Bell can easily be objectively understood as being a universalist.  

 From the CNN piece, however, Bell only denies the charge of being a universalist and does not expend any effort to provide a defense.  The article, however, references an event where Bell expounds upon the idea of being a universalist.  In the typical Bellesque fashion, Bell does not tell us what he believes and leaves all of the room in the world for ambiguity.  As a means to put us at rest, we are told; "he didn’t believe God reaches down and sweeps everyone to heaven." 

That's fine and all but how about telling us what he specifically believes without asking us (the audience) a million questions the same as he does in his book.  Why doesn't Bell just come out and give an appropriate apologetic where he gives us a traditional definition of "universalism" and explain to us how he is not one because he, instead, believes..., etc.  Bell won't do this though because it is not his style.  He claims that he's not into controversy because it does not honor God.  Bell claims that he is interested in the truth, life and inspiration.  

Before you get all misty eyed about Bell's interest in truth, life and inspiration, never forget that these things do not mean the same to you as they do to him.  Bell has proclivities for altering traditional terms as well as the Gospel account as it is understood in the realm of orthodoxy. For most of us, Jesus is the truth. The "life" is the life He gives us when He saves us and gives us a new heart and a new nature.  For Bell, the truth and life is found in God's plan to restore this world; "God is passionate about rescuing this world, restoring it renewing it."

For most of us, the Bible gives us revelation pertaining to the after-life but for Bell, the Bible provides ambiguity; “I think it’s very very important to point out … [that] we are speculating about after you die,” he said."  This is perhaps why Bell is so surprised to think that anyone could say with a reasonable amount of assurance that Gandhi is in hell.  In Bell's theology, it should be quite the opposite according the the teachings of Christ; "Bell would not be surprised if he saw Gandhi in heaven. “Jesus was very clear. Heaven is full of surprises. That’s central to Jesus teaching."

It's ashame that Bell has such a disdain for orthodoxy.  The Gospel is a beautiful account of the truth that gives life and this is inspiration to all that are found in Christ and to all that Christ is found in.  Bell is so fixated on restoring this world that he is blind to the beauty and the good news that Jesus restores all of those that are found in Him.  It is those that are found in Him that will be found in a New Jerusalem after this world has burned up.  

This is not intended to be a mean spirited post.  We should pray for God to open Bell's eyes to His marvelous truths and that they inspire Bell the same as they inspire us that are found in Him.  We should pray for Bell to be granted repentance and give up futile efforts to re-define a Gospel account that does not need changing because it is perfect as it is told.

May it all be for His glory,

W. 

What Are Bell's Early Reviews Saying?

What Are Bell's Early Reviews Saying?

With all of the speculation as to what is in Rob Bell's controversial book, "Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived", it will be interesting to see what the early book reviews have to say.  As reported in a previous post, Tim Challies' review will be out by Wednesday or Thursday so this brief summary will be in reference to the reviews that have been posted on Scott Dixon's "The Tenth Leper" blog as well as what Greg Boyd reports in his recent post.  I will probably post a separate post in response to Challies' soon to be released post in the next day or so.

Starting off with a brief summary of what can be surmised from Dixon's posts pertaining to Bell's book can best be viewed in today's post that Dixon has published.  Dixon goes on about how hard it is to interpret what Bell is exactly trying to communicate/advocate.  Although Boyd's post doesn't appear to be as neutral as Dixon's, he agrees with Dixon about Bell being an ineffective communicator but tries to put a positive spin on it;

"First, Rob is first and foremost a poet/artist/dramatist who has a fantastic gift for communicating in ways that inspire creativity and provoke thought. Rob is far more comfortable (and far better at) questioning established beliefs and creatively hinting at possible answers than he is at constructing a logically rigorous case defending a definitive conclusion."

So as it can be seen through these two views, if you are going to read Bell's book as a means to acquire a hard definite theological ideology that will shape your worldview, then you are going to be more than disappointed in Bell's book.  If you are, on the other hand, looking for witty banter that offers a plethora of questions that focus and center on questioning conventional and orthodox teaching then Bell's book is what you've been looking for and will be the ticket.

Bell's book has stirred a lot of controversy.  Some would argue that it isn't Bell's book that has stirred the controversy but instead Justin Taylor's blog piece about a book that hasn't been published yet.  To be fair about it, Taylor didn't really comment on Bell's book but on the promotional literature and video that was put out as an endorsement of Bell's book.  If the literature is accurate then Bell's book should be about putting hell on trial and examining what a loving God would do with the fate of every person that has ever lived.  Boyd, however, says that Bell's book is about the beautiful character of God;

"Rob’s book really isn’t about the population or duration of heaven or hell. It’s mainly about the unfathomably beautiful character of God revealed in Jesus Christ and therefore about the unfathomably good nature of the Good News."

Before you get all too giddy about  Boyd's statement that Bell's book is about the good news, recall my Bell's Hell post where I reiterate Bell's gospel proclamation.  Bell's gospel IS NOT the traditional rendition delivered in orthodox teaching.  Bell has a disdain for orthodoxy and it is seen in not only his rhetorical questions that his book is inundated with but also in his man-centered gospel.  According to Bell, you are the good news as opposed to the biblical teaching that you earned death through your sin and Christ offers propitiation through His crucifixion for anyone who believes and has faith in Him.  According to Bell, all people have to do in order to see the resurrection is to look to you.  Bell's attempt to take our focus off of Christ as a means to put ourselves in the spotlight is blasphemous to say the least.  

I suspect, however, that Boyd was not referring to Bell's definition of the Gospel as he has stated earlier but as to what Bell's "good news" is in this current book.  You see, Bell likes to play with terms and re-define them.  Dixon says that Bell never outright denounces orthodox terms but re-defines it.  Dixon then goes on to talk about Bell's confusion that he has about salvation and how he shows this through yet another plethora of questions that offer more confusion than clarification.  My response to this is shouldn't a minister offer clarity and not leave behind more confusion than one started off with in the first place?  I know Bell gets all sorts of accolades for his brilliant teaching but where is the genius in a pedagogy that breeds discombobulation?

I'm going to wrap this up for now but before I leave; I will say that from the different posts I have read about this book and from the liberal mindset/post modern worldview that Bell's supporters advocate in defense of this book, that Bell would argue (even though he might not outright say it) that a loving God would not send anyone to hell forever.  Rev. Dr. Serene Jones, president of the Union Theological Seminary, had this to say in defense of Bell;

"Jesus' message was that the love of God is stronger than anything we can do -- and the forgiveness of God is stronger -- so why would that God be torturing people in some made up hell?" she said.

Considering that Dr. Jones is a post Professor of Theology at Yale Divinity School, I am astonished at this argument that is void of any real understanding of the issue at hand.  Dr. Tim Keller offers one of the best commentaries about hell than I have ever seen.  This is only a portion of a larger article but in spite of that, it offers insightful considerations that you may want to consider if you are tempted or swayed to argue that sending people to hell is beyond God's nature;

"In Romans 1-2 Paul explains that God, in his wrath against those who reject him, 'gives them up' to the sinful passions of their hearts. Commentators (cf. Douglas Moo) point out that this cannot mean God impels people to sin, since in Ephesians 4:19 it is said that sinners give themselves up to their sinful desires. It means that the worst (and fairest) punishment God can give a person is to allow them their sinful hearts' deepest desire.

What is that? The desire of the sinful human heart is for independence. We want to choose and go our own way (Isaiah 53:6.) This is no idle 'wandering from the path.' As Jeremiah puts it, 'No one repents . . . each pursues his own course like a horse charging into battle. (8:6)' (We want to get away from God-but, as we have seen, this is the very thing that is most destructive to us. Cain is warned not to sin because sin is slavery. (Genesis 4:7; John 8:34.) It destroys your ability to choose, love, enjoy. Sin also brings blindness-the more you reject the truth about God the more incapable you are of perceiving any truth about yourself or the world (Isaiah 29:9-10; Romans 1:21.)

What is hell, then? It is God actively giving us up to what we have freely chosen-to go our own way, be our own "the master of our fate, the captain of our soul," to get away from him and his control. It is God banishing us to regions we have desperately tried to get into all our lives. J.I.Packer writes: "Scripture sees hell as self-chosen . . . [H]ell appears as God's gesture of respect for human choice. All receive what they actually chose, either to be with God forever, worshipping him, or without God forever, worshipping themselves." (J.I.Packer, Concise Theology p.262-263.) If the thing you most want is to worship God in the beauty of his holiness, then that is what you will get (Ps 96:9-13.) If the thing you most want is to be your own master, then the holiness of God will become an agony, and the presence of God a terror you will flee forever (Rev 6:16; cf. Is 6:1-6.)" 

May everything we do be in the honor and glory of God,

W.