|
|
|
- Preaching the Living WORD through
the Written WORD - 2 Tim 4;:2 - |
|
|
“DOES THE EMERGENT LOVE-GOD WIN?” A Brief Review on “Love Wins” (A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived) by Rob Bell Grace Bible Church, Gillette, Wyoming Pastor Daryl Hilbert I. BELL’S BOOK A. Were you ever in a conversation where you
could not get a straightforward answer no matter how simply you asked the question?
You may have asked the question repeatedly even though you altered the
phrases and still a simple answer eluded you. There are a couple of reasons
why you do not get a straight answer. 1. First, maybe the person does not know the
answer. Rather than just tell you they do not know, they begin to tell you
what they do not know in a way that sounds like they know what they are
saying. You know? 2. Secondly, it could be that the question you
posed was a False Dilemma, where an either/or question is posed but neither
answer is right. Again, they could just state that both are incorrect. 3. Perhaps a third reason would be that they
do not wish to incriminate themselves or commit to a position under scrutiny
before others. Politicians do this quite successfully all the time. But it is
rare for theologians or ministers to skirt the issues, or at least it used to
be when orthodoxy was orthodox (Grk orthos - straight, doxa - opinion or
position; correct belief or position; defined here as the longstanding and
accepted Christian theological orthodox beliefs). B. At some point in your conversation an
epiphany floods over you that you will never get a straight answer because
the person is doing everything in their power to keep one from you. That is
the sensation we get when we try to understand the Emergent Church. We ask
for a specific and the only specific they give is that there are no
specifics. Rob Bell, the poster-child for the Emergent Church, is no
exception. He is simple and straightforward on how he dresses, dyes his hair,
and shaves his head according to contemporary styles, but his theology is
anything but simple and straightforward. Bell, the author of “Velvet Elvis:
Repainting the Christian Faith” has come out with another emergent book
called, “Love Wins, A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person
Who Ever Lived.” C. In Bell’s book, everything he believes, or
postulates that he might believe, comes from three propositions (though he
only offers two). The first is that God is love. 1. First, I believe that Jesus’ story is
first and foremost about the love of God for every single one of us. It is a
stunning, beautiful, expansive love, and it is for everybody, everywhere. [Bell
includes all other religions and individuals, see Example #1 & #2] (Bell, Love Wins, preface) 2. [Example #1] Several years ago we had an
art show at our church …one woman included in her work a quote from Mahatma
Gandhi, which a number of people found quite compelling. But not everyone.
Someone attached a piece of paper to it. On the piece of paper was written:
“Reality check: He’s in hell…. Really” Gandhi’s in hell? He is? We have
confirmation of this? Somebody knows this? Without a doubt? And that somebody
decided to take on the responsibility of letting the rest of us know? (Bell, Love Wins, pg. 1-2) 3. [Example #2] Several years ago I heard a
woman tell about the funeral of her daughter’s friend, a high school student
who was killed in a car accident. Her daughter was asked by a Christian if
the young man who had died was a Christian. She said that he told people he
was an atheist. This person then said to her, “So, there’s no hope then.” …
No hope? Is that the Christian message” “No hope?” Is that what Jesus offers
the world? Is this the sacred calling of Christians- to announce that there’s
no hope? (Bell, Love
Wins, pg. 3) 4. This was not the same meaning that the
apostle John intended when he stated that “God is love” (1Jn 4:8). Bell’s
meaning is that “love is God.” The difference is that that the apostle John
understands that God is all of His attributes simutaneously, including love.
So that when God exercises His love, He does so without neglecting His other
attributes. Bell’s meaning however, is that not only is love the preeminent
attribute of God, but it is the only attribute of God. Therefore, he can
postulate in his book that everyone will go to heaven (Universalism, which he
does postulate, but never admits) and that no one goes to hell because that
would be inconsistent with God’s sole attribute of love. D. The second proposition (which he sees a
part of the first) is that if it comes from orthodox evangelicals, it must
automatically be wrong. 1. There are a growing number of us who have
become acutely aware that Jesus’ story has been hijacked by a number of other
stories, stories Jesus isn’t interested in telling, because they have nothing
to do with what he came to do. The plot has been lost, and it’s time to
reclaim it. (Bell, Love
Wins, Preface) 2. This love compels us to question some of
the dominant stories that are being told as the Jesus story. (Bell, Love Wins, Preface) E. The third proposition is that it is OK to
question orthodoxy. This is not the healthy questioning that will strengthen
our confirmation in the Word of God and the testimony of biblical theologians
from the past. This is the constant and unhealthy questioning that inevitably
will end up destroying the basis of truth from the Scriptures and the faith
“once handed down to the saints” (Jud 3). 1. I've written this book because the kind
of faith Jesus invites us into doesn't skirt the big questions about topics
like God and Jesus and salvation and judgment and heaven and hell, but takes
us deep into the heart of them. (Bell, Love Wins, Preface) 2. Some communities don't permit open,
honest inquiry about the things that matter most. Lots of people have voiced
a concern, expressed a doubt, or raised a question, only to be told by their
family, church, friends, or tribe: "We don't discuss those things
here." (ibid.) 3. I believe the discussion itself is
divine. Abraham does his best to bargain with God, most of the book of Job
consists of arguments by Job and his friends about the deepest questions of
human suffering, God is practically on trial in the poems of Lamentations,
and Jesus responds to almost every question he's asked with . . . a question.
"What do you think? How do you read it?" he asks, again and again
and again. (ibid.) 4. The ancient sages said the words of the sacred
text were black letters on a white page—there's all that white space, waiting
to be filled with our responses and discussions and debates and opinions and
longings and desires and wisdom and insights. We read the words, and then
enter into the discussion that has been going on for thousands of years
across cultures and continents. (ibid.) 5. My hope is that this frees you. There is
no question that Jesus cannot handle no discussion too volatile, no issue too
dangerous. At the same time, some issues aren't as big as people have made
them. Much blood has been spilled in church splits, heresy trials, and raging
debates over issues that are, in the end, not that essential. Sometimes what
we are witnessing is simply a massive exercise in missing the point. Jesus
frees us to call things what they are. (ibid.) 6. And then, last of all, please understand
that nothing in this book hasn't been taught, suggested, or celebrated by
many before me. I haven't come up with a radical new teaching that's any kind
of departure from what's been said an untold number of times. That's the
beauty of the historic, orthodox Christian faith. It's a deep, wide, diverse
stream that's been flowing for thousands of years, carrying a staggering
variety of voices, perspectives, and experiences. (ibid.) 7. If this book, then, does nothing more
than introduce you to the ancient, ongoing discussion surrounding the
resurrected Jesus in all its vibrant, diverse, messy, multivoiced
complexity—well, I'd be thrilled. (ibid.) II. BELL’S BIO A. Bell’s History 1. Rob Bell was the founder and pastor of
Mars Hill Bible Church located in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He is also the
featured speaker of mini video clips seen on YouTube and various other places
called, NOOMA (the pronunciation of the Greek word pneuma, which means
wind, spirit, or breath). 2. Bell grew up in a traditional Christian
environment. His father, Judge Robert Holmes Bell was nominated by Ronald
Reagan to the federal judiciary committee. 3. Bell received his bachelor’s degree from
Wheaton College (1992), where he also met his wife Kristen. Bell later
received a M.Div. from Fuller Theological Seminary, which is known for its
biblical inerrancy debate and liberal professors and students. 4. After serving for a time at Calvary Church
as an assistant pastor to Ed Dobson, Bell branched out on his own to start a
new kind of community called, “Mars Hill.” This was the place of Paul’s
sermon to the Athenians, "For while I was passing through and
examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this
inscription, 'TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.' Therefore what you worship in ignorance,
this I proclaim to you” (Ac 17:23). 5. Bell’s popularity escalated and a 2006
article in the Chicago Sun Times called him “the next Billy Graham”. A year
later, TheChurchReport.com named him No. 10 on its list of "The 50 Most
Influential Christians in America." He also made TIME magazine in
December of that same year. 6. His church is a culture jump for many and
known as a culturally relevant church. a) Clearly cultural relevance was part of the
reason for planting a church whose worship team requires a bass player who
can play "in the style of Jimmy Eat World and Coldplay." No
generation has ever been more alert to such nuances than the media-fed children
of the 1980s and '90s, who can sense uncoolness at a thousand paces. As Rob
Bell's wife, Kristen, tells CT in a joint interview after the service,
"It's a cultural jump for our friends to come to church. It's a cultural
jump for us, and we grew up in the church." (Crouch, Andy, The Emergent Mystique,
Christianity Today) 7. However, culture is not the only thing
that is jumping at Mars Hill, it would also include Rob Bell’s view of
Christianity and his view of the Bible itself. B. Bell’s Influence 1. The Bell’s admitted that they became
disillusioned with the traditional church and its teachings. a) In
fact, as the Bells describe it, after launching Mars Hill in 1999, they found
themselves increasingly uncomfortable with church. “Life in the church had
become so small,” Kristen says. “It had worked for me for a long time. Then
it stopped working.”
(ibid.) 2. So what led the Bells to change, or what
caused an already internal change to surface? It was the postmodern Christian
views of Brian McLaren, author of “A New Kind of Christian” and guru of the
Emergent Church. a) And
how did the Bells find their way out of the black-and-white world where they
had been so successful and so dissatisfied? "Our lifeboat," Kristen
says, "was A New Kind of Christian." (ibid.) 3. What is the Emergent Church? It is a
postmodern approach to Christianity. a) What is postmodernism? Postmodern
thought is, in its very essence, an adventure and an expression of life
experience. From its modernist beginnings, Postmodernism is an attempt to
question the world that we see around us and especially not to take other
people’s views as the final truth. Postmodernism puts everything into
question and radically interrogates philosophies, strategies and world views.
There is no such thing as a definition of the postmodern. It is a mood rather
than a strict discipline. Postmodernism, with all its complexity and possible
excesses, is an attempt to find new and more truthful versions of the world.
(www.essortment.com) b) What is Postmodernism in Christianity? The
modern period of history… is coming to an end. We are entering
“postmodernity,” an as-yet ill-defined borderland in which central modern
values like objectivity, analysis, and control will become less compelling.
They are superseded by postmodern values like mystery and wonder. The
controversial implication is that forms of Christianity that have thrived in
modernity - including evangelicalism - are unlikely to survive the
transition. (McLaren, A New Kind of Christian) c) "Right
now Emergent is a conversation, not a movement," he says. "We don't
have a program. We don't have a model. I think we must begin as a
conversation, then grow as a friendship, and see if a movement comes of
it." (McLaren, Emergent
Mystique) d) [The Emergent Church] is something new in
the cultural-identifying churches. The
seeker-sensitive church loudly proclaimed that they were fine-tuning the
methodology but were not tampering with the message of the evangelical church
(even though they were). The emergent
church is concerned about methods but they are even more concerned about the
message. They believe that conservative
evangelical Christianity has it all wrong.
From the Scriptures to essential doctrines to the gospel itself, the
church so far just doesn’t get it. And
the emergent people include themselves in the same camp. As Brian McLaren states, “I don’t think
we’ve got the gospel right yet. What
does it mean to be saved?... None of us have arrived at orthodoxy.” (Gilley, The Emerging Church - Part 1) C. Bell’s Change 1. Bell himself admits that the Emergent Church is not so much
concerned with methodology as it is the message. a) This is not just the same old message with
new methods. We’re rediscovering
Christianity as an Eastern religion, as a way of life. (Crouch, Christianity Today, “The Emergent
Mystique”) 2. It was impossible for Bell’s view toward Christianity to
change without also changing his view on the Bible. a) The Bells
started questioning their assumptions about the Bible itself"
discovering the Bible as a human product," as Rob puts it, rather than
the product of divine fiat. "The Bible is still in the center for
us," Rob says, "but it's a different kind of center. We want to
embrace mystery, rather than conquer it." (ibid.) b) "I grew up thinking that we've
figured out the Bible," Kristen says, "that we knew what it means.
Now I have no idea what most of it means. And yet I feel like life is big
again like life used to be black and white, and now it's in color." (ibid.) 3. A
postmodern view cannot co-exist with a view of the Bible that teaches
orthodoxy, dogma, doctrine, and theology. a) Ask me if
Christianity (my version of it, yours, the Pope's, whoever's) is orthodox,
meaning true, and here's my honest answer: a little, but not yet. Assuming by
Christianity you mean the Christian understanding of the world and God,
Christian opinions on soul, text, and culture I'd have to say that we
probably have a couple of things right, but a lot of things wrong, and even
more spreads before us unseen and unimagined. But at least our eyes are open!
To be a Christian in a generously orthodox way is not to claim to have the
truth captured, stuffed, and mounted on the wall. (Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy,
p.293) b) The Bible is absolutely equivalent to the
phrase 'the Word of God' as used in the Bible. Although I do find the term
inerrancy useful I would prefer to use the term inherency to describe my view
of Scripture. (McLaren, The Last
Word, p. 111). c) There is
more than one way to ‘kill’ the Bible,” McLaren says. “You can dissect it, analyze it, abstract
it. You can read its ragged stories and ragamuffin poetry, and from them you
can derive neat abstractions, sterile propositions, and sharp-edged
principles. (McLaren, A New Kind
of Christian, p. 158) d) D. A. Carson answers why the Emerging
Church has to take such a position on expository teaching, At some
juncture churches have to decide whether they will, by God’s grace, try to
live in submission to Scripture, or try to domesticate Scripture. (D. A.
Carson, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, p. 164) 4. If Bell
cannot trust in the Bible’s truths, then he must seek to find “new truths.”
Such new truths are supposedly sought after in a sort of new reformational
spirit. a) I can’t
see church history in any other way, except this: ‘semper reformanda’,
continually being lead and taught and guided by the Spirit into new truth. (McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 193) b) It is our turn to step up and take
responsibility for who the church is going to be for a new generation. It is
our turn to redefine and reshape and dream it all up again. (Bell, Velvet Elvis, p. 164) D. Bell’s Mission 1. Now if Bell
and McLaren are starting a New Reformation, are they not declaring that the
old one was wrong? This answers the question why Bell is attempting to remove
the “toxic” Reformation beliefs and Reformation preaching. a) This love compels us to question some of
the dominant stories that are being told as the Jesus story. 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. (Bell,
Love Wins, Preface) 2. According to bell reformational beliefs and reformational
preaching is the reformational culprit which has turned off the masses. a) I’ve written this book for all those,
everywhere, who have heard some version of the Jesus story that caused their
pulse rate to rise, their stomach to churn, and their heart to utter those
resolute words, “I would never be part of that. You are not alone. There are
millions of us. (Bell, Love Wins,
Preface 3. Rob Bell’s mission then is to reclaim the real truth of God
and promote it, even though his
emergent views do not define what that truth is. Therefore, Rob Bell can only
be dogmatic about two things: 1) traditional Reformation Christianity and its
proponents are wrong, and 2) only he and few select others are the ones to
teach it … er…uh …suggest it. a) There are a growing number of us who have become
acutely aware that Jesus’ story has been hijacked by a number of other
stories, stories Jesus isn’t interested in telling, because they have nothing
to do with what he came to do. The plot has been lost, and it’s time to
reclaim it. (Bell, Love Wins,
Preface) E. Time to Ring the Bell 1. False
teachers had crept in unnoticed among Jude’s readers (Jud 3-4). It was such a
problem that Jude was compelled (anágkê - pressed tight, constraint)
to write concerning them. Jude was so compelled to write that he changed his
subject matter from “common salvation” to “false teachers.” 2. His appeal (parakaléō - strong encouragement)
was that his readers were to “contend earnestly” for the faith. Jude uses epagōnízomai
to appeal to his readers to put forth an emphatic effort and strenuous
struggle on behalf of the truth. Metaphorically, they were to wage war for
the truth. 3. We will not apologize for waging war over
the truth. This we will do as we contend with Bell’s view of heaven and hell. III. BELL’S HEAVEN A. The Dismantling of the Traditional View of Heaven 1. Rob Bell begins to discuss heaven from his book in chapter 2.
He is finally going to tell us what he really believes about heaven, or is
he? He would assure us that he is in our camp of orthodox evangelicals, but
is he? Bell will make subtle attempts to state beliefs that seem similar to
orthodox vernacular, but his beliefs are anything but orthodox. His beliefs
are revealed by his not so subtle explanations of heaven and hell. 2. First he begins with heaven. Or should I
say that he begins by making derogatory comments about the orthodox position
on heaven. a) Are there other ways to think about
heaven, other than as that perfect floating shiny city hanging suspended
there in the air above that ominous red and black realm with all that smoke
and steam and hissing fire? I say yes, there are. (ibid., pg. 26) b) 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. (Rob Bell, “Love Wins,” Preface) 3. To Bell, this traditional view of heaven is at best
“misguided,” better described as “toxic,” or worst of all described as
contradictory and subversive to the real gospel. a) [About the last paragraph]…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. (ibid., Preface) 4. Underneath all of his thin layered orthodoxy lies some dreadfully
sacrilegious thoughts. Most orthodox Christians would say that the prospect
of heaven would be of utmost importance in this fleeting earthly life. But
Bell questions not only the very foundation of such orthodox perspectives,
but he actually questions if the message of heaven in the afterlife is the
best God could do. a) This raises even more disconcerting
questions about what the message even is. Some Christians believe and often
repeat that all that matters is whether or not a person is going to heaven.
Is that the message? Is that what life is about? Going somewhere else? If
that’s the gospel, the good news – if what Jesus does is get
people somewhere else – then the central message of the Christian faith
has very little to do with this life other than getting what you need for the
next one. (ibid., pg. 6) b) Which of course raises the question: Is
that the best God can do?(ibid.,
pg. 6) 5. Even if Bell were attempting to sound like the world in order
to reach the world, he is so overboard that he becomes the world. In fact,
some of Bell’s views are so opposed to the traditional view of heaven, that
he actually reverses the description of heaven as hell. a) I’ve heard pastors answer, “[Heaven] will
be unlike anything we can comprehend, like a church service that goes on
forever,” causing some to think, “That sounds more like hell.”(ibid., pg. 25) B. The Rich Young Ruler (Mt 19:16 -22) 1. Eternal Life Equals Earthly Life a) Bell attempts to justify his position from Scripture. He begins
with the “Rich Young Ruler” in Mt 19:16-22. Bell will argue that when the
young ruler asked about eternal life, he did not have the concept of heaven
that orthodox Christians have, rather he was asking about earthly life.
Furthermore, according to Bell, when Jesus was speaking of eternal life, He
was merely speaking of earthly life. (1) When the man asks about getting “eternal
life,” he isn’t asking about how to go to heaven when he dies. This wasn’t a
concern for the man or Jesus.
This is why Jesus doesn’t tell people how to “go to heaven.” It wasn’t what
Jesus came to do.” (ibid., pg. 30) b) Bell’s concept of eternal life is concerned with the here and
now. This concept of eternal life is critical of anyone who does not take
part in the here and now. He would suggest that orthodox Christianity is so
erroneously heavenly minded that they are no earthly good. (1) How we think about heaven, then, directly
affects how we understand what we do with our days and energies now, in this
age. Jesus teaches us how to live now in such a way that what we create, who
we give our efforts to, and how we spend our time will all endure in the new
world [Note: the “new world” does
not mean the “new heaven”] (ibid., pg. 44) (2) Taking heaven seriously, then, means taking
suffering seriously, now. Not because we’ve bought into the myth that we can
create a utopia given enough time, technology, and good voting choices, but
because we have great confidence that God has not abandoned human history and
is actively at work within it, taking it somewhere. (ibid., pg. 45) (3) It 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, as Jesus taught us to pray: “Your will be done on earth
as it is in heaven.” At the same time, it often appears that those who talk
the most about relieving suffering now talk the least about heaven when we
die. (ibid., pg. 45) c) Unbelievably and erroneously for Bell, the terms “eternal
life” (Mt 19:16), “treasure in heaven” (Mt 19:21), and “kingdom of heaven”
(Mt 19:23) are all synonyms for earthly life. 2. The Correct Interpretation of the Rich Young Ruler (Mt
19:16-22) a) When the young ruler came to Jesus, he was indeed referring to
the orthodox idea of eternal life. However, his was a concept of obtaining
eternal life through good works (Mt 19:16). b) Jesus’ first response was to get the ruler
to come to the realization that Jesus was the Son of God, who alone (“One who
is good) was good, righteous, and sinless (Mt 19:17). His next response was
to show the man that all men are sinners, including the young ruler. The
intent of the Law and the Commandments was to reveal man’s sin (Ro 3:29;
7:7). c) The ruler asked which commandments were
the most important, showing that he still did not grasp Jesus’ point.
Nevertheless Jesus continued to recount the commandments still desiring the
young man to understand that mankind has violated all of the commandments if
only in his heart (Mt 19:18-19). d) Still the young man did not grasp Jesus’
message (Mt 19:20). However his own sin became more apparent in that his
answer was self-righteous and arrogant (“All these things I have kept”). e) Jesus responded with a statement that was
intended to reveal the man’s sinfulness. Jesus told him to sell all he had to
feed the poor and follow Him (Mt 19:21). f) Sadly, the rich young ruler had more
attachment and trust in his riches than in trusting Christ as Savior and
following Him. Therefore the young man went away from Jesus and grieved
because he had too much attachment to the false god of riches (Mt 19:23). g) Since the rich young ruler is in the
context of salvation, “eternal life” would mean anything but “earthly life.”
None of this would make sense if “eternal life” did not come from a heavenly
perspective. In addition, there is nothing to suggest that this event in the
life of Jesus removes the orthodox view of heaven. C. The Age to Come is the Next Earthly Age 1. Rob Bell does however talk about a second aspect of eternal
life as the “age to come.” One might think that this is where Bell is going
to side with the orthodox view of heaven. But sadly, the “age to come” for
Bell is the next earthly age to come. a) Life in the age to come. If this sounds
like heaven on earth, that’s because it is. Literally. (ibid., pg. 33) b) When we talk about heaven, then, or
eternal life, or the afterlife—any of that—it’s important that we begin with
the categories and claims that people were familiar with in Jesus’s
first-century Jewish world. They did not talk about a future life somewhere
else, because they anticipated a coming day when the world would be restored,
renewed, and redeemed and there would be peace on earth. (ibid. pg. 40) c) When Jesus tells the man that there are
rewards for him, he’s promising the man that receiving the peace of God now,
finding gratitude for what he does have, and sharing it with those who need
it will create in him all the more capacity for joy in the world to come. (ibid., pg. 33) 2. Bell even suggests that the next earthly age is equivalent to
the “day of the Lord,” not at all referring to that period in God’s
redemptive plan to bring final judgment upon man for rejecting Christ. a) Their description of life in the age to
come is both thrilling and unnerving at the same time. For the earth to be
free of anything destructive or damaging, certain things have to be banished.
Decisions have to be made. Judgments have to be rendered. And so they spoke
of a cleansing, purging, decisive day when God would make those judgments.
They called this day the “day of the LORD.” The day when God says “ENOUGH!”
to anything that threatens the peace (shalom is the Hebrew word), harmony,
and health that God intends for the world.(ibid. pg. 37) 3. If Bell had any orthodoxy running through his veins he could
have at least said that he thought the “age to come” was a reference to the
Millennium where Christ will reign on earth for a thousand years. Whether Bell
holds to a heaven in the presence of God is tentative at best. He explains
nothing in clear terms, but is vague and cryptic. Instead, Bell leaves his
readers wondering and asking more questions about the “age to come” than they
originally had. Make no mistake, for Bell; “the age to come” is nothing more
than the next generation that cleans up the earth, environment, racism,
tolerance, and any “toxic” religious jargon. a) Around 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. (ibid. pg. 45) b) First, they spoke about “all the nations.”
That’s everybody. That’s all those different skin colors, languages,
dialects, and accents; all those kinds of food and music; all those customs,
habits, patterns, clothing, traditions, and ways of celebrating— multiethnic,
multisensory, multieverything. (ibid.
pg. 34) c) Central to their vision of human
flourishing in God’s renewed world, then, was the prophets’ announcement that
a number of things that can survive in this world will not be able to survive
in the world to come. Like war. Rape. Greed. Injustice. Violence. Pride.
Division. Exploitation. Disgrace.(ibid.
pg. 36) 4. In summary, Bell’s heaven is an earthly perspective where the
here and now is the most important consideration. a) To summarize, then, sometimes when Jesus
used the word “heaven,” he was simply referring to God, using the word as a
substitute for the name of God. Second, sometimes when Jesus spoke of heaven,
he was referring to the future coming together of heaven and earth in what he
and his contemporaries called life in the age to come. And then third—and
this is where things get really, really interesting—when Jesus talked about
heaven, he was talking about our present eternal, intense, real experiences
of joy, peace, and love in this life, this side of death and the age to come.
Heaven for Jesus wasn’t just “someday”; it was a present reality. Jesus blurs
the lines, inviting the rich man, and us, into the merging of heaven and earth, the future and present,
here and now. (ibid. pg. 59) D. The Aionian Age 1. In order to support his beliefs, Bell attempts to define the
Greek word aion, “age.” He suggests two main meanings, 1) a measured
period of time with beginning and end, and 2) an intense experience not
measured in time. But no matter which definition Bell uses, to him, they all
take place on earth. He says nothing about the age of eternity in the
presence of God (i.e. heaven or eternal life). 2. Bell uses the first definition, “a
measured period of time with beginning and end” to describe both this time period
that we live in and a coming earthly time period described by Bell as “the
age to come” (See note III. C. The Age to Come is the Next Earthly Age) a) So according to Jesus there is this age,
this aion— the one they, and we, are living in— and then a coming age, also
called “the world to come” or simply “eternal life.” (ibid. pg. 32) b) Seeing the present and future in terms of
two ages was not a concept or teaching that originated with Jesus. He came
from a long line of prophets who had been talking about life in the age to
come for hundreds of years before him. They believed that history was headed
somewhere—not just their history as a tribe and nation, but the history of
the entire universe—because they believed that God had not abandoned the world
and that a new day, a new age, a new era was coming. (ibid. pg. 32) 3. The second definition Bell said is, “an intense experience not
measured in time” and refers to the kind of life Jesus wanted the rich man to
experience now. It was an aionian eternal life (zōến aiṓnion,
Mt 19:16), not the eternal life in heaven held by orthodoxy. a) To understand this, let’s return to that
Greek word aion, the one that we translate as “age” in English. We saw
earlier how aion refers to a period of time with a beginning and an end.
Another meaning of aion is a bit more complex and nuanced, because it refers
to a particular intensity of experience that transcends time. (ibid. pg. 57) b) To say it again, eternal life is less
about a kind of time that starts when we die, and more about a quality and
vitality of life lived now in connection to God. Eternal life doesn’t start
when we die; it starts now. It’s not about a life that begins at death; it’s
about experiencing the kind of life now that can endure and survive even death.
(ibid. pg. 59) c) But when Jesus talks with the rich man,
he has one thing in mind: he wants the man to experience the life of heaven,
eternal life, “aionian” life, now. For that man, his wealth was in the way;
for others it’s worry or stress or pride or envy—the list goes on. We know
that list. (ibid. pg. 62) 4. What does the Greek word aiōn mean from a biblical
perspective? That is the perspective that Rob Bell would like us to believe
he has used, after all, he is a pastor of a Bible Church. However, the most
significant uses of aiōn are those which refer to God’s
eternality or the believer’s eternal life in the presence of God. The
biblical meanings of aiōn are as follows: a) A time period(s) or age(s) under the sovereign control of the
purposes of God. (1) This can be understood from passages such
as Mt 12:32; Ro 16:25; 1Co 2:8; Ep 1:2; Ep 2:7; Ep 3:9. (2) This usually refers to the ages to come,
but can refer to this present age. b) A quality of life here which partakes of the future quality of
life in heaven. (1) It is true that when a believer trusts
Christ as Savior he is given eternal life which begins immediately (Jn 5:24;
17:3). (2) But it is a heavenly quality of life for believers
(no others) here, which will consummate in the future quality of life in
heaven. c) The idea of all the future ages gathered together to represent
eternity. (1) It is translated by expressions such as
“from eternity to eternity” or “forever and ever” (eis tous aiōnas
tōn aiōnōn - “into the ages of ages). (2) It is understood from passages such as Ep
3:21; Php 4:20; 1Ti 1:17; 2Ti 4:18; He 1:8. d) The eternality as an attribute ascribed alone to the Godhead. (1) It is an attribute of God (The Septuagint
(LXX) translates the Hebrew word ōlam with the Greek word aiōn
(Is 26:4; 40:28 cf. Ro 16:26). (2) It is used of God’s eternal name (Ge 21:33;
Ex 3:15; Is 63:12). (3) It is used of God’s eternal rule and
kingdom (1Ti 1:17; 6:16; 2Pe 1:11). (4) It is used of God’s eternal salvation (Is
45:17). e) The eternal life of living eternally in the presence of God in
heaven. (1) This is the definition that Rob Bells
avoids at all costs. This is the definition in which Bell identified as toxic
and harmful to the message of the gospel. This is the definition that is not
only emphasized in the New Testament, but the one in which Jesus and the
apostles emphatically promoted. In addition, it is the idea of eternal life
contained in the orthodox view of heaven. (2) It is eternal life that will come in the
future (Jud 21). (3) It is eternal life that is contrasted with
eternal punishment (Jud 7; Mt 25:46; Jn 3:16, 36; 10:28-29). (4) It is eternal life that consists of a
future hope of heaven (Tit 1:2; 3:7). (a) It is eternal life that speaks of future
salvation and glory (2Ti 2:10; 1Pe 5:10). (b) It is eternal life that is not the temporal
life on earth but the eternal life in heaven (2Co 4:18; 5:1). (c) It is eternal life that reveals an
eschatological view of heaven (Jn 6:40). (d) It is eternal life with a view of heaven in
the book of Hebrews (“eternal salvation” - He 5:9”; “eternal judgment” - He
6:12;” “eternal redemption” - He
9:12;” “eternal inheritance” - He
9:15;” “eternal covenant” - He 13:20). (5) It is extremely clear from these passages
and others in the New Testament that one should interpret the majority of
passages with aiōn as “eternal life in living eternally in the
presence of God in heaven.” Rob Bell not only takes the most remote
definitions of “eternal life” and runs with it, but he even alters that
definition to fit it into his progressive and open theology. IV. BELL’S HELL A. Down With Sheol 1. First heaven, now hell. Bell does the same thing with “hell” that he did
with “heaven.” He changes the traditional interpretation of “hell,” changes
Jesus’ meaning on “hell,” and changes the meaning of the Bible verses and
Greek words. 2. He begins with his common disdain for traditional
evangelical thinking and rhetoric, a major underlying theme in his writings. a) I noticed that one of the protestors had a
jacket on with these words stitched on the back: “Turn or Burn.” That about
sums it up, doesn’t it? Fury, wrath, fire, torment, judgment, eternal agony,
endless anguish. Hell. That’s all part of the story, right? Trust God, accept
Jesus, confess, repent, and everything will go well for you. But if you
don’t, well, the Bible is quite clear . . . Sin, refuse to repent, harden your
heart, reject Jesus, and when you die, it’s over. Or actually, the torture
and anguish and eternal torment will have just begun. 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? (ibid. pg. 64). 3. At this point, Bell will attempt to look at the Scriptural use
of the word “hell.” He will begin in the Old Testament with the word sheōl. a) First, the Hebrew scriptures. There isn’t
an exact word or concept in the Hebrew scriptures for hell other than a few
words that refer to death and the grave. One of them is the Hebrew word
“Sheol,” a dark, mysterious, murky place people go when they die, (ibid. pg. 65). 4. Most scholars agree that Sheōl is not a detailed
word, but a general word containing numerous meanings. This is nothing new or
earth shattering by Bell. a) Just as Bell stated it can mean the grave (Ge 37:35; Jb 17:16). b) It is also a metaphor for death of all
people (2Sa 22:6; Ps 18:5; Is 57:9; Ho 13:14). 5. What Bell does not bring out, even though he said, I want
to show you every single verse in the Bible in which we find the actual word
“hell.” (ibid. pg. 64), is that Heaven and Sheōl are
contrasted and that Sheōl can refer to the place where the wicked
are, along with God’s wrath. a) Sheōl can be contrasted with Heaven and imply Hell
(Jb 11:8; Ps 139:8; Is 7:11). b) Sheōl can refer to where the wicked and sinners go when
they die (Jb 24:19; Ps 9:17). c) Sheōl can refer to the place where God’s wrath toward sin
resides (Dt 32:22; Pr 15:24). 6. In addition, we find that the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew Sheōl
is the Greek word Hádês. Hádês can mean “death” but
carries more of the idea of a place of awaiting judgment. a) (1) the place of the dead underworld (AC
2.27); (2) usually in the NT as the temporary underworld prison where the
souls of the ungodly await the judgment (LU 16.23); (3) personified as
following along after Death (RV 6.8)
(Friberg) b) In Re 20:11-13, Hádês is
specifically the place where the sinful dead await the Great White Throne
Judgment. Verse 14 teaches that Hádês, after the Judgment, is
cast in the Lake of Fire, and is equivalent to the “Second Death.” 7. While we agree with Bell in that Sheōl has various
meanings without great detail, they have more meanings than he gives and more
allusions to hell than he lets on. Therefore we disagree with his conclusion. a) But, simply put, the Hebrew commentary on
what happens after a person dies isn’t very articulated or defined. Sheol,
death, and the grave in the consciousness of the Hebrew writers are all a bit
vague and “underworldly.” For whatever reasons, the precise details of who
goes where, when, how, with
what, and for how long simply aren’t things the Hebrew writers were terribly
concerned with. (Bell, Love Wins, pg. 67). B. Gehenna the Dump 1. Next, Bell deals with the Greek word geheena. Géheena,
or the valley of Hinnom just south of Jerusalem, was a place where
fires were kept burning to consume the dead bodies of animals, criminals, and
refuse (Friberg). But Bell stops there and believes that that is all
there is to Gehenna and to Hell. a) Gehenna, in Jesus’ day, was the city dump.
People tossed their garbage and waste into this valley. There was a fire
there, burning constant 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.
(Love Wins, pg. 68). b) Gehenna was an actual place that Jesus’s
listeners would have been familiar with. So the next time someone asks you if
you believe in an actual hell, you can always say, “Yes, I do believe that my
garbage goes somewhere . . .” (Bell,
Love Wins, pg. 68). c) Gehenna, the town garbage pile. And
that’s it. Those are all of the mentions of “hell” in the Bible. (ibid. pg. 69). 2. What is puzzling is how Bell can see several figurative
meanings in Sheōl but when it comes to Gehenna he becomes
a hyper-literalist. The majority of Bell’s emergent and progressive
interpretations are spiritualized and given figurative meaning. Bell rarely
takes the Bible literally. 3. A principle in Biblical Hermeneutics
tells us to take everything literal unless it becomes obvious or absurd. In
such cases look for the figurative meaning. I wonder how far he is willing to
be a hyper-literalist? a) When someone sinned and was, “guilty enough to go into the
fiery hell,” (Mt 5:22), were they in danger of being abandoned to
the Dump? b) Or if a sinner did not gouge his eye out
(Mt 5:29), would his whole body would be thrown into the Dump? c) Bell admits later on that Jesus used “hyperbole”
in reference to gouging out the eyes. Hyperbole is exaggerated figurative
language with the purpose of raising people’s attention level. Why are we to
interpret only the one as figurative language but are prohibited by Bell on
the other? d) Almost everyone, except Rob Bell, takes Gehenna,
as figurative language for Hell. 4. Does the word Gehenna have a figurative or second
meaning? a) … figuratively in the Gospels and James for hell, a fiery
place of eternal punishment for the ungodly dead (MT 5.22). (Friberg
Lexicon) b) … the valley of Hinnom, which
represented the place of future punishment, N.T. (Liddell Scott Lexicon) c) … Gehenna, Valley of Hinnom, a ravine
south of Jerusalem. Fig. a place of fire for the punishment of the wicked,
hell Mt 5:22, 29f; 23:15; Mk 9:45, 47; Js 3:6. [pg 38] (Gingrich
Lexicon). d) …a place of punishment for the dead -
‘Gehenna, hell’. (Louw-Nida Lexicon). e) … Gehenna, in most of its occurrences in
the Greek New Testament, designates the place of the lost Mt 23:33 The
fearful nature of their condition there is described in various figurative
expressions Mt 8:12 13:42 22:13 25:30 Lu 16:24 etc. (Easton Bible Dictionary). f) … Originally the Valley of Hinnom,
near Jerusalem, Gehenna became among the Jews the synonym for the place of
torment in the future life (the "Gehenna of fire," Mt 5:22, etc.
(ISBE) g) The Greek word Gehenna, “hell,” commonly
used for the place of final punishment is derived from the Hebrew name for
this valley… in later Jewish
thought it became an image of the judgment of the wicked by fire, darkness
and gnashing of teeth. (Ryken, Dictionary of Biblical Imagery) 5. How is the word Gehenna to be interpreted when used by
Jesus and the writers of the New Testament? a) When Jesus spoke of Gehenna, He did so with the same
secondary meaning that His listeners held and understood. They were not to
fear man who could only destroy the body, but fear God who would destroy both
the body and soul in Gehenna (Mt 10:28). It must refer to Hell,
because how could a soul be cast into the Dump? b) The Pharisees were referred to as “sons of
Gehenna” (Mt 23:15). Certainly Jesus did not mean to call them “sons
of the Dump.” He meant that their evil character was akin to the place of
punishment to which they would be sent (cf. Ep 2:3) c) The evil and the wicked were sentenced to
Gehenna (Mt 23:33). Did Jesus imply that because they were sinful they
had to become city employees and work at the Dump? No, all those who reject
Christ are sentenced to eternal punishment in Hell. d) In order for Jesus to convey the reality
of eternal punishment, he used a figurative picture of Gehenna, the
Place of Refuse. (1) It was “unquenchable” (asbestos),
signifying that it was continuous (Mar 9:43). (2) It was where the “worm does not die”,
signifying the putrid nature of the second death (Mk 9:43, 46, 48). (3) Though Gehenna is not used here, Mt
13:42 described Hell as a place of excruciating fiery punishment, continual anguish
and weeping, and eternal pain (internal and external) in the act of “gnashing
of teeth.” C. Hell is Here and Now 1. Bell, as with Heaven, sees Hell here and now, Hell on Earth.
Hell is what pitiful human beings endure because of evil our world. Hell is
what happens to drug addicts, rape and incest victims, and all the injustices
in our world. a) [Speaking of children who were mutilated by the machetes of
Rwanda guerilla armies] Do I believe in a literal hell? Of course. Those
aren’t metaphorical missing arms and legs. (Bell, Love Wins, pg. 71) b) Have you ever sat with a woman while she
talked about what it was like to be raped? How does a person describe what
it’s like to hear a five-year-old boy whose father has just committed suicide
ask: “When is daddy coming home?” How does a person describe that unique
look, that ravaged, empty stare you find in the eyes of a cocaine addict?(ibid. pg. 71). c) And that’s what we find in Jesus’s teaching
about hell—a volatile mixture of images, pictures, and metaphors that
describe the very real experiences and consequences of rejecting our
God-given goodness and humanity. Something we are all free to do, anytime,
anywhere, with anyone. (ibid., pg.
73). 2. Bell dismisses any kind of belief in a literal eternal Hell
(or Satan) as primitive superstition. Therefore he has no problem making fun
of the idea of Hell and Satan. a) For many in the modern world, the idea of
hell is a holdover from primitive, mythic religion that uses fear and
punishment to control people for
all sorts of devious reasons. And so the logical conclusion is that we’ve
evolved beyond all of that outdated belief, right? (ibid., pg. 69-70) b) I get that. I understand that aversion,
and I as well have a hard time believing that somewhere down below the
earth’s crust is a really crafty figure in red tights holding a three-pointed
spear, playing Pink Floyd records backward, and enjoying the hidden messages.(ibid., pg. 69-70) 3. Bell concludes with… a) To summarize, then, we need a loaded,
volatile, adequately violent, dramatic, serious word to describe the very
real consequences we experience when we reject the good and true and
beautiful life that God has for us. We need a word that refers to the big,
wide, terrible evil that comes from the secrets hidden deep within our hearts
all the way to the massive, society-wide collapse and chaos that comes when
we fail to live in God’s world God’s way. And for that, the word “hell” works
quite well. Let’s keep it. (ibid.,
pg. 94) 4. Closing thoughts on Bell’s Hell a) Rob Bell does his best to remove any kind of literal eternal
Hell. For Him Hell is inconceivable with a God of love. There is no need for
Hell, a place of eternal punishment for mere bad choices in this life. Such
concepts for Bell would, mar the character of God and the goodness in man. It
is interesting how Bell can be against any kind of dogmatism, yet be so
dogmatic that God is basically love, man is basically good, and Hell is basically
a myth. V. Bell’s Salvation A. Disdain for the Gospel Presentation 1. True to his Bellisms, Rob writes in great detail to be vague.
But to be vague on salvation reveals his true beliefs. Well, I guess there is
no real eternal danger if there is no literal Hell, at least according to
Bell. 2. As we look at the topic of Bell’s belief
on salvation, let us once again begin with his derogatory remarks about
traditional evangelicalism. He derides the traditional evangelical
presentation of the gospel. He scorns the fact that traditional evangelicals
see two groups, those who are saved and going to Heaven and those who reject
Christ and going to Hell. Furthermore, he mocks the God of the Bible in that
any God who would lovingly hand out the invitation of salvation, but punish
those who reject it, is not a loving God at all. a) On the websites of many churches, there is
a page where you can read what the people in that particular church believe.
Usually the list starts with statements about the Bible, then God, Jesus, and
the Spirit, then salvation and the church, and so on. Most of these lists and
statements include a section on what the people in the church believe about
the people who don’t believe what they believe. This is from an actual church
website: “The unsaved will be separated forever from God in hell.” This is
from another: “Those who don’t believe in Jesus will be sent to eternal
punishment in hell.” And this is from another: “The unsaved dead will be
committed to an eternal conscious punishment. … All this, on a website. Welcome to our
church. (Bell, Love Wins, pg. 95). b) Many people find Jesus compelling, but
don’t follow him, because of the parts about “hell and torment and all that.”
Somewhere along the way they were taught that the only option when it comes
to Christian faith is to clearly declare that a few, committed Christians
will “go to heaven” when they die and everyone else will not, the matter is
settled at death, and that’s it. One place or the other, no looking back, no
chance for a change of heart, make your bed now and lie in it . . . forever.
...Not all Christians have believed this, and you don’t have to believe it to
be a Christian. The Christian faith is big enough, wide enough, and generous
enough to handle that vast a range of perspectives. (ibid. pg. 110) c) 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
being 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. If there was an earthly father who
was like that, we would call the authorities. If there was an actual human
dad who was that volatile, we would contact child protection services
immediately. (ibid. pg. 173-174) B. Universal Character of Universalism 1. Universalism is the belief that everyone will be saved at some
point, no matter what the circumstances. Its main argument is the skewed view
that God is only love or that love wins over all of God’s other attributes.
Or as Ryrie states in his “basic Theology, pg. 67, a) Simply stated, universalism states that
sooner or later all will be saved. The older form of universalism, which
originated in the second century, taught that salvation would come after a
temporary period of punishment. The new universalism of our day declares that
all men are now saved, though all do not realize it. Therefore the job of the
preacher and the missionary is to tell people that they are already saved. 2. Though Bell has claimed on numerous interviews that he was not
a Universalist, yet when you read his writings and those of other Emergent
writers, the conclusion is the same, namely, God saves everyone. Bell
questions why billions of people have been created only to be punished in
hell. a) Is history tragic? Have billions of people
been created only to spend eternity in conscious punishment and torment,
suffering infinitely for the finite sins they committed in the few years they
spent on earth? Is our future uncertain, or will God take care of us? Are we
safe? Are we secure? Or are we on our own? (ibid. pg. 102) 3. He even goes on to give the origin and argument for
Universalism from within the church in a positive way. a) 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. (ibid.
pg. 107) b) Central to their trust that all would be
reconciled was the belief that untold masses of people suffering forever
doesn’t bring God glory. Restoration brings God glory; eternal torment
doesn’t. Reconciliation brings God glory; endless anguish doesn’t. Renewal
and return cause God’s greatness to shine through the universe; never-ending
punishment doesn’t. (ibid. pg.
108) 4. From his own opinion as a serious disciple of Jesus, he states
that God’s love will melt all hearts. a) To be clear, again, an untold number of
serious disciples of Jesus across hundreds of years have assumed, affirmed,
and trusted that no one can resist God’s pursuit forever, because God’s love
will eventually melt even the hardest of hearts. (ibid. pg. 108) 5. Another argument for Universalism, this time coming from Bell,
suggests that Jesus is for all people, denominations, and theological systems
even if they are contradictory to the Bible. a) He is for all people, and yet he refuses to
be co-opted or owned by any one culture. That includes any Christian culture.
Any denomination. Any church. Any theological system. We can point to him,
name him, follow him, discuss him, honor him, and believe in him—but we
cannot claim him to be ours any more than he’s anyone else’s. (ibid. pg. 152) b) What Jesus does is declare that he, and he
alone, is saving everybody. And then he leaves the door way, way open.
Creating all sorts of possibilities. He is as narrow as himself and as wide
as the universe. (ibid. pg. 155) 6. If one is unsure from reading “Love Wins,” Bell has thrown his
hat in the same ring with the Universalists from previous writings and
interviews. a) “So this reality, this forgiveness, this
reconciliation, is true for everybody. . . . Heaven is full of forgiven
people. Hell is full of forgiven people. Heaven is full of people God loves,
whom Jesus died for. Hell is full of forgiven people God loves, whom Jesus
died for. The difference is how we choose to live, which story we choose to
live in, which version of reality we trust. Ours or God’s.” (Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis, 137) b) “Jesus is the representative of the entire
human family. His blood covers the entire created door. Jesus is saving
everyone and everything.” (Rob Bell
and Don Golden, Jesus Wants to Save Christians, 147) c) [In response to the question, “Do you
believe in a literal hell that is defined simply as eternal separation from
God?”] “Well, there are people now who are seriously separated from God. So I
would assume that God will leave room for people to say ‘no I don’t want any
part of this.’ My question would be, does grace win or is the human heart
stronger than God’s love or grace. Who wins, does darkness and sin and
hardness of heart win or does God’s love and grace win?” (Rob Bell, Ooze Interview (July 2007) 7. What does the Bible have to say about salvation? Is it
universal or exclusive to those who are in Christ? a) Universalists appeal to verses that appear to suggest universal
salvation to “all:” (1) “who desires all men to be saved” (1Ti 2:4
- Bell, pg. 97) (2) “every tongue will confess” (Php 2:11-
Bell, pg. 99) (3) “in Christ all will be made alive” (1Co
15:22, Bell, pg. 135). (4) “will draw all men to Myself” (Jn 12:32 -
Bell, pg. 151). b) But what they fail to do is read the entire Scriptures and see
that not everyone will be saved. (1) “but he who does not obey the Son will not
see life, but the wrath of God abides on him” (Jn 3:36). (2) “will judge him at the last day” (Jn
12:48). (3) “who is to judge the living and the dead”
(2Ti 4:1). (4) “it is appointed for men to die once and
after this comes judgment” (He 9:27). (5) “their part will be in the lake that
burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death” (Re 21:8). c) The Scriptures are clear that only those whose faith is in
Christ’s atoning death will have eternal life (Jn 3:36a) and escape the wrath
of God in Hell (Jn 3:36b; Ro 5:9). (1) A person can only be “in Christ” if they
have come to the Father through Christ (Jn 14:6). This is exclusive, not
all-inclusive as Bell suggests. (a) [Bell’s interpretation on this verse] This
is as wide and expansive a claim as a person can make. 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. (Love Wins, pg. 154) (b) Bell twists the Scriptures to teach that
everyone is already in Christ and therefore all will be saved, in Christ
all will be made alive. (1Co 15:22, Bell, pg. 135). (2) However, the Scriptures teach that only
those who call on the name of Christ are sanctified “in Christ” (1Co 1:2). (3) Only those who have been justified by
faith, are” in Christ,” possess every spiritual blessing (Ep 1:3), and will
not experience condemnation (Ro 8:1). VI. BELL IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING? A. Making a Judgment on Bell 1. Rob Bell has been a good disciple…a good disciple of
Postmodern ism that is. He questions everything and defines nothing. The
problem is that Postmodernism questions absolute truth. Therefore, they have
no truth, no guidance, and no direction. Their only absolute is that there
are no absolutes and they are absolutely sure of it. In reality,
Postmodernism is absolutely adrift. 2. However, the bigger problem is that Rob
Bell adds Christianity to Postmodernism. Now he questions not only the
historical orthodox Christian position, but especially the Bible, God’s
absolute truth. As a result, he has no biblical truth, biblical guidance, or
biblical direction. He is absolutely adrift in regard to doctrine and truth. 3. To add to this dilemma Rob Bell is not
only a teacher (in a pulpit) but he is growing in popularity. In fact this
month, it had been added to his increasing popularity (called “the next Billy
Graham,” and voted No. 10 on the list
of "The 50 Most Influential Christians in America”), according to Time
Magazine, Rob Bell is the 114th
most influential person in the world today. (http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2058044_2061021_2061023,00.html).
That means that Rob Bell is leading the masses hopelessly adrift spiritually.
No matter how far Rob Bell or the masses put their heads in the postmodern
sands, they are going to have to face the reality of a literal eternal hell. 4. This would definitely put Bell in the
category of Jesus’ warning, “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in
sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” (Mt 7:15). a) Rob Bell is a “false prophet” because he falsely presumes to
speak for the Lord and clarify God’s truth, though he clarifies nothing. He
teaches that Heaven is on earth, Hell is in a Dump, and salvation for all is
in the bag. b) Rob Bell is a “ravenous wolf” because he
has an insatiable appetite to devour the truth from as many people as he can,
including undiscerning Christians. c) Rob Bell is in “sheep’s clothing” because
he would claim to be one in the flock who follows the Shepherd. But he heeds
not the words of the True Shepherd. d) Bell may claim to be soft, cuddly, and a
part of the group, but he is devouring the very body of truth upon which the
True Shepherd is building His church (Mt 16:18). B. Judgment of Other Evangelicals 1. If my comments seem a bit strong, listen to what the majority
of conservative evangelical leaders are saying about Rob Bell. And we would
do well to heed their admonitions. a) Evangelical
pastor, John Piper, tweeted, "Farewell Rob Bell," unilaterally
attempting to evict Bell from the Evangelical community. R. Albert Mohler
Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, says Bell's book
is "theologically disastrous. Any of us should be concerned when a
matter of theological importance is played with in a subversive way." (Time Magazine, April addition) b) Justin
Taylor, argued that Bell "is moving farther and farther away from
anything resembling biblical Christianity." (World Magazine) c) When you adopt universalism and erase the
distinction between the church and the world," says Mohler, "then
you don't need the church, and you don't need Christ, and you don't need the
cross. This is the tragedy of nonjudgmental mainline liberalism, and it's Rob
Bell's tragedy in this book too. (ibid.) d) A careful
examination of Bell’s teaching suggests, however, that his profession of
faith is not credible. His claim that he is “evangelical and orthodox to the
bone” is, to put it bluntly, a lie. Bell’s teaching gives no evidence of any
real evangelical conviction. If “each tree is known by its own fruit” (Luke
6:44), we cannot blithely embrace Rob Bell as a “brother” just because he
says he wants to be accepted as an evangelical. (MacArthur, Rob Bell: a Brother to Embrace, or
a Wolf to Avoid?) e) In his books, sermons, and videos, Rob
Bell has consistently promoted views that are antithetical to biblical
Christianity and hostile to historic evangelical principles. (ibid.) 2. As clear
as it may seem to us, there are still those within the evangelical camp that
apparently are still under Bell’s spell. a) Given those facts, you might think any
true evangelical would reject Bell and his teaching outright. But evidently
many in the American evangelical movement think they are obliged simply to
accept at face value Bell’s claim of orthodoxy. No less than Mart DeHaan,
voice of Radio Bible Class, decried Bell’s
critics, portraying them as the divisive ones for pointing out
the unsoundness of Bell’s teaching. DeHaan wrote, (1) I’m left
wondering… are we allowing love (and truth) to win now… by using threats of
group pressure and blackballing of brothers like Rob, and those who openly or
secretly stand with him? Is that really the best way to maintain a strong and
healthy orthodoxy? (MacArthur, Rob
Bell: a Brother to Embrace, or a Wolf to Avoid?) C. The Believer’s Responsibility 1. The believer’s responsibility remains the same to Rob Bell as to
any and all false teaching, maintains John MacArthur. a) We have a duty not only to expose, refute,
and silence Rob Bell’s errors, but also to urge people under his influence to
run as fast and as far as they can from him, lest they be gathered into the
eternal hell he denies. It won’t do to sit by idly while someone who denies
the danger of hell mass-produces sons of hell (cf. Matthew 23:15). (MacArthur, Rob Bell: a Brother to Embrace, or a
Wolf to Avoid?) 2. The believer’s response to false teaching should be
biblically-based. The New Testament teaches that believers are to be on guard
and proactive against false teaching from without and within. a) Expect false teaching (Mt 7:15; Ac 20:29; Php 3:2; Col 2:8; 2Pe
2:1-2; 3:17). b) Evaluate all teaching (Ac 17:11; 1Jn 4:1;
2Jn 1:7; 1Th 5:21). c) Expose false teachers (Ro 16:17; Ep 5:11;
2Th 3:14; 2Jn 1:10-11). d) Equip the saints (Ps 1:1-2; Ep 4:11-14;
2Ti 4:1-4). 3. The believer must realize he is presently engaged in a
spiritual battle for truth (Ep 6:10-17), that Satan comes like an angel of
light in false teaching (2Co 11:13-15), Satan’s objective is to devour souls
(1Pe 5:8), and Satan must be battled wherever he is attacking. a) If I profess with loudest voice and
clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except that little
point which the world and the Devil are at that moment attacking, I am not
confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the
battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on
all the battlefield besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at
that point. (Martin Luther) D. Concluding Remarks 1. Does Rob Bell’s emergent love-god win? Here is my
emergent-like answers; “Yes, No, and Maybe.” 2. Yes, Rob Bell’s emergent love-god wins
only in the mind of Rob Bell and those like him who are doing their best to
muzzle the truth of God’s Word and reinvent the God of the Bible with the
prevailing attribute of love at the expense of His other attributes. 3. Maybe, Rob Bell’s emergent love-god wins
if Christians do not become more biblically discerning and test every
teaching through the grid of Scripture. 4. No, Rob Bell’s emergent love-god will
never win because only the God of the Bible wins who is loving, but also is
righteous and has provided mercy only in Christ. 5. In conclusion, the only kind of love that
wins is the love that loves every person who ever lived enough to tell them
the biblical truth about Heaven and Hell. |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
