re: A New Kind of Evangelical...LDS may like him

[prisonchaplain]

In the Christian world there is much buzz about Rev. Rob Bell, and his new book, "Love Wins." To oversimplify, he comes close to arguing for universalism, and greatly defangs the concept of an eternal hellfire. The arguments he uses sound very much like some of what I've heard here. Anyone know of him and have any thoughts?

Cathleen Falsani: The Heretical Rob Bell and Why Love Wins

Edited May 7, 2011 by prisonchaplain
Add link

[HiJolly]

I agree with most of his point of view, it's true.

HiJolly

[Traveler]

In the Christian world there is much buzz about Rev. Rob Bell, and his new book, "Love Wins." To oversimplify, he comes close to arguing for universalism, and greatly defangs the concept of an eternal hellfire. The arguments he uses sound very much like some of what I've heard here. Anyone know of him and have any thoughts?

Cathleen Falsani: The Heretical Rob Bell and Why Love Wins

I do not know anything about him but here is something for you to think about PC my friend. In the mouth of 2 or more witnesses?

Are our choices over with death - or just beginning? Our most important choice awaits us after we die. This life is just preparation. But there is another aspect, or a missing piece to the puzzle. There are things that must be done here on earth that cannot be done after death. Isaiah spoke of this when he said, “How beautiful upon the mountain are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings.”

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Here is his own short video on the book and its message: https://www.robbell.com/lovewins/

BTW...as I suggested in the OP--his theme actually seems to comport more to LdS understanding than that of his fellow evangelicals. Thus the controversy...

[Traveler]

Okay - I must admit that I was very impressed. I liked his concept that everything is spiritual - right up to the - It only cost $10 for more informaion.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler, whether Bell is engaged in priestcraft is greatly overshadowed in the evangelical world by the content of what he has said. And, as the following suggests, we are torn between catching a valuable truth in what he says, be being concerned about how he undermines some doctrines that are considered pretty basic to orthodoxy.

Rob Bell Is Not a Litmus Test | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

[Traveler]

Traveler, whether Bell is engaged in priestcraft is greatly overshadowed in the evangelical world by the content of what he has said. And, as the following suggests, we are torn between catching a valuable truth in what he says, be being concerned about how he undermines some doctrines that are considered pretty basic to orthodoxy.

Rob Bell Is Not a Litmus Test | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

It is interesting that you are sharing this with us. I do understand why this is such a problem. Over the years I have been banned from several religious websites dominated by evangelicals because I have suggested that scripture could be interpreted to validate his (this) claim. Some in these forums were animate that such “heretical” doctrine separates those that believe such a thing from the “body” of Christ – in other words to believe such a thing would exclude a person from being a Christian. It has seemed to me that some evangelicals believe it is better for a person to be forced to heaven (stripped of agency) rather than suffer the fires of hell – which would seem to be to justify various manners of “abuse” (as defined by our laws based on the notions of freedom in our country’s constitution)

I can understand the evangelical world being affected and divided. But there is something else that interests me in this “movement”. Do you see this as a possible way evangelical and LDS can be more accepting of each other and our core doctrines? Also how is Rob Bell impacting your core beliefs?

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

OK...I've read the book from front to back, and a critical review. I frankly do see Rev. Bell's thesis as heterdox. He undermines the doctrine of hell and of salvation by faith in Christ.

I thought he'd be an interesting conversation point for LDS and evangelicals, but even those in your camp who would intitially like him, would eventually be disaffected by where his teachings end up. At least, this is my guess.

He has impacted my core belief, in that I am increasingly convinced that all Christians who believe in an eternal hell are going to need to rigorously explain and defend the teaching. Less than a decade ago, most people of most religions believed in a Day of Judgment, in which the good are rewarded and the bad are punished. It was only a matter of defining good. Today, many question God's right to judge at all--much less to punish in any way that involves signficant or long-term discomfort.

[bytebear]

One problem when one looks outside at the LDS view of Hell, is that there is an assumption that there will be no eternal suffering. That is not true. The difference is rather than God punishing with torture, it is a self realization of sin and an unrepentant state. In other words, God doesn't punish, but he does warn of the torment that sin has on our souls.

The other aspect is that somehow works/repentance negates a need for faith in Christ. In fact, faith must come first.

[Traveler]

OK...I've read the book from front to back, and a critical review. I frankly do see Rev. Bell's thesis as heterdox. He undermines the doctrine of hell and of salvation by faith in Christ.

I thought he'd be an interesting conversation point for LDS and evangelicals, but even those in your camp who would intitially like him, would eventually be disaffected by where his teachings end up. At least, this is my guess.

He has impacted my core belief, in that I am increasingly convinced that all Christians who believe in an eternal hell are going to need to rigorously explain and defend the teaching. Less than a decade ago, most people of most religions believed in a Day of Judgment, in which the good are rewarded and the bad are punished. It was only a matter of defining good. Today, many question God's right to judge at all--much less to punish in any way that involves signficant or long-term discomfort.

I must admit that I am one who has changed my concepts of Heaven and Hell. I find your context interesting when you say G-d’s right to Judge and to punish. Especially the punish part. What I ask is this => how can there be justice (right) in G-d punishing when the price of sin has been paid in full? Is it not this concept that despite the redemption of Christ that punishment is still needed that undermines the mission of Christ? Does not the very concept of punishment undermine the doctrine of the “redemption” of all sin done and over through Jesus?

Now I know that many argue that the reason there will be suffering in hell is because those that will suffer is because they do not accept Jesus Christ as L-rd. But do not the scriptures say that every knee will bend and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is L-rd? What are you rigorously defending?

The Traveler

[FunkyTown]

The Doctrine of Hell is a tricky one, PC. You can't defang it. It's a horrible, terrible thing.

The question shouldn't be 'Does Hell exist?' but rather 'What is Hell?'

Is Hell a place where God tortures people forever and ever? Or is Hell, being absent the light of Christ, a place where the thirst for something more can never be quenched, where the fires that torment you are the black flames of a darkness so absolute it is marred only by your perception of it.

Hell is a frightening doctrine. But it's still a doctrine. Jesus spoke of Hell in earthly terms of fire and burning because that's what people could perceive and understand. He did this for the same reason that he used earthly terms to describe Heaven.

I think my perception of Hell is accurate. We know what the Light of Christ is and what it does. Hell would be without that Light. I can see the metaphor of burning and thirst with that, but of course I could be quite wrong in my perception.

Regardless, I don't intend to end up there.

[Traveler]

The Doctrine of Hell is a tricky one, PC. You can't defang it. It's a horrible, terrible thing.

The question shouldn't be 'Does Hell exist?' but rather 'What is Hell?'

Is Hell a place where God tortures people forever and ever? Or is Hell, being absent the light of Christ, a place where the thirst for something more can never be quenched, ...

...

I am just wondering - because my understanding of G-d is contrary to this - but what about G-d has convinced you that someone thirsting (desiring) for something more would be denied that by G-d? (See Alma 41:5)

The Traveler

[Just_A_Guy]

Personally - given what we know about the type of people who wind up as "sons of perdition", I don't think it's too much of a stretch to surmise that maybe it's not so much a case of God withholding relief as it is a case where the sufferer hates God too much to accept any relief He might offer.

Think of Anakin Skywalker, severely burned and sans arms and legs, about to fall into the pool of lava, but all he can do is look at Obi Wan and growl "I hate you".

[prisonchaplain]

I must admit that I am one who has changed my concepts of Heaven and Hell. I find your context interesting when you say G-d’s right to Judge and to punish. Especially the punish part. What I ask is this => how can there be justice (right) in G-d punishing when the price of sin has been paid in full? Is it not this concept that despite the redemption of Christ that punishment is still needed that undermines the mission of Christ? Does not the very concept of punishment undermine the doctrine of the “redemption” of all sin done and over through Jesus?

Now I know that many argue that the reason there will be suffering in hell is because those that will suffer is because they do not accept Jesus Christ as L-rd. But do not the scriptures say that every knee will bend and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is L-rd? What are you rigorously defending?

The Traveler

The fact that the Father sent his Son to die for our sins, and that some would reject this love, is something God can rightly punish. Redemption offered and rejected. What is left is punishment for sins. Not correction or rehabilitation. The one who would reject God's love is left with punishment--for sins. The redemption Christ purchased is a gift. Gifts can be rejected.

What I rigorously defend is the justice and authority that God has to judge and punish his creation.

[prisonchaplain]

The Doctrine of Hell is a tricky one, PC. You can't defang it. It's a horrible, terrible thing.

The question shouldn't be 'Does Hell exist?' but rather 'What is Hell?'

Is Hell a place where God tortures people forever and ever? Or is Hell, being absent the light of Christ, a place where the thirst for something more can never be quenched, where the fires that torment you are the black flames of a darkness so absolute it is marred only by your perception of it.

Hell is a frightening doctrine. But it's still a doctrine. Jesus spoke of Hell in earthly terms of fire and burning because that's what people could perceive and understand. He did this for the same reason that he used earthly terms to describe Heaven.

I think my perception of Hell is accurate. We know what the Light of Christ is and what it does. Hell would be without that Light. I can see the metaphor of burning and thirst with that, but of course I could be quite wrong in my perception.

Regardless, I don't intend to end up there.

I really do not have concerns with either of the hells you present. Perhaps your preferred option is a more sophisticated, nuanced one. Irregardless, you allow that some of God's creation will suffer eternal punishment. My concern is the challenge to God's right to judge and punish--the suggestion that if he does so he is not merciful, or even good. That, I flatly reject.

[FunkyTown]

I am just wondering - because my understanding of G-d is contrary to this - but what about G-d has convinced you that someone thirsting (desiring) for something more would be denied that by G-d? (See Alma 41:5)

The Traveler

I would say it was scripture, Traveler. I'll point out what translation I make for each one.

Matthew 24:41 - Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the Devil and his Angels.

The word 'Eternal' in this case could be referred to as the place being eternal, or the presence there being eternal. I would say it's the presence because of:

John 17:12 - None of them is lost, but the Son of Perdition.

Many souls are lost, but the Son of Perdition is lost permanently.

Mosiah 2:39 - And now I say unto you, that mercy hath no claim on that man; therefore his final doom is to endure a never-ending torment.

In this case, 'Never-ending torment' is the important part.

2 Thessalonians 1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.

In this case, 'Everlasting destruction' is the important part.

Traveler? I believe that death isn't the final end. If it was, there would be no purpose for God to have a Final Judgment as spoken in Revelation. However, I do believe that the Final Judgment is, as the name implies, final. At that point, the choices we make are with our eyes wide open. The Doctrine of a final judgment is pretty set in stone, Traveler. While it may not be in keeping with your understanding of God, know that this is contrary to both latter-day revealed scripture and ancient scripture.

Edited May 10, 2011 by FunkyTown
I made a joke. There is nothing funny about the doctrine of Hell. Removed it.

[FunkyTown]

The fact that the Father sent his Son to die for our sins, and that some would reject this love, is something God can rightly punish. Redemption offered and rejected. What is left is punishment for sins. Not correction or rehabilitation. The one who would reject God's love is left with punishment--for sins. The redemption Christ purchased is a gift. Gifts can be rejected.

What I rigorously defend is the justice and authority that God has to judge and punish his creation.

I would agree, PC. God has that authority, and the perfect understanding to enact that authority.

However: Do you agree that the doctrine of Hell could be marred by our lack of understanding of eternal things? Hell is, at once, described as a place of fire and brimstone as well as a place of absolute blackness.

In the Septuagint, the word 'Abyss' is used to represent both the primordial watery Chaos whom God's face was on and in the New Testament, a word to describe Hell.

Being cast out of creation seems to me to be the final punishment. It is not because God is casting them to a place of horrible pain for eternity because of their actions, but it is an exile because these people would be a poison upon creation. What good Father, having a son who was trying to destroy all his brothers, would not send his one son away so that the others could survive?

And being cast out of creation, they are denied the Light of Christ - Often described as 'The Living Water'. Is it any wonder that Hell is compared to a place of thirst and denial, of burning and pain? The Living Water is denied to them.

[prisonchaplain]

FT...this is something that has been heavy on my heart--for years. For the first time, perhaps in history, a generation is growing up that does believe God has the right to judge them. They question not just the condition of hell, but the very concept of an eternal good place and bad place that someone gets to judge them on. In their minds there is no absolute right or wrong, so the only one who can judge an individually eternally, is that individual.

Now, what I describe is an undercurrent of post modernism, not LDS teaching. From my perspective, if you even allow that a very few humans might suffer eternal punishment (whether they choose it or receive it), then you have you toes in the same belief I do. Further, you ultimately must answer the same charges of cruelty and arrogance that I do. Your hell is smaller, and a bit "nicer"--but it's eternal, and an external being does the judging. Welcome to my world.

[FunkyTown]

FT...this is something that has been heavy on my heart--for years. For the first time, perhaps in history, a generation is growing up that does believe God has the right to judge them. They question not just the condition of hell, but the very concept of an eternal good place and bad place that someone gets to judge them on. In their minds there is no absolute right or wrong, so the only one who can judge an individually eternally, is that individual.

Now, what I describe is an undercurrent of post modernism, not LDS teaching. From my perspective, if you even allow that a very few humans might suffer eternal punishment (whether they choose it or receive it), then you have you toes in the same belief I do. Further, you ultimately must answer the same charges of cruelty and arrogance that I do. Your hell is smaller, and a bit "nicer"--but it's eternal, and an external being does the judging. Welcome to my world.

I struggle against the idea of subjective truth with all of my heart, PC. I always have. The problem is that people recognize that it's untrue when it's tested in any significant kind of way. Life isn't just about being happy. The truth is vital.

While you and I might disagree on when final judgment is, we both agree there's a final judgment. While you and I might disagree on the fine particulars of Hell, there is no doubt in my mind that there is a place that might reasonably be called 'Hell' and that it's eternal. Yes, I think that spiritual prison exists and that that might reasonably be overcome - That makes logical sense to me, given that God has a Final Judgment, where the dead will be raised and judged. If there was no way out, why raise them for a final judgment at all instead of just condemning them upon death?

Regardless of the particulars, I think scripture is pretty darn specific about the existence of Hell and its eternal consequences. I have heard the arguments against Hell and find them lacking. If I believe in the scriptures I claim to believe, saying that it doesn't exist is the equivalent of saying I don't believe. They are very specific about its existence.

I don't like Hell(Or Outer Darkness. I use Hell instead of Abyss or Outer Darkness because it's the more familiar term). Hell is scary. But it has been spoken of by modern and ancient prophets. The Saviour discussed it.

Frankly, I hope the people telling us we're wrong are correct. I don't think we are, PC, but I hope we are. Ultimately, it's not up to me. I'm not omniscient.

[Traveler]

The fact that the Father sent his Son to die for our sins, and that some would reject this love, is something God can rightly punish. Redemption offered and rejected. What is left is punishment for sins. Not correction or rehabilitation. The one who would reject God's love is left with punishment--for sins. The redemption Christ purchased is a gift. Gifts can be rejected.

What I rigorously defend is the justice and authority that God has to judge and punish his creation.

Will not every knee bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is L-rd? If no one is rejecting Jesus as L-rd - who is left to punish for rebellion?

It concerns me that there is a focus of "rejection" of our fellow man. The scriptures also say that all have sinned - is not sin an act of rebellion against G-d? and G-d is no respector of person.

What I rigorously defend is that it is not the will and delight of G-d to punish his creations. Therefore I cannot pray to G-d - "Thy will be done", believing G-d punishes all or even worse believing G-d punishes some and not others that rebell.

The problem I see are those that ignorantly rebell not knowing what they are doing. Jesus clearly said, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do". And we know that when faced with the truth - that every knee will bow and every tongue confess Jesus is L-rd.

Here also is my problem - If G-d does not wish to punish his creations and you do not accept his will - then by your own wish and decree (even if it is a misunderstanding) - you will burn forever in hell. And I do not believe that; therefore I will burn in hell as well.

The Traveler

[FunkyTown]

Traveler? God doesn't delight in the doctrine of Hell. Nowhere in scripture, or in anywhere that I have quoted, does it say anything like that.

Read the biblical account of the flood.

Genesis 6:6 - And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

God feels sorrow. He doesn't always do what causes him to leap for joy. I won't argue the whys and hows, but he does.

You have also misconstrued our beliefs. I don't believe God will send you to Hell because you don't believe someone else's interpretation of scripture. This is a confusing world where many people lie. I trust God. I know He can see that. I don't believe someone is going to Hell for not believing in Hell any more than someone is going to Hell for believing the Saviour was white, or black or asian or whatever the vogue is wherever someone happens to be.

It would only be rebellious if you chose to disbelieve for a rebellious reason.

That's not something I can decide. You'd have to search yourself for your reasons.

That having been said, I did give scriptural backing of an eternal Hell. Believing it, I can no sooner back away from it than I can allow someone to get hit by a bus without shouting a warning.

Will not every knee bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is L-rd? If no one is rejecting Jesus as L-rd - who is left to punish for rebellion?

It concerns me that there is a focus of "rejection" of our fellow man. The scriptures also say that all have sinned - is not sin an act of rebellion against G-d? and G-d is no respector of person.

What I rigorously defend is that it is not the will and delight of G-d to punish his creations. Therefore I cannot pray to G-d - "Thy will be done", believing G-d punishes all or even worse believing G-d punishes some and not others that rebell.

The problem I see are those that ignorantly rebell not knowing what they are doing. Jesus clearly said, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do". And we know that when faced with the truth - that every knee will bow and every tongue confess Jesus is L-rd.

Here also is my problem - If G-d does not wish to punish his creations and you do not accept his will - then by your own wish and decree (even if it is a misunderstanding) - you will burn forever in hell. And I do not believe that; therefore I will burn in hell as well.

The Traveler

[ElijahST]

I have heard of Rev. Rob Bell, and I like his work a lot. He has really good small clips about many things that make your mind work out things and show Christianity in a diffrent perspective to believers.

[Traveler]

Traveler? God doesn't delight in the doctrine of Hell. Nowhere in scripture, or in anywhere that I have quoted, does it say anything like that.

Read the biblical account of the flood.

Genesis 6:6 - And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

God feels sorrow. He doesn't always do what causes him to leap for joy. I won't argue the whys and hows, but he does.

You have also misconstrued our beliefs. I don't believe God will send you to Hell because you don't believe someone else's interpretation of scripture. This is a confusing world where many people lie. I trust God. I know He can see that. I don't believe someone is going to Hell for not believing in Hell any more than someone is going to Hell for believing the Saviour was white, or black or asian or whatever the vogue is wherever someone happens to be.

It would only be rebellious if you chose to disbelieve for a rebellious reason.

That's not something I can decide. You'd have to search yourself for your reasons.

That having been said, I did give scriptural backing of an eternal Hell. Believing it, I can no sooner back away from it than I can allow someone to get hit by a bus without shouting a warning.

Interesting interpertation of scripture. However, at the core of my understanding is that G-d delights in doing what is right. G-d knows what is best and delights in that.

As to the flood - I believe that G-d brought the flood that many not destroy themselves; that was the sorrow of G-d, what man was about - what man was doing - there was no sorrow in anything G-d did. In other words I believe G-d stepped in to prevent and save from what many would believe to be eternal hell - not to send anyone there.

The Traveler

[FunkyTown]

All right, Traveler.

I'll bite. You say it's an interesting 'interpretation of scripture'.

Can you quote scripture as I did to prove what you believe? I wasn't quoting the Flood as a means to show that God sent people to Hell - Merely that he can feel sorrow.

If you'd like, I can quote more scriptures where God feels sorrow? I don't feel I have to, though, so I would love to hear your scripture that justifies what you believe? Heck - I only gave about a half dozen scriptures that flat out said Hell existed and was eternal. If you can give me the same amount that says Hell isn't eternal, that would be great.

Interesting interpertation of scripture. However, at the core of my understanding is that G-d delights in doing what is right. G-d knows what is best and delights in that.

As to the flood - I believe that G-d brought the flood that many not destroy themselves; that was the sorrow of G-d, what man was about - what man was doing - there was no sorrow in anything G-d did. In other words I believe G-d stepped in to prevent and save from what many would believe to be eternal hell - not to send anyone there.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Will not every knee bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is L-rd? If no one is rejecting Jesus as L-rd - who is left to punish for rebellion?

Ladies and gentlemen of the court, the judge has reached his verdict: Guilty as charged!

"Uh, wait. Your Honor. I admit that I was guilty, and I recognize that your have the authority to judge my case. You are the Great Judge."

"Cool...case dismissed. You can go now."

Sorry, but I do not think it will go down that way. The condemned will bow and call Jesus Lord because He is Lord, not because they've repented and been redeemed. Even the condemned cannot deny the God that is fully revealed before them. "It is appointed unto men once to die, then the judgment."

It concerns me that there is a focus of "rejection" of our fellow man. The scriptures also say that all have sinned - is not sin an act of rebellion against G-d? and G-d is no respector of person.

What if it is out of love for my fellow man (and woman) that I warn them of the coming judgment? What if it's not me thinking I am superior, but rather me wanting to share the mercy available that compels me to issue the warning? It's just too easy to dismiss traditionalists as arrogant and cruel. To me, the greater unkindness is to not warn the unsuspecting of the danger to come.

What I rigorously defend is that it is not the will and delight of G-d to punish his creations. Therefore I cannot pray to G-d - "Thy will be done", believing G-d punishes all or even worse believing G-d punishes some and not others that rebell.

You cannot? What if it's true? What if Funky Town and I are right? What if God demands our allegiance, and will indeed punish those who refuse to give it? Will you judge God?

The problem I see are those that ignorantly rebell not knowing what they are doing. Jesus clearly said, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do". And we know that when faced with the truth - that every knee will bow and every tongue confess Jesus is L-rd.

I suppose most us wish that everyone would ultimately recognize and be reconciled to God. What if they aren't? What if they willfully reject Him? Will you judge God for condemning them?

Here also is my problem - If G-d does not wish to punish his creations and you do not accept his will - then by your own wish and decree (even if it is a misunderstanding) - you will burn forever in hell. And I do not believe that; therefore I will burn in hell as well.

The Traveler

Belief in hell itself is not the issue, to me. It is whether or not God can judge his creation and still be good. My understanding of Scripture, which happens to comport with millenia of teaching, is that He will do so, and yet He is good. My sense is that those who embrace universalism, and who dismiss hell as temporary and without physical pain, seem driven to remove from God his authority to judge his creation.