That said, there's nothing like a bit of controversy ahead of publication to sell some books.One blogger is asking if Bell is now a card-carrying "universalist" (i.e., those who reject the idea that anyone will face eternal punishment in favour of the view that every human being will be ultimately saved).
John Piper, (pictured, left) who is often described as the father of the "neo-Calvinist" movement in the United States entered the fray on Twitter with an intriguing tweet that many now read as a clear signal that he no longer recognizes Bell as an evangelical Christian. The tweet read: "Farewell Rob Bell."
The theological battle lines are now drawn. American evangelical preachers, writers and bloggers are now furiously arguing about whether it is time to say, "to hell with hell".
The time to say to 'hell with hell' in terms of some eternal damnation delivered by God is long, long overdue....it's prob only evangelicals who 'believe' such nonsense anyway.
This is a war about ownership of the word "evangelical" more than it is any kind of metaphysical dispute. It would be nice if Bell won, as an "evangelical" movement that can actually be open to dialogue and debate would be a great improvement on the current patriarchal attitude of the Church. That said, if he doesn't, I'll be quite happy to dismiss the word and the ideas of those who identify under it as not worth engaging with.
My view is simply this: the love and reality of God is hell. Yes, if "love wins" and free will wins, then "hell wins", because love is hell to the one who hates love.
I know Eunice will disagree with me vehemently, but the very nature of love is that you cannot force anyone to accept it. What is 'evil' anyway, if it does not involve a deep-seated rejection of the love of God, which is rooted in pride (pride being the 'complete anti-God state of mind' as CS Lewis rightly pointed out)?
So it doesn't matter how much God loves people; for some people that reality of love and God will be 'hell'. I find this issue really very simple indeed.
Universalism makes no sense at all, as it involves a violation of free will, and the evangelical "damnation by default on the basis of the fall and original sin" stuff is such moral insanity, that I won't say any more about that.
As for the word 'evangelical', I would consider myself an 'etymological evangelical', i.e. someone who believes that the gospel is actually 'good news' (which is what 'evangel' - eu-angelion - means), not the "bad news plus a bit of good news tacked on as an afterthought" travesty that often characterises evangelicalism.
LSV- I fear your problem here is that you base your salvation criteria on "love" of God rather than "belief" in him, which is what the bible appears to suggest is the most important criteria for salvation. Why God would value belief above anything else - as Dawkins and others have pointed out - who knows, but it doesn't appear to be the case that God demands that one love him, merely that they believe in him.
As for universalism bringing with it a lack of free will, I suppose you could say about an infant seen slipping into a bath full of water by an adult who rescues them has lost their free will, but since the infant wasn't aware they were making a choice - like most of humanity - it isn't so much an issue of free will but of rescue from ignorance.
This is far too important a discussion to be allowed to degenerate into a messy and hurtful public spectacle. What is needed are serious, careful and thoughtful responses. I think that J I Packer faithfully reflects the plain sense of the New Testament when he asks those who hold that God will ultimately save and restore all people:
Why, in that case, does God leave multitudes who know the gospel to go to hell as unbelievers before he calls them to faith?
And more searchingly, why do Christ and the apostles give no hint that God intends to lead every member of this fallen human race from the cradle to the crown, via hell if need be?
And why do they speak instead, with such strong emphasis, as if each person’s decisions made here determine their state hereafter, so that unbelievers face irremediable eternal loss?
Is not the New Testament viewpoint on this issue clearly expressed, consistently maintained, and constantly enforced?
Is there not then something heretical about the universalist account of God’s plan of love, which parts company with the Bible so radically?
The assessment of Rob Bell's new book and the response of John Piper should wait until the book has been published and is available. But having said that, the questions that Packer asked need to figure prominently in any honest future discussion.
I know some passages in the Bible are difficult and a small number of verses clearly ambiguous. However, I would be disingenuous if I were to interpret the Christian Scriptures to make them acceptable to me and my thinking, but in a way that flies in the face of the plain sense of the language of the text. This, for me, is the crux of the whole matter.
If the claims of the Scriptures are true, like those of Hebrews 1:1-4, then I can either humbly accept even what is hard to understand or I can reject them. But there is no in-between possibility, of editing or reinterpreting the text to make my God to be the God I would prefer him to be. This is the dilemma faced by the God of Universalism. He is no different from the multitude of gods worshipped down the ages - he is a God created in the image of man, a mere figment of man's imagination. Either there is the God whom Jesus has revealed or we simply do not know.
I like the linked comment from Jason Boyett "At best, there are things that are unclear and not easily harmonized from Genesis to Revelation. At worst, there are things that seem to be downright contradictory."
I was under the impression that the modern concept of hell as a place of fire and brimstone was largely a construct of the medieval period, propagated by works of fiction like Dante's Divine Comedy and Milton's Paradise Lost.
The traditional Jewish and Greek concepts (from which early Christianity borrowed) had the afterlife a fairly dull 'grey' place where the dead just waited around (Hades and Gehenna). Particulary, the part of hell devoted to the classic fire and brimstone (Tartarus) was reserved, in Greek mythology, to threats to the gods, mainly monsters and the Titans.
I understand that traditionalist christians enjoy using hell as the stick to Heaven's carrot in the drive to convert people, but I find a lot of modern attitudes and thinking of hell hypocritical, given it's a complex bibical concept and more a case of people grabbing an idea to further their goals without actually considering its origins.
@8. Natman: Jesus spoke of this well before Dante: "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out." (Mark 9:43 Jesus speaking)
"I fear your problem here is that you base your salvation criteria on "love" of God rather than "belief" in him, which is what the bible appears to suggest is the most important criteria for salvation." ......sort of depends whether you are Calvinsit or Arminian ie belief in free will vs destiny (pre-destination) as if God knows the future he already knows who will be saved and who won`t ( Jesus knew who would betray him and that Peter would deny him thrice )
LSV: we are talking about different hells. I said the hell that is a place of eternal damnation delivered by God does not exist/is not real. The hell you are talking about is different. TO live in separation to love/God is hell and I know it well but God in God's self is definitely not hell. Evil for me is anything that promotes separation from love and yes pride is the last bastion to be overcome - so I agree with you there.
I agree that people cannot be forced to love and can reject love and do. BUt this is based on an ignorance of who they are, reinforced often by religious teachings and also their life experiences that lead them to be self-loathing and self-hating. All of this starts with self - to love God is to love oneself and viceversa (in the true meaning of that - not the egotistical self-love that is not actually self-love). If we do not love ourselves we cannot love God - for God is love and we have to have love within us in order to love God - if we don't love ourselves then we are empty of love not just for self but for other/GOd as well.
People's hatred of love as you call it is based on false misperceptions and misbeliefs about themselves - if that is dealt with then people can being to accept themselves and love themselves. We are so engrained in non-loving ways of being and living that we don't even realise how non-loving we actually are - there is much to this.
John Wright: salvation is not based on belief - even if people 'believe' it is. No-one can save anyone else - you can only save yourself by knowing who you are (love) and living and making choices from there. This involves the law of cause and effect and knowing that everything we do has consequences - 'believing' in someone else is not going to stop those consequences from occurring. There is more to this of course.
Michael:** Why, in that case, does God leave multitudes who know the gospel to go to hell as unbelievers before he calls them to faith?**
Nobody goes to hell - it does not exist as a place and nobody goes there.
**And more searchingly, why do Christ and the apostles give no hint that God intends to lead every member of this fallen human race from the cradle to the crown, via hell if need be?**
Hell point as above. There are a number of things in the bible that indicate that we are all sons of God - just the same as Jesus and hence we can all go the same route as him. (I'm not going to specify them but they are def there)
**And why do they speak instead, with such strong emphasis, as if each person’s decisions made here determine their state hereafter, so that unbelievers face irremediable eternal loss?**
Our decisions/choices here do influence everything - the course of our life here and to my understanding our future lifetimes or as you call it the hereafter. Nobody faces irremediable eternal loss, we are all on a return journey to God, to love (in my understanding - not to offend my atheist friends) - and we have free will over how we will get there and how long it will take. We can choose paths of wisdom or paths of woe - depending on the choices we make. Such is the love of God - he says take as long as you like - I will be here. The reason that we will all return to love/God is because that is what we are, what we are made of, and hence why we all seek love. We are in fact seeking ourselves by seeking love and our deepest agony is missing ourselves. Also why so many people who know God relate to it as a homecoming. The fact that our choices do influence everything also reinforces my point above that no-one can save another and we can only save ourselves - because we are the ones making our choices!!
**Is there not then something heretical about the universalist account of God’s plan of love, which parts company with the Bible so radically?**
If you knew that love you would not be questioning the universal nature of it but instead you would reconsider whether the bible is actually a true reflection of God, of the love of God - and then you might realise that it is not. God is all-loving of all people of all faiths and none - to say otherwise is to create a God that loves conditionally - and that is human love not divine. God's love is universal and every human being is a son of God made in his image etc and hence is also love.
**If the claims of the Scriptures are true, like those of Hebrews 1:1-4, then I can either humbly accept even what is hard to understand or I can reject them. But there is no in-between possibility, of editing or reinterpreting the text to make my God to be the God I would prefer him to be. This is the dilemma faced by the God of Universalism. He is no different from the multitude of gods worshipped down the ages - he is a God created in the image of man, a mere figment of man's imagination. Either there is the God whom Jesus has revealed or we simply do not know. **
The scriptures have been interpreted and re-interpreted many many times - I reckon I could provide interpretations that are different to yours. SO which interpretation is true?? This is where discernment comes in and for me that means feeling whether it is consistent with the God of love or not. It's not about making God the God you prefer but actually knowing what God is. Man is created in God's image and God is love hence we are love. By truly knowing oneself (our friend Socrates said 'know thyself') then it is possible to know God and that is possible for all. When God is known - then it is known and not imagined that his love is universal and that that love resides in all (even though it may not be lived or may be well hidden etc). It is then also known that God does not require worship. It is false to say that we simply do not know - many people do know God and know him to be all loving of all people and it is not a figment of their imagination or a hopeful wish.
Ms Cracker - here is one to ponder -there is actually more fire in heaven than hell! Why ? a) hell does not exist. b) fire is the energy of divine love - even Jesus said 'I have come to spread fire across the earth and how I wish it were already kindled'....
"A load of hot air. With a whiff of sulphur on it. About as fruitful and worthwhile as a concrete tree.
Squabble away ye believers. Squabble away."
I think you've stumbled (possibly drunkenly) onto the wrong thread. Allow me to redirect you. The thread you want is 'We should be thankful to Charles Darwin'. There are plenty of 'believers' on there who can squabble to their heart's content about the minutiae of their incredible mindlessness and super casino improbability theory (which is tremendously good fun, I must admit).
This thread is for people who don't have the kind of 'faith' necessary to believe in that convoluted 'explanation'. Please pity us poor unbelievers and sceptics, who haven't quite managed to take the incredible leap of faith that you have, and who feel the need to discuss that thing called 'reality' (in this case, moral reality).
Now, would someone in the evangelical world (of whatever theological view) please listen!
Those outside the church do not care (nor would I expect them to care) about our bitter internal feuds. We, by our own actions (or lack or them), have brought the gospel into disrepute and have rendered our own words meaningless.
Can we, please, start loving people again, show a bit of humility, and, perhaps, give them a reason to think that our words might mean something. Can we put others before ourselves and stop treating theology as if it were some kind of petty little competition to prove orthodoxy.
”About as fruitful and worthwhile as a concrete tree.”
Goodness, that’s almost scriptural!
Oh, and can we stop this cult of the christian celebrity.
Dear Eunice: I actually rather agree with you in that Hell would be described as void of God & love but I do believe in it's existence.Whether it has any inhabitants-who knows? I did notice in scripture that Our Lord uses fiery descriptions of Hell & He did that well before Dante & Milton.If Jesus believes in a Hell I guess as an orthodox Christian I'd better follow suit. There's an interesting Eastern Orthodox-and maybe used in Western Christianity, too-description of the "fire" you might be referring to which is called: "uncreated light". That describes the light in Heaven & the light said to be seen around certain saints, and perhaps the light that shone from God on Mt.Sinai.So, yes I think you have a good point, but per scripture,the fire in Hell is not a pleasant one to experience while the light/Heavenly fire is one we can hope to look forward to. I appreciate you bringing that point up.Thanks!
Good. Bye bye then, and the rest of us can have a civilised debate.
Peterm2 (@ 15) - normally I would agree with you, but, in this case, I think AboutFace's earlier comment is not worthy of any respect or sympathy. They were the boorish words of someone not at all interested in anything any Christian has to say (as he has made abundantly clear). It's called wilful antagonism and, as far as I am concerned, it is truly pathetic. It is known as flame baiting.
If AF wants to contribute to the discussion with a sensible argument, then fair enough - even if he expresses it in a passionate way, but the truth is that there are some types on this blog who just cannot stomach the idea that subjects are discussed which involve what they term 'religion'. Instead of just ignoring it, or contributing constructively, they just insult others and revile subjects they have made no effort to understand. Don't respect it. It's kindergarten behaviour from people who probably know they are wrong, and haven't got the guts to admit it.
Piper's a prominent evangelical but it's interesting, given the little he has said on the subject, that this post (and the linked article) uses him as foil. Perhaps, as Peter seems to suggest, this has something to do with celebrity pastors, whether Piper or Bell.
This 'controversy' started little over a week ago at a blog called Between Two Worlds over at the Gospel Coalition website. You can find the original post there as well as follow ups from Justin Taylor, it's author, and Kevin DeYoung. You can also find an interview with Taylor at the CNN website.
As is pointed out by Taylor in that interview, this issue is not something the main church traditions have been divided on. Whatever the exact form, orthodox Christians throughout the centuries have believed in the doctrine of endless punishment.
Theological systems are such that to change one part will require revision elsewhere. Universalism is not a discrete proposition which, logically, has no effect on other doctrines, it shoots right through a theological system to doctrine of God, doctrine of Christ, the church, preaching of the word, anthropology and so on.
It might look like a storm in a teacup, but it goes right to the heart of the gospel, the preaching of which is foolishness. Bell, if indeed he does affirm universalism, is a wolf in the flock, and it is the job of faithful pastors, as analogues of the Good Shepherd, to expose his error for the sake of the church.
This will win few friends but 'squabbling over nothing' it surely is not.
"A whiff of sulphur"? No, not exactly, but the whiff of fear. What these rockstar emergents have tapped into is that without the threat of eternal damnation christianists are cast adrift and everything they have believed is worthless, From the links again "We need the doctrine of eternal punishment. Time and time again in the New Testament we find that understanding divine justice is essential to our sanctification. Believing in God’s judgment actually helps us look more like Jesus. In short, we need the doctrine of the wrath of God." I rest my case.
Ms Cracker - thanks for your comments. I appreciate you follow the bible and hence you 'believe' in hell. But what if there is no such place - other than the hell we create when we live in separation to God's love? Why would an all-loving God send people to hell? TO my understanding and experience - God loves all equally and does not judge nor condemn anyone - the latter 2 being human features and not divine.
AF: your style of engagement and insults on here say more about you than the person you are insulting. So the person you really are insulting is yourself. Give yourself (and others) a break.
"What these rockstar emergents have tapped into is that without the threat of eternal damnation christianists are cast adrift and everything they have believed is worthless"
If Christianity is dependent on the threat of eternal damnation, then I would agree with you that it is worthless, since its message is completely negative. I did not become a Christian because of any kind of fear of going to hell. In fact, I didn't even believe in hell at the time, so how could I fear it? Even though I do believe in a concept of 'hell' now, my understanding of it is subject to considerable qualification - more like a consequence than a punishment (even though the word 'punishment' is used in the Bible to refer to it. This word can have different meanings.)
Hell cannot possibly be a deterrent. How is this possible if people do not believe in it? The reason why certain societies executed criminals (or opponents of the regime) in public and left their bodies to rot for all to see, is in order to scare people with a deterrent. The whole point of a deterrent is that it has to be believed in, in order to work as such!
Then there is the argument that "we are not sure if hell exists, but if it does then you need to make sure you're in no danger of going there. Therefore become a Christian." This is known as Pascal's Wager (or, at least, a crude application of it). But it is a fallacy. What if the Muslims are right? What if I am going to hell because I am a Christian, and therefore one of the 'infidel'? Therefore, in order to gamble on not going to hell, I need to become a Muslim. But if I do, then I might wonder whether Christianity was right after all!
Now I know this sort of reasoning is probably playing into your hands, as I seem to be critical of religion. But I am just telling the truth about the fact that it is erroneous to attempt to use the fear of hell as a method of proselytising.
So you may wonder what drives my Christianity? Well, that is easy to answer. The God who is actually real, and is not merely a 'theory' or construct. If I were a Christian atheist (in other words, my Christianity was nothing more than an ideology or framework through which to make sense of reality) then I guess some kind of heavy legalistic message would be necessary in order to 'persuade' others to fall into line.
To be honest, I suspect that a lot of fundies and evangelicals are just atheists in Christian clothing, hence their need to rely on psychological weapons, and their obvious contempt for the love of God.
Andrew, you're right to say this isn't "squabbling over nothing", since it seems like there is a substantial difference between the two sides.
In another sense, I have a sneaking suspicion that each side has a different interpretation to put on exactly what it is they're squabbling over. A liberal evangelical might see it as a question of the spirit of the law VS the letter of the law, or even as a matter of competing interpretations, while a conservative might see it as adherence VS deviation from the orthodox message, or a failure to practice systematic theological scholarship.
It's all fine and good thinking that it's not insubstantial, but if we can't produce the substance in question, such fears aren't unfounded.
I think PaulR has hit the nail firmly on the head - this is playground one-upmanship, making the whole competition look ridiculous.
Carry on theism.
The more schisms the better. The more the "church" becomes emulsified, the more it will realise that what matters is the horizontal, not the vertical, and we atheists (Christian and otherwise), agnostics, humanists have been right all along. The greater the length of the perimeter, the more opportunities arise for honest Christians to escape.
AboutFace: You are clearly an atheist, and you are welcome to comment on any and all threads. But the fact that you are an atheist conditions a certain response to a debate about the existence and character of Hell. To you, this is as pointless a discussion as a debate about the existence of pixies. Fair enough. But those whop don't make the assumption of atheism and who do consider the Bible a sacred text with a significant moral message have to still grapple with this concept. People of faith, like humanists, come in different shapes and sizes with varying intellectual capacities. Some are intellectually brilliant, some are driven by ignorance and prejudice: this is true of both theists and atheists. So I make this appeal: Can we please stop writing off whole groups of people (whether atheists or theists) as if every member of that group was thoughtless and contemptible? That kind of dismissive rhetoric gets us nowhere.
"...this is playground one-upmanship... ...The more schisms the better. "
So, let me get this straight. If two people disagree about some concept, that proves that they are both wrong and that their disagreement is just childish posturing. Is that what you're saying, eh?
Ah, I get it! This only applies to Christians!
Good try, Helio. Pity someone saw through your trickery yet again.
Logic, Helio. Logic. It's not that hard. Really it isn't.
Agnostic William. And religious belief is contemptible. At brass tacks (and this is not to deny that there are many "nice" religious people), religious belief simply IS contemptible. The only other position you could ask that I take is indifference, and I'm not indifferent to it.
LSV, though maybe Helio has put it a little more bluntly than I've been aiming at, the thought is that the 'concept' they're disagreeing about is dubiously referred to as a single concept. I'm more or less in agreement with Andrew in his earlier discussion, in that it seems like this turns on a whole body of theology.
I think the Huffington Post article above suggests something similar when Rev. Weyer says the following:
"Even worse, both sides often make the assertion they stand in for God, even as they both deny they do so. When statements like, "Either believe this or you aren't an orthodox Christian" or, "I think God is tired of iron clad," get thrown around, you know that both sides believe they are speaking for God."
Can there really be any substantive discussion here when everyone is appealing to prior divine authority? If not, the only argument that someone outside of particular theological commitments can engage with has to be terminological.
This is certainly an interesting debate about a book that has not even be released to the public, but for what it's worth (and admittedly on the face of it), if God is love and love doesn't win, then we're all in trouble.
At the moment however I'm a little more concerned with Rob's glasses. Does he wear those in public?
The fiction of Hell makes interesting reading and listening. Here is a link to a good discussion on Hell presented by Melvyn Bragg. Neil MacGregor (Director of the British Museum) is one of the guests.
Apparently, the idea of perpetual punishment that was added to the mix 800 or so years ago at one of the Lateran Councils gave a great boost to the selling of Indulgences. At this time the race really started to win converts and the Christian message was: "we are more powerful magicians that your magicians."
An interesting point is made about Blake. He couldn't believe God would not forgive: his Hell is not something given by God but is something humans have created. Of course, as a non-believer, I think humans have created the lot.
When Augustine said: "in Hell there is torment beyond our imagining" the artists worked double-shifts. Imagine, a man with bagpipes on his head!
Are we talking about the fact that certain groups of Christians have fallen out with each other over the doctrine of hell, or we talking about the doctrine itself?
Helio clearly has an agenda (which he consistently fails to substantiate), hence my response. All I am interested in here is discussing the doctrine, not whether John Piper (et al) has the maturity to cope with people whom he perceives are stepping out of line. The 'evangelical inquisition' bores the pants off me, as does the 'atheistic inquisition'. Both are wearisomely censorious and loathe genuine free thinking.
Obviously if certain people are appealing to divine authority as a means of obviating the need to resort to logic, then clearly that is highly vexatious (this also applies to those who appeal to the authority of a scientific elite to railroad others into accepting their unsubstantiated views). I've long come to realise that those who claim that the Bible 'clearly says' this, that and the other on subjects which are controversial are simply trying to avoid having to defend their position.
I don't think that the topic of this thread (when viewed in the broadest possible way) is irrelevant even to atheists and those for whom 'religion is contemptible', because at the heart of it are the concepts of evil, punishment, moral consequence and deterrent. All these apply to human society and life this side of the grave.
So there is a legitimate debate here, which I don't think anyone should shy away from.
I forgot to say in my earlier post that the first really thorough Christian exploration of Hell can be found in the Apocalypse of Paul (almost made it into the Bible) and that Hell is not all about torture.
A great theological issue arose, apparently, when first Moses (who was taken to Hell) and then Paul requested God to be more compassionate. God responded in each case by torturing those in Hell only 6 days a week. Moses got the damned a torture-free Sabbath and Paul got them an easy Sunday!
I think my point extends to both aspects of the discussion. What I'm considering is the question of whether the addition or removal of the notion of Hell considerably alters the meaning of the Christian message (IE: in such a way that the rest of the theology not involving it has to shift to accommodate it). If it doesn't, then yes, the debate is a legitimate one, and some semblance of logical analysis can take place. But if it does, then legitimate debate breaks down.
The reason for this should be apparent - on the assumption that it does, the meanings one employs when using the theology with and without Hell are equivocations of one another. The "Jesus" for whom salvation is about saving people from eternal damnation is considerably different from the "Jesus" for whom it is decidedly not. In order for discussion to proceed, one must adopt the meanings of one or the other as canonical to the particular debate. Except once we accept one "Jesus" or the other within the context of one theology or the other, the matter at hand (namely, whether or not hell exists) has been resolved.
The only possibilities at hand are to demonstrate that one of the positions is somehow logically inconsistent where the other is not, or to engage in practical reasoning for adopting one position over the other. The former option is notoriously brick-walled, since the logic appropriate for theological discourse seems to shift according to the prior theological structures we think as granting meaning to the rules of deduction in question ("God is not contradictory, as contradiction doesn't apply at the logic of the divine", or "human logic isn't God's logic" etc.).
As for the latter, it ceases to be a metaphysical dispute, and is simply one over which perspective it is "better" teleologically to hold. In other words, the argument is no longer specifically about theology, but about general practical living, and the debate must be taken at this level; which, if we're to avoid an infinite regress, has to be taken independently of the theology. (One might argue that if practical living is done entirely independently of theology, theology is not going to be of much general use.)
To summarise, I think there is such a thing as being "too fundamental to be debated" - something whose use or absence has a knock-on effect on the semantics of the entire discussion. If we think Christianity is fundamental to practical living, and the presence or exclusion of Hell is fundamental to what Christianity is, then Hell must be an example of that notion.
That's neither condoning nor condemning it. The atheist solution is obvious - it contraposes, asserting that Christianity isn't fundamental to practical living. How the fundamentalist (whether positive or negative) proceeds is also obvious - it accepts the conclusion, Hell either is or is not, now stop asking questions. How a Christian who wants to think Hell is somehow an open question wants to proceed, however, I'm really not sure.
AboutFace- Humans can be pretty contemptible though. All hail the Doctrine of AboutFace: Hate, Hate, Hate. Ironic in a thread revolving around the concepts of Love & Hell don't you think
Oh, I can be quite open about my agenda - it's making people less stupid. Hell is a crazy concept, and if this is a further sign that some Christians are moving in the direction of sensible liberal views, then that is to be welcomed. The arguments with the fundie bibliolaters will not end in a mealy-mouthed compromise, but in a widening of the split, and I certainly hope that many more liberals can be saved to the Heaven of Humanism.
I think my point extends to both aspects of the discussion. What I'm considering is the question of whether the addition or removal of the notion of Hell considerably alters the meaning of the Christian message (IE: in such a way that the rest of the theology not involving it has to shift to accommodate it). If it doesn't, then yes, the debate is a legitimate one, and some semblance of logical analysis can take place. But if it does, then legitimate debate breaks down.
Taking my cues from here and a couple of other things said in previous comments, this very much depends.
There are different notions of hell, there are different notions of universalism. The extent of the revision will largely depend on where someone falls on these different notions. And the extent of the revision will determine the likelihood of equivocation in the debate. When Bell talks about God's love he means such and such but when Piper talks about God's love he means something else.
The possibility, even the strong possibility, of equivocation does not make the debate illegitimate. Audience should be considered, motivation should be considered. Justin Taylor, for one, was not trying to persuade Bell he is heterodox, at least primarily. Bell is identified as an evangelical, a constituency with which Taylor, who runs a premier Christian blog, is also identified. I would suggest his concern was largely pastoral, he is speaking to an audience who will understand his words, who will understand Bell's departure. An audience and constituency which they both apparently share.
I was recently reading through an e-book by Carl Trueman on evangelicalism 'The real scandal of the evangelical mind'. In this book Trueman sets out to show that evangelicalism is a sort of nebulous term that doesn't really mean anything. In illustrating his point he tells an anecdote about attending a Christian conference, and at one point the attendees were broken up into discussion groups by their respective 'traditions'. So there was the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox and the Evangelicals. Now Trueman is confessionally Reformed, a history prof at Westminster Theological Seminary and an ordained elder in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. In his discussion group, he finds himself with an open theist and a like-minded Presbyterian. So Trueman sits back and waits for the fireworks, which explode in due course. At one point the Presbyterian says to the Open Theist they have little in common to which he replies "But surely we can agree that we both love Jesus?". Trueman goes on to comment:
I was tempted to pipe up, "Yes, you both do; it's just a shame you don't agree on who He was or what He did." Instead I stayed politely silent and allowed my eyes to wander to other areas of the room - to the Catholic group and the Orthodox group, where I realised that strange to tell, I had more in common with some members of each of those than I did with the radical Arminian". So why was I in this group?
I'd be tempted to say the same when it comes to Bell.
I can appreciate that the doctrine of eternal damnation is fundamental to a particular theological position, and therefore to question this doctrine is to subvert the conceptual foundations which support the definitions of key doctrinal terms. You are right in saying that this doctrine has a direct effect on how we define "Jesus", by which I understand "the character and purposes of God". But this is all the more reason to debate the issue.
The notion of condemnation involves far more than simply the idea of some people suffering eternal torment. There is a legitimate debate among those who subscribe to some form of eternal judgment concerning the reasons why God condemns certain people, and this debate has a direct bearing on our understanding of the character of God. Those who believe in 'hell' - according to all its various interpretations - are not a homogeneous group. The conceptual differences between the members of this 'credal community' (for want of a better term) are not subtle, but deeply profound. Concerning such people, on the one hand, and universalists, on the other, it is not a matter of two sides glaring at each other over a theological Grand Canyon, but rather a mix of people 'changing partners' on the dance floor when a different doctrinal tune is being played.
I explained (very briefly and in a way that admittedly requires rather more explanation) in post #3 of this thread how I understand the notion of hell. I put the same point here. This is a radically different understanding of hell from the idea that "everybody deserves to go to hell because of the fall of Adam, and thence the inherited sin nature of every one of his descendents". The infralapsarian Calvinists cling to this notion to attempt to justify God's decree to 'pass over' certain people; the supralapsarian Calvinists, of course, claiming that God actually wants people to go to hell. Both forms of Calvinism actually amount to the same thing: God desires for some people to be damned.
The so-called Arminians may hold to the same 'damnation default' theology, but they try to soften it by introducing an element - albeit extremely fleeting - of hope for all people, but depending on whether such people have been lucky enough to 'hear the gospel' and somehow have sufficient reason to believe it so as to respond to it. There are, of course, various degrees of 'hope' within this Arminian construct (for example, the concept of 'an age of accountability' is assumed to allow for the non-condemnation of children under a certain age).
I totally and utterly reject this idea of 'damnation by default'. To bracket me - a non-universalist - with those who hold to this idea, is something that I would resent. There is a world of difference between the character of a God who starts by accepting someone, but that person then chooses to reject the love of God (and thus condemns himself) and the character of a God who starts by rejecting someone because of the sin of another person. This is no subtle difference, but is absolutely fundamental. In fact, I would say that I am nearer to the universalist than I am to those who hold to the 'damnation by default' doctrine - even though I am not actually a universalist. (I am not a universalist, since I believe that the love of God can be rejected - a rejection which defines the concept of 'evil').
"...the logic appropriate for theological discourse seems to shift according to the prior theological structures we think as granting meaning to the rules of deduction in question ("God is not contradictory, as contradiction doesn't apply at the logic of the divine", or "human logic isn't God's logic" etc.)."
That is an epistemological point you are making that may be characteristic of certain Christians, but is certainly not true of all of us. As I have argued repeatedly on this blog, it is only the rational mind of God which gives any validity to human logic (certainly the philosophy of materialism provides no basis for the validity of reason), and therefore it is self-contradictory to impute irrationality (i.e. humanly perceived irrationality) to God. Logic is logic whether human or divine.
From Professor Peter Gomes (William's previous post) "Religion is a human construct not a divine construct"
This is perfectly illustrated by the entirely man made concept of Hell which was unknown in the old testament but used to propel a fledging cult through the trauma of Roman occupation and rule. Inspire your devotees to accept suffering in this world for reward in the next with the added bonus of smugly overseeing the eternal damnation of your enemies. Nice evolutionary strategy!
On religion as a human construct, not a divine construct:
I heard Peter Gomes say that in his debate with Hitchens. Hitchens then replied that he could now rest his case. I think he misunderstood Gomes's point. Gomes wasn't arguing that God was a human construct.
PM2 **Perhaps a debate like this can only ever make sense if we begin with the concept of human identity being rooted in God.**
Agree PM2 that human identity is rooted in God, in love.
William - agree the 2 are very different. Religion being a human construct does not in any way mean that God is a human construct. As I mentioned somewhere else - religion as it is understood today divides and separates people and thus is not from God. How could an all-loving God create something that fundamentally separates his sons?? Religion along with culture and nationalism are false pillars that perpetuate separation and division amongst the one humanity. They are not likely to fall anytime soon though! :-)
'Religion' and 'God' are, of course, completely different, but I can understand why an atheist would confuse them. He would assume (always fatal to make assumptions, isn't it?) that theists are simply making it up ("and they know they are", hence Helio's frequent comments along this line, this being a typical example), and that 'God' is just a construct to provide some kind of intellectual cotton wool padding to make reality a bit more palatable.
It is pretty obvious what Gomes was talking about, but, as I say, it doesn't surprise me that Hitchens misunderstood him.
Here is a link relevant to this thread by someone who has read the book and says that Bell does believe in hell (but does not say what that hell is) and that in his view he (bell) may not be a universalist....
Interesting read Eunice. It seems all his detractors have done is expand the reach of the book while raising the profile of the author within Evangelicalism - I'd never heard of him until now
"To you, this is as pointless a discussion as a debate about the existence of pixies."
I read something by AC Grayling today about fairies that surprised me. He writes:
"Most people, though, forget that belief in fairies was widespread until the beginning of the twentieth century; the Church fought a long hard battle against this competitor superstition, and won, largely because - you guessed it - of the infant and primary church schools founded in the second half of the nineteenth century."
"Most people, though, forget that belief in fairies was widespread until the beginning of the twentieth century; the Church fought a long hard battle against this competitor superstition, and won, largely because - you guessed it - of the infant and primary church schools founded in the second half of the nineteenth century."
I'm not quite sure of the point you're trying to make here, but since the quote is from AC Grayling (and yes, I've read his rather poorly reasoned article peppered with highly selective examples), let me guess: it's a dig at church schools - and, presumably by extension, at faith schools.
Now if the Church had encouraged belief in fairies, it would have been condemned.
If the Church discourages belief in fairies, it is also condemned, because they are supposedly replacing one superstition with another.
If church schools discourage belief in fairies, then they are condemned (instead of being commended by those who also disbelieve in fairies), because they are 'church' schools, instead of schools in the great tradition of Mr Darwin.
Sounds like the Church can't win!
It sounds to me as though Grayling is insinuating that the only legitimate way to discourage belief in fairies is by promoting the philosophy of naturalism. Well, I think 'insinuating' is too weak a word, as it is blatantly obvious what he is saying in his article.
Ergo... faith schools should be replaced by 'atheism schools' (in other words, by another form of 'faith school'). What other logical conclusion can one possibly draw from Grayling's comment?
And that is why we call such people fundamentalists, as they are preaching a form of faith and dogmatism (since the philosophy of naturalism is both unproven and unprovable). Therefore the conclusion of Grayling's article ("Can an atheist be a fundamentalist?") is a non sequitur.
Grayling does make the point that three-quarters of Church of England schools are primary schools, but I think he would object to schools being established at taxpayers expense to promote atheism. I think he would probably prefer schools to concentrate on providing a good education to pupils without privileging the supernatural.
Schools that are not of religious character do not participate in collective worship to some big "A" or something in the assembly hall. Perhaps, somewhere, there is some crank who would like atheism to be worshipped. There might even be some who would think it better to nail some poor chap to the "A" for effect!
Based on his comments in the video clip Rob Bell continues to be ignorant of God’s supreme attribute – His HOLINESS and in the light of that the words of Habbakuk 1:13 are relevant “Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil and canst not look upon iniquity” and so at the final judgment there will be a separation between God’s elect and the reprobate as we learn in Revelation 21:27 “And there shall in no way enter into it (eternal glory) anything that defileth, neither he that worketh abomination or maketh a lie but they who are written in the Lamb’s book of life”. Revelation 22:14-15 again confirms this separation “Blessed are they that wash their robes that they may have right to the tree of life and may enter in through the gates into the city. For OUTSIDE are dogs, and sorcerers, and fornicators, and murderers, and idolaters and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie”. Mr Bell should perhaps take particular note of the last 6 words I have just quoted. The governing theme of the Bible is not so much 'Love Wins' but that 'Holiness Rules'
"Revelation 22:14-15 again confirms this separation “Blessed are they that wash their robes that they may have right to the tree of life and may enter in through the gates into the city. For OUTSIDE are dogs, and sorcerers, and fornicators, and murderers, and idolaters and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie”. Mr Bell should perhaps take particular note of the last 6 words I have just quoted. The governing theme of the Bible is not so much 'Love Wins' but that 'Holiness Rules'"
Who am I to argue with the Bible, since I believe in the Bible? However, the Bible has to be interpreted correctly, and I notice that the quote from Revelation says "whosoever loveth and maketh a lie" (I love the way you feel the need to quote an ancient dialect!). Allow me to translate this into English: "whoever loves and makes a lie".
Note the word 'loves'! In other words, those who are condemned have made a clear CHOICE. Nothing to do with Calvinism. Nothing to do with "damnation by default on the basis of original sin" (which is a denial of choice). Nothing to do with a 'sin nature' that no one had any choice but to be born with. And everything to do with a wilful rejection of God's grace and love offered to ALL people.
Allow me to look further at the context: Revelation 21:6-8 -
"And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." (Quoted from the dearly beloved KJV: public domain. Emphasis mine.)
In other words, life is offered freely to all, and therefore it is understood - when the context is respected - that those who are then condemned have declined to receive this life freely offered.
Therefore the freely offered love and grace of God does win. In that sense, Rob Bell is absolutely correct. But that does not imply universalism, since there are those who, for reasons known only to themselves (probably a deep-seated pride nourished by a sense of grievance), hate that love, and reject it. Love has still 'won' even in the lives of the damned. But this 'love', far from being a joy, becomes the ultimate torment, from which there is no escape, since there is no other option available from God, other than love.
By the way... there is no contradiction between the 'love' of God and the 'holiness' of God. The God who is completely love (not half love or quarter love) is holy. 'Holiness' is often ill-defined anyway by many commentators, who assume that it is synonymous with a legalistic concept of righteousness, which justifies God damning people for even the smallest reason. Actually 'holiness' means 'being set apart for God' and therefore describes that which is entirely characteristic of God rather than man. Thus it closely relates to the grace of God, rather than the works of man. It certainly does not describe "the nasty or austere side of God which explains why God damns people"!!
LSV - you wrote "Actually 'holiness' means 'being set apart for God' and therefore describes that which is entirely characteristic of God rather than man. Thus it closely relates to the grace of God, rather than the works of man. It certainly does not describe "the nasty or austere side of God which explains why God damns people"!!
According to Vine 'separated/set apart' is a derived meaning of Holy/Holiness and not the primary. The primary is amongst others "pure" as of course when applied to God as in Isaiah 6:3. God's other attributes such as love, mercy, wrath and justice can only be properly understood in the light of His perfect purity - His holiness. After Pharoah's armies were destroyed by His just judgment what attribute of God was extolled in Exodus 15:11 - "Who is like thee, glorious in holiness".
God's love in salvation is for His own as you read frequently in John 17 - to say as you did 'Love has still 'won' even in the lives of the damned'is shall I say a tortured viewpoint. Unless God according to His sovereign choice intervened in the lives of His elect they would have likewise perished because their natural state was just like the reprobate as described in John 3:19-21
23. At 9:50pm on 04 Mar 2011, Eunice wrote: "Ms Cracker - thanks for your comments. I appreciate you follow the bible and hence you 'believe' in hell. But what if there is no such place - other than the hell we create when we live in separation to God's love? Why would an all-loving God send people to hell? TO my understanding and experience - God loves all equally and does not judge nor condemn anyone - the latter 2 being human features and not divine. "
Dear Eunice, What we hear in homilies at our church is that we, through our choices, separate ourselves from God's love & can ultimately reject His mercy & forgiveness.We are not so much sent to Hell by God, but rather by ourselves. It's a little bit like what you are saying.I think we disagree on the existance of an eternal Hell but might agree on how folks would get there-if it existed. :)
The Hebrew verb from which 'holiness' is derived (qadash / qadesh) does indeed denote 'purity' in its root meaning (although the correct meanings of words are defined by usage and context not by etymology). But I fail to see how you can set the concept of 'purity' against - or in distinction to - the concept of 'love'. The Bible explains that it is 'love' which actually defines what we understand by righteousness:
Matthew 22: 36-40 - "Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
Romans 13: 8-10 - "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."
So it is not possible for someone to be 'pure' and therefore 'holy' in the sight of God who does not love. This is further emphasised by 1 John 4:8 - "He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love."
Does God only love his own people? Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that 'love' can only be realised in the lives of those who are willing to receive it (and it is in this sense only that the Bible refers to God 'hating' the wicked). No, in the sense that God's perfect character is love, and therefore is relevant for all people. If you don't accept this latter point then how do you understand Matthew 5:43-48 where Jesus refers to the perfection of God (v. 48) to command us that we love our enemies. It is no good saying that God's love for His enemies extends only to sending a bit of rain and sun on them for their short lives on earth. Controlling the climate is not the primary manifestation of the perfection of God's character!
"...to say as you did 'Love has still 'won' even in the lives of the damned'is shall I say a tortured viewpoint."
No, not a tortured viewpoint at all! In fact, it is the only logical viewpoint.
The Bible tells us clearly that 'God is love' (1 John 4:8) and also that 'God is a consuming fire' (Hebrews 12:29). It is doing violence to the biblical text to suggest that 'love' only describes part of God's character. The Bible manifestly does not say that 'God is half love'.
What do you understand by the concept of 'evil'? Since 'love' defines what righteousness is, as I have shown, is it not therefore obvious that evil involves a deep-seated rejection and hatred of the love of God? If an unrepentent evil person is exposed to the love of God will he feel comfortable? Will he experience peace? Joy? Freedom? Of course not! There can be no greater hell than the love of God towards the person who despises and rejects it.
If what I am saying is not true, then we would have to accept that there is no fundamental spiritual difference between the redeemed person and the reprobate. In that view we would have to say that both long for the love of God, but the only difference is that God deliberately withholds his love from the latter. This is arrant nonsense, and makes a mockery of the reality of the new life effected by salvation.
The very passage you quoted from John 3 refutes this idea:
"And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."
It is clear that those who are condemned are not condemned because of the so called 'original sin' construct or some other state of affairs forced on them, but because of their own wilful rejection of the grace and love of God offered to them. This 'light' is the reality of the love of God which these people hate.
How do you explain Revelation 14:10, where it talks about the damned being tormented "in the presence of the Lamb" - a clear reference to Christ crucified, the one through whom God revealed His love to the world? These people are being tortured in the presence of the love of God!
Finally, in Revelation 4:8 God is worshipped in heaven with the words 'holy, holy, holy'. If holiness describes the 'hatred' of God for some people, then does that not suggest that heaven is a place of overwhelming hatred and vengeance towards a section of the human race? Is that your idea of bliss? Is heaven a place of eternal gloating and sadism? That sounds more like hell to me!
"And now [his critics] are saying the same thing to Bell: “If you disagree with us, you disagree with God.”
I’ve always thought that this identification of one’s own views with God’s, especially when paired with avowals of piety and submission to God’s word, offers a good working definition of religious fanaticism. Fanatics, on this understanding, are those who combine two things. First, they embrace an unquestioning submission to God’s word rooted in the idea that what appears foolish to mere humans may, from a divine perspective, not be foolish at all. To question God is arrogant, displaying too much faith in the power of the human intellect to discern the good. Out of humility they therefore refuse to question what they take to be God’s word.
...
There is, in fanaticism, a dangerous combination of humility and arrogance that hermetically seals fanatics from reason and evidence."
LSV : *1 John 4:8 - "He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love." **
How true this is - hence why people who go looking for God with the mind, thinking/thought, psychology, cognitive blah blah will never find/know GOd - they are barking up the wrong tree! TO know love you have to feel with the (inner) heart. So I would say God loves all - irrespective of their rejection of his love as you put it. All are holy and all are love but they do not live it and choose to separate from it - but the underlying or hidden love/holiness is present in all and can be revealed, lived, if chosen. (with a bit of work to clear all the not love that we have accumulated!!)
**The Bible tells us clearly that 'God is love' (1 John 4:8) and also that 'God is a consuming fire' (Hebrews 12:29).** These are the same thing LSV : fire is the energy of divine love - it's not a bad thing it is what love is energetically. I know that might sound a bit wacky but there are lots of references (mystics etc) re fire being the love of God and it can be felt.
**is no fundamental spiritual difference between the redeemed person and the reprobate**
same for saint and sinner - one knows who he is and other remains ignorant of who he is - that is the difference.
Ms Cracker: agree it is by our choices that we separate from God - that creates hell on earth due to the consequences of our non-loving choices.......that we then seek to blame God or others for - when all along it is the consequence of our own choices....
For those who don't believe in Hell, I expect that you don't believe in God, or His inspired word in the Holy Bible......and that is fine, as God did give us all free will.....who are we in the Christian Church to try and convert you, your beliefs are your own, and you have every right to believe them....however, we do believe them, and we would appreciate a little respect for those of us who are believers. Everyone makes his, or her own destiny in this world, and everyone has his or her own opinion, so please don't tell us what to believe and what not to believe. We will continue to believe in God and our salvation through Jesus Christ, and those of you who believe that we are mad, well what is your opinion. Just remember one thing, those of us who believe in Heaven and Hell will not be changed by the opinions of those who don't.
"...we would appreciate a little respect for those of us who are believers."
A forlorn hope, I'm afraid, as the boringly predictable and very immature response from newlach in #69 reveals. The irrational nihilists can't show respect for believers, because, of course, they know they're wrong, as the trickery and dishonesty they show in debate reveals only too clearly.
"We will continue to believe in God and our salvation through Jesus Christ, and those of you who believe that we are mad, well what is your opinion. Just remember one thing, those of us who believe in Heaven and Hell will not be changed by the opinions of those who don't."
Exactly. As a Christian I am prepared to listen to the evidence and consider it, but since all the evidence I have ever seen points in one rather obvious direction (of course, thoroughly confirmed by my own experience), and since I have never seen any proper evidence (plenty of bogus 'evidence', mind you) that supports atheism, then there is little chance of my ever reconsidering my point of view.
As Christians we should, of course, be open to reason and debate (especially since 'reason' only makes logical sense within a theistic - i.e. 'intelligence' based - worldview), and that is why we should debate the question of the nature of hell and the precise reasons why some people may go there, which is what I have tried to do on this thread.
I'm not surprised that you describe my response as "very immature", but I think these words are more apt to describe the belief of those who claim that some agitator nailed to a cross over 2000 years ago died and came back to life.
As for the Virgin Birth. Well, some kids know how to spin a yarn!
The history of religion has always involved a constant re-labelling due to departure from orthodoxy. Christianity had to be re-labelled "orthodoxy" or "catholicism" due to heresy.
Then the Orthodox Catholic and Churches departed from the faith, and true religion had to be re-labelled Protestantism.
Then various Protestant churches departed from the faith, and true religion had to be re-labelled Evangelicalism.
Then some so-called Evangelicals called themselves Liberal Evangelicals and departed from the faith, and soem who professed the true religion re-labelled Fundamentalism.
The so-called Liberal Evangelicals decided to stick with Liberalism, so we were back to Evangelicalism.
If a bunch of so-called Evangelicals decide to deny the beliefs of what defines Evangelicalism, then it isn't a battle between Evangelicals. They have just become Liberals. Let's call a spade a spade. Otherwise we'll run out of terms.
The faith once delivered to the saints hasn't changed. The clear teaching of the Bible remains the same. People just keep claiming to be Christian while denying what Christ taught.
It is highly irrational to hear the same old refrain "Nobody but Evangelicals believes that." And that makes it untrue?
About twenty minutes ago I started reading 'Love Wins', since at long last the book has been published and delivered to my humble abode. So a sensible discussion can now begin...
Here's a little taster from p.9 (UK edition):
"Often times when I meet atheists and we talk about the god they don't believe in, we quickly discover that I don't believe in that god either."
First piece of evidence from 'Love Wins' that suggests that Rob Bell is not a universalist:
"A racist would be miserable in the world to come." (p.34)
Of course, he may contradict himself later on in the book (I wouldn't know, as I haven't got that far yet), but on the basis of this quote we have to conclude that he is asserting that if a racist refuses to repent of his racism, then "he will be miserable in the world to come". Hence, there is the possibility of misery in the "world to come", ergo Rob Bell is affirming the concept of 'hell' and the possibility that some people may go there, through their own deliberate fault.
The odd thing about trotting out the old unicorn comment (sorry) is that there seem to be some people around who are quite happy to pretend in their imaginers in other stuff with no tangible existence as it helps give some meaning to their lives.
In 'Love Wins' Rob Bell devotes a whole chapter to the Parable of the Prodigal Son, and he makes the following point concerning the bitter attitude of the elder son:
"Hell is being at the party. That's what makes it so hellish.
It's not an image of separation, but one of integration.
In this story, heaven and hell are within each other, intertwined, interwoven, bumping up against each other." (pp. 169-170)
So clearly Rob Bell believes in a form of 'hell'. This is exactly the idea of 'hell' that I believe in. The love of God itself is 'hell' to the person who rejects it. This is not universalism at all, but an interpretation of the hell that is very real.
Although there are parts of this book that could be interpreted as an argument for universalism - mainly quotations from the Bible concerning God's plan to restore all things and reconcile all things to himself - these comments have to be understood in the context of Bell's unequivocal affirmation of human free will.
"If we want hell, if we want heaven, they are ours. That's how love works. It can't be forced, manipulated or coerced." (pp. 118-119)
Therefore there is no way that this book is promoting universalism. In fact, I agree with virtually everything he says, and it is a rare pleasure to read a Christian book that doesn't wind me up (as most of them do).
If anyone else has managed to read the book, I would be interested in your take on it.
He affirms it, which is not the same as suggesting that it is inevitable that everyone will ultimately be saved, because the issue is dependent on human free will, not some cut-and-dried arrangement set in place by God. Here's a relevant quote:
"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."
He then makes an observation about this arrangement, which concerns the character of God:
"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..."
He then suggests that if an earthly father was this volatile and fickle we would contact child protection services immediately. Such a God could not possibly be trusted, who was full of love one moment, and then just at the point of death of the 'unbeliever' he morphs into the exact opposite: "Does God become somebody totally different the moment you die?"
It is clear that, for Bell (and for me, as it happens) heaven and hell describe the experience of those who either accept or reject the love of God. So the legalistic question of when 'too late' is, is considered an irrelevance.
All through the book Bell criticises legalistic schemes of salvation (by which I don't mean 'salvation by works' necessarily but rather 'salvation by believing the correct prescribed doctrines'), and looks at the nature of salvation at a deeper - and more spiritual - level.
'Love Wins' is written in a very popular style, and in places the layout makes some of the text look like a poem. Bell makes many of his points through asking searching questions, so I don't think he is offering a systematic theology. He is clearly encouraging the reader to think for himself (which is rather unusual for a Christian book, it has to be said).
However, the issues that this book raises are not going to go away, if the sales are anything to go by. It is #4 at Amazon.com and #50 at Amazon.co.uk (which is rather surprising for a Christian book in the UK). Admittedly the fact that it has just been published may boost the figures, since pre-publication sales would be included, but nevertheless these are impressive positions.
I hope that the ongoing debate surrounding this book will not be distorted by hasty and dismissive judgments, and unhelpful doctrinal labelling (a rather vain hope, I suggest, given much of the rhetoric directed at Bell - a point he actually makes in the book!). It is clear to me that Bell is not a universalist, and many of the points he raises from the Bible are perfectly valid - as valid as any points raised by those who would consider themselves orthodox evangelicals.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.
Comment number 1.
At 08:05 4th Mar 2011, Eunice wrote:The time to say to 'hell with hell' in terms of some eternal damnation delivered by God is long, long overdue....it's prob only evangelicals who 'believe' such nonsense anyway.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 10:05 4th Mar 2011, PaulR wrote:This is a war about ownership of the word "evangelical" more than it is any kind of metaphysical dispute. It would be nice if Bell won, as an "evangelical" movement that can actually be open to dialogue and debate would be a great improvement on the current patriarchal attitude of the Church. That said, if he doesn't, I'll be quite happy to dismiss the word and the ideas of those who identify under it as not worth engaging with.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 10:38 4th Mar 2011, logica_sine_vanitate wrote:I think both positions are wrong.
My view is simply this: the love and reality of God is hell. Yes, if "love wins" and free will wins, then "hell wins", because love is hell to the one who hates love.
I know Eunice will disagree with me vehemently, but the very nature of love is that you cannot force anyone to accept it. What is 'evil' anyway, if it does not involve a deep-seated rejection of the love of God, which is rooted in pride (pride being the 'complete anti-God state of mind' as CS Lewis rightly pointed out)?
So it doesn't matter how much God loves people; for some people that reality of love and God will be 'hell'. I find this issue really very simple indeed.
Universalism makes no sense at all, as it involves a violation of free will, and the evangelical "damnation by default on the basis of the fall and original sin" stuff is such moral insanity, that I won't say any more about that.
As for the word 'evangelical', I would consider myself an 'etymological evangelical', i.e. someone who believes that the gospel is actually 'good news' (which is what 'evangel' - eu-angelion - means), not the "bad news plus a bit of good news tacked on as an afterthought" travesty that often characterises evangelicalism.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 14:57 4th Mar 2011, John Wright wrote:LSV- I fear your problem here is that you base your salvation criteria on "love" of God rather than "belief" in him, which is what the bible appears to suggest is the most important criteria for salvation. Why God would value belief above anything else - as Dawkins and others have pointed out - who knows, but it doesn't appear to be the case that God demands that one love him, merely that they believe in him.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 15:00 4th Mar 2011, John Wright wrote:As for universalism bringing with it a lack of free will, I suppose you could say about an infant seen slipping into a bath full of water by an adult who rescues them has lost their free will, but since the infant wasn't aware they were making a choice - like most of humanity - it isn't so much an issue of free will but of rescue from ignorance.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 15:13 4th Mar 2011, Michael in Dublin wrote:This is far too important a discussion to be allowed to degenerate into a messy and hurtful public spectacle. What is needed are serious, careful and thoughtful responses. I think that J I Packer faithfully reflects the plain sense of the New Testament when he asks those who hold that God will ultimately save and restore all people:
Why, in that case, does God leave multitudes who know the gospel to go to hell as unbelievers before he calls them to faith?
And more searchingly, why do Christ and the apostles give no hint that God intends to lead every member of this fallen human race from the cradle to the crown, via hell if need be?
And why do they speak instead, with such strong emphasis, as if each person’s decisions made here determine their state hereafter, so that unbelievers face irremediable eternal loss?
Is not the New Testament viewpoint on this issue clearly expressed, consistently maintained, and constantly enforced?
Is there not then something heretical about the universalist account of God’s plan of love, which parts company with the Bible so radically?
(from https://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/03/02/j-i-packers-questions/%29
The assessment of Rob Bell's new book and the response of John Piper should wait until the book has been published and is available. But having said that, the questions that Packer asked need to figure prominently in any honest future discussion.
I know some passages in the Bible are difficult and a small number of verses clearly ambiguous. However, I would be disingenuous if I were to interpret the Christian Scriptures to make them acceptable to me and my thinking, but in a way that flies in the face of the plain sense of the language of the text. This, for me, is the crux of the whole matter.
If the claims of the Scriptures are true, like those of Hebrews 1:1-4, then I can either humbly accept even what is hard to understand or I can reject them. But there is no in-between possibility, of editing or reinterpreting the text to make my God to be the God I would prefer him to be. This is the dilemma faced by the God of Universalism. He is no different from the multitude of gods worshipped down the ages - he is a God created in the image of man, a mere figment of man's imagination. Either there is the God whom Jesus has revealed or we simply do not know.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 15:17 4th Mar 2011, paul james wrote:I like the linked comment from Jason Boyett
"At best, there are things that are unclear and not easily harmonized from Genesis to Revelation. At worst, there are things that seem to be downright contradictory."
Theology thy name is hubris
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 15:20 4th Mar 2011, Dagsannr wrote:I was under the impression that the modern concept of hell as a place of fire and brimstone was largely a construct of the medieval period, propagated by works of fiction like Dante's Divine Comedy and Milton's Paradise Lost.
The traditional Jewish and Greek concepts (from which early Christianity borrowed) had the afterlife a fairly dull 'grey' place where the dead just waited around (Hades and Gehenna). Particulary, the part of hell devoted to the classic fire and brimstone (Tartarus) was reserved, in Greek mythology, to threats to the gods, mainly monsters and the Titans.
I understand that traditionalist christians enjoy using hell as the stick to Heaven's carrot in the drive to convert people, but I find a lot of modern attitudes and thinking of hell hypocritical, given it's a complex bibical concept and more a case of people grabbing an idea to further their goals without actually considering its origins.
I blame Tom and Jerry too.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 17:11 4th Mar 2011, mscracker wrote:@8. Natman:
Jesus spoke of this well before Dante:
"If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out." (Mark 9:43 Jesus speaking)
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 18:05 4th Mar 2011, Kilsally wrote:"I fear your problem here is that you base your salvation criteria on "love" of God rather than "belief" in him, which is what the bible appears to suggest is the most important criteria for salvation." ......sort of depends whether you are Calvinsit or Arminian ie belief in free will vs destiny (pre-destination) as if God knows the future he already knows who will be saved and who won`t ( Jesus knew who would betray him and that Peter would deny him thrice )
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 18:17 4th Mar 2011, Eunice wrote:LSV: we are talking about different hells. I said the hell that is a place of eternal damnation delivered by God does not exist/is not real.
The hell you are talking about is different. TO live in separation to love/God is hell and I know it well but God in God's self is definitely not hell. Evil for me is anything that promotes separation from love and yes pride is the last bastion to be overcome - so I agree with you there.
I agree that people cannot be forced to love and can reject love and do. BUt this is based on an ignorance of who they are, reinforced often by religious teachings and also their life experiences that lead them to be self-loathing and self-hating. All of this starts with self - to love God is to love oneself and viceversa (in the true meaning of that - not the egotistical self-love that is not actually self-love). If we do not love ourselves we cannot love God - for God is love and we have to have love within us in order to love God - if we don't love ourselves then we are empty of love not just for self but for other/GOd as well.
People's hatred of love as you call it is based on false misperceptions and misbeliefs about themselves - if that is dealt with then people can being to accept themselves and love themselves. We are so engrained in non-loving ways of being and living that we don't even realise how non-loving we actually are - there is much to this.
John Wright: salvation is not based on belief - even if people 'believe' it is. No-one can save anyone else - you can only save yourself by knowing who you are (love) and living and making choices from there. This involves the law of cause and effect and knowing that everything we do has consequences - 'believing' in someone else is not going to stop those consequences from occurring. There is more to this of course.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)
Comment number 12.
At 18:36 4th Mar 2011, AboutFace wrote:A load of hot air. With a whiff of sulphur on it. About as fruitful and worthwhile as a concrete tree.
Squabble away ye believers. Squabble away.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 12)
Comment number 13.
At 18:55 4th Mar 2011, Eunice wrote:Michael:** Why, in that case, does God leave multitudes who know the gospel to go to hell as unbelievers before he calls them to faith?**
Nobody goes to hell - it does not exist as a place and nobody goes there.
**And more searchingly, why do Christ and the apostles give no hint that God intends to lead every member of this fallen human race from the cradle to the crown, via hell if need be?**
Hell point as above. There are a number of things in the bible that indicate that we are all sons of God - just the same as Jesus and hence we can all go the same route as him. (I'm not going to specify them but they are def there)
**And why do they speak instead, with such strong emphasis, as if each person’s decisions made here determine their state hereafter, so that unbelievers face irremediable eternal loss?**
Our decisions/choices here do influence everything - the course of our life here and to my understanding our future lifetimes or as you call it the hereafter. Nobody faces irremediable eternal loss, we are all on a return journey to God, to love (in my understanding - not to offend my atheist friends) - and we have free will over how we will get there and how long it will take. We can choose paths of wisdom or paths of woe - depending on the choices we make. Such is the love of God - he says take as long as you like - I will be here. The reason that we will all return to love/God is because that is what we are, what we are made of, and hence why we all seek love. We are in fact seeking ourselves by seeking love and our deepest agony is missing ourselves. Also why so many people who know God relate to it as a homecoming. The fact that our choices do influence everything also reinforces my point above that no-one can save another and we can only save ourselves - because we are the ones making our choices!!
**Is there not then something heretical about the universalist account of God’s plan of love, which parts company with the Bible so radically?**
If you knew that love you would not be questioning the universal nature of it but instead you would reconsider whether the bible is actually a true reflection of God, of the love of God - and then you might realise that it is not. God is all-loving of all people of all faiths and none - to say otherwise is to create a God that loves conditionally - and that is human love not divine. God's love is universal and every human being is a son of God made in his image etc and hence is also love.
**If the claims of the Scriptures are true, like those of Hebrews 1:1-4, then I can either humbly accept even what is hard to understand or I can reject them. But there is no in-between possibility, of editing or reinterpreting the text to make my God to be the God I would prefer him to be. This is the dilemma faced by the God of Universalism. He is no different from the multitude of gods worshipped down the ages - he is a God created in the image of man, a mere figment of man's imagination. Either there is the God whom Jesus has revealed or we simply do not know. **
The scriptures have been interpreted and re-interpreted many many times - I reckon I could provide interpretations that are different to yours. SO which interpretation is true?? This is where discernment comes in and for me that means feeling whether it is consistent with the God of love or not. It's not about making God the God you prefer but actually knowing what God is. Man is created in God's image and God is love hence we are love. By truly knowing oneself (our friend Socrates said 'know thyself') then it is possible to know God and that is possible for all. When God is known - then it is known and not imagined that his love is universal and that that love resides in all (even though it may not be lived or may be well hidden etc). It is then also known that God does not require worship. It is false to say that we simply do not know - many people do know God and know him to be all loving of all people and it is not a figment of their imagination or a hopeful wish.
Ms Cracker - here is one to ponder -there is actually more fire in heaven than hell! Why ? a) hell does not exist. b) fire is the energy of divine love - even Jesus said 'I have come to spread fire across the earth and how I wish it were already kindled'....
Complain about this comment (Comment number 13)
Comment number 14.
At 19:37 4th Mar 2011, logica_sine_vanitate wrote:AboutFace (@ 12) -
"A load of hot air. With a whiff of sulphur on it. About as fruitful and worthwhile as a concrete tree.
Squabble away ye believers. Squabble away."
I think you've stumbled (possibly drunkenly) onto the wrong thread. Allow me to redirect you. The thread you want is 'We should be thankful to Charles Darwin'. There are plenty of 'believers' on there who can squabble to their heart's content about the minutiae of their incredible mindlessness and super casino improbability theory (which is tremendously good fun, I must admit).
This thread is for people who don't have the kind of 'faith' necessary to believe in that convoluted 'explanation'. Please pity us poor unbelievers and sceptics, who haven't quite managed to take the incredible leap of faith that you have, and who feel the need to discuss that thing called 'reality' (in this case, moral reality).
Complain about this comment (Comment number 14)
Comment number 15.
At 19:42 4th Mar 2011, PeterM wrote:About Face
Thank you for your most apt comments.
***
Now, would someone in the evangelical world (of whatever theological view) please listen!
Those outside the church do not care (nor would I expect them to care) about our bitter internal feuds. We, by our own actions (or lack or them), have brought the gospel into disrepute and have rendered our own words meaningless.
Can we, please, start loving people again, show a bit of humility, and, perhaps, give them a reason to think that our words might mean something. Can we put others before ourselves and stop treating theology as if it were some kind of petty little competition to prove orthodoxy.
”About as fruitful and worthwhile as a concrete tree.”
Goodness, that’s almost scriptural!
Oh, and can we stop this cult of the christian celebrity.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 15)
Comment number 16.
At 19:49 4th Mar 2011, AboutFace wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 16)
Comment number 17.
At 20:10 4th Mar 2011, Eunice wrote:AF: don't knock til you've tried it - you could do with a bit of lovin! :-)
Complain about this comment (Comment number 17)
Comment number 18.
At 20:22 4th Mar 2011, mscracker wrote:Dear Eunice:
I actually rather agree with you in that Hell would be described as void of God & love but I do believe in it's existence.Whether it has any inhabitants-who knows?
I did notice in scripture that Our Lord uses fiery descriptions of Hell & He did that well before Dante & Milton.If Jesus believes in a Hell I guess as an orthodox Christian I'd better follow suit.
There's an interesting Eastern Orthodox-and maybe used in Western Christianity, too-description of the "fire" you might be referring to which is called: "uncreated light". That describes the light in Heaven & the light said to be seen around certain saints, and perhaps the light that shone from God on Mt.Sinai.So, yes I think you have a good point, but per scripture,the fire in Hell is not a pleasant one to experience while the light/Heavenly fire is one we can hope to look forward to.
I appreciate you bringing that point up.Thanks!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 18)
Comment number 19.
At 20:23 4th Mar 2011, logica_sine_vanitate wrote:AboutFace (@ 16) -
Good. Bye bye then, and the rest of us can have a civilised debate.
Peterm2 (@ 15) - normally I would agree with you, but, in this case, I think AboutFace's earlier comment is not worthy of any respect or sympathy. They were the boorish words of someone not at all interested in anything any Christian has to say (as he has made abundantly clear). It's called wilful antagonism and, as far as I am concerned, it is truly pathetic. It is known as flame baiting.
If AF wants to contribute to the discussion with a sensible argument, then fair enough - even if he expresses it in a passionate way, but the truth is that there are some types on this blog who just cannot stomach the idea that subjects are discussed which involve what they term 'religion'. Instead of just ignoring it, or contributing constructively, they just insult others and revile subjects they have made no effort to understand. Don't respect it. It's kindergarten behaviour from people who probably know they are wrong, and haven't got the guts to admit it.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 19)
Comment number 20.
At 20:41 4th Mar 2011, AboutFace wrote:I can't think of anything that bears out John Locke's observation that Christianity "is a religion suited to vulgar capacities" than this board.
"Sensible argument" you want? You first.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 20)
Comment number 21.
At 20:55 4th Mar 2011, Andrew wrote:Piper's a prominent evangelical but it's interesting, given the little he has said on the subject, that this post (and the linked article) uses him as foil. Perhaps, as Peter seems to suggest, this has something to do with celebrity pastors, whether Piper or Bell.
This 'controversy' started little over a week ago at a blog called Between Two Worlds over at the Gospel Coalition website. You can find the original post there as well as follow ups from Justin Taylor, it's author, and Kevin DeYoung. You can also find an interview with Taylor at the CNN website.
As is pointed out by Taylor in that interview, this issue is not something the main church traditions have been divided on. Whatever the exact form, orthodox Christians throughout the centuries have believed in the doctrine of endless punishment.
Theological systems are such that to change one part will require revision elsewhere. Universalism is not a discrete proposition which, logically, has no effect on other doctrines, it shoots right through a theological system to doctrine of God, doctrine of Christ, the church, preaching of the word, anthropology and so on.
It might look like a storm in a teacup, but it goes right to the heart of the gospel, the preaching of which is foolishness. Bell, if indeed he does affirm universalism, is a wolf in the flock, and it is the job of faithful pastors, as analogues of the Good Shepherd, to expose his error for the sake of the church.
This will win few friends but 'squabbling over nothing' it surely is not.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 21)
Comment number 22.
At 20:59 4th Mar 2011, paul james wrote:"A whiff of sulphur"? No, not exactly, but the whiff of fear. What these rockstar emergents have tapped into is that without the threat of eternal damnation christianists are cast adrift and everything they have believed is worthless,
From the links again
"We need the doctrine of eternal punishment. Time and time again in the New Testament we find that understanding divine justice is essential to our sanctification. Believing in God’s judgment actually helps us look more like Jesus. In short, we need the doctrine of the wrath of God."
I rest my case.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 22)
Comment number 23.
At 21:50 4th Mar 2011, Eunice wrote:Ms Cracker - thanks for your comments.
I appreciate you follow the bible and hence you 'believe' in hell.
But what if there is no such place - other than the hell we create when we live in separation to God's love?
Why would an all-loving God send people to hell?
TO my understanding and experience - God loves all equally and does not judge nor condemn anyone - the latter 2 being human features and not divine.
AF: your style of engagement and insults on here say more about you than the person you are insulting. So the person you really are insulting is yourself. Give yourself (and others) a break.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 23)
Comment number 24.
At 22:07 4th Mar 2011, logica_sine_vanitate wrote:paul james (@ 22) -
"What these rockstar emergents have tapped into is that without the threat of eternal damnation christianists are cast adrift and everything they have believed is worthless"
If Christianity is dependent on the threat of eternal damnation, then I would agree with you that it is worthless, since its message is completely negative. I did not become a Christian because of any kind of fear of going to hell. In fact, I didn't even believe in hell at the time, so how could I fear it? Even though I do believe in a concept of 'hell' now, my understanding of it is subject to considerable qualification - more like a consequence than a punishment (even though the word 'punishment' is used in the Bible to refer to it. This word can have different meanings.)
Hell cannot possibly be a deterrent. How is this possible if people do not believe in it? The reason why certain societies executed criminals (or opponents of the regime) in public and left their bodies to rot for all to see, is in order to scare people with a deterrent. The whole point of a deterrent is that it has to be believed in, in order to work as such!
Then there is the argument that "we are not sure if hell exists, but if it does then you need to make sure you're in no danger of going there. Therefore become a Christian." This is known as Pascal's Wager (or, at least, a crude application of it). But it is a fallacy. What if the Muslims are right? What if I am going to hell because I am a Christian, and therefore one of the 'infidel'? Therefore, in order to gamble on not going to hell, I need to become a Muslim. But if I do, then I might wonder whether Christianity was right after all!
Now I know this sort of reasoning is probably playing into your hands, as I seem to be critical of religion. But I am just telling the truth about the fact that it is erroneous to attempt to use the fear of hell as a method of proselytising.
So you may wonder what drives my Christianity? Well, that is easy to answer. The God who is actually real, and is not merely a 'theory' or construct. If I were a Christian atheist (in other words, my Christianity was nothing more than an ideology or framework through which to make sense of reality) then I guess some kind of heavy legalistic message would be necessary in order to 'persuade' others to fall into line.
To be honest, I suspect that a lot of fundies and evangelicals are just atheists in Christian clothing, hence their need to rely on psychological weapons, and their obvious contempt for the love of God.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 24)
Comment number 25.
At 01:11 5th Mar 2011, PaulR wrote:Andrew, you're right to say this isn't "squabbling over nothing", since it seems like there is a substantial difference between the two sides.
In another sense, I have a sneaking suspicion that each side has a different interpretation to put on exactly what it is they're squabbling over. A liberal evangelical might see it as a question of the spirit of the law VS the letter of the law, or even as a matter of competing interpretations, while a conservative might see it as adherence VS deviation from the orthodox message, or a failure to practice systematic theological scholarship.
It's all fine and good thinking that it's not insubstantial, but if we can't produce the substance in question, such fears aren't unfounded.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 25)
Comment number 26.
At 10:12 5th Mar 2011, Heliopolitan wrote:I think PaulR has hit the nail firmly on the head - this is playground one-upmanship, making the whole competition look ridiculous.
Carry on theism.
The more schisms the better. The more the "church" becomes emulsified, the more it will realise that what matters is the horizontal, not the vertical, and we atheists (Christian and otherwise), agnostics, humanists have been right all along. The greater the length of the perimeter, the more opportunities arise for honest Christians to escape.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 26)
Comment number 27.
At 11:17 5th Mar 2011, Will_Crawley wrote:AboutFace: You are clearly an atheist, and you are welcome to comment on any and all threads. But the fact that you are an atheist conditions a certain response to a debate about the existence and character of Hell. To you, this is as pointless a discussion as a debate about the existence of pixies. Fair enough. But those whop don't make the assumption of atheism and who do consider the Bible a sacred text with a significant moral message have to still grapple with this concept. People of faith, like humanists, come in different shapes and sizes with varying intellectual capacities. Some are intellectually brilliant, some are driven by ignorance and prejudice: this is true of both theists and atheists. So I make this appeal: Can we please stop writing off whole groups of people (whether atheists or theists) as if every member of that group was thoughtless and contemptible? That kind of dismissive rhetoric gets us nowhere.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 27)
Comment number 28.
At 12:08 5th Mar 2011, logica_sine_vanitate wrote:Helio (@ 26) -
"...this is playground one-upmanship... ...The more schisms the better. "
So, let me get this straight. If two people disagree about some concept, that proves that they are both wrong and that their disagreement is just childish posturing. Is that what you're saying, eh?
Ah, I get it! This only applies to Christians!
Good try, Helio. Pity someone saw through your trickery yet again.
Logic, Helio. Logic. It's not that hard. Really it isn't.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 28)
Comment number 29.
At 13:24 5th Mar 2011, AboutFace wrote:Agnostic William. And religious belief is contemptible. At brass tacks (and this is not to deny that there are many "nice" religious people), religious belief simply IS contemptible. The only other position you could ask that I take is indifference, and I'm not indifferent to it.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 29)
Comment number 30.
At 14:19 5th Mar 2011, PaulR wrote:LSV, though maybe Helio has put it a little more bluntly than I've been aiming at, the thought is that the 'concept' they're disagreeing about is dubiously referred to as a single concept. I'm more or less in agreement with Andrew in his earlier discussion, in that it seems like this turns on a whole body of theology.
I think the Huffington Post article above suggests something similar when Rev. Weyer says the following:
"Even worse, both sides often make the assertion they stand in for God, even as they both deny they do so. When statements like, "Either believe this or you aren't an orthodox Christian" or, "I think God is tired of iron clad," get thrown around, you know that both sides believe they are speaking for God."
Can there really be any substantive discussion here when everyone is appealing to prior divine authority? If not, the only argument that someone outside of particular theological commitments can engage with has to be terminological.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 30)
Comment number 31.
At 14:36 5th Mar 2011, salumsden wrote:This is certainly an interesting debate about a book that has not even be released to the public, but for what it's worth (and admittedly on the face of it), if God is love and love doesn't win, then we're all in trouble.
At the moment however I'm a little more concerned with Rob's glasses. Does he wear those in public?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 31)
Comment number 32.
At 14:45 5th Mar 2011, newlach wrote:The fiction of Hell makes interesting reading and listening. Here is a link to a good discussion on Hell presented by Melvyn Bragg. Neil MacGregor (Director of the British Museum) is one of the guests.
https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0038xb6
Apparently, the idea of perpetual punishment that was added to the mix 800 or so years ago at one of the Lateran Councils gave a great boost to the selling of Indulgences. At this time the race really started to win converts and the Christian message was: "we are more powerful magicians that your magicians."
An interesting point is made about Blake. He couldn't believe God would not forgive: his Hell is not something given by God but is something humans have created. Of course, as a non-believer, I think humans have created the lot.
When Augustine said: "in Hell there is torment beyond our imagining" the artists worked double-shifts. Imagine, a man with bagpipes on his head!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 32)
Comment number 33.
At 14:55 5th Mar 2011, logica_sine_vanitate wrote:PaulR (@ 30) -
Are we talking about the fact that certain groups of Christians have fallen out with each other over the doctrine of hell, or we talking about the doctrine itself?
Helio clearly has an agenda (which he consistently fails to substantiate), hence my response. All I am interested in here is discussing the doctrine, not whether John Piper (et al) has the maturity to cope with people whom he perceives are stepping out of line. The 'evangelical inquisition' bores the pants off me, as does the 'atheistic inquisition'. Both are wearisomely censorious and loathe genuine free thinking.
Obviously if certain people are appealing to divine authority as a means of obviating the need to resort to logic, then clearly that is highly vexatious (this also applies to those who appeal to the authority of a scientific elite to railroad others into accepting their unsubstantiated views). I've long come to realise that those who claim that the Bible 'clearly says' this, that and the other on subjects which are controversial are simply trying to avoid having to defend their position.
I don't think that the topic of this thread (when viewed in the broadest possible way) is irrelevant even to atheists and those for whom 'religion is contemptible', because at the heart of it are the concepts of evil, punishment, moral consequence and deterrent. All these apply to human society and life this side of the grave.
So there is a legitimate debate here, which I don't think anyone should shy away from.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 33)
Comment number 34.
At 15:23 5th Mar 2011, newlach wrote:I forgot to say in my earlier post that the first really thorough Christian exploration of Hell can be found in the Apocalypse of Paul (almost made it into the Bible) and that Hell is not all about torture.
A great theological issue arose, apparently, when first Moses (who was taken to Hell) and then Paul requested God to be more compassionate. God responded in each case by torturing those in Hell only 6 days a week. Moses got the damned a torture-free Sabbath and Paul got them an easy Sunday!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 34)
Comment number 35.
At 15:43 5th Mar 2011, PaulR wrote:LSV,
I think my point extends to both aspects of the discussion. What I'm considering is the question of whether the addition or removal of the notion of Hell considerably alters the meaning of the Christian message (IE: in such a way that the rest of the theology not involving it has to shift to accommodate it). If it doesn't, then yes, the debate is a legitimate one, and some semblance of logical analysis can take place. But if it does, then legitimate debate breaks down.
The reason for this should be apparent - on the assumption that it does, the meanings one employs when using the theology with and without Hell are equivocations of one another. The "Jesus" for whom salvation is about saving people from eternal damnation is considerably different from the "Jesus" for whom it is decidedly not. In order for discussion to proceed, one must adopt the meanings of one or the other as canonical to the particular debate. Except once we accept one "Jesus" or the other within the context of one theology or the other, the matter at hand (namely, whether or not hell exists) has been resolved.
The only possibilities at hand are to demonstrate that one of the positions is somehow logically inconsistent where the other is not, or to engage in practical reasoning for adopting one position over the other. The former option is notoriously brick-walled, since the logic appropriate for theological discourse seems to shift according to the prior theological structures we think as granting meaning to the rules of deduction in question ("God is not contradictory, as contradiction doesn't apply at the logic of the divine", or "human logic isn't God's logic" etc.).
As for the latter, it ceases to be a metaphysical dispute, and is simply one over which perspective it is "better" teleologically to hold. In other words, the argument is no longer specifically about theology, but about general practical living, and the debate must be taken at this level; which, if we're to avoid an infinite regress, has to be taken independently of the theology. (One might argue that if practical living is done entirely independently of theology, theology is not going to be of much general use.)
To summarise, I think there is such a thing as being "too fundamental to be debated" - something whose use or absence has a knock-on effect on the semantics of the entire discussion. If we think Christianity is fundamental to practical living, and the presence or exclusion of Hell is fundamental to what Christianity is, then Hell must be an example of that notion.
That's neither condoning nor condemning it. The atheist solution is obvious - it contraposes, asserting that Christianity isn't fundamental to practical living. How the fundamentalist (whether positive or negative) proceeds is also obvious - it accepts the conclusion, Hell either is or is not, now stop asking questions. How a Christian who wants to think Hell is somehow an open question wants to proceed, however, I'm really not sure.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 35)
Comment number 36.
At 15:56 5th Mar 2011, _Ryan_ wrote:AboutFace- Humans can be pretty contemptible though. All hail the Doctrine of AboutFace: Hate, Hate, Hate. Ironic in a thread revolving around the concepts of Love & Hell don't you think
Complain about this comment (Comment number 36)
Comment number 37.
At 17:53 5th Mar 2011, Heliopolitan wrote:Oh, I can be quite open about my agenda - it's making people less stupid. Hell is a crazy concept, and if this is a further sign that some Christians are moving in the direction of sensible liberal views, then that is to be welcomed. The arguments with the fundie bibliolaters will not end in a mealy-mouthed compromise, but in a widening of the split, and I certainly hope that many more liberals can be saved to the Heaven of Humanism.
There ya go, LSV - explicit enough for ya?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 37)
Comment number 38.
At 17:54 5th Mar 2011, Andrew wrote:PaulR
I think my point extends to both aspects of the discussion. What I'm considering is the question of whether the addition or removal of the notion of Hell considerably alters the meaning of the Christian message (IE: in such a way that the rest of the theology not involving it has to shift to accommodate it). If it doesn't, then yes, the debate is a legitimate one, and some semblance of logical analysis can take place. But if it does, then legitimate debate breaks down.
Taking my cues from here and a couple of other things said in previous comments, this very much depends.
There are different notions of hell, there are different notions of universalism. The extent of the revision will largely depend on where someone falls on these different notions. And the extent of the revision will determine the likelihood of equivocation in the debate. When Bell talks about God's love he means such and such but when Piper talks about God's love he means something else.
The possibility, even the strong possibility, of equivocation does not make the debate illegitimate. Audience should be considered, motivation should be considered. Justin Taylor, for one, was not trying to persuade Bell he is heterodox, at least primarily. Bell is identified as an evangelical, a constituency with which Taylor, who runs a premier Christian blog, is also identified. I would suggest his concern was largely pastoral, he is speaking to an audience who will understand his words, who will understand Bell's departure. An audience and constituency which they both apparently share.
I was recently reading through an e-book by Carl Trueman on evangelicalism 'The real scandal of the evangelical mind'. In this book Trueman sets out to show that evangelicalism is a sort of nebulous term that doesn't really mean anything. In illustrating his point he tells an anecdote about attending a Christian conference, and at one point the attendees were broken up into discussion groups by their respective 'traditions'. So there was the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox and the Evangelicals. Now Trueman is confessionally Reformed, a history prof at Westminster Theological Seminary and an ordained elder in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. In his discussion group, he finds himself with an open theist and a like-minded Presbyterian. So Trueman sits back and waits for the fireworks, which explode in due course. At one point the Presbyterian says to the Open Theist they have little in common to which he replies "But surely we can agree that we both love Jesus?". Trueman goes on to comment:
I was tempted to pipe up, "Yes, you both do; it's just a shame you don't agree on who He was or what He did." Instead I stayed politely silent and allowed my eyes to wander to other areas of the room - to the Catholic group and the Orthodox group, where I realised that strange to tell, I had more in common with some members of each of those than I did with the radical Arminian". So why was I in this group?
I'd be tempted to say the same when it comes to Bell.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 38)
Comment number 39.
At 18:37 5th Mar 2011, logica_sine_vanitate wrote:PaulR (@ 35) -
I can appreciate that the doctrine of eternal damnation is fundamental to a particular theological position, and therefore to question this doctrine is to subvert the conceptual foundations which support the definitions of key doctrinal terms. You are right in saying that this doctrine has a direct effect on how we define "Jesus", by which I understand "the character and purposes of God". But this is all the more reason to debate the issue.
The notion of condemnation involves far more than simply the idea of some people suffering eternal torment. There is a legitimate debate among those who subscribe to some form of eternal judgment concerning the reasons why God condemns certain people, and this debate has a direct bearing on our understanding of the character of God. Those who believe in 'hell' - according to all its various interpretations - are not a homogeneous group. The conceptual differences between the members of this 'credal community' (for want of a better term) are not subtle, but deeply profound. Concerning such people, on the one hand, and universalists, on the other, it is not a matter of two sides glaring at each other over a theological Grand Canyon, but rather a mix of people 'changing partners' on the dance floor when a different doctrinal tune is being played.
I explained (very briefly and in a way that admittedly requires rather more explanation) in post #3 of this thread how I understand the notion of hell. I put the same point here. This is a radically different understanding of hell from the idea that "everybody deserves to go to hell because of the fall of Adam, and thence the inherited sin nature of every one of his descendents". The infralapsarian Calvinists cling to this notion to attempt to justify God's decree to 'pass over' certain people; the supralapsarian Calvinists, of course, claiming that God actually wants people to go to hell. Both forms of Calvinism actually amount to the same thing: God desires for some people to be damned.
The so-called Arminians may hold to the same 'damnation default' theology, but they try to soften it by introducing an element - albeit extremely fleeting - of hope for all people, but depending on whether such people have been lucky enough to 'hear the gospel' and somehow have sufficient reason to believe it so as to respond to it. There are, of course, various degrees of 'hope' within this Arminian construct (for example, the concept of 'an age of accountability' is assumed to allow for the non-condemnation of children under a certain age).
I totally and utterly reject this idea of 'damnation by default'. To bracket me - a non-universalist - with those who hold to this idea, is something that I would resent. There is a world of difference between the character of a God who starts by accepting someone, but that person then chooses to reject the love of God (and thus condemns himself) and the character of a God who starts by rejecting someone because of the sin of another person. This is no subtle difference, but is absolutely fundamental. In fact, I would say that I am nearer to the universalist than I am to those who hold to the 'damnation by default' doctrine - even though I am not actually a universalist. (I am not a universalist, since I believe that the love of God can be rejected - a rejection which defines the concept of 'evil').
"...the logic appropriate for theological discourse seems to shift according to the prior theological structures we think as granting meaning to the rules of deduction in question ("God is not contradictory, as contradiction doesn't apply at the logic of the divine", or "human logic isn't God's logic" etc.)."
That is an epistemological point you are making that may be characteristic of certain Christians, but is certainly not true of all of us. As I have argued repeatedly on this blog, it is only the rational mind of God which gives any validity to human logic (certainly the philosophy of materialism provides no basis for the validity of reason), and therefore it is self-contradictory to impute irrationality (i.e. humanly perceived irrationality) to God. Logic is logic whether human or divine.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 39)
Comment number 40.
At 21:19 5th Mar 2011, paul james wrote:From Professor Peter Gomes (William's previous post)
"Religion is a human construct not a divine construct"
This is perfectly illustrated by the entirely man made concept of Hell which was unknown in the old testament but used to propel a fledging cult through the trauma of Roman occupation and rule. Inspire your devotees to accept suffering in this world for reward in the next with the added bonus of smugly overseeing the eternal damnation of your enemies.
Nice evolutionary strategy!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 40)
Comment number 41.
At 22:18 5th Mar 2011, PeterM wrote:Perhaps a debate like this can only ever make sense if we begin with the concept of human identity being rooted in God.
BTW, however reformed my theology, this 'farewell' tweet business is in bad taste.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 41)
Comment number 42.
At 22:33 5th Mar 2011, Will_Crawley wrote:On religion as a human construct, not a divine construct:
I heard Peter Gomes say that in his debate with Hitchens. Hitchens then replied that he could now rest his case. I think he misunderstood Gomes's point. Gomes wasn't arguing that God was a human construct.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 42)
Comment number 43.
At 22:39 5th Mar 2011, Andrew wrote:Peter
BTW, however reformed my theology, this 'farewell' tweet business is in bad taste
Absolutely agree. Twitter might have its place but this isn't it.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 43)
Comment number 44.
At 23:11 5th Mar 2011, Eunice wrote:PM2 **Perhaps a debate like this can only ever make sense if we begin with the concept of human identity being rooted in God.**
Agree PM2 that human identity is rooted in God, in love.
William - agree the 2 are very different. Religion being a human construct does not in any way mean that God is a human construct. As I mentioned somewhere else - religion as it is understood today divides and separates people and thus is not from God. How could an all-loving God create something that fundamentally separates his sons?? Religion along with culture and nationalism are false pillars that perpetuate separation and division amongst the one humanity. They are not likely to fall anytime soon though! :-)
Complain about this comment (Comment number 44)
Comment number 45.
At 23:44 5th Mar 2011, logica_sine_vanitate wrote:'Religion' and 'God' are, of course, completely different, but I can understand why an atheist would confuse them. He would assume (always fatal to make assumptions, isn't it?) that theists are simply making it up ("and they know they are", hence Helio's frequent comments along this line, this being a typical example), and that 'God' is just a construct to provide some kind of intellectual cotton wool padding to make reality a bit more palatable.
It is pretty obvious what Gomes was talking about, but, as I say, it doesn't surprise me that Hitchens misunderstood him.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 45)
Comment number 46.
At 23:56 5th Mar 2011, paul james wrote:Will@42
With Gomes conceding that religion is a human construct I assumed Hitchens could rest his case on "How Religion Poisons Everthing."
Complain about this comment (Comment number 46)
Comment number 47.
At 11:32 6th Mar 2011, Eunice wrote:Here is a link relevant to this thread by someone who has read the book and says that Bell does believe in hell (but does not say what that hell is) and that in his view he (bell) may not be a universalist....
https://www.gregboyd.org/blog/rob-bell-is-not-a-universalist-and-i-actually-read-love-wins/
Complain about this comment (Comment number 47)
Comment number 48.
At 15:16 6th Mar 2011, _Ryan_ wrote:Interesting read Eunice. It seems all his detractors have done is expand the reach of the book while raising the profile of the author within Evangelicalism - I'd never heard of him until now
Complain about this comment (Comment number 48)
Comment number 49.
At 17:34 6th Mar 2011, newlach wrote:Will wrote (27) in response to AboutFace:
"To you, this is as pointless a discussion as a debate about the existence of pixies."
I read something by AC Grayling today about fairies that surprised me. He writes:
"Most people, though, forget that belief in fairies was widespread until the beginning of the twentieth century; the Church fought a long hard battle against this competitor superstition, and won, largely because - you guessed it - of the infant and primary church schools founded in the second half of the nineteenth century."
People can believe a lot of nonsense!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 49)
Comment number 50.
At 17:48 6th Mar 2011, Andrew wrote:Newlach:
I read something by AC Grayling today about fairies that surprised me.
Does he have anything surprising to say about pixies?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 50)
Comment number 51.
At 18:17 6th Mar 2011, logica_sine_vanitate wrote:newlach (@ 49) -
"Most people, though, forget that belief in fairies was widespread until the beginning of the twentieth century; the Church fought a long hard battle against this competitor superstition, and won, largely because - you guessed it - of the infant and primary church schools founded in the second half of the nineteenth century."
I'm not quite sure of the point you're trying to make here, but since the quote is from AC Grayling (and yes, I've read his rather poorly reasoned article peppered with highly selective examples), let me guess: it's a dig at church schools - and, presumably by extension, at faith schools.
Now if the Church had encouraged belief in fairies, it would have been condemned.
If the Church discourages belief in fairies, it is also condemned, because they are supposedly replacing one superstition with another.
If church schools discourage belief in fairies, then they are condemned (instead of being commended by those who also disbelieve in fairies), because they are 'church' schools, instead of schools in the great tradition of Mr Darwin.
Sounds like the Church can't win!
It sounds to me as though Grayling is insinuating that the only legitimate way to discourage belief in fairies is by promoting the philosophy of naturalism. Well, I think 'insinuating' is too weak a word, as it is blatantly obvious what he is saying in his article.
Ergo... faith schools should be replaced by 'atheism schools' (in other words, by another form of 'faith school'). What other logical conclusion can one possibly draw from Grayling's comment?
And that is why we call such people fundamentalists, as they are preaching a form of faith and dogmatism (since the philosophy of naturalism is both unproven and unprovable). Therefore the conclusion of Grayling's article ("Can an atheist be a fundamentalist?") is a non sequitur.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 51)
Comment number 52.
At 18:20 6th Mar 2011, newlach wrote:Nothing would surprise me about pixies - naughty little things that they are!
But here is something else I read today on Wiki on the subject of pixies:
"In modern use, the term can be synonymous with fairies or sprites."
Complain about this comment (Comment number 52)
Comment number 53.
At 18:30 6th Mar 2011, Andrew wrote:But here is something else I read today on Wiki on the subject of pixies: "In modern use, the term can be synonymous with fairies or sprites."
I read that today too.
I suppose it depends whether Grayling is using the term 'fairies' in its historical context.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 53)
Comment number 54.
At 19:39 6th Mar 2011, paul james wrote:Exactly LSV, I for one welcome the benefits of Madrasah to the educational system.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 54)
Comment number 55.
At 20:25 6th Mar 2011, logica_sine_vanitate wrote:paul james -
"Exactly LSV, I for one welcome the benefits of Madrasah to the educational system."
Well, why not? If nature produced Islam, then nature obviously knew what it was doing. And who are we to question the decisions of nature?
How about that for a neat naturalistic explanation?!
In other words, make a silly comment, expect a silly answer.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 55)
Comment number 56.
At 21:03 6th Mar 2011, newlach wrote:LSV
Grayling does make the point that three-quarters of Church of England schools are primary schools, but I think he would object to schools being established at taxpayers expense to promote atheism. I think he would probably prefer schools to concentrate on providing a good education to pupils without privileging the supernatural.
Schools that are not of religious character do not participate in collective worship to some big "A" or something in the assembly hall.
Perhaps, somewhere, there is some crank who would like atheism to be worshipped. There might even be some who would think it better to nail some poor chap to the "A" for effect!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 56)
Comment number 57.
At 21:18 6th Mar 2011, paul james wrote:Yes!yes! and you could be visiting Professor of Faerieology.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 57)
Comment number 58.
At 21:26 6th Mar 2011, _Ryan_ wrote:"There might even be some who would think it better to nail some poor chap to the "A" for effect!"
Dawkins perhaps? :p thats's a joke in case anyone thinks I'm being serious;)
Complain about this comment (Comment number 58)
Comment number 59.
At 21:34 6th Mar 2011, paul james wrote:@57
For LSV obviously
Complain about this comment (Comment number 59)
Comment number 60.
At 03:57 7th Mar 2011, KenSilva wrote:I can tell you sources inside MHBC that there is a growing concern from some at MHBC about Bell's book: https://tiny.cc/l23aj
Complain about this comment (Comment number 60)
Comment number 61.
At 11:20 7th Mar 2011, realchange2010 wrote:Based on his comments in the video clip Rob Bell continues to be ignorant of God’s supreme attribute – His HOLINESS and in the light of that the words of Habbakuk 1:13 are relevant “Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil and canst not look upon iniquity” and so at the final judgment there will be a separation between God’s elect and the reprobate as we learn in Revelation 21:27 “And there shall in no way enter into it (eternal glory) anything that defileth, neither he that worketh abomination or maketh a lie but they who are written in the Lamb’s book of life”. Revelation 22:14-15 again confirms this separation “Blessed are they that wash their robes that they may have right to the tree of life and may enter in through the gates into the city. For OUTSIDE are dogs, and sorcerers, and fornicators, and murderers, and idolaters and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie”. Mr Bell should perhaps take particular note of the last 6 words I have just quoted. The governing theme of the Bible is not so much 'Love Wins' but that 'Holiness Rules'
Complain about this comment (Comment number 61)
Comment number 62.
At 12:59 7th Mar 2011, logica_sine_vanitate wrote:realchange2010 (@ 61) -
"Revelation 22:14-15 again confirms this separation “Blessed are they that wash their robes that they may have right to the tree of life and may enter in through the gates into the city. For OUTSIDE are dogs, and sorcerers, and fornicators, and murderers, and idolaters and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie”. Mr Bell should perhaps take particular note of the last 6 words I have just quoted. The governing theme of the Bible is not so much 'Love Wins' but that 'Holiness Rules'"
Who am I to argue with the Bible, since I believe in the Bible? However, the Bible has to be interpreted correctly, and I notice that the quote from Revelation says "whosoever loveth and maketh a lie" (I love the way you feel the need to quote an ancient dialect!). Allow me to translate this into English: "whoever loves and makes a lie".
Note the word 'loves'! In other words, those who are condemned have made a clear CHOICE. Nothing to do with Calvinism. Nothing to do with "damnation by default on the basis of original sin" (which is a denial of choice). Nothing to do with a 'sin nature' that no one had any choice but to be born with. And everything to do with a wilful rejection of God's grace and love offered to ALL people.
Allow me to look further at the context: Revelation 21:6-8 -
"And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." (Quoted from the dearly beloved KJV: public domain. Emphasis mine.)
In other words, life is offered freely to all, and therefore it is understood - when the context is respected - that those who are then condemned have declined to receive this life freely offered.
Therefore the freely offered love and grace of God does win. In that sense, Rob Bell is absolutely correct. But that does not imply universalism, since there are those who, for reasons known only to themselves (probably a deep-seated pride nourished by a sense of grievance), hate that love, and reject it. Love has still 'won' even in the lives of the damned. But this 'love', far from being a joy, becomes the ultimate torment, from which there is no escape, since there is no other option available from God, other than love.
By the way... there is no contradiction between the 'love' of God and the 'holiness' of God. The God who is completely love (not half love or quarter love) is holy. 'Holiness' is often ill-defined anyway by many commentators, who assume that it is synonymous with a legalistic concept of righteousness, which justifies God damning people for even the smallest reason. Actually 'holiness' means 'being set apart for God' and therefore describes that which is entirely characteristic of God rather than man. Thus it closely relates to the grace of God, rather than the works of man. It certainly does not describe "the nasty or austere side of God which explains why God damns people"!!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 62)
Comment number 63.
At 14:21 7th Mar 2011, realchange2010 wrote:LSV - you wrote "Actually 'holiness' means 'being set apart for God' and therefore describes that which is entirely characteristic of God rather than man. Thus it closely relates to the grace of God, rather than the works of man. It certainly does not describe "the nasty or austere side of God which explains why God damns people"!!
According to Vine 'separated/set apart' is a derived meaning of Holy/Holiness and not the primary. The primary is amongst others "pure" as of course when applied to God as in Isaiah 6:3. God's other attributes such as love, mercy, wrath and justice can only be properly understood in the light of His perfect purity - His holiness. After Pharoah's armies were destroyed by His just judgment what attribute of God was extolled in Exodus 15:11 - "Who is like thee, glorious in holiness".
God's love in salvation is for His own as you read frequently in John 17 - to say as you did 'Love has still 'won' even in the lives of the damned'is shall I say a tortured viewpoint. Unless God according to His sovereign choice intervened in the lives of His elect they would have likewise perished because their natural state was just like the reprobate as described in John 3:19-21
Complain about this comment (Comment number 63)
Comment number 64.
At 14:23 7th Mar 2011, mscracker wrote:23. At 9:50pm on 04 Mar 2011, Eunice wrote:
"Ms Cracker - thanks for your comments.
I appreciate you follow the bible and hence you 'believe' in hell.
But what if there is no such place - other than the hell we create when we live in separation to God's love?
Why would an all-loving God send people to hell?
TO my understanding and experience - God loves all equally and does not judge nor condemn anyone - the latter 2 being human features and not divine. "
Dear Eunice,
What we hear in homilies at our church is that we, through our choices, separate ourselves from God's love & can ultimately reject His mercy & forgiveness.We are not so much sent to Hell by God, but rather by ourselves.
It's a little bit like what you are saying.I think we disagree on the existance of an eternal Hell but might agree on how folks would get there-if it existed. :)
Complain about this comment (Comment number 64)
Comment number 65.
At 19:04 7th Mar 2011, logica_sine_vanitate wrote:realchange2010 (@ 63) -
Thanks for your response.
The Hebrew verb from which 'holiness' is derived (qadash / qadesh) does indeed denote 'purity' in its root meaning (although the correct meanings of words are defined by usage and context not by etymology). But I fail to see how you can set the concept of 'purity' against - or in distinction to - the concept of 'love'. The Bible explains that it is 'love' which actually defines what we understand by righteousness:
Matthew 22: 36-40 - "Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
Romans 13: 8-10 - "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."
So it is not possible for someone to be 'pure' and therefore 'holy' in the sight of God who does not love. This is further emphasised by 1 John 4:8 - "He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love."
Does God only love his own people? Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that 'love' can only be realised in the lives of those who are willing to receive it (and it is in this sense only that the Bible refers to God 'hating' the wicked). No, in the sense that God's perfect character is love, and therefore is relevant for all people. If you don't accept this latter point then how do you understand Matthew 5:43-48 where Jesus refers to the perfection of God (v. 48) to command us that we love our enemies. It is no good saying that God's love for His enemies extends only to sending a bit of rain and sun on them for their short lives on earth. Controlling the climate is not the primary manifestation of the perfection of God's character!
"...to say as you did 'Love has still 'won' even in the lives of the damned'is shall I say a tortured viewpoint."
No, not a tortured viewpoint at all! In fact, it is the only logical viewpoint.
The Bible tells us clearly that 'God is love' (1 John 4:8) and also that 'God is a consuming fire' (Hebrews 12:29). It is doing violence to the biblical text to suggest that 'love' only describes part of God's character. The Bible manifestly does not say that 'God is half love'.
What do you understand by the concept of 'evil'? Since 'love' defines what righteousness is, as I have shown, is it not therefore obvious that evil involves a deep-seated rejection and hatred of the love of God? If an unrepentent evil person is exposed to the love of God will he feel comfortable? Will he experience peace? Joy? Freedom? Of course not! There can be no greater hell than the love of God towards the person who despises and rejects it.
If what I am saying is not true, then we would have to accept that there is no fundamental spiritual difference between the redeemed person and the reprobate. In that view we would have to say that both long for the love of God, but the only difference is that God deliberately withholds his love from the latter. This is arrant nonsense, and makes a mockery of the reality of the new life effected by salvation.
The very passage you quoted from John 3 refutes this idea:
"And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."
It is clear that those who are condemned are not condemned because of the so called 'original sin' construct or some other state of affairs forced on them, but because of their own wilful rejection of the grace and love of God offered to them. This 'light' is the reality of the love of God which these people hate.
How do you explain Revelation 14:10, where it talks about the damned being tormented "in the presence of the Lamb" - a clear reference to Christ crucified, the one through whom God revealed His love to the world? These people are being tortured in the presence of the love of God!
Finally, in Revelation 4:8 God is worshipped in heaven with the words 'holy, holy, holy'. If holiness describes the 'hatred' of God for some people, then does that not suggest that heaven is a place of overwhelming hatred and vengeance towards a section of the human race? Is that your idea of bliss? Is heaven a place of eternal gloating and sadism? That sounds more like hell to me!
(KJV version quoted: public domain)
Complain about this comment (Comment number 65)
Comment number 66.
At 21:38 7th Mar 2011, AboutFace wrote:Interesting article on said "Twitter war":
"And now [his critics] are saying the same thing to Bell: “If you disagree with us, you disagree with God.”
I’ve always thought that this identification of one’s own views with God’s, especially when paired with avowals of piety and submission to God’s word, offers a good working definition of religious fanaticism. Fanatics, on this understanding, are those who combine two things. First, they embrace an unquestioning submission to God’s word rooted in the idea that what appears foolish to mere humans may, from a divine perspective, not be foolish at all. To question God is arrogant, displaying too much faith in the power of the human intellect to discern the good. Out of humility they therefore refuse to question what they take to be God’s word.
...
There is, in fanaticism, a dangerous combination of humility and arrogance that hermetically seals fanatics from reason and evidence."
https://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4332/pastor_rob_bell_catches_hell_from_conservatives/
Complain about this comment (Comment number 66)
Comment number 67.
At 21:40 7th Mar 2011, Eunice wrote:LSV : *1 John 4:8 - "He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love." **
How true this is - hence why people who go looking for God with the mind, thinking/thought, psychology, cognitive blah blah will never find/know GOd - they are barking up the wrong tree! TO know love you have to feel with the (inner) heart.
So I would say God loves all - irrespective of their rejection of his love as you put it. All are holy and all are love but they do not live it and choose to separate from it - but the underlying or hidden love/holiness is present in all and can be revealed, lived, if chosen. (with a bit of work to clear all the not love that we have accumulated!!)
**The Bible tells us clearly that 'God is love' (1 John 4:8) and also that 'God is a consuming fire' (Hebrews 12:29).**
These are the same thing LSV : fire is the energy of divine love - it's not a bad thing it is what love is energetically. I know that might sound a bit wacky but there are lots of references (mystics etc) re fire being the love of God and it can be felt.
**is no fundamental spiritual difference between the redeemed person and the reprobate**
same for saint and sinner - one knows who he is and other remains ignorant of who he is - that is the difference.
Ms Cracker: agree it is by our choices that we separate from God - that creates hell on earth due to the consequences of our non-loving choices.......that we then seek to blame God or others for - when all along it is the consequence of our own choices....
Complain about this comment (Comment number 67)
Comment number 68.
At 08:48 13th Mar 2011, KnightShift wrote:For those who don't believe in Hell, I expect that you don't believe in God, or His inspired word in the Holy Bible......and that is fine, as God did give us all free will.....who are we in the Christian Church to try and convert you, your beliefs are your own, and you have every right to believe them....however, we do believe them, and we would appreciate a little respect for those of us who are believers. Everyone makes his, or her own destiny in this world, and everyone has his or her own opinion, so please don't tell us what to believe and what not to believe. We will continue to believe in God and our salvation through Jesus Christ, and those of you who believe that we are mad, well what is your opinion. Just remember one thing, those of us who believe in Heaven and Hell will not be changed by the opinions of those who don't.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 68)
Comment number 69.
At 09:32 13th Mar 2011, newlach wrote:68 KnightShift
I certainly would not be interested in preaching to the deluded. Are there not enough people doing that every Sunday already!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 69)
Comment number 70.
At 12:32 13th Mar 2011, logica_sine_vanitate wrote:KnightShift (@ 68) -
Thanks for your post.
"...we would appreciate a little respect for those of us who are believers."
A forlorn hope, I'm afraid, as the boringly predictable and very immature response from newlach in #69 reveals. The irrational nihilists can't show respect for believers, because, of course, they know they're wrong, as the trickery and dishonesty they show in debate reveals only too clearly.
"We will continue to believe in God and our salvation through Jesus Christ, and those of you who believe that we are mad, well what is your opinion. Just remember one thing, those of us who believe in Heaven and Hell will not be changed by the opinions of those who don't."
Exactly. As a Christian I am prepared to listen to the evidence and consider it, but since all the evidence I have ever seen points in one rather obvious direction (of course, thoroughly confirmed by my own experience), and since I have never seen any proper evidence (plenty of bogus 'evidence', mind you) that supports atheism, then there is little chance of my ever reconsidering my point of view.
As Christians we should, of course, be open to reason and debate (especially since 'reason' only makes logical sense within a theistic - i.e. 'intelligence' based - worldview), and that is why we should debate the question of the nature of hell and the precise reasons why some people may go there, which is what I have tried to do on this thread.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 70)
Comment number 71.
At 12:49 13th Mar 2011, AboutFace wrote:Guffaw!!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 71)
Comment number 72.
At 14:11 13th Mar 2011, newlach wrote:LSV
I'm not surprised that you describe my response as "very immature", but I think these words are more apt to describe the belief of those who claim that some agitator nailed to a cross over 2000 years ago died and came back to life.
As for the Virgin Birth. Well, some kids know how to spin a yarn!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 72)
Comment number 73.
At 19:02 13th Mar 2011, Dagsannr wrote:LSV thinks that by projecting himself into a post, but ascribing the description to atheists he'll convince other people of the same.
It's a shame. At the start his posts were quite creative.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 73)
Comment number 74.
At 19:46 13th Mar 2011, paul james wrote:knightshift
define "a little respect"
Complain about this comment (Comment number 74)
Comment number 75.
At 13:50 14th Mar 2011, The Enquirer wrote:The history of religion has always involved a constant re-labelling due to departure from orthodoxy. Christianity had to be re-labelled "orthodoxy" or "catholicism" due to heresy.
Then the Orthodox Catholic and Churches departed from the faith, and true religion had to be re-labelled Protestantism.
Then various Protestant churches departed from the faith, and true religion had to be re-labelled Evangelicalism.
Then some so-called Evangelicals called themselves Liberal Evangelicals and departed from the faith, and soem who professed the true religion re-labelled Fundamentalism.
The so-called Liberal Evangelicals decided to stick with Liberalism, so we were back to Evangelicalism.
If a bunch of so-called Evangelicals decide to deny the beliefs of what defines Evangelicalism, then it isn't a battle between Evangelicals. They have just become Liberals. Let's call a spade a spade. Otherwise we'll run out of terms.
The faith once delivered to the saints hasn't changed. The clear teaching of the Bible remains the same. People just keep claiming to be Christian while denying what Christ taught.
It is highly irrational to hear the same old refrain "Nobody but Evangelicals believes that." And that makes it untrue?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 75)
Comment number 76.
At 22:12 14th Mar 2011, Andrew wrote:Here's a [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]link to other links for some good resources critical of univeralism.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 76)
Comment number 77.
At 12:41 19th Mar 2011, logica_sine_vanitate wrote:About twenty minutes ago I started reading 'Love Wins', since at long last the book has been published and delivered to my humble abode. So a sensible discussion can now begin...
Here's a little taster from p.9 (UK edition):
"Often times when I meet atheists and we talk about the god they don't believe in, we quickly discover that I don't believe in that god either."
More anon...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 77)
Comment number 78.
At 13:27 19th Mar 2011, Dagsannr wrote:Everyone is an a-fairy-ist or an a-unicorn-ist and are even an atheist about 99.999% of all gods that humanity has ever invented.
Some of us just go one god further.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 78)
Comment number 79.
At 14:29 19th Mar 2011, logica_sine_vanitate wrote:First piece of evidence from 'Love Wins' that suggests that Rob Bell is not a universalist:
"A racist would be miserable in the world to come." (p.34)
Of course, he may contradict himself later on in the book (I wouldn't know, as I haven't got that far yet), but on the basis of this quote we have to conclude that he is asserting that if a racist refuses to repent of his racism, then "he will be miserable in the world to come". Hence, there is the possibility of misery in the "world to come", ergo Rob Bell is affirming the concept of 'hell' and the possibility that some people may go there, through their own deliberate fault.
On we go...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 79)
Comment number 80.
At 18:30 19th Mar 2011, PeterM wrote:Natman # 78
The odd thing about trotting out the old unicorn comment (sorry) is that there seem to be some people around who are quite happy to pretend in their imaginers in other stuff with no tangible existence as it helps give some meaning to their lives.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 80)
Comment number 81.
At 19:43 19th Mar 2011, Andrew wrote:Everyone is a sceptic about one proposition and are maybe even sceptical about 99.999% of all propositions that humanity has ever uttered.
Alethic sceptics just go one proposition further...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 81)
Comment number 82.
At 18:01 20th Mar 2011, logica_sine_vanitate wrote:In 'Love Wins' Rob Bell devotes a whole chapter to the Parable of the Prodigal Son, and he makes the following point concerning the bitter attitude of the elder son:
"Hell is being at the party. That's what makes it so hellish.
It's not an image of separation, but one of integration.
In this story, heaven and hell are within each other, intertwined, interwoven, bumping up against each other." (pp. 169-170)
So clearly Rob Bell believes in a form of 'hell'. This is exactly the idea of 'hell' that I believe in. The love of God itself is 'hell' to the person who rejects it. This is not universalism at all, but an interpretation of the hell that is very real.
Although there are parts of this book that could be interpreted as an argument for universalism - mainly quotations from the Bible concerning God's plan to restore all things and reconcile all things to himself - these comments have to be understood in the context of Bell's unequivocal affirmation of human free will.
"If we want hell, if we want heaven, they are ours. That's how love works. It can't be forced, manipulated or coerced." (pp. 118-119)
Therefore there is no way that this book is promoting universalism. In fact, I agree with virtually everything he says, and it is a rare pleasure to read a Christian book that doesn't wind me up (as most of them do).
If anyone else has managed to read the book, I would be interested in your take on it.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 82)
Comment number 83.
At 18:22 20th Mar 2011, Andrew wrote:LSV
What does Bell say on post-mortem salvation?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 83)
Comment number 84.
At 19:09 20th Mar 2011, logica_sine_vanitate wrote:Andrew (@ 83) -
"What does Bell say on post-mortem salvation?"
He affirms it, which is not the same as suggesting that it is inevitable that everyone will ultimately be saved, because the issue is dependent on human free will, not some cut-and-dried arrangement set in place by God. Here's a relevant quote:
"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."
He then makes an observation about this arrangement, which concerns the character of God:
"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..."
He then suggests that if an earthly father was this volatile and fickle we would contact child protection services immediately. Such a God could not possibly be trusted, who was full of love one moment, and then just at the point of death of the 'unbeliever' he morphs into the exact opposite: "Does God become somebody totally different the moment you die?"
It is clear that, for Bell (and for me, as it happens) heaven and hell describe the experience of those who either accept or reject the love of God. So the legalistic question of when 'too late' is, is considered an irrelevance.
All through the book Bell criticises legalistic schemes of salvation (by which I don't mean 'salvation by works' necessarily but rather 'salvation by believing the correct prescribed doctrines'), and looks at the nature of salvation at a deeper - and more spiritual - level.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 84)
Comment number 85.
At 23:26 20th Mar 2011, Andrew wrote:I can't say that I agree.
Maybe I'll read the book. Not sure yet if I will, more pressing things to be read.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 85)
Comment number 86.
At 00:35 21st Mar 2011, logica_sine_vanitate wrote:Andrew -
'Love Wins' is written in a very popular style, and in places the layout makes some of the text look like a poem. Bell makes many of his points through asking searching questions, so I don't think he is offering a systematic theology. He is clearly encouraging the reader to think for himself (which is rather unusual for a Christian book, it has to be said).
However, the issues that this book raises are not going to go away, if the sales are anything to go by. It is #4 at Amazon.com and #50 at Amazon.co.uk (which is rather surprising for a Christian book in the UK). Admittedly the fact that it has just been published may boost the figures, since pre-publication sales would be included, but nevertheless these are impressive positions.
I hope that the ongoing debate surrounding this book will not be distorted by hasty and dismissive judgments, and unhelpful doctrinal labelling (a rather vain hope, I suggest, given much of the rhetoric directed at Bell - a point he actually makes in the book!). It is clear to me that Bell is not a universalist, and many of the points he raises from the Bible are perfectly valid - as valid as any points raised by those who would consider themselves orthodox evangelicals.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 86)