This entry was posted
on Friday, February 25th, 2011 at 12:01 am and is filed under It's Friday, Open Thread.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
146 Comments(+Add)
i love escher’s work. and this is a brilliant 3-D illusion.
The world teeters on chaos, but the idol of all times is about to come crashing down.
Money. Men’s hearts will fail because of fear but let His followers lift up their eyes; redemption draws nigh.
Rob BEll is finally out of the closet http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=21204
I already knew, it was obvious…but most people denied it. No more of that!
Nothing like writing a review of a book that one hasn’t read yet. Silva’s who spleen-venting seems to be based on one video.
I’m actually very excited to read Bell’s new book. Honestly, though, from what I’ve read about it so far (btw, this is actually old news by now), it seems like it will be heavily influenced by C.S. Lewis’ take on the subject.
phil i commend you for getting past that opening sentence.
the opening lines of that rant reminds me of a junior higher who needs to write a composition consisting of a certain number of words – yet he only has 25% of the required amount when finished – so he just pads it with 75% fluff, name-calling, and irrelevant references.
i understand how odm’s write reviews for things they have not read or seen or experienced… we see them do that all the time… but how can one review a book that has not been released yet?
or has it?
i wonder if this will be actual news, or will it pan out like warren’s prayer for obama – just a lot of hyped expectation followed by ruptured dishonest word-smithing after the fact.
There is more enough evidence that this is just the logical conclusion of Rob Bell’s theological evolution.
“Is it? Could it be? Really? Maybe?
What you’ve been taught is soooo wrong. I am here to enlighten you.”
Rob Bell
Perhaps it was in bad taste to place a note upon a painting about Gandhi, but Bell openly suggests that an unbeliever like Gandhi may not be in hell. The writers here have every right to like Bell and his theology.
What they do not have is the right to change what he openly teaches. To no one’s surprise the choir comes out and without a shred of concern, resists the temptation to honestly to question what Bell is teaching.
If Chad Holtz had made the same video he would have been roundly condemned. It’s not what you know, it’s who you know.
all we have sung is the need to wait until the book actually comes out – before judging it.
that said, the fact that you still think we speak as one voice and never show concern for false teaching is truly mind-boggling.
but apparently if there is not unified condemnation of something – it is assumed we approve.
frankly, this is old news.
I haven’t read any of Bell’s new book yet, but I plan to when it comes out. Even if he did come out a full-blown universalist (which I kind of doubt), it still doesn’t negate the good things he has said.
The thing is I do believe there is such a thing as false teaching and false teachers, but where I am now is that I actually think that types of Christianity that attempt to limit the grace and love of God to a select few are much more in error than some types of universalism (and, please notice I said some types).
What is worse someone who is a universalist but exhibits the fruits of the Spirit in his life or someone who isn’t but is mean as a snake? Personally, I know who I’d rather hang around.
Not a condemning, but at least some oevert concern. Just the video is enough evidnece for concern if you are impartial.
This is exactly what I was addressing some threads ago. Not doctrinal hair splitting, but when someone is crlssless and openly compromises the personal exculsivity of Christ there should be some concern.
You are correct, this continues to be old news.
What kind of God is it that Jesus must rescue us from? – Rob Bell
How about this one?
And yet God is love. However the mystery is no as great as some would try to paint it.
There is no reverential respect of God in their eyes. No rightful meditation on the holiness of God, the righteousness of God, the otherness of God and what happens when that comes in to contact with sin (myself included).
Love, mercy
Holiness, justiceThere. fixed!
It is n’t just the universalist part. I believe a person can be saved and be a universalist. Its the lack of the gospel message or the change of the same.
Gandhi exibited the “fruits of the Spirit” but they were just facimiles that ultimately glorified him and his teachings and not the Lord Jesus.
No reverential respect? I don’t know about that. I still think that approaching God with such an attitude is antithetical to grace. Even though God is God, I don’t believe it’s possible for Him to live out two logically exclusive actions at the same time. He cannot love us, forgive us, and have grace for us while still holding our sins against us at the same time. I’ve met many Christians (heck, I used to be one of them) who live in a continual fear that the other shoe will drop, and eventually God will get what is due Him. It’s not surprising so many people view the Father in such a way given the He is often portrayed. If God wanted to kill me once, what’s to prevent Him from feeling that way again?
So yes only God has the right to destroy our souls, and the fact that He could is something worth considering. But the fact is when we look at God, we are told to look at Jesus. That is who God is. That is what He wants us to know about Him. The Father is setting the world right through ways we can’t imagine. I think many of us just would prefer that He come and wipe out all injustice, pain, and suffering out in one foul swoop. The thing about that is that the casualties would be horrendous. I tend to think the Father is abundantly patient with humanity because of His great mercy and love for us. In the end when we look back I have a feeling that we will be amazed at the Father’s skill and handiwork in bringing Creation back to the way He intended it.
” I have a feeling ”
Irrelevant.
people over estimate the importance/influence of people.
agreed – assuming i know what crisslless is supposed to be… but silence is not necessarily acceptance.
i, for one, have no idea what video you are talking about. nor do i make it my business to patrol the teachings of other pastors.
what you have to say about bell (and wright and warren and kimball) is irrelevant. you have sufficiently proven yourself untrustworthy regarding him (and them).
until you acknowledge your false teachings regarding bell on the virgin birth, wright on justification by faith, warren not praying in the name of jesus, and kimbal not being a brother in christ – you are more than irrelevant, you are unrtrustworthy to comment further.
[this comment should not be taken as an endorsement of any of the men mentioned]
Neil, you are so intolerant.
Regarding Bell’s new book, it’s probably mentioning that it’s endorsed by Eugene Peterson and Greg Boyd (among others). Neither of those guys are universalists, so that’s one big reason why I would be surprised if Bell ends up endorsing something like full-blown universalism in the book.
Endorsing someone’s book is one hand washing another hand. What do I care who endorses what?
Again, it is not Bell’s supposed universalism that is my main concern. It is is his cross-less theology.
when it comes to spreading false information about people – yes… yes i am.
if i thought you were just trolling, it could be written off as some form of twisted humor… but you apparently actually believe that bell denies the virgin birth, that wright denies justification by faith, and that warren prayed in the name of some pagan god.
it helps me with broad categories sometimes.
#22
I have shown multiple times from their own writings that all of them are true.
and the fact that you believe you have only adds to the tragedy of it all.
The problem with universalism is that it makes preaching the gospel moot. It implies that all religions as well as no religion eventually lead to Christ and eternal life.
And imaginative phrases like “Love wins” are usless as it applies to truth. How do you save someone with fear (Jude) if there is nothing to fear? And what does it mean to have a part in the lake which burns with fire? (Rev.21:8)
Abrasive and caustic are not the way of Jesus, but neither are whimsical and erudite when they are nothing more than philosophical musings.
So, Rick, would a better phrase be “Fear Wins”? No one is saying that in that one phrase you will find all theological applications of each passage of the Bible.
But the phrase “Love Wins,” besides just being “whimsical and erudite” actually packs a whole lot of the core of the gospel into a great phrase.
I’ve been “borrowing” it ever since I first heard it from Mars Hill over four years ago. I have the bumper sticker on my car. It is on my email signature. And it is on my blog.
Would you deny that the heart of the gospel is love?
The motivation of God is love. (Jn.3:16) But that is far different then suggesting subtly, then not so subtly, and finally openly that everyone and everything will be redeemed.
There are compelling and convincing arguments to be made on most spiritual propositions regardless of their Scriptural veracity. Sometimes error is more compelling than truth. So what are the ingredients for deception?
1. The person who is presenting a deception many times is a compelling and persuasive person himself. That always enhances the process.
2. It helps if the teacher is fully deceived and convinced of his own words.
3. The hearts of the listeners must be open for deception. That state can occur by many methods including the charismatic nature of the teacher, however a desire for something new combined with an agitation about the same old thing (your father’s religion) are a major component of opening a heart for deception.
BTW – John Lennon believed love wins as well.
All You Need is Love.
Is there any account in the gospels of Jesus attempting to get people to follow Him based on inciting their fears? There’s none that I can think of.
I would say fear of death is the natural human state. Some may claim to not have it, but I’m somewhat dubious of those claims. Christ comes and tells us that we need not fear death or those that will kill us. Paul said that all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. So, God isn’t sitting and waiting to take advantage of our fears. He’s there to defeat them.
You do realize that you’re still arguing against a book that has not even been released yet, right?
He has not said ” finally openly that everyone and everything will be redeemed.” Although the apostle Paul said something similar in Colossians 1:20.
And to compare a proven Christian pastor to John Lennon because they both used the same word is just plain silly.
I think the problem is that some folks are just salivating at the fact that Bell might be ‘wrong’ so they can delight in their own being ‘right.’ See #3 for evidence.
I trust and respect Peterson (which is why it does matter who endorses a book; if John Piper or DA Carson had endorsed it, some folks would be whooping it up). But–and this is important–I don’t need him to think for me. When the book comes out, I will read it (maybe; to this day I’ve only read one of Bell’s books and I found it imaginative and theological, but not necessarily orthodox in any of the strictest 1800’s modernist ways that delight some folks. Still, it wasn’t heretical.)
After I have read it, I will make a decision of its worthiness. I tend to mine books for truth, insight, and a word from the Spirit. I tend not to swallow them whole. That might be the approach we need to take with this book.
Sometimes an endorsement blurb on a book simply means, “Hey, you should read this even if you disagree because it will make you think about your own position and cause you to return to Scripture.” I recall Peterson endorsed The Shack. Having read most of Peterson’s work, and having a good idea of this theological perspective, I can safely say his endorsement didn’t mean he agreed with everything in The Shack.
Finally, even if we humans come to the conclusion that universalism is a good idea or even a biblical one, that doesn’t necessarily mean that God is a universalist.
Have a great day all. I’m off to sell pieces of magnetized plastic in plastic boxes and hope all day that the Lord soon calls me back to the pulpit.
jerry
Yeah, I can’t really think of a book where I would say “I agree with absolutely everything in this book”. I recommend people read books simply so it makes them think. I am really upset by the lack of critical thought in the church more than anything, so anything that spurs people on in that area has some worth to me.
” I can’t really think of a book where I would say “I agree with absolutely everything in this book”.”
I can. The Bible.
Frankly, anyone who has passed judgment on this book already doesn’t have the discernment to be trusted to tell us that the sun rises in the east without checking the next morning.
#35 well, I have observed, over 45 years, that the Sun doe so consistently.
I have, since Velvet Elvis, Rob Bell drifiting towards rejection of the scripture and Universalistic tendencies. The video departs from Christianity even further. Even if this is 1/10th of the book, it is false teaching. Rob Bell is a cancer on the true Church.
Here’s a review from someone who’s actually read the book, and it seems pretty clear to me that the position Bell isn’t in anyway advocating a get-out-of-jail free universalism.
From the book:
So will all the Christians who are bashing a brother in Christ based on pure speculation apologize when they realize they were wrong? I’m not holding my breath…
I haven’t passed judgment upon anything but Rob Bell’s own words.
#37 – The quote you site is ambigous at best. I wait with baited breath to hear Bell’s views on the cross.
“This is why for thousands of years Christians have found the cross to be so central to life. It speaks to us of God’s suffering, God’s pain, God’s broken heart. It’s God making the first move and then waiting for our response.”
Rob Bell
I will prophetically go out on a limb and surmise nthat when all read Bell’s book there will be precious little about which some will disagree.
Just a guess.
#40 – he’s getting closer.
i expect it will create a blogoshere maelstrom for the following reasons.
it has already stirred up debate and it has not even been read.
bell writes with a provocative style. clearly he is more interested in provoking people to think than convincing a bunch of followers to agree with him.
there are hints that his view of hell is similar to c. s. lewis – and it’s one thing for a literature scholar to write metaphors, it is quite another for a pastor to take theological positions.
there will be those who twist his words to mean whatever they wish them to.
if it plays out that way – some will, of course… those who are worthy of respect…
but many will not. the whole virgin birth illustration in velvet elvis proves that what is said does not always matter.
if it plays out that he has become a universalist (christian or otherwise) i will be disappointed in him.
I’ve always wondered about this view. I have quite a few friends who are in ministry in one way or the other, and pretty much all of them feel the need to censor themselves at some level when it comes to sharing their real views on certain subjects. Isn’t this a really unhealthy thing? If Bell truly believes something should the fact that he’s a pastor prevent him from being true about his actual beliefs? Personally I’d rather just pastors say what they really believe rather than just tow the party line because they feel they need to.
speaking of disappointing:
what could macarthur possibly have been thinking with this: I’m Speechless How to Respond.
of course not, that is not what i meant. he should come forth with what he believes – to do otherwise would be dishonest.
i mean that an apologist, a literature scholar, a writer of metaphors has more latitude to speculate or even promote his ideas.
when a pastor speaks he carries the weight of his authority (and i know that statment may create it’s on twisted tangents), but he leads a church.
so my point was not to say bell, or any pastor should censor themselves. my point was to say that proposing a controversial theological tenent is more significant when coming from a pastor that from a fiction writer.
Thanks for the clarification, Neil. That makes sense.
Bell will continue to resist coming out clearly about what he believes.
McAuthur states it correctly however fails to make the connection to the American Revolution.
In other words, Pastor boy has judged Rob Bell as being guilty until proven not Rob Bell.
While this firestorm is being fuelled by his critics Rob Bell gets more and more publicity. I’m sure Harper Collins is very impressed with the success of their marketing strategy.
#51 – Welcome to the cultural evangelicalism in the west. If only Wesley had an agent he would have been rich..
It is possible to be a false teacher and still exhibit the qualities of Jesus outwardly. You know, the angel of light and all that.
#52–I guess we shouldn’t trust anyone then, and each of us should have our own private theological worlds.
Then we would all be safe from the wolves in sheep’s clothing.
Money always corrupts. If a preacher receives funds (usually large) from books, CDs, and conferences etc. he is compromised subtly and not so subtly. The “famous” western precaher no longer livs by faith or has to trust God for almost anything.
And contrary to Wesley, Whitefield, Edwards, Zwingli, and many others todays evangelical stars usually go where they are applauded and avoid places of danger or confrontation.
(And I sepak of all the different evangelical genres.)
no doubt
this is too generalized for me to agree. if a guy writes a popular book and gets paid for ti he is compromised? kind of a nasty dilemma – only writing books no one buys…
Another aspect of this post modern generation is that of influence. A writers style and creative imagery lends itself to more influence regardless of truth. And as an author gains a following, and as the bookstores hawk his books, there is a subliminal understanding that what he has to say is of greater worth than most others.
And as we consume more and more information from books etc., something comes to mind: Where is the corresponding and observable change that should validate someone’s time in reading/listening to them.
What I am suggesting is that we are informationally saturated (doctrine, etc.) and most of what we read is primarily for thought (someone here think that is a good thing) and for discussion.
Thought and discussion usually changes nothing.
Oddly enough, Rick, your last paragraph reminds me a lot of this Peter Rollins parable:
I should also note that I think it is a bit fallacious to talk about people making boatloads of money selling books. Really, only the biggest of bestsellers make a lot of money, and usually authors make more money from things associated with their books than the book sales themselves. Bell’s books probably sell well, and I don’t know what the actual numbers are, but I doubt he’s selling enough that he could actually make a living just on book sales. As far as the Nooma videos, I don’t believe he makes any money off of those.
Bell may earn some profit from his speaking tours, but again, I would bet he’d be lucky to make large amounts of money. It’s hard for semi-famous bands to break even touring anymore. Paying for the venues themselves eats up a good portion of the ticket costs.
#58 – I reject the comparison.
These are all fear-based calls to repentance / warnings.
Matt: 10-28 – “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Matt 5:29-30 – “If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.
Matt 7.21-23 -”Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’
Matt 12:30-32 – He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters. Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.
Matt 12-26-37 – “But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. “For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
Matt 13:40-42 “So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Matt 18:34-35 – “And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him. My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.”
Matt 24:50-51 – the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour which he does not know, and will cut him in pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Matt 24:46 -”These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
re 57 – exchange “books” for “blogs” and I would agree.
I would say that all of those are primarily directed to two groups of people – Jesus’ disciples or religious leaders such as the Pharisees. In other words, they are people who have some sort of relationship with Christ or the Father already. They are not warning towards pagans.
The closest thing I can think of in the NT as a fear-based warning to pagans is Paul’s speech in Athens in Acts 17. But even that reference is in passing, and it isn’t the main point of his sermon. Paul seems to have little interest in berating the pagans with warnings of hell. He is too busy proclaiming the good news of the Kingdom.
Fear of hell may be a means of getting someone to come to Christ. Unfortunately, some remain in this state as they follow Jesus.
But if love draws them to Christ, their reason for continuing to follow is because of love, not of fear. And their method of drawing others to Christ is tempered by love.
Just my $.02.
Gentlemen, why the false dilema? it is not an either/or proposition. Jesus both wooed and warned.
And let us not forget that the Holy Spirit then and now convicts of sin, righteousness (specifically the lack thereof) and judgement. Convictions of sin and judgement, by definition include warnings.
And also a “warning” is a positive thing, not a negative. Why are you are trying to make it such a negative. One only warns those he is concerend about, else who cares about their eternal destiny? “You’re going to burn, yay!” No, a warning indicates concern.
“Turn or Burn” evangelism, though distasteful to many, is based on love and concern for the eternal destiny of its audience. You make it sound like it’s just bashing on people for bashing’s sake.
Jesus wooed and He warned of hell. The Gentile vs. Jew vs. Pharisee audience distinction is moot. Does Jesus love the Pharisee less than the Gentile sinner? His harsh treatment and warnings to the Parisee’s were given out of love, not to be hateful. There are Pharisee’s among us today to whom His warnings still speak.
In my experience, those that are drawn to Christ this way often are quick to turn away. Fear is such a temporal emotion, and it’s very easy to manipulate someone to a fearful state. That’s why politicians find it so useful.
In many ways I see Christ actually speaking against fear rather than using it to His benefit. At the end of the account of the Sermon on the Mount in Luke, Jesus ends by saying “Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom.” Fear really has no place in the Kingdom.
It may be based on love, and perhaps I’m too cynical, but I’ve seen too many people taking (and inflating) head counts at altar calls to really trust their motives. I just find these types of appeals turn around so easily to be about us, and, honestly, I’ve seen too many evangelists have very little interest in people after they sign on the dotted line (and, yes, I’ve seen people literally been asked to sign something).
Yes, God can use anything and God can work through fools. That doesn’t mean we should aspire to be fools.
I suppose that I will admit that I’m basing a lot of my stance on anecdotal evidence, and it’s not an airtight case. I just refuse to take part in a system that leaves so much damage in its wake.
Not a single reference to hell can be found to be even hinted at in the book of Acts – or in a single one of Paul’s writings.
Yet, there are very clear warnings in the scriptures and parables. The parables doing an amazing job of illustrating hope, while at the same time clearly laying out the consequences for ignoring the truth.
So this is true:
But instead of pointing to “hell” he most often pointed to either destruction in Gehenna, the dump outside the city (metaphorical).
I should also note that I think there is a big difference between warning of consequences and instilling fear in people. Many evangelists I’ve heard resort to such exaggerated descriptions of hell that they almost become cartoonish and unreal to people. So I think it tends to have an opposite effect in the long run. Rather than instilling some sort of sense of caution in people, it leads them to write the whole thing off as little more than fairy tale.
I do believe in warning people when the warnings are accurate, but I don’t believe in simply trying to scare people. It’s like the difference between a doctor telling a patient he needs to stick to a good diet versus an organization like the Center for Science in the Public Interest issuing fatwas on certain foods. One is good advice based on good evidence, and the other is simply fear-mongering.
“There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.” – The Apostle John
“the ends justify the means” – Niccolo Machiavelli
And it’s just as easy to “lure with love” which produces no fruit. “If you love me you will keep my commandments”. That doesn’t mean I don’t share the love of Christ or that that is not my predominate method of evangelism (which it is).
Again, it’s not an either/or proposition.
I agree, after one is **in** the Kindgom. But the Sprit may use any number of means on the way to getting an individual there.
I find it interesting that nowhere in the Bible is hell-avoidance linked to motivation for acceptance of the Gospel, yet we seem to make it the be-all end-in-mind for acceptance of the Gospel.
Yeah, it’s nice that they are saved as a way to glorify the Father today, but the real deal is that they will be saved after they die. That’s the ticket. Except that it is contra to all but the most proof-texted contortions of Scripture.
I’ve often wondered if a big reason why so many people cling to the hell-avoidance angle is simply because it’s the only thing they feel they have to offer people. It’s all tied into the consumer-Christian mentality. We have really made the gospel not much more than a sales pitch, so if we’re selling something, we might as well make our pitch based on the biggest sales pitch of them all – avoiding everlasting damnation.
Jesus never offered the Gospel in such a way. It was never a proposition that people had to buy into. It was a proclamation the Kingdom was here and was coming, and that people need to recognize Jesus as Lord of this Kingdom.
Phil, to be fair… people do as much with the straight truth of Christ. Witness the second type of soil: stony ground.
I don’t think the litmus test is whether it works or not, but whether it is actually true or not. Otherwise we stand in peril of misrepresenting God.
Fear is an extremely good tactic, used by all the major world religions (Hinduism and Buddhism included with reincarnation and Karma).
Bingo. Not once. And if there were such a thing as hell, this should have been the primary calling card. And today, in many circles, it is. Something is wrong.
And yet, there were consequences plainly laid before those who ignore or despise the message preached. The stakes are high and true preachers never shy away from it: life or death.
Yes, I agree with this. My point isn’t that the tactic should be abandoned because it doesn’t work well (although, I think this holds some merit), but I think that it has unintended consequences of actually hardening people towards the truth.
It’s one thing to be offended by the truth, it’s another to be offended by a parody of it.
Agreed. When it comes to hell, no matter how you cut it, it’s a form of ’spiritual extortion’ that never appears in scripture.
Are there warnings? Absolutely. Just never about a Greek netherworld full of goblins which is precisely the caricature that pops to mind.
Paul,
I would really like annilhilationism to be true, but that is not the Biblical revelation.
Gentlemen,
I have my prefered approach also, but in the results of salvation discussion there is by defination a “saved from” as well as a “saved to”. And as Rick has pointed out, I believe in Hell and yet act as if I don’t. I also believe in Heaven and yet act as if I don’t.
Unless we are universalists, we are all pitiful compromisers who care more about our own comforts than the souls of the lost.
Fair enough John. But how would you answer this:
1. where does Hell appear – just a single time in Acts? Over 30 yrs of ministry in a Hellenistic culture that already professed belief in Hades.
2. where is Hell in any of Paul’s 14 epistles?
3. how come, in the end, hell is cast into the “lake of fire”? What is the difference between the two?
4. Where is hell in the OT? We only here of Sheol, where ALL the dead go until the time of the end.
So, we’re left with the 3 gospels (Matthew, Mark & Luke), as John doesn’t even hint at hell a single time. And those few references (many are just overlapping) reference the dump outside the city… parabolic language in which the people would grasp their terrible end – destruction – without repentance.
The two ultimate ends of man, consistent through the OT, the gospels, the epistles and Revelation are life vs death…
Read 1 Cor 15 or Romans 5 & 6. John 3:16 is also clear. Hundreds of verses.
When man sinned, death entered. When Christ returns “then shall be brought to pass” the saying: “Death where is your sting.”
That’s the power of the gospel. Sadly, hell is a side show that doesn’t depict the truth of scripture.
I should add, John, that anyone who promotes the doctrine of hell will be forced to conclude that the apostles misrepresented the gospel by failing to warn of the utter horrors of hell, therefore not delivering “the whole counsel of God”.
Otherwise, what do you conclude? How do you account for this massive communication failure with absolutely massive consequences?
There are many references to two different places which are at odds with each other. One comes to minV22And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house:
28For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
This semms to be a clear story/allegory that defines two distinct places. There are many, many refernecs to two eternal places. Eternal life is only enticing if eternal death is the antipode of “heaven”.
If it does not exist then let us “eat, drink, and be merry because tomorrow we die”.
No one has delivered the “whole counsel of God”.
No one.
#84: your issue is more with the Apostle Paul than with me. He did not shun to declare to those in Ephesus all that God wanted them to know. That is the whole counsel of God – and would have included Hell in a prominent position (as it has today) – if he actually believed it.
#83: Rick, you are a conundrum here. At times you filter your understanding of scripture through the epistles. Here you (conveniently?) have nary an issue, now pointing back to a parable as your basis. Odd.
Paul makes zero reference to Hell in Acts or his epistles, so you choose to rest on a parabe?
Yet, in other arguments, you filter the gospels through Paul.
As a younger brother respectful of your age and experience, I still have to ask, which is it?
I agree there are two distinct places: life eternal with God in a redeemed world or eternal death (ie: “the second death”).
This is the narrative throughout scripture – OT and NT. And Christ Himself is very clear on this.
The two ultimate ends: life or death, not heaven or hell.
I am just glad to say I was wrong. Rob Bell stars in this updated “Love Wins” Trailer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYSNACNH-Yo&feature=player_embedded
This time, He got it right.
RE: Love Wins
…, but using it to sell my books is a-ok!
The Calvinism that Mohler uses to sell his books is heresy too.
Al Mohler – Author of the Bible. Or at least I assume based on this authoritative quotation.
Al Mohler and John MacArthur should have a steel cage match to see which one them can actually claim the title of Protestant Pope. It’s clear they both are claiming the title…
Don’t forget Piper….
Paul,
Why St. Paul does not mention hell in any of his writings is an interesting question which I have not thought about, but will
.
#91 – Sorry that title belongs to Rick Warren the others are but Cardinals.
I dunno, Warren has been influential, but I’ve never seen people jump up to echo the opinion of Warren the way they have Piper int his latest witch hunt of Bell.
I’m not what you would call a Rick Warren fan by any stretch of the imagination, but I have never seen him attempt to excommunicate people he disagrees with. I have heard the horror stories of people doing nasty things in the attempt to make their church “purpose driven”, though.
how has piper been on a witch-hunt for bell?
i for one would not put piper in the same vein as macarthur. for one, piper has written some really good books… i guess the difference is that piper can be taken seriously except for the occasional comment – while macarthur can only be taken seriously on the odd occasion.
as for the existence of hell. it really does not matter which biblical authors speak of it and which do not. it only takes one to make it a biblical truth.
Those of us who believe in aliteral hell are the most hypocritical of all since our lives do not observably exceed those of many who do not.
So in fact we are doctrinal whores who are enamored with our doctrine but are willing to tolerate a life that indicts us. I count myself among them.
93: sounds fair John.
Also, consider no reference in Acts or the other epistles of James, Peter (except Tartarus) or John, including his gospel. And of course the entire OT.
Well, there are some instances in the OT that you could point to that talk of Sheol where those that are there have some knowledge of it. Also, when you look at some of the apocryphal writings you see the Jews did develop a more detailed doctrine of hell.
It’s sort of an interesting topic because it’s one of things that shows how words and phrases in biblical passage can seem pretty clear at first glance, but when you start digging into the context, the picture becomes a little different.
#100 “Doctrinal whores” – Does that pay well?
Well eventhough Southern Baptists believe in a literal hell I can’t remember the last time I heard a sermon preached on it.
Paul the standard evangelical answer is that Hell is a temporary holding place of the damned who will eventually end up in the Lake of Fire as their eternal abode cf. Death and Hades are thrown in the Lake of Fire. Whether a literal lake for me is up to debate, but the ability to be tormented requires consciousness.
“Well eventhough Southern Baptists believe in a literal hell I can’t remember the last time I heard a sermon preached on it.”
I refer you to my previous statement. I am serious, though, that if hell exists in the doctrinal sense that we say we believe, then our behavior reveals us as liars.
our behavior reveals us as liars.
or cads.
102: Phil, there is very clear consistency in the OT that when a person dies, good or evil, they await the judgment at the end of days? See Job 14 or Dan 12 for starters, or any number os Psalms.
I won’t comment on the apocrypha as it has no interest to me, neither does oral tradition. The apostles and prophets with Christ holding it all together is what’s key.
John, it might be useful to read John 6 where Jesus mentions judgment on the “last day” 4 times in that chapter.
It is appointed unto men once to die – after that the judgment. There is no junior and senior or eternal he’ll.
The lake of fire is exactly what John says it is “the second death”.
And if there were a he’ll and neither the prophets, but especially the apostles, never uttered a reference to this final destination for billions, then they failed to convey the terrible truth.
Just a few references would have sufficed. Maybe to noble Festus? Simon the sorcerer? An outbreak during Paul’s trial when the high priest had him slapped? Silence…
Yet what they do speak of hundreds of times is either life or death… In line with the OT and Christ Himself.
so those who die without christ go into some kind of waiting… call it “the grave” or “sheol” or “soul sleep” until the final judgment when they are annihilated. is that you position?
108: I believe that when a person dies, they go nowhere (heaven or hell), but are dead, awaiting the final judgment at the return of our Lord Jesus.
All will stand before Christ, as the scriptures tell us, in either the resurrection of life or of damnation.
The OT is clear on what happens when a person dies. They do not ascend to heaven. The whole promise of the Messiah was the defeat death once for all and usher in the kingdom of God in its fulness.
Jesus says categorically, “No man has ascended to heaven’ (John 3:13). Before we wordsmith our Lord, consider a few chapters later he says “No man” gains access to God but through Him. Again – categorical, without exception (incl Abraham). If we want to go around 3:13, we’ll have to figure out an end-run to the Father apart from Jesus as well.
Daniel is told: “As for you, go your way till the end. You will rest, and then at the end of the days you will rise to receive your allotted inheritance.”
By the way, in v. 2 of Daniel 12, there is mention of those who “sleep in the dust of the earth”. Lots of references to “sleep” or temporary waiting (Acts 7 with Stephen, 1 Cor 15 about 3-4 times, 1 Thess 4, John 11 with Lazarus, etc).
Hebrews 11 tells us that the saints of old are not in heaven, but are awaiting the resurrection.
Or read Job 14 – hardly anywhere is it more clear that ALL (good and evil) go to the grave (sheol). Any concept of hell is foreign to the OT (because it’s pagan).
The order of things seems to be outlined in 1 Cor 15:23:
This is probably why Paul talks of receiving his crown “at that day” in 2 Tim 4.
Also, in John 6, Jesus makes references to “the last day” 4 times.
And scripture does tell us that nothing happens between death – then “after this, the judgment.”
The concept of an immortal soul is pagan, not Jewish or Christian.
As it pertains to death, it will eventually die (we see death/sheol/grave being through into the ‘lake of fire’ – the second death), ushering in the physical kingdom of God on earth (Rev 21). I think this is the hope of the early church as well as the OT saints.
Not heaven or hell, but eternal life versus death. There are tons more scriptures that seem to validate this viewpoint.
What is your position?
One thing to consider is that modern physics has shown that the way time is experienced is wholly dependent on the observer. So I don’t find it beyond the realm of possibilities that while there may be some sort of intermediate period from the perspective of those still alive, that from the perspective of those who have passed earlier, it would seem like simply the next moment they experience.
Another thing I would say is that I think we get too hung up on the locational aspects when talking about the terms “heaven” and “hell”. Heaven is simply where God’s presence is. In Biblical cosmology it was talked about as being a realm above the earth, but I’d say that because of what we understand about the multi-dimensionality of the universe (or even the possibility of parallel universes of some sort), it probably makes more sense to think of heaven as being not distant from the earth, but, rather it’s very close. So at the eschaton, the veil between the two will be opened up.
No doubt this is likely the case… I once heard a profound proverb: “Time is relative, depending on which side of the bathroom door you’re standing on.”
We’ve all experienced both I’m sure.
But the doctrinal point should be scriptural, not imaginary. Rooted in truth, not necessarily tradition.
Besides this, the point is that Abraham, David, Daniel, etc. are in the grave/sheol, waiting to be clothed with new bodies at the return of Christ.
He is the “faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.” (Rev 1)
As Paul says (Acts 26): “the Messiah would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would bring the message of light to his own people and to the Gentiles.”
Paul C, Jesus conferred with Moses and Elijah on the Mt. of Transfiguration, John saw millions in heaven before the 2nd coming, martyred disembodied souls spoke from under the alter in heaven, Lazarus and the rich man spoke after death, Jesus said God was the God of the living and not the dead in regards to the Patriarchs in the context of their physical death, Paul said to be absent from the body was to be in the presence of Christ, Jesus told the thief on the cross he would be with Him that day in Paradise, etc.
While I certainly agree with this statement in principal it must be noted that at least some “things” in heaven are literal “physical” things, many of which are given measurements and exacting details.
As Paul says (Acts 26): “the Messiah would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would bring the message of light to his own people and to the Gentiles.”
That has to mean permanently rised from the dead as Jesus performed several resurrections during His earthly ministry, so in this sense He is not the first. However, these people actually died again. Jesus is the first to permanently resurrect from the dead, else that statement is in error.
And we have written proof that at least Abraham was conscious in Paradise else Jesus narrative on Lazarous and the rich man was a very disingenuous parable.
I find that soul sleep and annihilation are side issues that do not divide fellowship. But those who teach that other religions will lead to eternal life are the most dangerous.
This has to be understood in the context that no man has ascended to Heaven and returned to earth to make a report. But it was Jesus who descended to earth to reveal the Father’s will.
Enoch and Elijah certainly ascended physically to Heaven. Paul and John ascended to Heaven spiritually. So either Jesus forgot or had another meaning in mind when He made that statement.
Then again, “ascend” could imply to go up in one’s own ability, i.e., I ascended the steps. Enoch and Elijah were taken up into heaven and so did not ascend under their own power. Raptured Christians will be caught up and “ascend” under the power of God. So perhaps Jesus’ usage of the word implies under one’s own power.
I’ve been to heaven once. It was an “all you can eat” lobster buffet!
That would be hell for me. I’m allergic to shellfish.
John, do you see what you’re doing here?
For example, your intepretation of John 3:13. Jesus speaks categorically, saying “No man”. But you are forced to twist it.
A few chapters later he says, “No man comes to the Father but by me.”
Here you take the “No man” to be valid, but in chapter 3, it’s not quite what it appears.
From the NIV:
I’m not sure how you can skirt that.
Regarding the others you mentioned, remember that the Rich Man and Lazarus is a parable… Abraham is awaiting the resurrection. So know, the parable is not “written proof” that Abraham is in heaven at all. It is an allegory.
If he is already in heaven, what was the reason for Christ – the promised one who was to vanquish death – coming in the first place?
There is consistency in the OT. Daniel is in the grave as we see. See also Daniel 2 or Job 14. Very, very clear and consistent.
Regarding the Transfiguration, look at the last verse of Matthew 16:
Then, in chapter 17 we see the Transfiguration – a view to the future glory of Christ.
Elijah was caught up to the heavens, but never to the presence of God. Like Enoch (see Hebrews 11).
Every man, when he dies, dies. After this, there is the judgment. When? At the return of Christ.
This is what you’re seeing in Revelation 7: the great multitude. That’s a view to the future.
Lastly, when Jesus dealt with the man on the cross, remember that Jesus Himself did not go to heaven when he died. He “poured out his soul unto death.”
How do we know? A couple days later, he tells Mary:
Pretty plain.
i don’t follow what you have done with the transfiguration – if, every man when he dies, dies… then how were those men who had died, seen?
I think this is a rather strange debate. Sometimes these conversations about death and dying and life and living make death and dying and life and living seem so much less wonderful than it is.
Who cares what heaven is like any how? I’m looking forward to the new earth where I’ll be living.
You know what I mean? Maybe some things ought to be left up to the imagination and not subjected to the rigors of debate and concrete conclusions.
#123 – I agree. Jesus will be there wherever it is.
Paul C,
Enoch and Elijah were caught up to heaven. I don’t know where you got Elijah was not caught up to the presence of God. So either Jesus had a faulty memory or He meant something else with His use of the word “ascended”. And the world “ascended” does not occur in either account or in the case of the rapture. That is a word you are applying to the narratives to bolster your argument. It does not occur in them.
The Lazarus story is not a parable because people’s names are used and if it was a parable Jesus sure could have avoided any such controversy by not using it. In fact I think it is a shame He did use it ifthe majority of it is not actually true at least in typology. Every parable I can think of took place in the common world view of the people hearing it. Also extra biblical accounts of the day such as the Book of Enoch had a very well established world view of heaven and hell.
And whether or not the souls under the alter are future at least in John’s vision the disembodied souls were conscience waiting their resurrection which had not happend yet.
Jerry,
You are correct and this is not a salvation issue and certainlly does not negatively affect my fellowship with Paul C or considering him as a brother in Christ.
Jerry, this is nothing more than a friendly discussion, as John mentions – daggers have not been drawn…
But John, there are other scriptures that speak very plainly. For example, Hebrews 11 speaks of Enoch, yet concludes that he, along with all the others (including Abraham),
What was the promise? Eternal life in the presence of God. That is our hope, and it was theirs as well. Yet, they are awaiting the resurrection, as the text says.
Again, I take us back to the entire purpose for Christ coming in the first place: to break the bands of death, under which we all suffer, which is sin.
Christ destroyed the power of sin by His acceptable offering to God. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, necessitating the need for a Savior – both us and the men of old.
John, you are picking a few verses while ignoring the literal hundreds that point to the fact that when a man dies, he dies, awaiting the judgment “on the last day”.
So, let me turn it around and ask you what you make of these scriptures:
There are lots more references in the OT as well.
In the NT, what do you make of:
John 6: 4 references to “the last day”
There is no interim period, no “purgatory” or middle earth.
Rise from where? It’s not the physical body, as we receive new bodies.
Death has reigned… Christ has broken the chain of death, which is sin. Because of this:
THEN – at the last trumpet (return of Christ)
shall come to pass the saying that is written:
This is the narrative of the entire Bible – both NT & OT.
I still can’t believe that you are taking the plain meaning of John 3:13 and word-smithing it… If someone were to do that with “No man cometh to the Father, but by me” we’d all have a fit – and rightfully so.
So, rather than resting on a parable (the name Lazarus simply means “God has helped” or “God is my help”) it would be good to see what the OT believers believed and whether there is a contradiction in the NT at all.
Peter beautifully captures Christ’s conquering in Acts 2, where he also references on of David’s psalms about the suffering Messiah. Peter clearly says:
So Abraham did, but David didn’t? Elijah’s there, in the presence of God, though Christ said “no man” has ascended to heaven yet?
I wasn’t suggesting they were. I was merely suggesting that all the conversation aimed at trying to nail down what is and is not is sucking the life out of the imagination. That is, maybe we ought to leave the mystery alone…and let it be a mystery….
If anything is a mystery it is the afterlife.
It does not yet appear what we shall be…
I agree that discussion of the afterlife, and all its glory, is looking through a “glass darkly” to a great degree.
But we’re not debating the glory at all, but more so what happens when a man dies.
What makes this important are the implications. For example, John mentioned earlier that when a person dies outside of the faith, they go to a junior hell (my words) waiting until they graduate to the full blown lake of fire… This simply is not true and the implications of preaching this are significant.
So, while no man can grasp the magnitude of eternal life to even 1%, it is important to understand the narrative of the Bible and what was preached by the early church.
Well, I’m not a preacher any longer so I guess it really doesn’t matter too much. I still don’t see the importance of the debate. You say a parable is not enough to base a theory upon, John says it is.
Neither of you will change the others’ mind, so why bother with the conversation?
How about this: Even if hell does not exist, preaching its existance can only help with evangelism!
“This simply is not true and the implications of preaching this are significant.”
Paul, what are the negative implications of preaching this?
#133: well, too me, it’s borderline mythical and not borne out in scripture.
Hell – a burning pit with hobgoblins prodding you with pitchforks, smoke, fire and unending torture – is (mis)represented as one of the two ultimate destinations of all mankind.
It is a misrepresentation of God, who is just, but not petty. Throughout the ages, Hell has served as a greater motivator for the faith than heaven / eternal life. So you get a lot of people “getting their life in line” to avoid consequence. The Dark Ages were ruled by fear and every type of fantasy.
Yes, warning and consequence have their place, but it should be based on fact.
If hell was indeed true, don’t think for a second that the Book of Acts would not be chock full of warnings of it… but not one. Paul’s letters? Not even a hint.
This is not a matter, for me, of doctrinal perfection (God knows I’m not perfect in my beliefs), but the implications of misrepresenting God, the two ultimate ends of man (heaven or hell vs life or death), fear becoming the main motivator, etc. are significant. At least in my view.
I know many believers, missionaries and pastors, who came to faith partially out of a fear of hell. I also know of many missionaries who dedicated their lives (Jim Elliot, William Carey, etc.) to the spread of the gospel because they did not want to see people go to hell.
We all “misrepresent” God in some ways, I just do not see where hell is such a “significant” detriment.
Rick – funny you should mention Elliott and Carey as I just finished their biographies consecutively… In reading their diaries, their personal thoughts, overlaid with the commentary of their biographies (Elliot’s wife in his case) there is not more than one or two references to hell.
To be honest, I can’t even remember one, but I could be wrong. When Carey was making his case before the committee, as far as I read, I didn’t read anything of hell being in his motivation.
I’m not saying it wasn’t, but it didn’t appear to be front-and-center. It may have been for others, and I would not malign them for it. It was the common notion of the day.
I personally believe in the urgency of preaching the gospel, though I too fail so often (I am going back out into the field myself to a foreign country for that sole reason). And the reason is that men might repent and turn to Christ. Otherwise, the consequences are dire and eternal.
Yes, that is true and I would include myself here as guilty.
But Rick, that’s because you believe it to be true.
I believe it is a man-made, pagan-induced departure from the truth… especially because it has been elevated to one of the two final, ultimate destinations of all mankind.
Paul,
I believe those verses are talking about the physical, but we are tripartide beings (or dual some believe) and the
spirit is what goes to be with God until the ressurection. You may not believe this particular world view, but it is a possible explanation.
Also this narrative is relevant:
The Spirit that believes in Jesus will **never** die.
To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.
#137: So, we are body, soul and spirit. The spirit goes back to the Father as you say, the body goes back to dust. What do you say of the soul?
The spirit and soul are basically inseperable.
And just a correction regarding the verse you quoted in 137. Most translations state:
Regarding #139…
So, please clarify for me:
- Job 14
- Dan 12:2, 12
- John 6: 4 references to the “last day”
What is God resurrecting ultimately? Resurrect means “to be bring back to life”.
We know it’s not the body as we get new bodies. Will he take Abraham from heaven and put him in the ground (according to 1 Cor 15 or 1 Thess 4) and then raise him?
Do you see how this gets more and more out of line as you look at it?
So, I ask, what does God resurrect?
Also, if you make the “tripartite” distinction in your earlier comment, why, in #139 do you basically pull back? If they are inseparable, then there is no distinction.
And John, while you’re answering #140, could you address what happened when Lazarus died (in John 11, not the parable)?
Was he indeed in heaven and Jesus had to actually summon him back to his old body?
Also, how do you account for Mary’s comment, “I know you can resurrect him on the last day”? Why didn’t Jesus correct her:
“Mary, Lazarus is presently enjoying all the glories of heaven and walking on streets of gold. To pull him back would destroy him! He’s in a better place Mary.”
let’s keep these “predictions” in mind when the discerns start discerning rob bell’s latest work.
Rob Bell is Not a Universalist (and I actually read “Love Wins”) – greg boyd
it’s as if greg has been reading some of the comments here about bell (on the virgin birth) and warren (on praying in jesus’ name) and wright (on justification by faith).
…although i cannot fathom anybody is still following this thread…
#142 Well, Greg Boyd is not one as an Open Theist who has a false view of God that I would rely on for an opinion.
Rob Bell is a mocker and a blasphemer. If I made a movie about Genesis, I would cast him in the role of the serpent tempting Adam and Eve saying “Did God really Say?”
pboy, your reactions are amazingly reliable… too bad they lack the same consistency when it comes to thought.
the link was broken, so i fixed it. did you even read boy’s post? his alleged false view of god has no relevant or bearing on a) the prediction, nor b) his ability to recognize universalism.
ad hominem arguments are poor form.
and you are a cliche generator? you mock brothers in christ more than any man i know. and what is blasphemy more than ascribing to god things he has not said of himself.