Love Wins by Rob Bell

[Sudsy]

Well, this new book has just been released and the reviews are pouring in. See the Internet discussion erupting.

I'm sure at least a couple guys here on this forum will want a copy.

Here is a sample quote from the book -

"Millions have been taught that if they don’t believe, if they don’t accept in the right way, that is, the way the person telling them the gospel does, and they were hit by a car and died later that same day, God would have no choice but to punish them forever in conscious torment in hell. God would, in essence, become a fundamentally different being to them in that moment of death, a different being to them forever. A loving heavenly father who will go to extraordinary lengths to have a relationship with them would, in the blink of any eye, become a cruel, mean, vicious tormentor who would ensure that they had no escape from an endless future of agony.

If there was an earthly father like that, we would call the authorities. If there was an actual human dad who was that volatile, we would contact child protection services immediately.

If God can switch gears like that, switch entire modes of being that quickly, that raises a thousand questions about whether a being like this could ever be trusted, let alone be good.

Loving one moment, vicious the next. Kind and compassionate, only to become cruel and relentless in the blink of an eye.

Does God become somebody totally different the moment you die?”

It should be interesting to see what conversations will come out of this book as Rob has quite a following but also some real enemies in evangelical and other circles.

[MarcusOfLycia]

I live down the street from his church (literally 5 minutes away) from where Rob teaches - he's been kind of off the deep end theologically for years now... though his older stuff is a little better.

He's kind of an attention whore to be honest... at least from what I've noticed, although if this new book is indeed his thoughts... he's got some even bigger theological problems than I had previously thought. Since when was God just kind and compassionate? This is a wreckless and raging, furious God we serve! You can't have a warm fuzzy God... you have to have the real God or no God...

[B. W.]

Well, this new book has just been released and the reviews are pouring in. See the Internet discussion erupting.I'm sure at least a couple guys here on this forum will want a copy.

Here is a sample quote from the book -

"Millions have been taught that if they don’t believe, if they don’t accept in the right way, that is, the way the person telling them the gospel does, and they were hit by a car and died later that same day, God would have no choice but to punish them forever in conscious torment in hell. God would, in essence, become a fundamentally different being to them in that moment of death, a different being to them forever. A loving heavenly father who will go to extraordinary lengths to have a relationship with them would, in the blink of any eye, become a cruel, mean, vicious tormentor who would ensure that they had no escape from an endless future of agony.

If there was an earthly father like that, we would call the authorities. If there was an actual human dad who was that volatile, we would contact child protection services immediately.

If God can switch gears like that, switch entire modes of being that quickly, that raises a thousand questions about whether a being like this could ever be trusted, let alone be good.

Loving one moment, vicious the next. Kind and compassionate, only to become cruel and relentless in the blink of an eye.

Does God become somebody totally different the moment you die?”

It should be interesting to see what conversations will come out of this book as Rob has quite a following but also some real enemies in evangelical and other circles.

Notice what the bible says:

Revelation 14:11 "And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name." NASB

Bell's comments are built upon a false assumption that God is the great torturer; however, the bible plainly contradicts Bel's pleas and like minded rhetoric. Please note that in Revelation 14:11 the word translated their before the word torment clearly indicates a person is being afflicted with his or her own torment. - the torment of self affliction brought upon by the catalyst of judgment being found denying God … Romans 2:4,5, 6, 7, 8, 11c.

This is in line with the bible in how it describes God dealing with retribution as it is written:

Psalms 9:16, "The LORD is known by the judgment He executes; The wicked is snared in the work of his own hands. Meditation. Selah" NKJV

Again:

Galatians 6:7, 8, "Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. 8 For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life." NKJV

More:

Proverbs 1:31, "Therefore they shall eat the fruit of their own way, And be filled to the full with their own fancies." NKJV

Proverbs 22:8, "He who sows iniquity will reap sorrow, and the rod of his anger will fail." NKJV

Job 4:8, "Even as I have seen, those who plow iniquity and sow trouble reap the same." NKJV

What you sow is what you reap in God's economy; therefore, such established truth dictates that a person owns their own torment is how they reap what they had sown, is what tortures them. It is what they desire and want more than the Lord's offer of escape.

They sold themselves to be servants of sin, forever and desire it more than God’s offer of salvation. With such sin, they twist God’s truths in such manner as to seek to entrap Him by manipulating Him to grant them access into heaven without ever accepting Him or some even tempt God to deny His life giving nature by demanding annihilation into a state of non-existent being; thus, causing God to sin just to satisfy their pleas, logic, and sensibilities.

Why would you say would anyone want Hell more than God’s way of escape he purchased by blood through humanities torture of His Son? (what you sow, that you also reap)

Answer is simple, people like Rob Bell and others who tout the superiority of bad doctrine make light of eternal judgment and shoo it away, in hopes it would go away, or be lessened a degree, and duration expecting that God must bow to their satisfaction, permitting the unclean to gain masteries over God.

Almost like a angry person taunting someone, “you can’t hurt me – you can’t and won’t naa na annan – you are so loving kind so much I can continue to be and do as I please. I want that from you, I’ll take this from you, give me- give me so I’ll love you for what you give in love – you serve me, oh god! NOW SERVE ME!”

Proverbs 26:11, "As a dog returns to his own vomit, so a fool repeats his folly." NKJV

Isaiah 26:10, “Let grace be shown to the wicked, Yet he will not learn righteousness; In the land of uprightness he will deal unjustly, And will not behold the majesty of the LORD.”

Romans 5:9, 10, “Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. 10For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.” NKJV
-
-
-

[jlay]

As with a lot of Rob's stuff there is some truth. But also a large crack in the door for abandoning sound doctrine and replacing it with one's own theology. As always, our theology doesn't shape the scriptures, but the scriptures should shape our theology. All too often Bell seems to start with a good idea, only to take it off the deep end.

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.

Well, there is some truth in that. Especially from some major denominations. The RCC taught for years that you HAD to be a part of the formal RCC. Regardless of what you believed you could not be saved. Today we have several major denominations that teach salvation is by following a specific program of their denomination. The Church of Christ (some more than others) have this exclusitivity. The oneness pentecostals, such as the apostolic church say not only must you be water baptized, but you have to have the right words pronounced over you, and it has to be done specifically by an ordained minister of their denomination. And if not, you are going to Hell. Doesn't matter if you trusted Christ.

So, yes, these denominations do and have painted God as a legalistic tyrant, who will throw you into Hell on a technicality.

However, knowing a bit about Bell, I can't help but think that there is broader strokes being brushed here.

[Canuckster1127]

Seems to me Bell is asking questions not making statements and seeking to reconcile many of them from the perspective of many post-modern people who are asking the same questions and not finding the answers satisfactory or relevant from traditional evangelicals and particularly neo-Calvinists, which is where most of the heat is coming.

Bell clearly on several occassions has stated that he is not a "universalist". If he flirts with any position based upon what I've seen it is Ultimate Reconciliation which is sometimes called Universal Reconciliation and some people just lump that into "Universalism" but it's not. In fact, UR builds a similar model to Calvinism but with a few key differences in the assumptions made as to the nature of God and how He has exerted His omnipotence. I don't support the UR position, but I understand it. I don't consider it overt heresy so much as a strong difference of opinion on an important issue.

I've been very discouraged to see the "universal" condemnation of the book and Bell personally by the usual suspects. Many people spoke out and make strong claims and attacks before the book was even released. The irony is, that their response all but ensured many would buy the book to see for themselves what all the commotion was about. Color me in that group. Bell isn't a staple author for me, but I bought the book and will review it. Anyone who can tick-off so many Neo-Calvinists and get their knickers in a wad, can't be all bad ...... (Lord ... I apologize for that there statement, and be with the pygmies in New Guinea ....)

My impression thus far is that many people are reading more into Bell's questions than he actually states in the book. Bell has a history of stirring up controversy and preaching in a way that aligns with Post-Modern society. He's not a systematic theologian. Far from it. Looking for systematic theology from Bell would be like looking for it from Francis of Assisi or looking to Robert Frost for some insight into the theory of relativity. That said, I think he's pretty deliberate in "poking the bear" in terms of traditional, stodgy "safe" theology. His audience isn't so much to change the minds of those whose minds are already made up as to provoke the conversation and he's certainly done that (along with the help of those screaming their displeasure.)

[1harpazo]

I had not heard of this Rob Bell until I visited Puritan Lad's web site: http://covenant-theology.blogspot.com/. The video at the bottom of the page is entitled "An Emergent Wolf Slips Into Universalism". After watching the video, I'd say this man is pretty far off track.

[Canuckster1127]

After watching that video I'd say the same thing .... except I'm actually reading the book by Bell and it's usually better in my opinion to come to conclusions based on direct observation of what someone has to say and not just what his critics represent him as saying.

Neo-Calvinists and heresy hunters are having a field day with Bell and his book. It began before most of them read it and not surprisingly they've read the book now and found what they already concluded was there.

That's not to defend Bell entirely and state that he is right in all he's saying. But the fact is, he's not saying many of the things he's accused of. He's simply asking questions and beginning a dialogue on the matter. Jesus did much the same in his ministry and he was castigated as a heretic by the religious establishment of His day.

I don't know if the text inserted under the video questioning (outright stating as a matter of fact) that Rob Bell is not a Christian is PL's or with the video as a tag, but regardless of the disagreement to make that statement of someone, based on a promotional video 2 weeks before the book is released and this person making the video by their own admission hasn't read the book, is a sad statement in and of itself. I hope God is more generous with people making those type of assessments than they are with Rob Bell.

I'm reading the book currently and won't give my final conclusions. I'll put up my review here when I'm done.

[1harpazo]

I'm not going to read the book.

Are the questions that Mr. Bell is asking to "begin a dialogue on the matter" raising doubts that Jesus is the only Way? What is the "matter"? As he says in the video, does Jesus save us from God? Or to God?

[Canuckster1127]

If you're not going to read the book then my answers to that don't matter. You can read Rob Bell as easy as I am doing it. My impressions of the Book leads me to believe, that Bell isn't denying the exclusivity of Christ as the only way to God. He affirms Hell as having elements both in this life and the life to come. He is not a universalist. I haven't finished the book however.

I think it says more of the people making statements about Rob Bell without reading his book, than it says of Rob Bell.

[B. W.]

Below quote from Amazon sums up others comments on His work very well...

Yoou can read the reviews elswhere on the web and glean enough from these... He sends a mixed message...

conclusion:

If Bell is interested in raising more than just questions and really wants a thorough re-evaluation of hell, it would be helpful if he would either publicly debate other public figures, or co-write a book of "various views" on heaven/hell that includes other, more qualified, theologians and biblical scholars to help us all get a better handle on the topic.

I am also surprised that he keeps saying that he is not a universalist when that is what this book is about. "Love Wins" is a declaration that God's love will melt all hearts eventually, and all will be saved (maybe not right away but given enough time). If you go to the mars hill website they defend that Bell is not a universalist as well, but under their "download a resources list" they list "The Inescapable Love of God" as a good resource to help the reader understand "Love Wins" better. But the book "The Inescapable Love of God" is a book arguing for universalism. So, which is it? Is Bell a universalist or not? He clearly is, but both Bell and the FAQ on the church's website say he isn't. It's a strange mixed message.

-
-
-

[Canuckster1127]

I'm actually reading the book and looking very carefully for the contradictions claimed and I don't see them. I think some reviewers are seeing what they have gone looking for in the first place. There's a pretty broad spectrum of opinion. I think one of the best reviews/evaluations is present in this link from the President of Fuller Seminary.

http://www.netbloghost.com/mouw/?p=188

Others are entitled to their opinions however and there is no question that the book is controversial (and was declared to be by many before it was released or they read it.)

[B. W.]

I'm actually reading the book and looking very carefully for the contradictions claimed and I don't see them. I think some reviewers are seeing what they have gone looking for in the first place. There's a pretty broad spectrum of opinion. I think one of the best reviews/evaluations is present in this link from the President of Fuller Seminary.

http://www.netbloghost.com/mouw/?p=188

Others are entitled to their opinions however and there is no question that the book is controversial (and was declared to be by many before it was released or they read it.)

I'll wait for your review, then...
-
-
-

[MarcusOfLycia]

Not that this should have a huge influence on my opinion, but unfortunately it does weigh a little for me for a few reasons...

An atheist friend of mine (who is also known for having absolutely bizarre and contradictory/nonsensical opinions on things) really enjoyed this book. I can see how (based on reading bell's previous books as I have done), that the type of personality that he portrays is appealing to this friend of mine... but its just kind of another nail in the coffin for me. At the very least, I think there is a better way to go about his stated goals if that's all that's really happening here. Things that appeal to him typically (typically=very very often), for me when I examine them, either don't make much sense or contradict what I know or believe. There are exceptions, and this may be one of them... it just kind of lowers my expectations a bit is all.

[zoegirl]

hear, hear!

I don't object to the style of writing where the author raises questions. It's good and makes the reader think. I do feel, though, that Bell tends to enjoy being vague and coy and revels in the mystery (not in the mystery of God but in his own convoluted mystery of writing).

It reminds me of a student who wrote beautiful sounding essays but with little substance. He would wax poetic about a certain aspect in biology (in one it was about enzymes) but in the end the reader left the essay no "fed" than before. When grading his essays, I was hard pressed to find points for him, because while it was wrapped with lots of lovely things to say about enzymes, it essentially said very little. I have read through parts of Bell's books and remain annoyed at his inability to just come right out and say what he means. He remains so convoluted that one *can't* come to a conclusion about whether he is or isn't a ________________(fill in the blank). And that, more than anything, is rather sad. Because many people (like Marcus's friend) end up reading exactly what they what to. Ultimately I think this is poor communication and does little for the body of Christ.

Those that are well-read and have a good foundation of scripture will either, like Bart, find the good in the books or dismiss them as fluff, it will not harm their faith. They will examine the scripture, chew it up and decide what is Biblical and what is not. My biggest worry, though, is for those that do not have a firm foundation in scripture. To them, they will NOT take the questions he answers and examine them fully and draw conclusions that Bell himself may not even hold to (although trying to find evidence of what he concludes is rather frustrating!). And that, unfortunately will be damaging to their faith.

[B. W.]

...Those that are well-read and have a good foundation of scripture will either, like Bart, find the good in the books or dismiss them as fluff, it will not harm their faith. They will examine the scripture, chew it up and decide what is Biblical and what is not. My biggest worry, though, is for those that do not have a firm foundation in scripture. To them, they will NOT take the questions he answers and examine them fully and draw conclusions that Bell himself may not even hold to (although trying to find evidence of what he concludes is rather frustrating!). And that, unfortunately will be damaging to their faith.

Well said Zoe and my conclusion as well...
-
-
-