Evidence for God from Science

I don't see him however, making the leap that others accuse him of, of stating that hell will not be an eternal condition of anyone.

Still reading but my take on this so far is that although Bell thinks of hell as a state both during this life and after death, he also gets into what 'eternal' may or may not mean. He tends towards 'eternal' as not relating to 'time without end'. So, most people will likely leave a state of hell as for them time is up (they came to their senses).

It seems that Bell leaves the door open for salvation much longer than most traditional views (death closes the door). I think this has lead some to consider a possible form of re-incarnation so that everyone will have a fair choice to make in a life exposed to the Gospel. But Bell doesn't really go that route either but rather states that scripture says that the gates of heaven are never shut.

It seems Bell emphasizes God's ability to achieve what God desires (all to be saved) but still leaves freedom to chose with the individual. One area where the traditional views on choice are suspect, to me, is when the outcome of a choice is not clearly revealed. In other words, would a person ever ultimately chose never ending torment if they clearly understood what this means ? If it is not made absolutely clear to everyone, then is God just and truly loving ? And when we consider the OT people, eternal torment is not anything we read about in scripture that is shared in their chosing to follow God or not.

Those who have already reconciled in their minds these conflicts to nail down their soteriology look at Bell and scream that asking the questions and just raising doubts without then stepping in and explaining and reconciling it all, is a gross disservice to his readers. That's how they approach it. Leaders are to lead their followers and explain all these things. Bell seems to be advocation that there's a dialog to have, not just a monologue to be given. If you want to tick off some elements of evangelical and reformed tradition, that's enough of an affront right there.

True. Some do exactly what they have often blamed the RCs in telling us what we must believe.

Whoops, I guess I got back into some of my own questions on eternal torment and I don't mean to turn this back into this topic. Back to this book some time today.

So far, I like seeing these questions and lines of reasoning brought out into the open. I hope it gets people thinking about what they really believe and what scriptures support these beliefs. I hope the understanding of why 'good news' is good news is discussed as I believe the importance of it's present affect on a person is the most important issue that causes us to be most like Christ and to reflect in our lives a glimpse of what heaven on earth will ultimately be like.

There is definitely a balance on the topic of the "narrow road". It is obviously much easier to make the road too wide or too narrow than to identify exactly how big it is- especially based on all the different views.

One other thing that might need to be taken into consideration is the parable of Lazerus and the man. There was no way, in that parable, to ever escape hell. The rich man obviously knew he should have done things differently (he doesn't want his brothers to follow him there), but he is never allowed back in. And this story was from Jesus Himself! The entire point of this lifetime is to make a decision based on evidence and the moving of God in our lives. That isn't the point of the life to come, which is the reaping of the rewards of what we do (and what God has done on our behalf) in this life.

Because of that, I just can't accept that people can find Salvation after death (I've never seen anything in all of Scripture indicating this is possible). I also know that God isn't cruel, but just and fair, so I know that hell may be less of eternal punishment as much as eternal reaping of rewards (the rich man's guilt may have been, for instance, his torture - it wasn't imposed on him, it was coming up from inside of himself). In the end, I think a good approach is to say "God is fair" and not worry about that part of it. What to think about then is what we are doing to serve Him. Again, asking questions is a good thing. However, I think actions are better. If our goal in life is to serve God, it will look differently than if our goal in life was to try to understand everything God has done and is going to do - and serving would probably get us closer to knowing it anyway.

What it feels like to me so far is that his views are a post-modern (post-60's 'love era') interpretation of ancient truth. In that regard, I think CS Lewis' Narnia series or the Lord of the Rings might provide better metaphors for heaven and hell than the questions Rob asks would lead us to, specifically because they don't have that post-modern tinge but are rooted more in ancient ideas. I find on these issues that understanding Jewish ideas of this stuff from that time period is more effective than our post-modern, western, secularized culture looking back on it. We lose sight of the meaning in the haze.

Sorry if this sounds like rambling or if it sound really harsh on Bell. I don't mean anything against him as a person even if I really disagree with him. In all of the stuff he's put out that I've read, I just feel like there's so much fluff that it's hard to wade through to know what's actually going on. Heh... maybe that's the result of reading technical aviation documents at work all day, but I just don't know how to deal with fluff very well. I think a lot of the critical response to his book is warranted - it is really easy to say "I'm not a [insert word (like universalist) here]". But the problem is it isn't claims like that that people are questioning. It is the rest of the book lined up against those claims, which speaks louder.

His "Velvet Elvis" book, for instance, felt like a lot of weird ideas wrapped in fluff. His chapter on "Doctrines are like springs, they can bend" still sticks with me as one such case. I should hope that some Doctrines are like springs, and others like solid concrete - not generalized either way. Jesus being fully God, for instance, isn't really a 'spring' of a doctrine if you're a Christian. Neither is Christ's centrality or God's love. What hell is like? Sure. When and how God will end the world? Sure! We all have lots to learn about that kind of stuff, and won't know all the answers until we see it unfold. The claim that "doctrines are springs" just seems off to me. Its akin to "there's no such thing as absolutes" - a self-contradictory idea that doesn't mean anything. Again... I'm rambling... apologies.

Good points, Josh. Many though attribute a Christus Victor position to C.S. Lewis and it can be argued that Lewis constructed his arguments and analogies to align with the understanding and culture that he was in at the time.

Bell is clearly post-modern in his bent and direction. I really haven't paid him much attention until the recent book. I've heard of him and had impressions of him based on the past controversies (which seem to escalate with each book) and so I wasn't all that surprised. Along with adopting his Socratic methods, he appears to have garnered Socrates reputation as an annoying gad-fly.

I'm prepared to be more gracious with him than what I see others doing. But then, I'm not afraid of the challenges or having the conversation.

How narrow?

A virtue? Well, I didn't define it. I think, maybe, I understand what you are saying here. I know there are those that rub their hands in glee at showing how narrow it really is. In all honestly, that is why I prefaced the quote with a proof text warning. (One could even argue whether Christ is discussing personal salvation here, or something that relates more specifically to the people of Israel. Audience.) I simply quoted the Master. How few is few?
But truthfully, I don't see how this applies to my position. I can't help but in turn question the virtue of responses that call into question the actual meanings of Words that seem clear in their usage. How narrow, narrow really is?? Kind of sounds like Clinton there. The word narrow, no matter how you apply it, isn't going to come across as meaning anything other than, well....narrow. Try calling someone narrow minded and see how that works. Obviously Christ, without going into a lengthy discussion makes the case that the way is narrow and few will find it. When we hear Christ say, 'narrow,' should our 1st response be to question the limits of how narrow, and how few? No. Just as I think you are implying, that our first response shouldn't be to take narrow and further define it as intentionally exclusionary. As if God is intentionally delighting in making people miss the right path.

Now, saying that, I only quoted that because it was the verse that popped into my head the moment I read 'generous sotierology.' Not because I have a problem with generous sotierology. IMHO, I would say that if every single one of us wound up in Hell, that God would be no less generous. I don't see any substance in evaluating the generosity of salvation based on the population of Hell. And, personally, I think that is where so many get this thing wrong. "You are being too open! You are being too closed!" But the facts remain, that no matter how many or how few wind up in heaven or hell, God's character is not on trial here. Not one iota. And I think that is where Bell stirs the controversy. I can see how many would think (at least in the OP quote) he is putting God on trial. I guess I read it a little differently, in that I assumed he was challenging not the bible, but different Christian groups 'requirements' of being saved. I don't know if Bell specifically addresses his objections as to what he means by the "right way." Does he identify these 'people,' and their methods? Otherwise what is presented here appears to say, if a Christian presents the gospel in biblically sound way, and that person rejects it and is sent to Hell, that God is a moral monster.

And based on the quotes I read, in the way I read them, I didn't find myself in great disagreement. As I have already said twice, man made methods such as requiring people to walk the ilse, participate in catechisms, etc. as additional requirements to receiving salvation, are what Bell appears to be prodding at here. If that is the case, I really have no issue. But when one starts to try to redefine the limits and restrictions that Christ and the scriptures themself envoke, then we've got a problem.

For many, especially from the reformed crowd, I would be seen as too liberal in my sotierology. Afterall, I am a faith alone proponent. By Bell, Young, and probably your own views I am too 'narrow' minded. What's a fellar to do?

One other thing that might need to be taken into consideration is the parable of Lazerus and the man. There was no way, in that parable, to ever escape hell. The rich man obviously knew he should have done things differently (he doesn't want his brothers to follow him there), but he is never allowed back in.

Hi Josh. I don't quite see this story as solid proof that there is no escape from hell. If what the rich man was going through was perhaps a 'correction' process, he may still have wanted his brothers to be warned so they would not have to go through the same process. In other words, the hell he was experiencing was not something he could escape until it had served it's purpose but it was still a place where he was concerned that others don't experience.

Can we conclude then that the hell spoken of here was a place of unending torment that not only one cannot ever escape from but a place where the suffering of others can be viewed by those in heaven ?

IMO, there is much in this story that cannot be taken literally. Perhaps the main message was to the Pharisees who were more like the rich man and that they would experience a hell of sorts if they kept going down the same road with their superior attitudes toward the poor. The road of superior attitudes toward others was the broad road but the road to life was a narrow road where we take the Christ's view of people whether rich or poor in this world's goods.

Currently our local church is studying Tim Keller's take on the lost sheep, lost coin and lost son(s) parables. I really have some issues with his interpretations of what all is intended, especially in the lost son(s) story. It seems some extra studying on more available data on historical cultures is seen as giving some new revelations on what these parables are and are not about. So, I wonder if these are improved understandings, then why did God allow less and sometimes wrong understandings to occur up to now ? Where has the Holy Spirit been in guiding us ? Puzzling to me. Perhaps someone can help explain me to this.

p.s. I guess I'm picking up on Bell's technique with my own puzzling questions that I don't really think have straight forward answers.

Interesting Note.

Rob Bell does address the Lazarus Parable in his book at fair length (at least by Rob Bell standards.) He says some things similar to what Sudsy is saying.

Ironically too, Bell puts Keller's Prodigal Book story in his list of references at the end of the Book.

I guess my response to using the Parable is this:

If we can't use it to discuss the literal hell and instead it defines a figurative one, then its presentation is peculiar (especially for a parable); naming characters in the story. Aside from that though, this kind of goes into the same philosophical positions one could get with the study of God and science.

If you believe that people can escape hell after some sort of 'testing' or 'refining' period, then: 1. Where is the positive Scriptural support for this (there is positive Scriptural support for eternal hell) and 2. What is the purpose of this life? I'm not claiming that you yourself actually do believe this - it was a hypothetical 'you'.

MarcusOfLycia wrote:I guess my response to using the Parable is this:

If we can't use it to discuss the literal hell and instead it defines a figurative one, then its presentation is peculiar (especially for a parable); naming characters in the story. Aside from that though, this kind of goes into the same philosophical positions one could get with the study of God and science.

If you believe that people can escape hell after some sort of 'testing' or 'refining' period, then: 1. Where is the positive Scriptural support for this (there is positive Scriptural support for eternal hell) and 2. What is the purpose of this life? I'm not claiming that you yourself actually do believe this - it was a hypothetical 'you'.

For myself, I'll have to back out as I got into this topic on the nature of hell before and it got quite hot. The conversation that is.

I'll just say that the word 'eternal' has different views other than 'never ending' by many Christians and in a nutshell I would say the 'purpose of this life' is for us to bring God glory. I haven't drawn a personal conclusion on when a form of hell might be 'corrective' and when it is 'punishment' but from my view of the God in scriptures and as reflected in Jesus, I conclude it is not a place of never ending torment. Obviously, others hold to the opposite, more traditional, view.

I prefer now to focus on the 'good news' in it's present impact on us as believers. We are being saved from the twisted views of this world we live in and Christ is our source of true, abundant living. Sadly, I believe, many of us live well below what this life is intended to provide in the here and now. If we lived in this state of spiritual abundance, I think our message would truly be reflected in our lives and conversation as 'good news' and others would see God through us as God coming to save us all.

That's a than reasonable view to take on it - I think our priority should definitely be on the Gospel. I know I've neglected to really study hell myself and would like to - Christ made reference to hell in some form or another more often than heaven as I've seen, so it must be important. Definitely agree with the priority though. Its about sharing Christ! I think everyone's understanding of what hell is (myself included) will grow as we grow in Christ.

Here is a wikipedia on Rob Bell - for what it is worth...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Bell

And Theopedia -

http://www.theopedia.com/Rob_Bell

And this 2004 article:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/200 ... 12.36.html

According Bell is not part of the Emergent Church Movement but yet a sub group from that movement as below article cites?

http://bethelgrace.wordpress.com/2008/0 ... -rob-bell/

Bell is not officially a part of “Emergent” (an organization within the emerging church), but he is closely associated with two of it’s leaders – Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt. I’d consider him a part of the theologically liberal stream within the emerging church (as would many others).

The Emergent Church Movement is a movement and has many different forms, some are wacky and way out there, others liberally walk all over the place, and others are very Orthodox in doctrine. You cannot judge this movement by the liberal elements within this movement, nor are they all the way out of the park ones who hug trees, rocks, and everybody else types either.

True some leaders in this movement are Universalist, others Conditionalist, and yet, others are not and remain Orthodox in the search for relationship with the Lord. However, they all share one thing in common: a method of inquiry which is built upon the modern scholastic liberal method where you pose questions but never take a stand or better stated, never let your Yes be a Yes and your No be a No. Instead, always answer with a definite maybe in hopes you’ll always be right and never wrong.

I tried reading Bell’s ‘Velvet Elvis’ and could not get past the first few pages. Not due to content but to poor literary lay out. It reminded me of a book of talking points and bulleted points along with a power point presentation look that served to confuse more than enlighten. This is in the same style as Glen Beck’s book, Arguing with Idiots, is lain out. However Glen’s book is more colorful and textbookish is the reason I find it personally hard to read and retain what I read because some catchy picture or subtext badly placed causes me to lose interest and wander all over the place. It is a great book, nevertheless.

I guess what I am trying to say about ‘Velvet Elvis’ is that it reads more like a graphic novel without pictures. A common theme in reviews both pro and con about his books is that he does not take a clear stand and thus gives mixed messages to the readers. If you like that style, more power to you. For me, the talking heads on TV are enough for me. So a talking head graphic novel without pictures does not satisfy my personal taste for good deeply engaging books.

Next, knowing the publishing/book industry – small print in blocked and spaced paragraphs and bullet points then questions with spaces between paragraphs (etc) added in shows me a book short on words with few paragraphs to make it have 208 pages in order to beef up the price way more than the price tag is really worth for the word count of the book. This is not Bell’s fault – it is how the publishing system works to market books – add spacing to increase pages so the price can be higher for books whose word count does not warrant the cost of a 200 – 250 page book.
-
-
-

Rob is a lone wolf and he doesn't officially identify with any movements. I think it's fair to categorize him generally with the emergent movement, although, as you note, emergent is a very broad category and includes very different people, including Marc Driscoll who is nothing like Rob Bell even though they both pastor churches of the same name "Mars Hill".

His style is eclectic, but I didn't have any trouble reading it.

Those who endorsed his book include Eugene Patterson (The Message) and Greg Boyd. As I noted, I think he's fairly represented as more liberal in many of his views. I think he's influenced by N.T. Wright in particular. I honestly don't think he's the universalist the Taylor and Piper painted him as and I think they owe him some level of apology, but I won't hold my breath waiting for it. I do see a strong Christus Victor theme though and I think that's the label to hang on him if a label needs to be affixed. I'm not that far from him in that regard. I think Penal Substitutionary Atonement taken without the balance of other atonement views does the nature and character of God a disservice. It's not that it's not an applicable metaphor, so much as it's one of several that need to be synthesized together.

I re-edited my last post, Bart to be more clear.

The pirnting style used by the publisher of The Velvet Elvis by Bell is based on my own bias as I personally find it difficult to read - maybe the all the spaces between the paragarphs cause my mind to drift ...



Love Wins maybe in the same style as I have not seen it yet. I'll wait for your review ...
-
-
-

No need to wait. I put it up earlier on the thread ...

It's up on my blog tagged below too.

Canuckster1127 wrote:No need to wait. I put it up earlier on the thread ...

It's up on my blog tagged below too.

Yes, now I see it - too many space's away on page two - missed it

Next,

Penal Substitution vs Christus Victor

Yes, that would be a better focus. Rob Bell uses the Eastern Orthodox Christus Victor view of the atonement instead of the Penal Substitution view of the atonement.

Now you get into solid meat and I mean steak and not milk here! This has been a bane between the Western Church and Eastern Orthodox Church for a long time. For me, both the Penal Substitution and Christus Victor are both taught within the bible and actually go together

Then there is a third element too not brought out very often that points out how sin is exposed by the events that happened within hours before, during, and after the cross, which most people don’t want to see. It is far easier to soothe oneself in a Penal Substitution vs Christus Victor debate rather than realize, as A. W. Tozer said, we put Christ on the cross, and I’ll add, plotted against him, bore false witness, spat, mocked, scorned him, ridiculed him, gambled for his possessions, denied him as we stood next to the fire, etc and etc… too. But that is another topic best saved for a Holy Ghost Rain’n day.

Basically there is more to the atonement than one particular item. After all, the Hebrew word for knowledge - da‛at - used in Isaiah 53:11 expresses the concept mentioned in Proverbs 24:3-4 regarding how by wisdom, understanding, and knowledge - da‛at - one builds a house.

First you build a house by wisdom (set up a design – plan – blueprint, cost materials to use, etc.), Next comes the building of that house by understanding (foundation, actual building of the house), and to finish it by filling the rooms of the house by knowledge – items that are functional and serve a purpose.

So in Isaiah 53:11 the righteous servant, by his knowledge (da at), he fills the house built by God with items made functional by his skill and craft. How many bible passages pertain to us being part of God’s building? Yes, there is more to what Jesus did in the hours before, during, and after the cross than just one thing. Likewise the atonement involves so much more than I think we really realize. By it, the Lord can fill the rooms of his house (Revelation 21:1, 2, 3c)…

"...By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, For He shall bear their iniquities..." Isaiah 53:11 (NKJV)

Note: Shall justify many - how? By his knowledge. Why, so we can reside with God in his house furnished by the Lord with things made functional, serve a purpose, Glorfy, and make it beautiful again

Proverbs 24:3,4 -"Through wisdom a house is built, And by understanding it is established; 4 By knowledge the rooms are filled With all precious and pleasant riches." NASB

"...By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many..." Isaiah 53:11 (NKJV)
-
-
-

Well, I just finished Bell's book called Love Wins. In my opinion, Bell does not qualify as a 'heretic'. He does challenge some traditional views and I can see where Piper sees some of these as a problem.

What I especially like about this book is that for myself, it emphasizes the 'now' in Christianity and how a transformed life brings life into a dying world. 'Dead Christianity' today needs this reminder. It is not about believing a certain dogma and obeying a bunch of hard to keep commandments. The 'good news' is a life changing, life giving story and we should be experiencing and reflecting now some of what heaven on earth will eventually contain. We have been reconciled and are apart of the restoration of what God is and will do. When I read some of the book I was reminded of what Peter said when he told people to 'save yourselves from this twisted generation'. The ways and values of this world lead to death and Jesus saves us from this and gives us real life if we take the narrow way.

I can accept his statement that he does not consider himself a universalist but I wish he would explain this clearly. I think his emphasis on the door to salvation never being shut and other such remarks about God desiring and being able to save anyone and everyone does make him appear as a Universalist. Bell maintains that freedom of choice must always remain and perhaps since traditional views close the door to this choosing at death, he then is regarded as getting into universal beliefs, I don't know.

There are a number of statements Bell makes that I think the evangelical church should be in conversation about and to review some of their traditional answers and how this ties to God's character and how the Gospel is 'good news'.

I'm looking forward to chatting with some at our local church. I know our youth pastor is going to give his review. I'm curious as to how far some traditional views will be defended and how many may be treated more secondary than they sometimes are. I hope we get into more conversations about 'real life in Christ' as I think many of us in Christianity are living well below the exciting, joyous, peace filled, compassionate, self-controlled, serving, etc life that is available to us.