WAY too much ad hominem! And - quoting the "poster boy" of Evangelical Intellectuals (whom you quote - and whom I love):
“Yet it is, perhaps, idle to speak here of the spirit and letter. There is almost no ‘letter’ in the words of Jesus. Taken by a literalist, He will always prove the most elusive of teachers. Systems cannot keep up with that darting illumination. No less wide a net than a man’s whole heart, nor less fine of mesh than love, will hold the sacred Fish.”
Jesus had no footnotes - Jesus had no Hellenistic syllogistic rhetorical approach - He spoke obscurely in many respects - He rarely quoted scripture - He often answered questions with questions - He was and is the "darting light" - hard to capture save with the net of a heart of love.... I didn't particularly like Love Wins - but Dr. Groothuis has no ear for anything that Bell said - for he obviously can't get beyond his own Philosophical categories to feel the angst of Bell's book.....
I felt irritated in the same way by Love Wins. I expected that Bell's glossy videos were just inviting packaging for a real argument that would be presented in his book, but it turns out is gloss all the way down.
WAY too much ad hominem! And - quoting the "poster boy" of Evangelical Intellectuals (whom you quote - and whom I love):
“Yet it is, perhaps, idle to speak here of the spirit and letter. There is almost no ‘letter’ in the words of Jesus. Taken by a literalist, He will always prove the most elusive of teachers. Systems cannot keep up with that darting illumination. No less wide a net than a man’s whole heart, nor less fine of mesh than love, will hold the sacred Fish.”
MrHwaynefair 3 weeks ago
Jesus had no footnotes - Jesus had no Hellenistic syllogistic rhetorical approach - He spoke obscurely in many respects - He rarely quoted scripture - He often answered questions with questions - He was and is the "darting light" - hard to capture save with the net of a heart of love.... I didn't particularly like Love Wins - but Dr. Groothuis has no ear for anything that Bell said - for he obviously can't get beyond his own Philosophical categories to feel the angst of Bell's book.....
MrHwaynefair 3 weeks ago
1st "Contradiction" - Bell does not deny the existence of hell, he explains exactly what it is. (Sheol, Gehenna, Tartarus)
2nd - Bell does not say we choose hell after death, he says we choose hell while we are right here today
3rd - Bell describes that he doesn't know exactly what punishment will be like, not he doesn't know what Jesus was saying
I would recommend anyone who wants to critique the book read it themselves. I don't agree with everything Bell says, but this guy doesn't do justice
xVyKariousx 3 months ago
I felt irritated in the same way by Love Wins. I expected that Bell's glossy videos were just inviting packaging for a real argument that would be presented in his book, but it turns out is gloss all the way down.
JWHurwitz 5 months ago
The book is not a book of theology but a book to inspire debate.
mahoganyrush300 5 months ago
Please also read my critique of this terrible book in the most recent Christian Research Journal.
DougGroothuis 5 months ago