you can't take the bible simply at face value.It is a cointextual book that requires the demands of it's historical settings to b fairly understood. Rob bell is not a false teacher. Niether are you. But you have different views. Rob bell is saying very much that based on scripture it is a reasonable hope that all will be saved. yet recognizing mans free will to reject God's love. See Fr. robert barron comments on hell. It is the best I have heard so far. This man knows his stuff.
Jesus was the premiere "hellfire and damnation" preacher, as Douglass suggests (MUCH more so than Paul or really anybody), but Jesus was also the most metaphorical. When Jesus referred to Hell, he either used the Greek word, "Adou," (which translates, "Hades") or "Gehenna," which derives from Gehinnom or Hinnom, which was the town dump outside the outskirts of Jerusalem, where things were usually burning. Very parabolic language...
This is VERY different from universalism, but I suppose it sounds sort of kind of enough like it for scared, anxious theologians to hop on the bandwagon and say, "Nooooo! Listen to us instead!" There are plenty of other reasons to criticize Rob Bell's book. His exegesis, for example, is very questionable in places (this was my biggest issue with the book). Universalism, however, is not one of them.
Universalism basically says, "Everyone goes to heaven no matter what, doesn't matter." Bell not only doesn't say this but actually spends several chapters emphatically destroying this position - a point which most critics of his book seem to conveniently omit. What Bell does say is that God has the potential to save everybody should God so choose based on God's own transforming sovereignty towards justice, and our inferences on this say a lot about our theology of the character of God...
As a seminary grad who actually READ Rob Bell's book, I don't understand critics that seem accuse him of universalism (or emergent subjectivism[?] Sorry, but you have to do more than wear trendy clothes to be emergent). To me, these criticisms seem to come from theologians who either 1.) misunderstand Bell or 2.) misunderstand universalism. Bell DOES appear, based on this book, to be universal salvationist. There are similarities to universalism, but there are also very fundamental differences.
Wow. I generally like Doug Wilson's books. I appreciate his non-confrontational spirit, too (unlike Todd Friel). That said, the more I listen to traditional theologians (Calvinist, Arminian, etc) defend their idea of eternal punishment, which is in so blantantly counter to the Divine Law, the more I just shake my head in amazement. There are so many hoops to jump through to arrive at that conclusion, it staggers the mind. Dr. Stephen E. Jones (gods-kingdom-ministriesDOTcom) is a must-read.
The Bible does not teach eternal punishment. God's love and mercy endures forever. Does it really endure forever or only in this life? How can it be Good News if it doesn't translate to the afterlife? God will still judge but He will not punish forever. He's a better Father than we are, right?
1 Timothy 4:10- This is why we work hard and continue to struggle, for our hope is in the living God, who is the Savior of all people and particularly of all believers.
hell is not a place, it is simply the rejection of God's love by the person,it is the same place same person, same love of God which becomes heaven for the one who accepts His love and hell for the one who rejects His love, hell is not God's wrath or anything like that, that was never the teaching of the early church,,
I want to know how it would be just for God to "send" anyone to hell? If hell is a state of eternal punishment for sin then we have a problem. The punishment has to be proportional to the crime; if it is not then it is not justice. But infinite punishment for finite sin would not be proportional and therefore not just.
I agree with Hans Urs Von Balthasar that we cannot claim that everyone will be saved but we can hope that all will be saved.
@bayreuth79 Indeed, if eternal punishment is truly the price for sin, then a resurrected Christ is a problem! He should still be paying the price eternally in hell. But, no, the wages of sin is DEATH, not eternal torture. Christ is the remedy for DEATH. And if, by the way, Paul says that God will be all in all again, then nothing He has created will be lost. In that sense, we can definitely KNOW that all will ultimately call Jesus Lord and be saved. The death "deadline" in man's concoction
@bayreuth79 You are correct. The punishment must fit the crime. If I poach a deer I may go to jail or pay a fine or both. If I murder a senator or a sitting president I am executed. You sin against an eternal, and perfectly holy God; you pay an eternal punishment.
The idea that the severity of a crime is dependent on the differing degrees of importance of the persons offended is a medieval notion and one which the bible actually teaches against. Throughout the bible God is shown as no respecter of persons.
Futhermore, it would follow from what you say that even one small sin (such as telling a "white" lie) warrants eternal punishment; but surely that is absurd.
@bayreuth79 That little white lie is still a sin against a God who is no respecter of persons. But is he not also a defender of his own holy character and standards?
@saintoccasionally It seems to me that for you the degree of seriousness of a sin is evaluated on the basis of the degree of importance of the person (in this case, God) one has offended. But surely this is fallacious and for this reason: if the degree of seriousness of a sin is extrinsic to the sin itself (i.e., the degree of seriousness is assessed in relation to the importance of the person offended) then there is no intrinsic difference between telling a white lie and genocide.
@bayreuth79 Of course there are degrees of sin as well; but that wasn't really central to my point. The original issue at hand was whether it is just for God to send anyone to an eternal Hell for finite sinning. Yes because they have offended the infinitely holy, righteous, and beautiful God. But it isn't as if people in Hell are going to stop sinning. And the concept I am arguing for isn't fallacious anyway. Continued.....
@saintoccasionally The punishment must fit the crime and what "fits" the crime is determined by two things. 1. What was done? 2. Against whom? You can argue that this idea when applied to other created beings is not proper since we are all of equal value at the root of things. But you cannot argue that about God. He really is more valuable than we. This true by definition. So a white lie may be a small offense to you i.e "No bayreuth79, I can't come to your party...continued...
@saintoccasionally because I have to go pick my mom up from the airport." No big deal in the grand scheme. But to offend God, the infinite one, by disobeying hie injunction against lying is an infinite crime.
@saintoccasionally ... that the offended person is lacking something that was his by right. However, if my sin against God deprives him of something, i.e., that is, injurys him, then God is lacking something because of my sin. But the question then is: how can God, who is by definition that than which nothing greater can be conceived, lack anything? He would no longer be God if he were lacking something, including my honouring him.
@bayreuth79 When you sin you attempt to place yourself upon His throne and thus attempt to rob Him of what is His. Yes God is a God of self-giving love; but He is also a God who loves righteousness and justice. I believe you are pitting God's attributes against each other. His love does not negate his hatred for sin, or his holiness, or the fact that he is a God of wrath any more that those things negate his love, and his mercy. The bible says all of that and they are all true.
@saintoccasionally The central point is as to whether God can be injured by my sin. I would argue, along with the whole tradition of classical christianity, that God cannot be affected positively or negatively by us. If this were not the case then God would not be immutable (changeless) and he would not be perfect either (because if sin injures God then he by definition lacks something that is due to him). God does not change, we change; God is not affected by sin, we are.
@bayreuth79 This has been an even keeled and respectful exchange (all too rare a beast on the internet!). But I do not want to go any further until you deal with what I said about pitting God's attributes against each other. Maybe you could also clarify what your position is exactly. That may make for a more edifying argument. In fact, if you are interested we could take this private. This format makes it difficult to really accomplish much of anything. I will P.M. you my e-mail address.
@saintoccasionally Your argument seems to imply that our sin can injury God in some way. Now, it is certainly true that to sin is by definition to do injury to someone- so, for example, when I tell I lie I deprive someone of the truth, which is a kind of injury; or when I steal from someone I deprive someone of their property, which again is a type of injury. In each case, to sin against someone is to deprive them of something that is due to them (the truth, right to property, health, etc), so
@saintoccasionally Hmmm. Karl Barth pointed out that God's actions reveal who God is. What is the fullest expression of God for a Christian? The Word of God (Jesus Christ). What does Jesus Christ reveal about God? I think, first of all, Jesus Christ reveals a God of kenotic love (read Phillippians)- that is, self-emptying love; secondly, this kenosis reveals the humility of God. If that is the case, I cannot imagine this God feeling the need to "defend" himself; even in defeat he is victorious.
My impression is that the Bible is very unspecific about hell and contains only very few verses about it. Therefore I am pretty surprised that so many people have so much to say about hell.
I would agree with his point that the people in hell don't want to be in heaven. But how does this correspond with God's punishment of sinners? How does this correspond with the Angry God of Edwards? And even if you approach this from a Calvinistic framework, why would God create people who he knew he would be angry with and ultimately damn to a literal firepit beneath the surface of the earth.
This is the problem with Western Christianity, particularly Calvinism. They construct a God who damns them to a literal hell, but then decides to save some and call it the gospel. Are they kidding? In Orthodoxy hell is a reality because of free will. Further it is not a literal place. God will eventually be all in all. there wont be a place where He is not. Therefore ppl in hell experience his light and love as torment and those who love God experience this as heaven. No damnation on God's part
And further, the atonement is not to be seen as penal substitution. God's justice is not punitive. It is resotorative. The cross is about freeing us from sin, death and the evil one. Jesus came to destroy the work of the devil as the apostle says. when the Messiah dies, the tombs are opened up. Christ has conquered death by his death. This is the testimony of scripture. This is how the early church fathers understood the atonement. And this is the historical faith.
And further, under a Calvinistic framework, heaven could definitely not be more highly populated than hell. Doug just takes the passage about the 144000 and says "there you go, there's gonna be a lot of people there." Well HOW are they going to get there? That's the question that is utterly unexplainable from a Calvinistic perspective.
A false teacher is someone who teaches things that purposely create distance between them and God. So let me get this straight, Rob Bell is a false teacher because he doesn't affirm the reality of an obviously unreal realm of torture? So you're saying, not believing in hell, is creating distance from God? Or are you saying that it's important for "hell" to be one of the driving factors that make you want to believe in God, because that's more money from scared wallets for your church? Thought so
For Rob Bell to imply that no one goes to hell completely undermines the message of the Gospel, that Jesus died and rose again for a reason. Jesus' didn't save us from an angry God as if Jesus disagreed with the plan of salvation of sinners as Rob Bell insinuates, rather Jesus and the Father (God) were one (John 14)
Pastors like Doug Wilson and John MacArthur challenge Rob Bell because he is a false teacher and many people are being lead astray by lies.
True Love winning is that the perfect and sinless Son of God Jesus Christ, died on the cross as payment for the sins of those who believe. That is the core message of the Gospel, that in this life, we can be forgiven of all of our sins that condemn us to hell and have a restored relationship with God if we truly believe that Jesus did all of that for us. That is Good News. So by that logic, if I don't believe Jesus is the son of God or even existed, what would that imply?
I don't believe they are jealous. The fact that a lot of young people like his message, does not give credibility to his teachings or show that he faithful to Holy Scripture. This isn't the first time that Rob Bell has said something or wrote a book that has been popular or that other pastors have been adamant about addressing/correcting. They issue at state is biblical accuracy and faithfulness to the Gospel.
Admittedly, the doctrine of Sin and Hell are not easy for Christians to lovingly convey to unbelievers. The notion that torment in hell for eternity is the judgment for a person who sees themselves as generally "good" is not something they will want to hear. Nor will it be easy for a Christian listen lovingly to an unbeliever's response to that idea. I can see if Rob Bell was challenging the action of the person who wrote "News Flash, Gandhi is in hell" as unloving or unchristian because
we are called to speak true in love, but it seems that Rob Bell has thrown the baby out with the bathwater. Rather than emphasizing that Christians should carefully and lovingly evangelize, Rob Bell teaches that hell is empty and that God is unloving if He judges anyone to that fate. If that were the case, than what was the purpose of Jesus dying on the cross if even those who openly reject him are granted salvation? This "love" that Rob Bell isn't true love.
Seems to me a lot of the pastors and leaders who are denouncing Rob Bell are jealous. Yes, jealous. I think they are shocked at how fast Bell's message is flourishing and how loudly it is resonating especially in young people. I think these leaders were caught off guard and many are shocked. They are angry that their brand of faith isnt being recognized. It is plain old jealousy.
Seems to me a lot of the pastors and leaders who are denouncing Rob Bell are jealous. Yes, jealous. I think they are shocked at how fast Bell's message is flourishing and how loudly it is resonating especially in young people. I think these leaders were caught off guard and many are shocked. They are angry that their brand of faith isnt being recognized. It is plain old jealousy.
It seems you are basing your response (to a book you hadn't read yet) upon a human definition of justice that you are attributing to God. The cross, the parable of the prodical son/loving father, the story of the woman caught in adultry, etc., these are examples of God's justice which is grace based, not wrath based. Likewise, the gospel you talk about is wrath centered. Jesus didn't go to the cross so we could be punished for sin, but forgiven of sin.
By his words, it doesn't sound like @dohboy3000 really paid attention to the video or that he would treat Doug WIlson civily in conversation, which is similar to the accusations he made about Wilson. Projection?
Not to perpetuate this (ok, maybe to perpetuate) but, by his words, it doesn't sound like @dohboy3000 really paid attention to the video or that he would treat Doug WIlson civily in conversation, which is similar to the accusations he made about Wilson. Projection?
So much opinion, fear and speculation in this video, I would encourage you to read the book before you critique it but I highly doubt that you will. Question, have you ever met Rob Bell, would you speak to him if you had the chance? How would you treat him? Would the conversation be civil? Do you honestly think that you are right just because you hold the bible up and say that your interpretation is the right one?
@dohboy3000 I'm the producer, and know Doug Wilson. I'm quite sure he will read the book soon after it arrives. I'm also quite sure he would meet (and be wiling to debate) Rob Bell in person. And judging from his debates and personal interaction with MANY other men, including a documentary with Christopher Hitchens, I know he would be very gentlemanly in his actions. And he believes Bell is wrong because he goes against what is clear in the Bible. I feel you are the one who is quick to judge.
@CanonWired Well you are entitled to feel that way and thank you for expressing that feeling, its nice to know that even people who are trying to defend the horrible doctrine of a literal burning hell still have feelings
@CanonWired Can I ask you whether Doug Wilson believes that hell is a literal place? Does he think that it is literally a lake of fire with worms in it etc? If so, where is it and what temperature is it done there? Reading the bible as if metaphor were concrete reality has lead many astray especially in Protestantism.
Thanks Pastor Wilson. Excellent discussion. We need more teachers like you.
ILiveInMyParadise 1 month ago
you can't take the bible simply at face value.It is a cointextual book that requires the demands of it's historical settings to b fairly understood. Rob bell is not a false teacher. Niether are you. But you have different views. Rob bell is saying very much that based on scripture it is a reasonable hope that all will be saved. yet recognizing mans free will to reject God's love. See Fr. robert barron comments on hell. It is the best I have heard so far. This man knows his stuff.
mahoganyrush300 3 months ago
@mahoganyrush300 No he's not. All Bell is doing is using the same terminology with his own definitions.
UniversalismRefuted 3 months ago
Jesus was the premiere "hellfire and damnation" preacher, as Douglass suggests (MUCH more so than Paul or really anybody), but Jesus was also the most metaphorical. When Jesus referred to Hell, he either used the Greek word, "Adou," (which translates, "Hades") or "Gehenna," which derives from Gehinnom or Hinnom, which was the town dump outside the outskirts of Jerusalem, where things were usually burning. Very parabolic language...
MarcelvanBulck 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is VERY different from universalism, but I suppose it sounds sort of kind of enough like it for scared, anxious theologians to hop on the bandwagon and say, "Nooooo! Listen to us instead!" There are plenty of other reasons to criticize Rob Bell's book. His exegesis, for example, is very questionable in places (this was my biggest issue with the book). Universalism, however, is not one of them.
MarcelvanBulck 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Universalism basically says, "Everyone goes to heaven no matter what, doesn't matter." Bell not only doesn't say this but actually spends several chapters emphatically destroying this position - a point which most critics of his book seem to conveniently omit. What Bell does say is that God has the potential to save everybody should God so choose based on God's own transforming sovereignty towards justice, and our inferences on this say a lot about our theology of the character of God...
MarcelvanBulck 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
As a seminary grad who actually READ Rob Bell's book, I don't understand critics that seem accuse him of universalism (or emergent subjectivism[?] Sorry, but you have to do more than wear trendy clothes to be emergent). To me, these criticisms seem to come from theologians who either 1.) misunderstand Bell or 2.) misunderstand universalism. Bell DOES appear, based on this book, to be universal salvationist. There are similarities to universalism, but there are also very fundamental differences.
MarcelvanBulck 4 months ago
Wow. I generally like Doug Wilson's books. I appreciate his non-confrontational spirit, too (unlike Todd Friel). That said, the more I listen to traditional theologians (Calvinist, Arminian, etc) defend their idea of eternal punishment, which is in so blantantly counter to the Divine Law, the more I just shake my head in amazement. There are so many hoops to jump through to arrive at that conclusion, it staggers the mind. Dr. Stephen E. Jones (gods-kingdom-ministriesDOTcom) is a must-read.
finalewiz 5 months ago
@finalewiz Well put :)
whatthehellbook 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Bible does not teach eternal punishment. God's love and mercy endures forever. Does it really endure forever or only in this life? How can it be Good News if it doesn't translate to the afterlife? God will still judge but He will not punish forever. He's a better Father than we are, right?
1 Timothy 4:10- This is why we work hard and continue to struggle, for our hope is in the living God, who is the Savior of all people and particularly of all believers.
whatthehellbook . com
whatthehellbook 5 months ago
hell is not a place, it is simply the rejection of God's love by the person,it is the same place same person, same love of God which becomes heaven for the one who accepts His love and hell for the one who rejects His love, hell is not God's wrath or anything like that, that was never the teaching of the early church,,
paulomi123 5 months ago
I want to know how it would be just for God to "send" anyone to hell? If hell is a state of eternal punishment for sin then we have a problem. The punishment has to be proportional to the crime; if it is not then it is not justice. But infinite punishment for finite sin would not be proportional and therefore not just.
I agree with Hans Urs Von Balthasar that we cannot claim that everyone will be saved but we can hope that all will be saved.
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@bayreuth79 Indeed, if eternal punishment is truly the price for sin, then a resurrected Christ is a problem! He should still be paying the price eternally in hell. But, no, the wages of sin is DEATH, not eternal torture. Christ is the remedy for DEATH. And if, by the way, Paul says that God will be all in all again, then nothing He has created will be lost. In that sense, we can definitely KNOW that all will ultimately call Jesus Lord and be saved. The death "deadline" in man's concoction
finalewiz 5 months ago
@bayreuth79 You are correct. The punishment must fit the crime. If I poach a deer I may go to jail or pay a fine or both. If I murder a senator or a sitting president I am executed. You sin against an eternal, and perfectly holy God; you pay an eternal punishment.
saintoccasionally 4 months ago
@saintoccasionally I think that this is fallacious:
The idea that the severity of a crime is dependent on the differing degrees of importance of the persons offended is a medieval notion and one which the bible actually teaches against. Throughout the bible God is shown as no respecter of persons.
Futhermore, it would follow from what you say that even one small sin (such as telling a "white" lie) warrants eternal punishment; but surely that is absurd.
bayreuth79 4 months ago
@bayreuth79 That little white lie is still a sin against a God who is no respecter of persons. But is he not also a defender of his own holy character and standards?
saintoccasionally 4 months ago
@saintoccasionally It seems to me that for you the degree of seriousness of a sin is evaluated on the basis of the degree of importance of the person (in this case, God) one has offended. But surely this is fallacious and for this reason: if the degree of seriousness of a sin is extrinsic to the sin itself (i.e., the degree of seriousness is assessed in relation to the importance of the person offended) then there is no intrinsic difference between telling a white lie and genocide.
bayreuth79 4 months ago
@bayreuth79 Of course there are degrees of sin as well; but that wasn't really central to my point. The original issue at hand was whether it is just for God to send anyone to an eternal Hell for finite sinning. Yes because they have offended the infinitely holy, righteous, and beautiful God. But it isn't as if people in Hell are going to stop sinning. And the concept I am arguing for isn't fallacious anyway. Continued.....
saintoccasionally 4 months ago
@saintoccasionally The punishment must fit the crime and what "fits" the crime is determined by two things. 1. What was done? 2. Against whom? You can argue that this idea when applied to other created beings is not proper since we are all of equal value at the root of things. But you cannot argue that about God. He really is more valuable than we. This true by definition. So a white lie may be a small offense to you i.e "No bayreuth79, I can't come to your party...continued...
saintoccasionally 4 months ago
@saintoccasionally because I have to go pick my mom up from the airport." No big deal in the grand scheme. But to offend God, the infinite one, by disobeying hie injunction against lying is an infinite crime.
saintoccasionally 4 months ago
@saintoccasionally ... that the offended person is lacking something that was his by right. However, if my sin against God deprives him of something, i.e., that is, injurys him, then God is lacking something because of my sin. But the question then is: how can God, who is by definition that than which nothing greater can be conceived, lack anything? He would no longer be God if he were lacking something, including my honouring him.
bayreuth79 4 months ago
@bayreuth79 When you sin you attempt to place yourself upon His throne and thus attempt to rob Him of what is His. Yes God is a God of self-giving love; but He is also a God who loves righteousness and justice. I believe you are pitting God's attributes against each other. His love does not negate his hatred for sin, or his holiness, or the fact that he is a God of wrath any more that those things negate his love, and his mercy. The bible says all of that and they are all true.
saintoccasionally 4 months ago
@saintoccasionally The central point is as to whether God can be injured by my sin. I would argue, along with the whole tradition of classical christianity, that God cannot be affected positively or negatively by us. If this were not the case then God would not be immutable (changeless) and he would not be perfect either (because if sin injures God then he by definition lacks something that is due to him). God does not change, we change; God is not affected by sin, we are.
bayreuth79 4 months ago
@bayreuth79 This has been an even keeled and respectful exchange (all too rare a beast on the internet!). But I do not want to go any further until you deal with what I said about pitting God's attributes against each other. Maybe you could also clarify what your position is exactly. That may make for a more edifying argument. In fact, if you are interested we could take this private. This format makes it difficult to really accomplish much of anything. I will P.M. you my e-mail address.
saintoccasionally 4 months ago
@saintoccasionally Your argument seems to imply that our sin can injury God in some way. Now, it is certainly true that to sin is by definition to do injury to someone- so, for example, when I tell I lie I deprive someone of the truth, which is a kind of injury; or when I steal from someone I deprive someone of their property, which again is a type of injury. In each case, to sin against someone is to deprive them of something that is due to them (the truth, right to property, health, etc), so
bayreuth79 4 months ago
@saintoccasionally Hmmm. Karl Barth pointed out that God's actions reveal who God is. What is the fullest expression of God for a Christian? The Word of God (Jesus Christ). What does Jesus Christ reveal about God? I think, first of all, Jesus Christ reveals a God of kenotic love (read Phillippians)- that is, self-emptying love; secondly, this kenosis reveals the humility of God. If that is the case, I cannot imagine this God feeling the need to "defend" himself; even in defeat he is victorious.
bayreuth79 4 months ago
My impression is that the Bible is very unspecific about hell and contains only very few verses about it. Therefore I am pretty surprised that so many people have so much to say about hell.
Troul478 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Jesus Loves us all more than we could even know. And when we die, we are all going to be very surprised at who he thinks is right and wrong.
WhitePlumeMountain 5 months ago
Comment removed
WhitePlumeMountain 5 months ago
I would agree with his point that the people in hell don't want to be in heaven. But how does this correspond with God's punishment of sinners? How does this correspond with the Angry God of Edwards? And even if you approach this from a Calvinistic framework, why would God create people who he knew he would be angry with and ultimately damn to a literal firepit beneath the surface of the earth.
brendos444 6 months ago
This is the problem with Western Christianity, particularly Calvinism. They construct a God who damns them to a literal hell, but then decides to save some and call it the gospel. Are they kidding? In Orthodoxy hell is a reality because of free will. Further it is not a literal place. God will eventually be all in all. there wont be a place where He is not. Therefore ppl in hell experience his light and love as torment and those who love God experience this as heaven. No damnation on God's part
brendos444 6 months ago
And further, the atonement is not to be seen as penal substitution. God's justice is not punitive. It is resotorative. The cross is about freeing us from sin, death and the evil one. Jesus came to destroy the work of the devil as the apostle says. when the Messiah dies, the tombs are opened up. Christ has conquered death by his death. This is the testimony of scripture. This is how the early church fathers understood the atonement. And this is the historical faith.
brendos444 6 months ago
And further, under a Calvinistic framework, heaven could definitely not be more highly populated than hell. Doug just takes the passage about the 144000 and says "there you go, there's gonna be a lot of people there." Well HOW are they going to get there? That's the question that is utterly unexplainable from a Calvinistic perspective.
brendos444 6 months ago
Are you a "Bell-ite"? Find out at HELLS BELL DOT NET. Go to the comment/blog section.
PreachingJesus 7 months ago
A false teacher is someone who teaches things that purposely create distance between them and God. So let me get this straight, Rob Bell is a false teacher because he doesn't affirm the reality of an obviously unreal realm of torture? So you're saying, not believing in hell, is creating distance from God? Or are you saying that it's important for "hell" to be one of the driving factors that make you want to believe in God, because that's more money from scared wallets for your church? Thought so
MarkToTheSky 9 months ago
For Rob Bell to imply that no one goes to hell completely undermines the message of the Gospel, that Jesus died and rose again for a reason. Jesus' didn't save us from an angry God as if Jesus disagreed with the plan of salvation of sinners as Rob Bell insinuates, rather Jesus and the Father (God) were one (John 14)
Pastors like Doug Wilson and John MacArthur challenge Rob Bell because he is a false teacher and many people are being lead astray by lies.
wheredidileavemycell 10 months ago
Comment removed
wheredidileavemycell 10 months ago
True Love winning is that the perfect and sinless Son of God Jesus Christ, died on the cross as payment for the sins of those who believe. That is the core message of the Gospel, that in this life, we can be forgiven of all of our sins that condemn us to hell and have a restored relationship with God if we truly believe that Jesus did all of that for us. That is Good News. So by that logic, if I don't believe Jesus is the son of God or even existed, what would that imply?
wheredidileavemycell 10 months ago
I don't believe they are jealous. The fact that a lot of young people like his message, does not give credibility to his teachings or show that he faithful to Holy Scripture. This isn't the first time that Rob Bell has said something or wrote a book that has been popular or that other pastors have been adamant about addressing/correcting. They issue at state is biblical accuracy and faithfulness to the Gospel.
wheredidileavemycell 10 months ago
Admittedly, the doctrine of Sin and Hell are not easy for Christians to lovingly convey to unbelievers. The notion that torment in hell for eternity is the judgment for a person who sees themselves as generally "good" is not something they will want to hear. Nor will it be easy for a Christian listen lovingly to an unbeliever's response to that idea. I can see if Rob Bell was challenging the action of the person who wrote "News Flash, Gandhi is in hell" as unloving or unchristian because
wheredidileavemycell 10 months ago
we are called to speak true in love, but it seems that Rob Bell has thrown the baby out with the bathwater. Rather than emphasizing that Christians should carefully and lovingly evangelize, Rob Bell teaches that hell is empty and that God is unloving if He judges anyone to that fate. If that were the case, than what was the purpose of Jesus dying on the cross if even those who openly reject him are granted salvation? This "love" that Rob Bell isn't true love.
wheredidileavemycell 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Seems to me a lot of the pastors and leaders who are denouncing Rob Bell are jealous. Yes, jealous. I think they are shocked at how fast Bell's message is flourishing and how loudly it is resonating especially in young people. I think these leaders were caught off guard and many are shocked. They are angry that their brand of faith isnt being recognized. It is plain old jealousy.
nycbull 10 months ago
Seems to me a lot of the pastors and leaders who are denouncing Rob Bell are jealous. Yes, jealous. I think they are shocked at how fast Bell's message is flourishing and how loudly it is resonating especially in young people. I think these leaders were caught off guard and many are shocked. They are angry that their brand of faith isnt being recognized. It is plain old jealousy.
nycbull 10 months ago
It seems you are basing your response (to a book you hadn't read yet) upon a human definition of justice that you are attributing to God. The cross, the parable of the prodical son/loving father, the story of the woman caught in adultry, etc., these are examples of God's justice which is grace based, not wrath based. Likewise, the gospel you talk about is wrath centered. Jesus didn't go to the cross so we could be punished for sin, but forgiven of sin.
clothman57 10 months ago
Three weeks ago??? The book was not out yet and he is this nervous. Lining up the troops?
davenicholson37 10 months ago
By his words, it doesn't sound like @dohboy3000 really paid attention to the video or that he would treat Doug WIlson civily in conversation, which is similar to the accusations he made about Wilson. Projection?
JefferyHunt 11 months ago
Not to perpetuate this (ok, maybe to perpetuate) but, by his words, it doesn't sound like @dohboy3000 really paid attention to the video or that he would treat Doug WIlson civily in conversation, which is similar to the accusations he made about Wilson. Projection?
JefferyHunt 11 months ago
bla bla bla
sunsirel 11 months ago
@sunsirel oh, that's intelligent.
CanonWired 11 months ago 13
So much opinion, fear and speculation in this video, I would encourage you to read the book before you critique it but I highly doubt that you will. Question, have you ever met Rob Bell, would you speak to him if you had the chance? How would you treat him? Would the conversation be civil? Do you honestly think that you are right just because you hold the bible up and say that your interpretation is the right one?
dohboy3000 11 months ago
@dohboy3000 I'm the producer, and know Doug Wilson. I'm quite sure he will read the book soon after it arrives. I'm also quite sure he would meet (and be wiling to debate) Rob Bell in person. And judging from his debates and personal interaction with MANY other men, including a documentary with Christopher Hitchens, I know he would be very gentlemanly in his actions. And he believes Bell is wrong because he goes against what is clear in the Bible. I feel you are the one who is quick to judge.
CanonWired 11 months ago 17
@CanonWired Well you are entitled to feel that way and thank you for expressing that feeling, its nice to know that even people who are trying to defend the horrible doctrine of a literal burning hell still have feelings
dohboy3000 11 months ago
@CanonWired Can I ask you whether Doug Wilson believes that hell is a literal place? Does he think that it is literally a lake of fire with worms in it etc? If so, where is it and what temperature is it done there? Reading the bible as if metaphor were concrete reality has lead many astray especially in Protestantism.
brendos444 6 months ago