Doug Wilson on Bell and Hell

Doug Wilson on Rob Bell and his position on hell.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Rob Bell
• Love wins
• Doug Wilson
• Douglas Wilson
• Moscow
• Idaho
• ID
• Christ Church
• Theology
• discussion
• universalism
• religion
• commentary
• philosophy
• analysis

[sunsirel]

bla bla bla

[CanonWired]

@sunsirel oh, that's intelligent.

[dohboy3000]

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?

[CanonWired]

@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.

[ILiveInMyParadise]

Thanks Pastor Wilson. Excellent discussion. We need more teachers like you.

[UniversalismRefuted]

@mahoganyrush300 No he's not. All Bell is doing is using the same terminology with his own definitions.

[mahoganyrush300]

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.

[saintoccasionally]

@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.

[bayreuth79]

@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.

[saintoccasionally]

@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.

[bayreuth79]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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...