Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Trojan horse universalism

Question: if Bell is not a universalist, then why is his church plugging universalist literature by Tom Talbott and George McDonald as a follow up to Love Wins?

                    LOVE WINS RESOURCES 
Further Exploration of Some of the Main Themes 
For additional reading or listening, this Resources document lists books and previous Mars Hill podcasts for those interested in further study on topics in the book. 

When Helping Hurts: How to alleviate poverty without hurting the poor by Brian Fikkert and Steve Corbett  

The Poor will be Glad: Joining the Revolution to Lift the World Out of Poverty by Peter Greer and Phil Smith  

What Can I Do?: Making a Global Different Right Where You Are by David Livermore 

Prodigal God: Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith by Tim Keller 

Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church 

The Inescapable Love of God by Thomas Talbott 

The Great Divorce by C. S. Lewis 

One.Life: Jesus Calls We Follow by Scot McKnight 

Unspoken Sermons by George MacDonald.  
Especially “Justice”, “Righteousness”, “The Child in the Midst”, “The Truth in Jesus”, and “The Consuming Fire”. 

[Mars Hill Teaching Series]    
Visit for: 

The Flames of Heaven        
Big Jesus 
Where Else is the Cross True?, [The Cross] 

We hope this Resource List helps you interact with the book, Love Wins. For information on Mars Hill’s beliefs, see our Narrative Theology at


  1. I'll turn the question around: If Rob Bell's church is plugging universalist literature as though it were okay, then why is Rob Bell trying to distance himself from the universalism evident in his own writings as though it were not okay?

    Love Wins was apparently just unclear enough for many solid Christians to conclude that Bell is crossing the line into universalism while Bell (and his theological supporters) had enough rhetorical wiggle-room to deny it. For some reason he still wants to appear orthodox while hoping to sway people away from orthodoxy. If he doesn't appear orthodox, then perhaps he thinks less-thoughtful Christians will consider his views.

  2. Is there even any interaction with any other position other than their own?

  3. Bell plays the pomo "its all interpretation" card on the Scriptures, and then turns around and says he has been "slandered". How is that even possible according to Bell's own view? If it is all interpretation, and I say that Bell is saying in Love Wins that we should eat small children - how can I be wrong?
    Maybe its not all just interpretation? Maybe he really does have an actual position? (and always has) Maybe the universalist plugs at the church are pointing to what has always been there?
    Hypocrisy at its finest...

  4. Nobody notices the plug for Tim Keller, the PCA's favorite evolutionist?