Triablogue: Rob Bell

Showing posts with label Rob Bell. Show all posts

Monday, July 11, 2011

"Now, to some critics, that will simply prove that Arminianism and theological liberalism are closely related"

At this point it's kind of redundant for me to continue rebutting Arminian theology when Roger Olson makes one fatal concession after another. Why lay siege to a fort when everyone is dead inside?

http://www.patheos.com/community/rogereolson/2011/07/09/why-i-defend-rob-bells-love-wins-and-other-controversial-books/

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

N. T. Wright's wayward compass

http://trevinwax.com/2011/05/24/n-t-wright-on-rob-bell-and-the-reality-of-hell/

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

GTY on hell

The GTY blog has a running series on hell, in response to issues raised by the Bell controversy:

http://www.gty.org/Blog/B110412

http://www.gty.org/Blog/B110414

http://www.gty.org/Blog/B110421

http://www.gty.org/Blog/B110426

http://www.gty.org/Blog/B110430

http://www.gty.org/Blog/B110506

http://www.gty.org/Blog/B110511

Thursday, May 05, 2011

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Bird reviews Bell

Michael Bird has apparently completed his serial review of Bell's book:

http://euangelizomai.blogspot.com/2011/04/love-wins-2.html

http://euangelizomai.blogspot.com/2011/04/love-wins-3.html

http://euangelizomai.blogspot.com/2011/04/love-wins-4.html

Monday, April 04, 2011

BW3 on Bell

Ben Witherington has completed his serial review of Bell’s book Love Wins. While I don’t think his review is quite as good overall as Bock’s, it has some worthwhile features:

i) It’s more detailed than Bock’s review.

ii) BW3 has a very catchy prose style.

iii) He corrects a number of Bell’s flagrant misinterpretations.

iv) BW3 writes from a Wesleyan perspective. So, of course, I disagree with some of his comments.

Sunday, April 03, 2011

Thursday, March 31, 2011

16 Lessons From the 'Love Wins' Debate

Tony Reinke provides a list of observations from the Rob Bell Fiasco:

In retrospect a friend asked me to share a few lessons I saw in the Rob Bell, Love Wins debate so I typed them up and figured I would share them here. I was mainly just an observer, and I compiled this list as I watched the debate unfold. Here are 16 lessons that come to mind:

01: The gospel is eternal, but vulnerable, never to be assumed, and never to be left unguarded (1 Tim 6:20, 2 Tim 1:14).

02: Bloggers have emerged as the church’s frontline defense against popular-level theological error.

03: Academic-bloggers, pastor-bloggers, publisher-bloggers, and blogger-bloggers offer key strengths. We need them all.

04: Social media enables bloggers to piggyback and collaborate, resulting in a rapid response to error.

05: Bloggers can quickly and accurately apply revered theological writings (like those by J.I. Packer and D. A. Carson) to rapidly developing debates.

06: Yet there remain a number of online influencers who ‘enable’ bad doctrine. They may not believe it, but they keep it on the table.

07: Slower moving institutions (like SBTS) play the role of confirming blog findings, providing a platform for a follow-up discussion, and ensuring those findings are scattered broadly.

08: It is entirely appropriate to subject brief promotional videos to theological inspection.

09: Justin Taylor is quick, discerning, and gutsy.

10: In serious and timely theological discussions 92.6% of blog comments fail to advance the discussion.

11: Some will declare a 3-word Tweet definitively ungodly but cannot do the same after reading an entire unorthodox book.

12: Identifying false teachers is no good way to “win friends and influence people.” It forces the question: are we addicted to the approval of man?

13: Bogus theology follows a trajectory, meaning that careful discernment requires past experience with a particular teacher. Less experience can lead to unnecessary caution.

14: Discerning pastors, who are short on time, should be regular readers of a few key blogs, especially Justin and Kevin DeYoung.

15: When serious theological debate happens, the national media will be watching, so speak as a bold defender and a humble evangelist.

16: The theological errors of universalism and inclusivism have been around for a long time and will outlive us all.

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.

[Books]

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 marshill.org/teaching/past-series 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 marshill.org/believe.

http://marshill.org/pdf/LoveWinsResources.pdf

Sunday, March 20, 2011

It takes one ta know one

Here's the take of a leading universalist on Rob Bell:

http://theologicalscribbles.blogspot.com/2011/03/is-bell-really-universalist.html

Friday, March 18, 2011

Interview with Martin Bashir

Paul Edwards interviews MSNBC's Martin Bashir.

Here’s the audio of my interview with MSNBC’s Martin Bashir on his interview with Emergent Universalist Rob Bell of Mars Hill Church in Grand Rapids. Martin discloses whether or not he is a committed Christian and if the blog rumors are true that he attends Tim Keller’s Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City.

Is Bell a universalist?

Rob Bell's church has issued a public clarification:

http://marshill.org/pdf/LoveWinsFAQs.pdf

Ironically, the statement unwittingly confirms that Bell is a universalist in the very process of denying that Bell is a universalist.

LOVE WINS FAQS

[Frequently Asked Questions]

We hope this FAQ helps you interact with the book, Love Wins. For information on Mars Hill’s beliefs, see our Narrative Theology at marshill.org/believe.

Does Love Wins affirm that Jesus is the only way by which we are saved?

Yes. Love Wins is clear, our only hope for reconciliation with God is found in Jesus alone because of all he accomplished through his life, death and resurrection. Rob shares in Love Wins his belief that the only way to God is through Jesus by quoting and affirming Jesus’ statement, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” [pg. 154]. Mars Hill affirms that Jesus is the only way to inherit salvation, how exactly that happens, however, is a matter of mystery that we do not claim to have all the answers to. As Rob says after quoting Jesus, “What he doesn’t say is how, or when, or in what manner the mechanism functions that gets people to God through him” [pg. 154].

But so-called evangelical universalism says the same thing. Everyone is saved through the atonement of Christ.

What does Love Wins say about heaven and hell?

Love Wins recognizes heaven and hell to be realities all around us. We see hell everyday through the atrocities of war, famine, human trafficking, broken relationships, and abuse. We also see heaven all around us through acts of love, kindness, and compassion.

There is also the reality of heaven and hell in the future. Our ultimate future hope is a restored creation under Christ where God will dwell with us forever on a restored heaven and earth [Rev 21-22]. There are many who accept the invitation of the life of heaven and many who reject the invitation. Those who reject the invitation experience a purifying “fire” of judgment in hell, yet there is hope. We live in the hope that the redemptive work of Christ is beyond what we can ask or imagine. Love Wins helps us have a biblical imagination that leaves room for the hope of the redemption of all while recognizing humanities free will to continue to reject God.

That is universalism. Hopeful universalism. There is a hell–a purgatorial hell. Hell is remedial punishment. And the possibility of postmortem restoration remains a live option.

Does Love Wins promote Universalism?

No. Rob isn’t suggesting Universalism [all will be saved, regardless of their faith]. He is proposing that God’s love is so big that the invitation to God’s grace may extend into the next life so that all could be saved. Love Wins clearly points to the centrality of Jesus and the work of his life, death, and resurrection and the hope that Christ’s work will bring restoration to all. Jesus is the only way to God. God’s love does not force anyone and there may be those who continue to reject the invitation extended to them. Love Wins speaks often speaks of human freedom [72-73, 103-104, 113, 115, 117]. Rob shares, “Love demands freedom. It always has, and it always will. We are free to resist, reject, and rebel against God’s ways for us. We can have all the hell we want.” [113]

That's consistent with so-called evangelical universalism and hopeful universalism. According to evangelicalism, people are saved through the atonement of Christ. Moreover, they are saved through faith in Christ. However, that may be postmortem faith in Christ.

Likewise, hopeful universalism doesn't insist that everyone will be saved in the end. Rather, God must always leave the door open.

What matters in hopeful universalism is not that God actually saves everyone, but that the damned are never abandoned by God. God never gives up on them.

There's always the possibility of final restoration. And, conversely, there's always the possibility that some will remain irreconcilables.

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Handicapping Bashir's performance

Surfing the web, I notice a number of Bell’s defenders who are critical of Bashir’s opening salvo because they think it’s a false dilemma:

Which of these is true? Either God is all powerful but doesn’t care about the people of Japan and they’re suffering or he does care about the people of Japan and but he’s not all powerful?

I agree with them that it’s a false dilemma. That, however, doesn’t mean Bashir was wrong to ask the question that way. After all, that’s a stock objection to Christian theism. It’s a variant on the hoary Euthyphro dilemma.

Ironically, many of Bell’s defenders have hitherto defended him for “just asking” the kinds of questions that many doubters do. Well, this is one of those questions.

It’s up to Bell to explain why the question poses a false dilemma.

They enter into peace

I. Introduction

I’m going to begin by quoting some excerpts from a transcript of Bashir’s interview with Bell:

Bashir: Before we talk about the book, just help us with this tragedy in Japan. which of these is true? either god is all powerful but doesn’t care about the people of Japan and they’re suffering or he does care about the people of Japan and but he’s not all powerful? Which is it?

Bell: I begin with the belief that god, when we shed a tear, god sheds a tear. I begin with a divine being who is profoundly empathetic, compassionate and stands in solidarity with us.

Bashir: Which is true, he’s all but powerful and cares?

Bell: I think it’s a paradox at the heart of the divine, some paradoxes are best left as they are.

I’m a pastor so ideal with real people and a real world asking and wrestling with these issues of faith. what I have discovered and over again people who have questions and hunches and have sort of I’m struggling with this and when you can simply give them the gift of, by the way, within the christian tradition, there are scholars and theologians and other people who have had the same questions. they have had the same theories.

http://www.dennyburk.com/martin-bashir-takes-on-rob-bell/

II. Evaluation

What are we to make of this response?

i) In fairness to Bell, it could be said that a 7-min. interview is hardly the best forum to answer thorny questions concerning the problem of evil.

ii) On the other hand, Bell knows that TV interviews are a simplistic medium. If you can’t give suitable answers, don’t submit yourself to the limitations of the medium.

iii) In addition, it’s fairly routine, when a religious figure is interviewed during some humanitarian crisis, for him to be questioned about the problem of evil. Therefore, there’s no reason for Bell not to have a prepared answer. Indeed, pastors are often expected to comment on public tragedies, and they frequently use the opportunity to do so.

iv) What about the notion that “God sheds a tear when we shed a tear?” Is that just a picturesque way of saying God cares? If so, that’s fine as far as it goes.

If, on the other hand, it suggests that God is just as helpless as we are, that he’s lost control of the world, that all he can do is wring his hands and cry with us, then that’s bad systematic theology, bad pastoral theology, and bad theodicy. Frankly, that kind of “God” is pathetic. Worse than useless.

Imagine if God responded to the Israelites in Egypt that way. “Well, I really can’t do anything to save you from oppression, but I’ll cry with you.”

Divine compassion is not a substitute for divine action.

Jesus wept for Martha and Mary (Jn 11:35), but that’s not all he did. That was a prelude to raising Lazarus from the grave.

v) In addition, God gives us a variety of relationships. We don’t get everything we need from one type of relationship. Commiseration is what friends and family are for.

When you go to the doctor, you don’t want the doctor to weep with you–you want him to cure you. Maybe some patients find a weepy physician comforting, but that’s really not the point. We go to doctors for healing, not a shoulder to cry on.

We shouldn’t look to God as our Heavenly Sob Sister.

vi) Finally, Bell says he’s approaching these questions from a pastoral standpoint, but his “answers” or non-answers fail miserably in that very respect. Imagine if he were a Japanese pastor. When his grief-stricken parishioners ask him to make sense of the tragedy, does he tell it’s a paradox? What kind of answer is that? How does that help them cope?

III. Alternative

While Bell’s “answers” and non-answers have been greeted with richly-merited derision, we ourselves need to do more than heap criticism on his performance. We need to present a constructive alternative. If Bashir were asking us the same question, how should we respond?

i) One problem with Bashir’s question is an assumption built into his question: the assumption that God must have a uniform attitude towards the Japanese. But from a Calvinistic perspective, there’s no reason to assume that. In Scripture, God doesn’t have a uniform attitude towards everyone alike. God draws distinctions.

ii) At one level, God cares what happens to all the Japanese, for God made them, and he made them for a reason. He planned their lives down to the very last detail. He cares what happens because what happens is the result of what he planned to happen all along.

iii) He cares about Japanese Christians. He cares for them. Cares what happens to them. Indeed, he’s made provision for their eternal welfare.

iv) He also cares about Japanese unbelievers whom he will bring to the faith in due time. And, indeed, tragedies large and small are one way that God draws people to his Son.

Likewise, a Japanese Buddhist today may be the grandfather of a Japanese Christian tomorrow. God cares about the unbeliever with a view to the future. For in the providence of God, a reprobate may be a link in the chain, leading to one of God’s elect.

One branch branches off from another. God doesn’t care about every branch equally or directly. But he cares about the tree generally because the tree supports the heavenbound branches. The past supports the present. The present supports the future. The elect grow out of the reprobate, and vice versa.

Even branches which will be pruned and cast upon the everlasting bonfire make a necessary, temporary contribution to the outcome. So each branch is valued, but some are valued in relation to others, while others are valued in themselves.

v) Appearances are deceptive. God may be most caring when he seems to be least caring. God is near, even when, or especially when, he seems to be far away:

1The righteous man perishes,

and no one lays it to heart;

devout men are taken away,

while no one understands.

For the righteous man is taken away from calamity;

2 he enters into peace;

they rest in their beds

who walk in their uprightness.

(Isa 57:1-2)

As one commentator explains:

The oblique passive, “are being taken away,” suggests divine action, but God’s role’s is not apparent to those around who do not “lay it to heart” (cf. 42:25; 47:7; 57:11), being unwilling or unable to perceive its significance. Like their rulers, none of the people “understand” because they are affected by the same lack of spiritual perception (cf. 56:11)…

…the calamity is enemy invasion–which has already been threatened (cf. 56:9)–and Yahweh is mercifully removing the righteous before that disaster arrives (cf. 2 Kgs 22:20).

The righteous will “enter into peace,” a phrase which recalls the promise given to Abraham: “You will go in [or “enter”] to your fathers in peace” (Gen 15:15). This describes a life lived out in full enjoyment of the divine provision of the peace of salvation (cf. 53:5; 54:10), and sets the basis for its continuation in the life to come (cf. 2 Kgs 22:20; Jer 34:5). This is in marked contrast to the lack of peace experienced by the wicked (cf. 57:21).

J. MacKay, Isaiah: chapters 40-66 (EP 2009), 428-29.

Universalism/Inerrancy Discussion

Awhile back, I had an exchange with someone who was defending a version of "Pauline universalism." Since some of the arguments he was advancing are similar to some of the material in Rob Bell's book, some readers might find it helpful. It also touches on issues related to inerrancy. Below is part of my side of the discussion:

Evan May
Hey Scott,

This might not be an active conversation any longer, but I found some of your comments interesting and wanted to respond to a few of the claims that you made.

“Philippians 2:11 ends with ‘to the glory of the Father’ which if you remember the description of God’s glory on the mountain suggests that everyone’s confession will be greeted with mercy and loving kindness.”

I don’t see how that follows. Why does the glorification of the Father necessitate every individual receiving mercy? Furthermore, it seems that you are only citing half of the Exodus 34 text. The Lord speaks over Moses, “The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin,” but then says, “but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation” (v. 6-7). God’s glory does not consist in mercy only, but also in judgment for sin (see Jim Hamilton’s book, God’s Glory in Salvation and Judgment, http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Glory-Salvation-through-Judgment/dp/1581349769/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1282139241&sr=8-1-fkmr0 ).

Moreover, the discretionary character of mercy is a theme both in Exodus and in Paul (Ex. 33:19; Romans 9:15). And Paul elsewhere portrays God’s desire to display not only his mercy but also his wrath (Rom. 9:22-23).

Evan May
Hey Scott,

Thanks for replying.

You didn’t respond to my counterargument from Exodus 34 (the text that you initially alluded to with reference to Philippians 2). Please justify the claim that if the Father is glorified, this necessitates that he would bestow forgiveness on every individual, irrespective of their being “in Christ” by faith.

You say:

“Actually Paul moves beyond the anthropormorphic Hebrew idea of God's wrath (except in cases of apocalyptic return, which is still a temporary wrath).”

That is not self-evident. It is an assertion without corresponding argument or exegesis. What exactly, then, is the “day of wrath” concept, for Paul? “But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed” (Rom. 2:5). There is an eschatological force .

I disagree with your summary of Rom. 9-11, but that discussion would cause us to digress. Your use of Romans 11:32 doesn’t do justice to the context, which refers to the Jew/Gentile distinction. Paul is not making the claim that God will have mercy on all without *exception*, but all without *distinction* (God will have mercy on both Jews and Gentiles).

Your citation from Ephesians 1:7 is counterproductive, for “redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins” for Paul is received only by faith and repentance.

Blessings,
Evan

Bashir interviews Bell

Bashir: You ate your mother for breakfast. That’s true, isn’t it?

Bell: I begin with the belief that when we eat our mother, God eats our mother. I begin with a divine being who is profoundly empathetic, compassionate and stands in solidarity with cannibals.

Bashir: I get that. But did you eat your mother for breakfast?

Bell: Eating your mother for breakfast is one culinary perspective within the stream of Christian cannibalism. There’s been within the Christian tradition a number of people who eat their mother for breakfast, but others eat her for lunch, or save her for dinner. Then there’s postmortem cannibalism. One of the things in the book I’m clear on and want people to see is that this tradition has all of these different opinions on the right time to eat your mother.

Bashir: So did you eat or not?

Bell: It’s a beautiful hope. We ought to keep that front and center.

Bashir: You’re trying to have it both ways. That doesn’t make sense. Yes or no: did you or didn’t you eat your mother for breakfast?

Bell: I think that’s a paradox at the heart of Christian cannibalism.

Pages