Monday, April 25, 2011

Rob Bell, Love Wins: A Response

I have just read through Love Wins by Rob Bell (RB). For the uninitiated, this book has created a storm of controversy in the US over its universalistic gospel. Rather than giving a complete breakdown of the book with its strengths and weaknesses, here a few responses.
First, good for RB for asking the question about the universality of salvation. There are a range of questions in it like: If God is love, will his love not melt the heart of even the worst of all sinners ultimately? Is death the end of all chances – is there further hope for the lost after death?  There is nothing wrong with asking the question and stimulating debate. These are good questions that we must continue to ponder.
Secondly, Rob can really write. The book is compelling and seductive. I enjoyed it and felt myself drawn in by the compelling picture of God, love, life, hope and eternity. Rob has a poetic edge; he is easy to read – pleasing to today's reader who, in the main, does not want complexity.
Thirdly, there is much I can affirm. I agree that love is fundamental to God's character. I agree with RB that eternity is not the end of the world, but the beginning of a new restored world. I agree with him that some presentations of the gospel give a picture of a harsh judging God and that the idea of an eternal hell of pain is tough to take in some ways. I agree with his theology of 'freedom' (don't like the word) in salvation i.e. we choose our eternal destiny, by responding to God's initiative in Christ.  I also affirm that the world is to be drawn to God by preaching a gospel based on the love of God, and not on fear and guilt – although that is an unavoidable part of the story.
Fourthly, having said all this, I have to part from Rob at a number of points. Before I begin, let me state that this is not a condemnation of Rob Bell and his ministry; it is not my place to do so. I am discussing the ideas in the book. Here are some of the things I take issue at:
  • While God is love, he is more than love, or better his love is more than what we today think it is; he is also good and just. God's utter goodness and vision for a creation free from evil and corruption means he will act decisively at a certain point of his choice, when his purposes are complete – the end of the age. He will remove anti-good, acting in justice, out of love. To me, this will occur when the gospel has penetrated his world so that it is known through every nation (Mark 13:10; Matt 14:14). At that point, Jesus will return, he will judge all humanity, and eternal destinies decided. Our eternal state is decided on the basis of relational faith in God i.e. where those who have said 'yes' to God, have bowed the knee willingly, there will be eternal life. RB then, to me, misunderstands and overstates love. God is love, true. But he is equally 'good' and as such, evil and corruption violates his very being and must be dealt with. Because of love he is withholding acting to destroy evil. He could have done so at the first, extinguishing evil at the moment of Adam and Eve's sin. Rather, he allowed humanity out of grace to live on. But the day of reckoning is coming. Love demands justice. We know this, because our hearts yearn for God to act to end suffering and injustice. When we see a crime, our hearts cry for justice. God is gathering a people in history, and out of love for those people, he will ultimately act. His grace is seen in that he has not done so yet, but the day is coming.
  • While it is a nice thought, there is no indication in the Scriptures in a second chance after death. That is why the Protestant Church, in the main, has never gone there. Rather, we are given the gift of one life, we die and face judgment. This is most clearly put in Heb 9:27: 'and just as it
    is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment.' It is also
    implied in many other references to judgment such as the Sheep and Goats (e.g. Matt 12:36-37; 25:31-46; Rom 2:5-16; 14:11-12; 2 Cor 5:10) etc. The notion of eternal judgment is considered by the writer of Hebrews as an 'elementary teaching' (Heb 6:2), a judgment which is harsh (Heb 10:27). RB following others in the 'Christian universalism' or 'evangelical universalism' stream, in essence brings back purgatory, whereby we can get out of eternal destruction if we turn from our resistance. This is not quite the Roman Catholic purgatory where prayers to Jesus, Mary and the Saints can assist a person's release, but it is a variation on the theme. We can get out when we yield to God willingly, presumably having heard the message again in some way??? Aside from reading several texts like 1 Cor 15:29 and 2 Macc 12:43-47 for support, the thrust of the NT story is that we live, we die, we face judgment, and we receive our due from God.
  • RB's interpretation of the Greek aiōnos is problematic and perhaps the major problem with the book for me. He seems to think 'eternal destruction' does not necessarily imply 'forever' or 'everlasting' but speaks qualitatively, and where attached to punishment or destruction is merely literary, rhetorical warning device, and the possibility of getting out remains. The problem is that a search of the meaning of aiōnos in the Greek OT LXX and the NT shows that, while on occasion it does have the sense of the ages or a long time, it does mean 'forever' a lot of the time. The covenant is a forever covenant (e.g. Gen 9:12; 17:7), God is a forever God (e.g. Gen 21:23; Exod 3:15), eternal life is a forever life (Dan 12:2-3; Matt 19:23; John 3:16; Rom 6:23 etc). These do not merely state that it is a covenant for the ages (it continues in Christ), that God is a great God for ages, that eternal life is great and for a limited time. They are 'forever' concepts. Dan 12:2-3 is a critical text in later apocalyptic and NT texts on eternal life and destruction, it picked up through the narrative to speak of the two fates of humanity. These references to 'eternal' all then speak of 'forever' covenant (Mosaic – Davidic – Christ), a 'forever God' etc i.e. for all of time (whether this age, or the age to come). Is it legitimate then to isolate the 'eternal punishment' verses and give eternal a different meaning, especially when we find eternal life and punishment/destruction in the same text (e.g. Sheep and Goats). Indeed, if we live on a restored earth in continuity with this one as RB says in chapter 2, then this history I presume continues this one and is then necessarily temporal, and so involves 'everlasting' and 'forever.' His own theology betrays him at this point. If then 'eternal life' is 'forever life' (as well as glorious life), then why not destruction/punishment? I wonder whether you can have it both ways – eternal life is forever life without the possibility again of hell and suffering; yet, eternal destruction is not forever, and we can get out of jail anytime we like, by saying yes. Does it mean we can get out of eternal life in the same way or are we transformed so that the possibility and desire is completely gone? I note that there is no tree of knowledge of good and evil referenced in the NT picture of eternity, there are only trees of life.
  • RB takes the idea of warnings in the Gospel and sees as merely rhetorical devices to make a point. He also at times appears to limit them to the Fall of Jerusalem. Both ideas are flawed. Careful reading of the Olivet Discourse in all three Gospels (Mark 13; Matt 24; Luke 21) indicates that more than the fall of Jerusalem are in mind –despite the likes of Wright. This is particularly clear in Matthew, where Matthew takes Mark's account and reshapes it to make it clear that the 'end of the age' is in mind. Matthew then adds four passages which refer to being ready for the eschaton including the Sheep and the Goats. These are not about being ready for the fall of Jerusalem. To argue that Jesus' teaching is merely rhetorical and literary and to be taken seriously requires careful thought. As noted elsewhere in this post, Jesus' teaching on hell, eternal destruction and punishment and failure to enter life fall amidst a whole range of teaching and parabolic material. It is a flawed and assumptive hermeneutic to take out these bits as rhetorical and not other teaching on things like love, forgiveness etc. While we do have to take care with parables and theology, the parables are theological and do contribute to theology.
  • RB seems to see the idea of some experiencing eternal destruction in the traditional sense as a problem for God; that God does not win in that 'story', that for him to win, all must be saved. I can't agree with this. God will win no matter how many are saved. Indeed, he has won in history, he won on the cross, with his Son taking all that evil could throw at him and rising as Christus Victor – evil is now collateral damage in his wake. Despite evil continuing to exist (because of God's grace to give freedom illumination, to refine his people, to allow time for all humanity receive salvation), his reign cannot be threatened, for his power is absolute. It never could be actually, God is always the winner because God is God. Further, there is no a priori need for all to be saved for God to win. God seeks to win human hearts through love, goodness and justice. He woos us. He invites us. He has done it all for us in Christ. He wants us. He has won in that he has been true to his love, goodness, and justice and so love wins. Yet, he has also gifted us in our image bearing and the Spirit the capacity to say 'yes' or 'no' to his invitation to live forever in and with him. Where we say 'yes,' we are won to Christ and are gifted eternal life. Where we don't, a time of reckoning is coming where all evil is extinguished and God 'wins' (he has won whatever happens) by removing from his universe all corruption. For God to win does not require all to be saved. What our winning God is doing is placing all enemies under his feet either through voluntary submission, or if need be, through God's action.
  • RB has an interesting and inconsistent way of interpreting the parables. Where a parable has descriptions of references to hell and destruction he sees it as a literary device not to be taken too seriously but to make the point, we need to live better (e.g. The Rich Man and Lazarus, The Sheep and Goats). But where there is the theme of love, we take it literally as a guide to life. Is this consistent? Can we say that references to love are also figurative, not to be taken literally? I think RB is effectively laying his own interpretative grid on Scripture with a preconceived notion of the story, and accommodating the texts he finds difficult to the metanarrative. This is a common problem, and something we all struggle with (see The problem for RB, is that his metastory obscures what is a common thread through the NT, those who do not accept Christ will be separated from him eternally – it is found in Jesus, Luke, Paul, Hebrews, Peter, Jude, and Revelation. When something is so etched into the story, can we simply submerge it? This is one of the dangers of contemporary biblical interpretation. We are moving out of an error where people were overly focussed on individual texts, micro-detail, at the expense of the big story, the narrative, the trajectories of the whole story. We are now focussing on the metanarrative, seeing the trends and threads and trajectories of Scripture. That is good. But pushed too far, what RB has done is an example of what happens. We end up distorting the metastory with a metanarrative that does not align with the text! This is the problem in many theological constructs such as hyper-Calvinism, Arminianism, Open Theism, even what is considered blatant heresy such as Jehovah Witness readings, etc. While it is good to study trajectories and the metastory, we must not get to the point where close analysis of the detail of the story reveal that the attempt to summarise has in fact left us with another account. We need to hold the meta-reading of Scripture in tension with deep detailed reading of the text and allow a hermeneutical spiral which works between the two to continually form our constructs. Our constructs must be loose and adaptive as we discover new elements in detail and/or the metastory. RB has now settled, and like many great thinkers, he has settled in a flawed space.
  • RB makes a critical error when he does not look at Paul's use of 'destruction' language (esp. apōleia, apollumi). Paul uses this language frequently of 'destruction', often in parallel with 'being saved' (e.g. Phil 1:28; 1 Cor 1:18; 2 Cor 2:15). These texts speak of those who are sinners and reject Christ ('in Adam'), perishing eternally. In contrast, believers are 'being saved.' Paul is unequivocal on this. The clearest statement is 2 Thess 1:5-10 where Paul speaks unambiguously of Jesus' return with his angels, where those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of Christ 'will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.' This text and others speak not of a post-mortem hope, but of God executing his justice at his appointed time. The time is Christ's return. At that point, the dead will rise and there will be a judgment. RB's failure to deal with Paul is critical. It enables him to paint the picture more positively than the Scriptures really allow. For Paul, humanity outside of Christ is 'in Adam', in and under sin, and destined for eternal destruction unless saved. God acted in Christ to provide the hilastērion (propitiation, mercy seat, expiation, atoning sacrifice) for sin (Rom 3:25) whereby sin, death and wrath are dealt with in Christ. The path to salvation is faith which is reckoned as righteousness. Where the gospel is preached, it is response to Jesus that takes a person out of that state to be 'in Christ.' Where the gospel has not been preached, Abraham is our hope, his faith in God reckoned to him as righteousness. When we die, we are 'lost' in sin – there is no sense of another hope. This inability to deal with Paul is a major flaw in RB's book.
  • RB rightly asks questions about the common Christian construct of eternal destruction. He asks about babies and others who die without hearing the gospel, he asks about the nature of eternal destruction. Where he falls short to me is that he seeks to resolve these with universalism. There are other places an evangelical can go to have possible answers. There are the stories of Melchizedek and Abraham whose faith is reckoned as righteousness but never heard of Jesus. This opens up a range of possibilities. There is the grace of God who can be trusted to deal with the problem of the child with grace. There is the possibility of conditional mortality whereby those who are in a trust-relationship with are raised to life, but those who reject God simply do not rise or are annihilated. These constructs can work in the Scriptures. I don't quite see why RB and other evangelical universalists feel a need to go to universalism when the New Testament clearly supports that some will be separated from God eternally. Why not work with what is written rather than create a construct which violates what is written? It reveals a detachment from Scripture as first priority in theological decision making toward philosophical speculation and the imposition of reason on the text.
  • RB seems to me to play down the problem of evil and suffering – he does what many westerners today are doing with the text, deapocalyptising it i.e. playing down the nasty and supernatural bits. There is little in RB's picture of the call to take up the cross and suffer for Christ. Christianity is about enjoyment. That is critical, but it is joy in the midst of suffering, especially in the theology of Paul (e.g. Philippians with 16 references to joy as he waxes lyrical about the suffering of Christ, Epaphroditus, himself, and the Philippians). The world in the Biblical story is a glorious place, but it is terribly flawed as are its people. It is thus a dangerous world. There are spiritual forces seeking to destroy. There are people who want to assume control and do all they can to gain it. Our God acts in this world, and we live in it. The story RB paints lacks the apocalyptic nuance of the real world, although it might reflect the nice cushy world of the west. As such, the picture of the consummation painted is soft, as if love will conquer all. Yes it will, but not voluntarily in many cases. There are forces at work which refuse to yield, and must be 'put under his feet' (Ps 110:1). I complete this on ANZAC day remembering Gallipoli and other conflicts where lunatics have sought to take the world, and huge wars with massive death tolls have occurred. The world is full of such conflict. The book reads like a westerner writing in a nice soft western context without the ruthless suffering and evil of much of the history of God's world. It is a sweet picture.  Above all, the cross is placed in the middle of this. We see it all there, evil doing its worst, human depravity in deceit, violence, hubris, hate and power, human incomprehension of what God is really about. Since the cross it goes on. Look at the Middle East today, etc. We are in a dangerous world full of pain, suffering and hate. The picture painted in the book is soft and almost sentimental. Life, God and faith are more robust than this.
  • RB gets a little confused on salvation. He doesn't like the language of 'entry' into salvation. The problem for him is that Jesus did, and spoke of it frequently (e.g. Matt 5:20; 7:13, 21; 18:8, 9; 19:7, 23-24; 23:12). Humanity needs to enter God's reign, it is not automatic. We are outside God's reign unless we yield, the other NT writers agree. RB rightly notes the diverse answers Jesus gives to questions of entry into salvation. What he does not then do is go through the rest of the NT and show that there is a consistency in the post-resurrection preaching and writing of the church on this question of how to enter. As we do we find two key words, repent and believe. Repent is not always mentioned and 'believe' implies a turning from false beliefs. But the picture is consistent, one turns from sin and false allegiances, and believe in Jesus to be saved. Faith is relational, it is assent (saying yes), submission (coming under his lordship), and trust. The picture is clear in the NT. Jesus in his pre-crucifixion ministry was drawing people away from Torah, boundary markers, covenant presumption, works and self-reliance to himself! This is why his answers are fluid; they are not so to confuse us in terms of salvation. Once Jesus died and rose from the dead, the answer became clear – Jesus is the pathway to salvation. He has done it all, he has fulfilled the law, he is the sinless one, he refused to yield, he completed the work, he has taken the judgment of God on himself on our behalf, he has conquered death, he is the first fruits of the new creation and humanity – he has completed all that needed to be done. All that is required is faith – indeed RB uses this term himself often, trust. We assent to what Jesus, and come under his lordship and live for him i.e. we 'enter.' It is not axiomatic and many will not. Similarly, RB seems to struggle with the idea that most will not receive salvation, but only a few will. Jesus didn't have a problem with this, stating it in the great Sermon on the Mount in Matt 7, 'few will find it' (cf. Luke 13). I am sure that RB would take most of the Sermon on the Mount seriously, especially 'love your enemies' etc? Why not this text as well? We cannot simply choose to treat some of Jesus' teaching as rhetorical or literary devices, and leave the rest, this is a flawed inconsistent hermeneutic. Yes, we do have to read carefully in terms of genre and draw theology judiciously and with good interpretative skills, but we cannot simply write off bits of it which suit our metanarrative, and emphasise others that please it. Most false teaching is not a result of extreme views, but imbalances, distortions, and over-emphases.
  • RB overstates how universalism has been viewed in the church over the centuries. Yes there have been voices who have proposed it, like Origen etc. Yes, today there are many theologians who flirt with it. However, with a few exceptions, the church has resolutely not accepted this as authentic. It has been condemned as a heresy. It is a very daring thing for a preacher to say that because others have held a view, it is ok to hold it, which RB does. For example, people in the church have denied the divinity of Christ, denied the bodily resurrection of Jesus, denied the Trinity, etc., does this legitimise this as an 'ok' view. Not for me. I believe RB overstates his authority when he claims this. It is not for him to decide this for others. The only true test is the Scriptures. We need to go back to them and test an idea. When we do, we find that there are a few texts that can suggest universal salvation e.g. Matt 19:28; Acts 3:21; Rom 3:24; Phil 2:9-11; Col 1:20; Eph 1:11; 2 Cor 5:19 etc). Yet, to read these universalistically we have to isolate them from their contexts and ignore references to destruction, wrath in the writings of the same author. For example, Matthew is replete with references to destruction and hell including parables of the net, weeds, the Sheep and the Goats, etc etc. Luke-Acts does not emphasise this element but it is there e.g. Luke 13:24-30; Acts 1:25; 13:48). Paul, as noted above, speaks unambiguously of destruction (e.g. Rom 2:5-16; 14:11-12; Phil 1:28; 3:18-19; Col 3:5; Eph 2:3; 5:6). We have a choice to subvert the texts that speak of destruction/salvation beneath these texts, or the converse. Most Christians noting that Jesus, Matthew, Luke, Mark, Peter, John, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation all speak of destruction, prefer to read the gospel as being potentially universal in the sense that the goal of the gospel is the reconciliation of all, but that some will resist and will not experience that reconciliation. Part of the reconciliation is indeed the healing of the world by the removal of evil, including resistant humanity. That is, God will remove evil, and his purpose is not to see anyone separated from him, but respects human freedom and so collateral to his dealing with evil will be eternal separation of all humanity who refuse his offer from him. This is our story. At one point RB dares to quote Luther is if Luther supports universalism. This is subtly deceitful, there is no way Luther was a universalist.
  • I love the way RB goes through the OT listing the Scriptures which demonstrate God is a restoring God. He is, I agree. But he does not go through the Scriptures and list where God acts decisively in justice to remove evil, the list would be a lot longer. There is selectivity in the book that is disturbing. 
In conclusion then, it is a well written book. In my view however, it is flawed in that it distorts the Christian story. It even becomes dangerous in the hands of many Christians today that do not have the biblical and theological knowledge to work through it in depth and see it for what it is. Evangelicalism is disintegrating stimulated in no small part by the power of the Internet to allow people to propagate their ideas unopposed and freely. This book is paper thin theologically, there is no referencing, texts are not even properly references, alternative views are not given etc. For the vulnerable Christian who feeds off the Net with all sorts of ideas and thoughts, it becomes a shaper of theology without critique. Today's Christian leaders and thinkers are torn between the insatiable demand for easy to read popularist material which gets ideas out there for consumption; and writing good solid stuff which few can be bothered reading. If we go for the former, we need to do so very very carefully, because of the vulnerability of the this biblically and theologically illiterate generation.

Now, having said all that, I want to be clear. I am not saying Rob Bell is not a Christian and standing in judgment over him. My own writings and theology are open to the same critique. None of us is a perfect teacher, leader and free from false ideas. To be fair to him too, he does not quite in the book emphatically state that he is a universalist, but poses a lot of questions. However, as he does so, he clearly sides with the idea arguing it is a better story. I disagree, the gospel as we have it in the narrative and text is the only story and we need to ensure we handle it carefully and accurately. I am contending with his ideas, I think he is reading the gospel wrongly. I would still encourage people to read the book, but do so with a Bible in hand, and don't just read the texts he refers to. If you do, you might find yourself agreeing too easily. Read the whole NT again and again, pen in hand, notebook at the ready, note what it says about life, death, hope and eternity. Consider the whole story and don't write off the bits you don't like. See if there are ways that you can make sense of the story, but hold all its elements in balance. I think as you do, you will find that you will hear a similar but different story to the one painted by RB, but don't worry, God wins.


Anonymous said...

Great Stuff

Jonathan said...

Thanks for putting the work in to this... 2 Thess 1:5-10 and verses like it are rarely preached in my experience...

Anonymous said...

Thanks Mark, I confess that a lot of that was to much for me but then accept that it needed to be addressed in this way. A couple of things that did make me think and uncomfortable is the language of God winning, it implies a contest and in a contest there is a loser because there is a winner, usually because the winner is in some way superior? To whom is God inferior?

If God was complete before Creation, if God had fellowship in and of Himself before Creation, then why Creation? A creation where a portion would be eternally lost to Him? Maybe there is no sense to be made of these questions, because to know the answers would be to know the mind of God.

Charissa said...

Thanks :D Really appreciated those points you put up there :D I especially liked the point of 'entering' into Salvation by repenting and believing. And how that is consistently in the gospels. Very helpful. Cheers. We need people to do this research stuff around new ideas that come up :D Thanks

godztuff said...

Thanks for the positives. @George: on your point one that God winning implies a contest, that is the point, God has won, whoever goes up against him because of who he is. Love also wins, because God has won. But there is a contest too, as forces including humanity continue to take God on one way or another. Still, he wins whatever happens. On the second, it depends on what you mean 'complete.' God is totally other and complete. But he has opted to create and live in relationship with other volitional being, God is in a sense becoming as well. Still, if God is omniscient, he knew of this and was, is and will always be complete. Too deep for me. So, not sure the answer really :) Yes, you are right, we don't know all the answers, but he has given us himself and we have the story, that is enough I say.

@ Charissa I think I said that in the Gospel accounts before the resurrection, there are a variety of responses to the question of entry. I would add here, most involved relationship with Jesus (e.g. 'follow me') in some way or another, and most involved living by the ethic of the Kingdom especially care for the marginalised. In the writings which are set in the post-resurrection period faith-based relationship with Jesus is central, sometimes with repentance, sometimes I think incorporating the idea. One enters God's people, and becomes 'in Christ' through faith.


rosie-lizzie said...

Hi Mark,

I am so glad you have written a response to Rob's book. Very interesting to read your thoughts. I have read most of Rob Bell's work and listen to his preaching most weeks at Mars Hill. I realise this book has caused some controversy! Personally, I find Rob to be compelling and interesting and challenging to the way I view my life and my faith. I haven't ever felt he threw any bizarre notions at me that I didn't think fitted with what I knew of the bible BUT I know I am not a theological scholar by any means (and I am happy with that too! ...and very apprehensive posting on your blog loaded with far more educated readers and material!!). Perhaps by listening so much to his weekly messages, I have a different understanding of what he says in his book because behind me are so many more deep and challenging sermons that get the heart of what he's saying. I haven't ever felt that if I sat in the pews in Michigan, I would feel I was part of some weird and dangerous church... any different than my own presbyterian church here in Auckland, perhaps he just speaks in a different way and looks at things from a fresh perspective... but it is the same things really. I do encourage reading his other books, Velvet Elvis & Sex God if you were interested. A little bit I found on their website of FAQs about the book might be helpful I am certainly not in the position of believing anything that is thrown at me, in fact the more that I listen to Rob, the more I question and dig deeper into my faith and the more I realise that this is all just part of a huge ongoing conversation about God that has been going on since the beginning. Maybe it is just me, but something in the way he speaks about God resonates in my heart and while I don't expect that everyone will feel that way (because we are all so differently wired), I am ok with it.

Thanks for writing this response, I had been wondering what you thought!

Dr Mark K said...

I would still go to Rob Bell's church and I would think he is a great preacher and leader. His impact is staggering. What I would say is to ensure you read more widely and listen to more people than just one person. In Corinth Paul warned the Christians against following one or other of the apostles and leaders e.g. Peter, Paul, Apollos. We have to have a wider spread of input. We need to always test things against the story of the gospel. What you will get in a theology like RB's is a strong affirmation of God's love, his acceptance, his delight in you. You will be inspired to go out and serve in a world that is not going to be blown up and is worthless, but to build and renew it, to be cosmic restorers. I like that. The problem comes when we share the gospel to people. If we hold a view like this the urgency comes off, and even though we know we should share the gospel, the pressure comes off from the direction that - well, if I don't, they get a second chance anyway. Do they? i don't think so. It is critical to work these things through and ensure that we do not go soft on things that matter so much to God, like evangelism, prayer for the lost, prioritising seeing people invited to God. If we are not careful, Christian life is just having fun and being nice. It is more than this. It is suffering for the gospel as we live it and share it. Blessings.

Joanne said...

Hi Mark
Excellent read and critique on RB I love your easy to read, understandable and well argumented critique. It is great to have found this blog as I have just finished reading Love Wins but don't have the time to critique to argue well with people, re final judgement. You have given me the information I require. Bless you keep up the great work. Jo

Dana said...

You hit on every point I was concerned with. Thanks so much for referencing. This will further illuminate my ongoing discussions with friends.

Anonymous said...

Why would anyone want to listen to Rob Bell again? This is not a minor theological difference. It's heretical. Look at John MacArthur's response at . I believe Rob Bell needs to reexamine his argument and offer a sincere apology before he could ever have my ear again.

Tian Loedolff said...

Hi Mark

Nice response, thanks.

I am sorry but I see Rob Bell as a False Prophet as he draws the people away from God... The Bible also says in 2Jn 1:9 Everyone transgressing and not abiding in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ, he has both the Father and the Son.
2Jn 1:10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house, nor speak a greeting to him.

Rob Bell is not bringing the doctrine of Christ and should be shunned by mainstream Christianity.

He knows his Bible and he knows perfectly well that he is misquoting and ignoring scriptures to fit into the outcome that he wants.

Mark Keown said...

Thanks Tian. I think we should be very wary calling people a 'false-prophet.' It is a strong judgmental statement which assumes your own position is perfectly true. I think he is wrong in terms of universalism for sure, but whether he should be completely written off is arguable.

Some believe that Calvinism for example is 'false' in that it completely removes freedom. Far too many Christians write people off completely. Rob Bell has a wonderful heart for people; I would take care not to be so absolute. I will let God be his judge, and my own. :)

Tian Loedolff said...

Hi Mark.
I can’t agree with you, and I’m saying this in love and with respect towards your opinion. I can see from your article that you are a serious Bible student and disciple. I respect you for that.

Yes, judgement should be reserved for God but it is our function to expose false prophets. To point out a false prophet is discernment, it is not judgement. Deut 13:1-4 gives the definition of a false prophet. 1st he gives prophecies that don’t come to pass, 2nd he draws the people away from God. God goes on and says that we should not listen to such a person and that he should be put to death. Although we are past the “put to death” age, we should still not listen to a false prophet. How will the flock know that someone is a false prophet if nobody warns them?

Rob Bell is a humanist who believes in universalism. Although he don’t admit it, he is very clear on this. By promoting universalism, he is drawing people away from God. He teaches that any god will do as they all lead you to Jesus... How is that not drawing people away from God? This is not the Gospel of Christ.

If he really loves people he will tell them the truth in that they must repent of their sins and turn to God, as is written in the Bible. He is doing the opposite. How can he not be a false teacher and prophet? He ignores scripture wilfully; this shows his disrespect and disregard towards biblical accuracy and truths. This is not a sign of a true prophet or teacher and his err is not a small thing. He is in effect, discrediting the whole Bible.

2Pe 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who secretly will bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing on themselves swift destruction.

Here again. Rob Bell is bringing a destructive heresy into the church by saying all roads lead to Rome. This verse calls such a person a false teacher and rightly so.
But Rob Bell goes further than universalism; he also says that everybody will have a chance to repent after death. He also says there is no hell. No judgement. And he does all this without proper scriptural support.

Comment continues...

Tian Loedolff said...

Jeremiah 3:15 says God will give his flock a shepherd (teacher) after His own heart who shall feed them with knowledge and understanding. Rob Bell is not a teacher from God. The Holy Spirit will and cannot feed His flock with lies and destructive heresies, as Rob Bell is doing.
Love wins is a book of lies, wrapped in “Love.” A half-truth; Satan’s favourite weapon.

I do understand your reasoning that you don’t want to point the finger but by your argument you are saying it anyway. The difference is that you do not want to label him...

Again, if Rob Bell had a heart for people as he would like us to believe, he would have told them the truth. Instead, he is trying to repackage the message of Jesus to make God look better. Or is it to make himself look better? Think of it, who really, is gaining anything from this book? Definitely not God. God is God and he owes nobody an explanation. Rob Bell is trying to improve the Gospel which ends up with him preaching a different Gospel. It is unbiblical and Rob Bell knows it. He even insults God in saying that God is failing miserably...if the gospel is not as he, Rob Bell, is representing it...

I do agree with you that Christians are way too quick to call people false prophets and we should be careful. There is a difference between preachers making small doctrinal mistakes and preachers preaching a different gospel. Rob Bell’s gospel is a different gospel. Fact is, if someone fits the biblical description and definition of a false prophet then we should treat him as such.
I will call Rob Bell what he is. A false prophet and a false teacher and God’s people must be warned.

The least Rob Bell must do is repent publicly. We should stop handling these kinds of "teachers" with kid gloves.

This is not about Rob Bell. This is about people's souls and eternal destination. This is about people who now think they do not have to repent or convert...

Sorry if I seem harsh but this is about the Truth.

Love in Jesus.

Mark Keown said...

Thanks Tim. I respect your passion and desire for the truth to be preserved. I have not heard that Rob Bell believes that all gods will lead you to Christ.

I am more cautious than you in labelling someone a false prophet. I am aware that I am not always right and have views that are not accurate.

I am also aware that the sin against the Spirit Jesus referred to in Matthew's gospel came when the Pharisees labelled him false, his ministry demonic. They were attributing to Satan the work of God. They were wrong and condemned by what their words. I am wary then of standing in judgment over another person's ministry. I will let God be my judge, your judge, and Rob Bell's judge.

The thing is, that as far as I am aware, Rob Bell accepts Jesus, the cross, the resurrection. Even where his universalism is concerned, he affirms that a person must be saved through Christ, and he never actually comes out and states directly that he believes in universalism. He writes with questions, posing them.

I profoundly disagree with his view on a second chance after death. But does that make him a false-prophet? Not sure?

There are many doctrines held by accepted theologians in our world that are not correct. Does this one disqualify him?

Take for example pre-millenialism, post-millenialism, a-millenialism? Someone has this right? Are the others false prophets?

Some think women can be in ministry, some not? Someone is right, we are not sure who, although we have our opinions. Is the other a false-prophet?

What about 6 day creation, intelligent design, old earth creation, theistic evolution. Someone has it right. Are the others false prophets?

What about Calvinism, Arminianism, Open Theism, Molinism etc? Someone has it right, the others wrong, or all may be wrong!

For years dispenstaionalists who said that the gifts of the Holy Spirit ended at the time of the Apostles were accepted; false prophets?

What about Christians who argue that we should not be concerned for social justice; were they false prophets?

What about those who believe this world will be restored, whereas others believe this world will be destroyed and we will go to heaven. One has it wrong, who is the false prophet?

The question is, when is someone a false-prophet?

I would say if they preach that Jesus was not God the Son, that his death is not all-sufficient, that he did not rise in bodily terms, that he will not return, that there are many gods and not one God, someone telling us the date of Jesus' return (Camping) or other false prophecies etc; these would see you be labelled a false-prophet.

I would take very care with what you label people, as the measure you use will be measured to you. There may be a log banging around out of my own eye, and I may be noting a speck in anothers. There is a time to really stand against a false idea, a heresy sure. But we need to sure in Christ that this is one.

So, that is my thinking. One can disagree with another and debate them without the labelling, but there is a time for that. The question is, is this one of those times?

sean said...

New to your site. I agree, Bells book distorts the Christian story. However, one does not need to be a theologian to see that Bell completely twist the scriptures. If anyone would simply review the scriptures Bell uses in CONTEXT, the would see that Bell is not being honest with the scriptures. Also, there's a lot more to Bells book that him simply twisting the scriptures. If you'd like to read another review that brings these things to light you can do so at

Anonymous said...

However, the patients may feel more comfortable telling them their feelings, because
they feel as if they won't be judged. A couple of major accrediting agencies encompass most of those. Depending on your lifestyle, now you also have the option to opt for online schools.
My web page ::

Anonymous said...

You actually make it appear so easy together with your presentation but I in finding
this topic to be actually something that I think
I'd by no means understand. It sort of feels too complicated and very huge for me. I am looking forward for your subsequent post, I'll try to get the hold of it!
Also visit my web page ASSI PLAZA

Anonymous said...

Thank you for some other excellent post. Where else
may anybody get that type of info in such an ideal method of writing?
I've a presentation subsequent week, and I am on the search for such info.
Also visit my web-site - Office Furniture Toronto

Anonymous said...

Wow that was unusual. I just wrote an really long comment but after I clicked submit my comment didn't show up. Grrrr... well I'm not writing all that
over again. Regardless, just wanted to say fantastic blog!
my website ::

Anonymous said...

I am really inspired along with your writing skills
and also with the format on your blog. Is that this
a paid theme or did you modify it yourself? Anyway stay up the excellent high quality writing, it is
rare to look a great weblog like this one nowadays.
Feel free to surf my blog post :: Popflops

Anonymous said...

Terrific post however , I was wanting to know if you could write a litte more on
this subject? I'd be very thankful if you could elaborate a little bit further. Bless you!
My website -

Anonymous said...

Have you ever thought about creating an e-book or guest authoring on other websites?

I have a blog based upon on the same subjects you discuss and would really like
to have you share some stories/information. I know my viewers would value your work.
If you are even remotely interested, feel free to send me an email.
Here is my site :: Nutrition

Anonymous said...

Spot on with this write-up, I actually believe this web site needs far
more attention. I'll probably be back again to see more, thanks for the advice!
My web site >

Anonymous said...

Also visit my website; lotto

Anonymous said...

Way cool! Some extremely valid points! I appreciate you penning this article and
the rest of the website is also really good.

Take a look at my web page - online graduate certificate

Anonymous said...

Have you ever thought about creating an e-book or guest authoring
on other websites? I have a blog based on the same information you discuss and would
really like to have you share some stories/information.
I know my subscribers would value your work. If you are even remotely interested,
feel free to shoot me an email.

my homepage:

Anonymous said...

I am sure this article has touched all the
internet viewers, its really really pleasant post on
building up new weblog.

Also visit my homepage; calorie burn calculator

Anonymous said...

Appreciating the persistence you put into your website and detailed information you provide.

It's awesome to come across a blog every once in a while that isn't the same unwanted rehashed material.
Great read! I've bookmarked your site and I'm adding your RSS feeds to my
Google account.

Also visit my blog post - snoring mask

Anonymous said...

When some one searches for his necessary thing, therefore he/she
wants to be available that in detail, therefore that
thing is maintained over here.

My web page :: magnetized Flashlights

Anonymous said...

Pretty! This has been an incredibly wonderful
article. Thank you for providing these details.

Here is my page; Juicer Easy

Anonymous said...

I'm amazed, I must say. Rarely do I encounter a blog that's both equally educative and entertaining, and without a doubt,
you have hit the nail on the head. The issue is something that not enough
people are speaking intelligently about. I am very happy I
came across this in my hunt for something concerning this.

Feel free to visit my web-site; Lemon Juicers

Anonymous said...

Pretty element of content. I just stumbled upon your site and in accession capital
to say that I acquire in fact enjoyed account your
weblog posts. Anyway I'll be subscribing in your augment and even I success you get right of entry to persistently fast.

My website: tv buzz

Anonymous said...

An intriguing discussion is definitely worth comment. I do believe that you need to publish more
about this topic, it might not be a taboo matter but typically
people don't talk about these issues. To the next! All the best!!

Stop by my web site ... frigidaire refrigerators parts

Anonymous said...

Hi i am kavin, its my first occasion to commenting anyplace, when i read
this article i thought i could also make comment due to this sensible article.

Here is my site: saffron Extract review

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the good writeup. It in reality used to be a amusement account it.
Look complex to more introduced agreeable from you! However, how can we be
in contact?

My web page; wagner 518080 control spray max hvlp sprayer

Anonymous said...

Definitely believe that which you stated. Your favorite justification appeared to be on the net the simplest thing to be
aware of. I say to you, I certainly get annoyed while people consider worries that they just don't know about. You managed to hit the nail upon the top as well as defined out the whole thing without having side effect , people can take a signal. Will likely be back to get more. Thanks

Here is my web page acid reflux remedies (

cerita dewasa said...