"Or do you think Taylor and other Calvinistas are overreacting by serving as theology police more than pastors?"

Leading the witness a bit aren't we?

Nope, I think they are being charitable while calling a spade a spade. Anyone who would infer that Justin Taylor runs some kind of attack blog has never read him.

Besides, I think Bell is an unoriginal Bible teacher anyway in spite of his best attempts at creativity.

Rather Rob Bell is a universalist or not is beside the point for now. We haven't read the book, so we can't know yet.

BUT, we do see fully how the reformed crowd is responding. And it doesnt look very Christian to me. If they want to be theology police, that's their choice, but I dont think Jesus responded very well to theology police...and his message of who gets into the Kingdom was pretty upsetting to people in his day too.

channeling McLaren's obscure clarity with cooler glasses, sweeter cadence but the same ability to stay popular and sell books...

Sounds like it's what happens when you mix irresistable grace with unlimited atonement.

But I'll reserve judgment till I read the book.

As a young believer I was influenced by Rob Bell. I thoroughly enjoyed his teaching on the "rabbinical Jesus", and I dug deeper in the Word to pull out some of the historic context. As I watched though I became skeptical of some of his views, especially in the NOOMA video where his interpretation of Peter walking on the water was that "Jesus believed in the faith of Peter".

Now regarding the recent buzz about his book I just wish the criticism would have been reserved for after the book was released. I'm disappointed in those who have went after this book in a public way without reading it and based their opinion solely on the "teaser". Especially those who are in high regard in the Christian world. Unfortunately unbelievers saw our "fight" in the public eye and it was not pretty and a stumbling block in the cause of Christ.

I can't excuse Rob Bell either though. He either is what they say He is,which is unfortunate because it's not Biblical or he's has pulled a bait and switch to promote his book.

When all is sad and done, this was an ugly weekend and the world was there to view it all.

Why don't we all agree to hold off on excommunicating each other until AFTER we have a thoughtful read of the book and make an informed assessment? All of this premature and frankly speculative posturing feels like a sad, ugly, and unfortunately accurate indictment of the Evangelical church.

I don't get it. The clip is enough. You don't need the book. His views are clearly set forth in the video. Sure I am sure he says more in the book, but do you really need to read to book to know what he states clearly in the video clip?

Having not heard or read Bell before, my comments could be irrelevant. I am an Orthodox Christian, and our take on these things are slightly different. We don't believe in a wrathful God. God is love, but this does not necessarily lead to universalism. God's wrath is our experience of God's love when we are at enmity with Him. Hell is an eternal experience of God's love but because of the condition of the person's heart, he experiences God's love as fire rather than bliss.

Obviously, this is a shortened version and not a full treatment, but it provides a third option that is a well attested Scriptural interpretation held from early times.

I guess time will tell about Bell.

Universalism has become the second batton weilded by the theology police, (with pelagianism it's first choice). And in both cases the reformed definitions of these terms are nothing more than a real-world example of the telephone game. Word get's whispered from one to the next, until you get something half-true on the other end.

Many evangelicals are unapologetically universalist in the truist sense of the term. We believe that God's love is universally efficacious for atonement, and that every person has been given a very limited but real free-will to respond to that grace. God doesn't make us do his will.

Since the time of Wesley and Whitfield this has been perfectly accepted and orthodox evangelical doctrine. It is only the fervant and revisionist pitchmen that have recently made it into something it is not through half-truths, mis-information, and the unwillingness to untangle reformed theology for biblical interpretation.

Pat said: I don't get it. The clip is enough. You don't need the book. His views are clearly set forth in the video.

Huh? All he did was ask questions in the video. He doesnt expand much more than that.

Is asking questions heresy now??

All the time I've been a Christian, I've believed in a literal eternity with God and a literal eternity without God. I'm beginning to re-evaluate that and will read Bell's new book with interest. As for whether universalism is heretical, I recently read the following:

Of the six theological schools known to exist during the first five centuries, four of them clearly taught the final salvation of all souls: Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa or Nisibis. Ephesus taught conditional immortality or annihilation of the wicked and only one, Carthage (under Rome's influence) taught endless punishments.

Is this right?

FYI: Christian Universalism is not the same as Universalism.

And to subscribe to it or not is not a condition of spiritual birth by God's grace through faith.

Opinions about the ultimate economy of salvation is not the basis of anyone's salvation.

just say'n.

Now this has all the makings of a juicy one: Rob Bell vs. Restless Reformed Part III (or is it IV?) Pick your tribe, blast your talking points and go at it!

I'm not saying these doctrinal differences aren't potentially monumental, but this is far from a new discussion in the history of the church. Yes, the New Calvinists seem to salivate at these opportunities and yes, Bell's theological drift has been heading toward this territory for some time. But what now?

A truly surprising and innovative turn of events would involve some sort of a civil and respectful sit-down between Bell and a few of his detractors. Should we expect anything less if love is to ultimately win?

Put me in the camp of waiting until the book comes out. Also, it is pretty lame for someone to stick a post-it note on a piece of artwork like a warning label alerting everyone that Gandi is in hell. As someone who believes there is a hell that is stupid and alone is worth deriding

The clip sounds more like C.S. Lewis's view of the gates of hell are locked from the inside then universalism.

However, I find it ironic that it's the reformed who are speaking out so much. If there really is irresistible grace as they claim, then universalism is much more biblical then people being predestined to hell because there is universal anointment in Christ.

Is it really that much to ask our more exuberant Reformed brethren to withhold their wrath before the actual work is published?

I wonder (since our Reformed brethren are so devoted to the biblical text) if the TGC blogger sought to reconcile his complaint with his Christian brother before posting a wildly ad hoc blog entry? Did he approach Bell privately? Take witnesses? Then post?

"Do you think Bell is a universalist? Would that make him a heretic, a false teacher, and an enemy of the gospel?"

Universalism isn't the Gospel of repentance and forgiveness of sins in Jesus' Name; that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in the finsihed work of the Cross of Christ alone.

Galatians 1:6-9 says anyone, which would include even a rock star pastor like Rob Bell, who preaches a gospel other than that is anathema. So, what do you think, Uri?

And by the way, not all of us who oppose Rob Bell's mythology are Calvinists. I know I'm not.

Jane, I'm with you here. I suspect Rob may be pushing us to consider something more akin to C. S. Lewis' perspective, who also was much more "Orthodox" in his understanding of the nature of hell than many modern Evangelicals. Thanks to Theron (above) for summarizing very briefly for us an Orthodox perspective. This actually is the very issue that drove me to become Orthodox myself.

Orthodox would find it very foreign to the Spirit of Christ to assert that Gandhi was in hell. It is presumptuous from an Orthodox perspective to claim any such particular knowledge about another (or even oneself) based solely on a human application of Christian dogma. It is ours to love others, commend virtue where we see it, to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling, to pray for all, the living and the dead, and God's alone to discern the ultimate destiny of any human soul. The faithful live between the tension of knowing that Christ warned both the believing disciples as well as the crowds that listened to His teaching of the real possibility of their experiencing the fires of Gehenna, or perishing, on the one hand and, on the other, the Apostolic assurances that God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved and that God does not want anyone to perish, but that all come to repentance. From an Orthodox perspective, God's salvation is universally provided/offered through Christ, but "irresistible grace" is an oxymoron. So teaching that God predestines (in the sense of causing) some to go to hell, on the one hand, or teaching that all men must inevitably ultimately be saved on the other are both false for the same reason--genuine God-given freedom of the human will.

wow, I think the video says a lot. Of course I do think it's important to read his book before jumping to any conclusions, but the video definitely make me take pause. He talks about people setting up Jesus as "saving us from God," but in reality, it's sin that separates us from God, and that's what the LOVING God sent His only Son to save us from. Not from Him, but from death caused as a result of sin.

It sounded to me from that video that his perception was distorted, not firmly grounded in Biblical truth, which is frightening because Rob Bell has such a large following.

Perhaps Bell should do some research on Ghandi: (From "The Thrill of Chaste: The truth about Gandhi's Sex Life" in The Independent.)

". . . Eighteen-year-old Abha, the wife of Gandhi's grandnephew Kanu Gandhi, rejoined Gandhi's entourage in the run-up to independence in 1947 and by the end of August he was sleeping with both Manu and Abha at the same time.

When he was assassinated in January 1948, it was with Manu and Abha by his side. . . . "

Interesting stuff... I've followed Bell for almost nine years, and my initial reaction is disappointment as well. It is telling how so many critics were just waiting for a moment like this, though. The prevailing trend with those (many Reformed) critics is that Bell is a better and more interesting communicator than all of them. He never fit their mold.

We have to wait for the book to come out. The fact is, heaven and hell is taught so badly in the church... we've made heaven about "going up there" when we die, and the teaching of Scripture is about the Kingdom, of it coming down here in a work of redemption. As the promotional piece states, eternal life starts now, not after we die. Read Surprised by Hope by NT Wright.

We don't know yet... tt's possible Rob Bell is doing some nifty promotion to convey that message of the Kingdom. Or, he might just be a lunatic heretic.

This is what I'm curious about.

If Rob Bell's position (and we don't know what it is yet) comes out that he is an annihilationist (which seems to be where this is going), this is a widely held view by many Orthodox Christians and evangelicals.

Include C.S. Lewis as one of those people.

If that's the case...will the Neo-Reformed step up to the plate and call Lewis a heretic as well?

@Doug Paul, did you mean to say "orthodox [small "o") Christians and evangelicals?" My understanding is that annihilationism is not an Eastern Orthodox (capital "O") position.

Jesus is the way the truth & the life & the only way to heaven. That's what the Bible says

What 2 or 3 books on heaven and hell would you recommend?

RE: Neo-Calvinists calling Lewis a heretic

I had a similar question when Tim Keller defended the doctrine of Hell along Lewis's own lines in The Reason for God. Keller is perhaps on a different "team" than the Neo-Calvinists, although he does play in the Reformed "league", as it were. I found Keller's use of Lewis somewhat disingenuous, considering that Lewis's view of human freedom can not be easily translated into Reformed categories. Anywho...

Re: Bell

Advice to critics:

1.) Wait to read the book. Period.
2.) Be careful to parse the argument. Assuming he does adopt universalism, why?
3.) Don't presume to say that your own understanding of Heaven and Hell does not have its own massive liabilities. Simply and humbly argue that your liabilities are preferable to Bell's.
Ex: Most narrow understandings of who's "in" end up with somewhere between 70-90% of the human race ending up in eternal, conscious torment. Most of that number will have never heard of Jesus. You had better own that one before you go throwing stones at Bell.

@Julie, if what I read here (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2521/did-mahatma-gandhi-sleep-with-virgins
is true, your comment above is a bit misleading (in that it suggests that Gandhi was promiscuous). If misguided asceticism and spiritual delusion about the intrinsic importance of one's own powers of self-control along with allowing groupies in one's camp automatically disqualifies one from any hope of salvation, there may well be some respected Evangelicals with completely orthodox beliefs about Christ who will be lost as well! :-)

If God is a completely impartial and all-merciful Judge, as Scripture teaches, He will weigh Gandhi's whole cultural conditioning and life experiences into the mix when judging the meaning of all Gandhi's actions in terms of what was really in Gandhi's heart. Gandhi, of course, like us all, at the Judgment will fall far short of the glory of God (see Matthew 25 for the basis of this Judgment, hint--it is not what we explicitly profess about Christ!), but I can conceive that he may not fall as short as some professing Christians (I would have to include myself here), who mentally assent to all the critical orthodox dogmas about Christ, but who do not live up to the demands of the gospel in compassionately extending themselves for the welfare of others even as much as Gandhi did. On the basis of the God revealed in the face of Jesus Christ in the Gospels, we believe that Christ will extend His mercy to even such imperfect Christians, and if they are genuinely repentant and willing to receive His forgiveness, they will be saved (though I tremble when I read of the accountability that those of us with greater "knowledge" of the gospel acquire--of him who has been given much, much will be required!). Will He show less to Gandhi, who arguably given his background had far less spiritual advantage and who acted in relative ignorance compared to many Christians? Did nothing in Gandhi's life suggest he might have trusted in some small implicit and unconscious way in his heart in the true God, and in His mercy and forgiveness (and despite misconceptions in his mind about the nature of "God" and of Jesus Christ)? Could he not have thus trusted in some unconscious way via the Holy Spirit speaking to his conscience (though his ability to perfectly hear this Voice was impaired through false teaching and through his own pride, as it is for us all), through which seed of genuine faith God might still be able to save him because of Christ?

Istm that if we don't allow at least for this possibility, we have not truly understood the meaning and import of the Scriptures' teaching, the nature of the kind of "faith" that has the capacity to save us (i.e., to transform us from within into the true likeness of Christ), the depths of our own faithlessness and sinfulness despite our conscious "belief" in Christ, and the unspeakable and fathomless mercy of God, who takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but who wills that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.

Like everyone, we'll wait for the book, but I read the CNN Religion editoral which outlines his premise. It is a form of Universalism- which marks the decay and demise of Christianity, not a new awakening. It changes the crucifixion from atonement to divine object lesson. Sin is redefined, hell is redefined,and salvation is redefined to fit into our imagination-no longer by faith in the Word of God.

Have we forgotten that a completely merciful, kind and loving God is also completely holy and just? We can only come to God through Christ because He is the only One who can and did fully appease and please the full nature of God. We can go to eternal separation from God out of ignorance or defiance or indifference. This is why the whole Gospel must be shared to the ends of the earth, or else why bother?
To deny that there will be an eternity for some that is in separation from God is to deny the very words of Jesus who did speak of it. He said the way to it is broad and many will find it. Peter Kreeft says, "hell too can be reached without explicit rebellion. This is the terrible—and terribly needed—truth taught by C. S. Lewis in The Great Divorce and Charles Williams in Descent into Hell. We can drift, slide, even snooze comfortably into hell. All God's messengers, the prophets, say so.
We desperately need to hear this truth about hell again, simply out of honesty, because it is there. And also out of compassion. For when an abyss looms ahead, the least compassionate thing to tell the traveler is "peace, peace, when there is no peace". Out of love for god and man, let us tell the truth about hell!" (for more see "Hell" by Peter Kreeft http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/hell.htm

It's not just Rob Bell who may have drifted over into universalism. That's where much of the Mainline always picnics, and standing in line behind them are evangelicals who haven't thought things through.

We have been hear one thousand times before. Using the phrase "theology police" is laughable. The Catholic version of this is von Balthasar's "Dare We Hope..." And it is equally wrong-headed.

I’d like to compile a list of writers who lean in a universalist/inclusivist direction. Are there any more can’t-miss names that I should be adding to the list?

Jeb, very true words (on the whole). Most of what you have said resonates with my Orthodox faith. Where I have difficulty is with your opening question, and the following sentence. God is holy and just, yes, but that holiness is not to be juxtaposed with His love and mercy as if His holiness requires Him to do or be something with respect to sinful men that His love and mercy does not! He is indeed, just, but not as human beings count justice. This is not tit for tat "justice" that requires some honor satisfaction for the Father from the Son's suffering/punishment as "payment" TO GOD on the Cross for sin. God's "justice" is nothing other than His righteousness, which shows its fullness and perfection in His mercy and grace! From an Orthodox perspective, the penal subsitutionary philosophical framework from which this sort of verbiage flows is a distorted understanding of what Christ's substitutionary death on our behalf really means/is. The only alternative many Evangelicals seem to believe exists is some variation of Abelard's "Exemplar Theory," which is typically dismissed for its obvious incompleteness, and from an Orthodox perspective, it is also an inadequate explanation for how it is exactly that Christ’s death saves us (though definitely less repugnant to Orthodox sensibilities than the rather schizophrenic, and even tending toward blasphemous, view of "God" in His motivation toward us that Penal Substitution seems to require—at least as it is popularly explained and understood). Istm, it is wrong-headed to understand God's holiness as anything other than the utter perfection of His love, which is also wholly Other than anything we know in our fallen humanness as "love."

Now, this is a bit tricky because there are nuances here. Do Orthodox Christians believe that Jesus, on the Cross, took the punishment (suffering and death) that our sin deserves? Absolutely. Do they believe God, the Father, punished Jesus as a sort of retributive tit-for-tat balancing of the cosmic scales to "appease" His wrath? This, Orthodox (and increasingly many Evangelicals, it seems) would argue is an ugly distortion of biblical teaching in its full context (and ultimately illogical--how is a debt really satisfied with what amounts to God paying God?). Do Orthodox believe Christ's sinless obedience even unto death on the Cross fulfilled the righteousness that God's holiness requires and effectively reunited our human nature with God and put God's original purpose in the creation of man back on track? Absolutely! (But Orthodox understand this as expiation, not propitiation, and this is an important distinction.), Do we think there is/was any possibility of this reunion outside of Christ's willing solidarity with fallen man and perfect fulfillment of God's righteousness as a human being? No.

There is much more that could be said here, and I'm sure I can't do this topic justice, as passionate as I am about it. Interested readers may start with the following links for a fuller exploration of this topic:

http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Philosophical%20Theology/Atonement/AT7.HTM

http://www.frederica.com/writings/the-meaning-of-christs-suffering.html

http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2007/09/21/whats-at-stake-in-the-atonement/

http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2007/03/05/some-modest-thoughts-on-the-atonement/

Whatever Rob believes, he's a perpetual forever whining university student. I think he's just as closed minded as the people he rails against. He doesn't have grace for those whom don't believe like him or practice ministry like him. I don't necessarily disagree with Bell, but hate how he delivers his message. He comes off as vain, know-it-all, with a condescending attitude. I just can't put my finger on it, but I don't trust this guy or his his theology.

Or do you think Taylor and other Calvinistas are overreacting by serving as theology police more than pastors?

CT: does this article not also encourage the rest of us to be theology police? Are you employing the same tactics as Bell in using this to drum up hype and further a dividing conversation that has no answer until the book is released?

I hope Rob, McLaren, and all the other Christocentric universalists are right. If they're wrong, I won't be mad at anyone (them or orthodox preachers or God). But from my limited vantage point, I cannot help but feel that the barriers to accepting the Gospel, for some individuals, is too great to overcome.

Yes, I know what the Bible says. Yes, I know the standard interpretations. Is it a sin to hope for something that is this outrageous? I'm not preaching Christocentric Universalism as Gospel, but on a personal level, I want it to be true. Does anyone want to rake me over the coals for that? Is it worth your time to do so? Let me know.

...Rob Bell's position (and we don't know what it is yet)...

why does anyone who has listened to Rob Bell or read any of his other books not know what his position is? He's been preaching universalism for years. A trendy version, yes, but it's really the same old stuff.

I guess my "issue" with heaven and hell is the idea of eternal punishment (of course I understand that God really does not care if I have an issue with it or not, nor does my issues make it any less Biblical). In the OT God is quite clear that the punishment should fit the crime. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth type stuff. You sacrifice children to Moloch and I wipe you out. God’s judgment is proportionate to the crime. But God is not seen as giving out more punishment than is necessary or deserving. God is just. having said that where is the justice of taking a sincere religious person who gives to charity, supports efforts for justice and mercy to widows and orphans and basically "behaves" maybe even better than most Christians and when that person dies God places that person in eternal torment forever and ever just because that person did not accept Jesus as Lord?? As I read the scriptures Jesus is clear that there are degrees of punishment...remember when Jesus says that it will be more tolerable for Sodom in the Day of Judgment than for other cities b/c the other cities rejected the Gospel. It appears that judgment is given out based on the sole judgment of God. Also, when you do a study of "hell" in the OT and NT people are often surprised how little the word Hell is actually used. Sheol is not hell neither is Gehenna. Sheol is the holding place of the dead similar to Hades. Gehenna is a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem where children were sacrificed to Molech during the OT. some could argue and i do not want to write Bell's book for him, but that Jesus' words concerning Gehenna are similar to Jeremiah's warning to Jerusalem that if they did not repent then they would be subject to Gehenna..meaning they would be judged and destroyed in the fires of Gehenna, the city of Jerusalem would be leveled to the ground and bodies thrown into Gehenna, not eternal torment but consumed in judgment meaning perhaps and leaving opee the possibility of nihilism, that they would suffer for a short time and then cease to exist. Therefore Jesus’ discussion on Gehenna could be the same as Jeremiah (7.3). Jesus could be simply saying that if you refuse to be part of the Kingdom of God (which includes recognizing me as the one true Messiah and aligning your life in accordance with my kingdom) you too will be judged just as in Jeremiah’s day and be subject to the fires of Gehenna. Sure enough that is exactly what happened 40 yrs later when Titus marched on Jerusalem and leveled it and piled up all of the bodies in Gehenna. Notice also in Revelation, hell is not mentioned. Death and Hades are mentioned, but those “places” are not hell. The only place that could be understood in the traditional since as hell is the lake of fire. But those thrown into the lake of fire are not said to burn forever. One could argue that they are consumed. Meaning they no longer exist. Some have argued that there is such a thing as “conditional immortality.” Meaning that humanity was created with the possibility of being immortal but they were not created inherently to be immortal. There is only one immortal person and that is Jesus (1 Timothy 6.16). We are immortal as long as we are in the immortal one (Jesus). Without Jesus we are not immortal and we die. We cease to exist. Just a few thoughts…I think that we need to read Bell’s book before we jump to conclusions. All I am saying is that if our traditional view of hell is correct then we should not fear challenges from those either inside or outside the church. If it is true it will stand the test of time. I would ask though that we make sure that our beliefs are shaped by the Bible and not by medieval literature (i.e. Divine Comedy) or even John Piper.

Hi Mason,
You ask a though provoking question that I would like to answer. Your question is: "God is just. having said that where is the justice of taking a sincere religious person who "behaves" maybe even better than most Christians and when that person dies places that person in eternal torment forever just because that person did not accept Jesus as Lord??"
My response to it: I sincerely pray this helps you. Study all the attributes of God. Each of these attributes works in conjunction with the others in God. God must be true to Himself in every aspect as John Stott states in "The Cross of Christ":"God never contradicts himself, he must be himself and satisfy himself, acting in absolute consistency with the perfection of his character...this inward necessity does not mean that God must be true to only a part of himself (such as his law or justice), nor that he must express one of his attributes (love, holiness, sovereignty) at the expense of others, but rather that he must be completely and invariably himself in the fullness of his moral being." T.J. Crawford said, "It is an error to suppose that God acts at one time according to just one of his attributes and at another time according to another, but He acts in conformity with all of them at all times."
So, when we talk about the love of God we must also talk about the judgment of God, the holiness of God, the mercy of God and how these work together as lovingly just, justly holy, mercifully just etc. When we emphasize love only we end up with questions like "how is this fair?" Also, try to understand that God MUST act in accordance with His nature, not that He chooses to act that way. It would be a violation of His Godhead to act contrary to His nature. So, this is why Jesus is the mediator between us and God. He fulfills all aspects of God's nature. His wrath, His judgment, His holiness all poured out upon Jesus who bore the payment. To reject Jesus' payment is to say you can appease all these aspects of God yourself. And you can try, but you will fall short. There is no other avenue that fulfills all these things. We need Jesus. I hope this helps you or someone else struggling with why a loving God deems in necessary to judge sin.And that humamity without Christ remains in a state that cannot enter a holy God's presence. There must be something to appease it and that is Jesus. Please think on these things without rejecting them forthright. Warmly in Christ, Jeb

@Mason, I believe Jesus' language using "Gehenna" was metaphorical. This is the way traditionally through the ages Christians have understood it. IOW, the literal geographical site at the time of Jesus (which as you may know is now a garden and not a dump) is an image that is analogous to what occurs in the whole life of a person possessing a spiritual state of heart that is alienated from God, (Who is all-good and all-merciful)--the heart and the person, not temporal physical consequences, being what was always at the center of Jesus' teaching and concerns. BTW, I believe God does care very much about your struggle with the reality of eternal punishment and that your concerns and struggle reflect the very heart of God Himself and HIs Spirit at work within you. You may appreciate this story about the 20th century saintly Orthodox monk, now known as St. Silouan of Mt. Athos (related by his biographer):

---------

I remember a conversation between him and a certain hermit [another monk], who declared with evident satisfaction,

‘God will punish all atheists. They will burn in everlasting fire.’

Obviously upset, the Staretz [the Russian word for "Elder", i.e., the monk Silouan] said,

‘Tell me, supposing you went to paradise, and there looked down and saw somebody burning in hell-fire — would you feel happy?

‘It can’t be helped. It would be their own fault,’ said the hermit.

The Staretz answered him with a sorrowful countenance:

‘Love could not bear that,’ he said. ‘We must pray for all.’

And he did, indeed, pray for all. It became unnatural for him to pray for himself alone. All men are subject to sin, all ‘come short of the glory of God’. The mere thought of this was enough to distress him — in the measure given to him he had already seen the glory of God and known what it was to fall short of it. His soul was stricken by the realization that people lived in ignorance of God and His love, and with all his strength he prayed that the Lord in His inscrutable love might suffer them to know Him.

The Staretz used to say,

‘The Holy Spirit is love, and He gives the soul strength to love her enemies. And he who does not love his enemies does not know God.’

This last criterion occupied an absolutely exclusive and incontestable place in the Staretz' soul. He would say,

‘The Lord is a merciful Creator, having compassion for all. The Lord pities all sinners as a mother is compassionate with her children even when they take the wrong path. Where there is no love for enemies and sinners, the Spirit of the Lord is missing.’ (104-5)

----------------

I think this is the only genuinely and fully Christian response to the problem and reality of hell.

Karen, I found your post to me interesting but a repetition of what you had already stated above. I believe that I answered your statements and questions in my post to Mason. I also believe your answer to Mason simply casts doubt on the existence of a punishment or consequence of sin. The Bible says that we all fall short of His perfection, His glory. Therefore, we all will remain separated from God without His mercy and grace and provision that is provided solely in Jesus Christ. I respect your view, but I do not find it helpful. I find it to lean more toward universalism with the idea being that a loving God would not send anyone to outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. Indeed it is not He who sends us into separation, it is our sin, our willful choices that separate us. Hell is separation from God (Light, Love, Truth) for all eternity. But while we live there is hope for reconciliation if we trust into Jesus and His atoning sacrifice for our sins. If we stubbornly shake our fist (created, contingent beings thinking we can take on an almighty God)and say to Him not Your will but mine be done, He will not force His will upon us nor will He force His love. We come no where close to the mind of God. Who are we to tell Him anything? Yet He is so loving and so patient with us. The key is to remember how small we are and how great He is, and to believe into His plan to redeem us.

Ok, I confess: I didn't read all the comments.

After talking a day or so to ponder the piece, though, I wonder what the point of calling Rob Bell a Universalist is?

Even if the word Universalist described a helpful category (which I am not sure it does), what would this imply about Rob Bell or his upcoming book? That sincere Christians shouldn't read it?

I would prefer you call it the Truth Patrol. There is nothing wrong with taking a stand for truth. If this generation is put off by the word orthodoxy, perhaps they will seek out truth about God, who He is as revealed to us in Scripture not as we would like to create Him to be just like us. Maybe they could keep a notebook and just go through the Bible and write down the statements in it about God. These statements are truth that God wants us to know about Him in a way our mortal minds can understand. Then, Stand for truth without being wishy washy I don't want to offend anyone for fear they won't like me.

If I didn't already know who Rob Bell is, I might be able to think he is going to use his book to demonstrate to the unbeliever the incredible harmony of the scriptures and agree with Jesus that, "...except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3) Or, "Enter in at the straight gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leads to destruction, and many there be which find it: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leads to life, and few there be that find it." (Matt. 7:13-14) Or "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." (Matt. 7:15)

But, I doubt it. And besides, if Rob Bell IS a Universalist, why would that term bother either him or those of you who support him?

The best information I have found on this questions about hell is http://www.helltruth.com/ They have a Bible based explanation for the whole thing.

The best information I have found on this questions about hell is http://www.helltruth.com/ They have a Bible based explanation for the whole thing.

I don't like his glasses.

Whether Rob Bell is a universalist, whether every person on this planet winds up either in heaven or hell is in one sense irrelevant. The reason it is irrelevant is that when we talk about this issue as a church, we seem to always begin with the wrong premise, i.e., God's fairness. Why don't we begin with God's sovereignty? God is in the heavens, He does what He pleases. I think we have devalued God into demanding that He "revolves" His entire agenda around us. If we begin with His glory and make that our focal point, then ANYTHING that doesn't measure up to it, will be consumed by it-for our God is a consuming fire. It is the backdrop of His glory that enables His grace to stand out in incredible, bold relief. Salvation is TRULY a gracious gift. That being the case, then how can we accuse, chide or demand that God be “fair” with His gifts? We dare not begin with salvation, we begin with His glory. Any by the way, I'm far from a Calvinist.

I thought Christianity Today's article on it was appropriate.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/article_print.html?id=91120

It seems more likely to me that he holds to some form of conditional immortality, as does Greg Boyd and Clark Pinnock. That would certainly be nothing new in the evangelical community. Rob asks provocative questions, but doesn't tend to end up where his questions seem to point. I suppose that confuses people.

If, once the book is actually released, he turns out to be a universalist, people will know it and make their decisions.

His book will certainly sell well now, anyway.

@Glenn, would you define God's "glory" and try to explain to me how it is really different than the fullness of the revelation of the perfection and completeness (purity) of His love and mercy?

When we try to understand God's impartiality and "fairness" in the face of the reality of the Bible's teaching about judgment and hell-fire, istm we are just trying to comprehend how this love functions vis-a-vis the real freedom of fallen human beings, which is admittedly a great mystery that only God is really capable of fathoming. But in the spirit of Abraham's urgent conversation with the Angel of the Lord regarding the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah, I think everyone needs to come to the point of receiving an answer from God that satisfies him/her that if anyone falls short of receiving the grace of God, it is not for lack of that grace extended to *anyone* or because of a limitation of love and forgiveness on *God's* part. I think this is a very holy and necessary undertaking for every human heart.

Is Mr. Bell a Universalist...to be honest, I don't know, and to further that honesty, I really don't care.
I don't follow Mr. Bell, I follow G-d...and G-d has not led me to Mr. Bell, in fact, to further the honesty, he's led me away from people like him.

His clip is posits interesting questions, and I think he is an engaging communicator; however, I am in agreement with those who would wish to actually READ the book to see for certain where Mr. Bell is actually going. It may be that he will use the Orthodox argument (hell is simply what people experience who are at enmity with perfect love; so well put).

If...however, he goes in direction of universalism, then obviously this is heterodox, and not in keeping with orthodox(or apparently even Orthodox) Christianity. I do wish we would start using "orthodox" v. "unorthodox" monikers or something rather than "Calvinist" here. We are talking about one of the central tenets of the faith here, not some peripheral issues about limited atonement or some such (and I am a Calvinist).

I was just wondering - Is it belief in Universalism that gets you sent to hell?

Casey, that is a nice article summarizing the debate. Thanks for the link.

I can't wait until everyone reads the book and then continues to defend their current position.

READ THE BOOK FIRST, TAYLOR. THEN YOU CAN ACCUSE ALL YOU WANT.

@Tripp: HAAA, well said.

Hmm, I thought Jesus rescues us from ourselves, not from the Father? "Did God really say...?" See the beginning of the book of Genesis.

I also thought we are to be Bereans and check out everything against Scriptures to see if it aligns. It seems in Jude and other places in the Bible that if some teaching does not seem to align with Scriptures that pastors have a responsibility to point it out to their flock. Albeit respectfully.

Could it be that the restorative view of hell consists of a process by which victimizers are led to confront the full implications of their victimization of and injustice toward others (other human persons, creation, God) and themselves so that they are brought to a point of repentance, restoration and transformation?

A Universalist? No. He even stated that he is not several times. He is simply claiming that we cannot truely know a person's heart when they die, only God can. He is not an enemy to the Gospel. In fact, by his teaching grace, love, and sharing the good news of the gospel, more people have probably come to the Christian faith. He is doing exactly what we are told to do, spread the good word. When we share the gospel we need to ask ourselves, "Is there love in this message." It is not our job to scare people into being a Christian. The first book of the bible gives good news. When we approach people who are not familiar with teh Christian faith, we should share the good news first with them as well.

What a naive statement. Have you ever met a wolf? I’m sorry my friend but there is a huge difference between possibly being wrong on a theological level and being a wolf. It is not plain and simple. Thats the issue. There are places in all of our lives where an outsider could look in and say “This man is a wolf, plain and simple”. If you deny thi,s then my friend you have more than Rob Bell and Universalism to worry about. That is quite an arrow you sling, you may want to trade it in for something less damaging.

LOL... I think Mr bell simply has done what Jesus did in John 6:56. He offends the minds of his audience to reveal their hearts. Those with the most violent reaction to Mr Bell's writings should probably check their "priestly robes" before they leave for the ceremonial stoning...some of their dirty laundry is showing...hehe...