Mr. Bell is once again a contradiction walking around. He tells us that we should not tell people what to think or what to do while telling us what to think and what to do. In the whole of his techniques of hype marketing and post-modern approaches to ministry he is telling everyone what to think and what to do. I have spent too much time reading Rob Bell trying to understand him; he is doing exactly what he is telling others not to do all of the time. Then he goes public decrying telling anyone what to think and what to do. Perhaps as Skye says Rob Bell is a nice guy who is trying to follow Christ. I will take your word on that.

Bell has worked so hard at being controversial that he has brought a firestorm of criticism his way and he doesn’t like it. If he doesn’t like it, he should not work so hard at inviting it.

Oh, and in my eschatology there are no crap parties, he is definitely running in the wrong circles. If Mr. Bell were to spend some time outside of his popular social circles among those eschatological believers he would find them promoting vocation as sacred, helping the poor, and showing compassion to the widows. Even Shane Claiborne found solid believers among the Willowcreek congregation…

Hmm... If I had an invitation to a Rob Bell party and another invitation to a Mark Gomez party... I think I'd have a lot more fun at Rob's. :)

Rob Bell may possibly be the most annoying person ever. Sometimes in good ways- but usually in very bad. That said- his comment about Christianity being a noun got me thinking- thinking about old school DC Talk- yeah you know what i'm sayin. Love is a Verb. Well, if being a Christian literally means Christ-follower- then wouldn't the term "Christian" be a verb? That represents the best of what Rob is capable of.

Everything else he said is so full of Rob's ego it's clear he's taken his eyes off of Christ and just wants to be popular in the world's eyes. The gospel truth is not that Jesus is reclaiming everything. The good news is that he is reclaiming US. Sure he is a good God who gave us passions and wants us to be able to be excited and live into his giftings for us. Most everyone believes that- it's just quite clear that this world is not the final destination- God is in fact going to DESTROY this world. Our souls are what is being saved. If Jesus had to go away to prepare a place for us, it makes sense that that place is not in fact here. So keep calling us escapists if it makes you feel better Rob. But that's what God told us is going to happen. If you want to take it up with him go ahead- but stop misleading his sheep with the opposite of what the Good Shephard has told us.

So, the question I had when I read this interview was is it possible to reclaim the much-needed belief of "vocation" in the eschatological circles described by Mark Gomez and implied by Nate Labate? I nodded when the need to recognize the calling of all believers was mentioned, and wouldn't be opposed to commissioning janitors, toll booth operators, doctors, etc. But Bell opining the a certain reading of Revelation as the root cause rang false to me. Evangelicals run homeless shelters and pregnancy centers, even promote "Biblical" diets to confront this nation's obesity problem. All with a Left Behind sort of faith. I can't say I agree with all of these efforts, definitely not the last one, but whatever the case it doesn't reflect an "it's all going to burn" mentality. (Except burning fat, maybe... okay, I should stop now.) Many believers in this eschatology are actually trying to make a difference in the world; Rob Bell types just don't agree with how they are doing it.

That said, other than that, which annoyed me greatly, I agreed with what Bell had to say.

Once again, the "nice" guy, Rob Bell, attacks his favorite straw man, "...people who hold these escapist views usually throw crap parties, because they're essentially waiting for things to end so they can go somewhere else." I'm still trying to figure out who, exactly, these "escapists" are. The best I can deduce is that they are anyone and everyone who doesn't agree completely with Bell. And what is a "crap party"?

I had a friend who was difficult to have fun with because, when, for instance, we found a nice antique that she liked she would run her hands along the wood's smooth patina and sigh, "It's all going to burn." Literally, those were her actual words. Anything beautiful or fun was not to be enjoyed, even though God made it beautiful or fun, because "it was all going to burn." That was her eschatology. She never mentioned that she was acquainted with Rob Bell, but apparently he knows her.

nate lebate, yes, the Bible contains passages that tell us that God will destroy this world. But keep on reading to the end of the book, because that's not the final chapter. God destroys the world in order to RECREATE the world. Read carefully 2 Peter 3:5ff, where Peter points to the Flood narrative of Genesis 6-9 as a type of the end of the world: the world is returned to its pre-created state in order for a New Creation to take place.

This new creation is described in more detail in Revelation 21-22. You mentioned that Jesus is preparing a place for us. Although I agree that that place is not here on earth in it's full manifestation (although I would qualify that in a sense it IS manifested in the presence of the Church), the last two chapters of Revelation describe this place that Jesus is preparing for us as a city that COMES DOWN from heaven to this recreated New Earth. Daniel 2 further describes it as a great mountain that fills the whole earth.

So the Bible is quite clear that the good news of the gospel is MORE than that he is just saving US. It is not less, but it IS more. It is more than just our souls that are being saved. It is the entire creation that will be "set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God" (Romans 8:21).

Now, there is a LOT that I disagree with Rob Bell, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. There are some issues from Scripture that he brings up that need to be brought up and that need to be wrestled with. It would be easy simply to dismiss everything he has to say just because he is Rob Bell. But Christianity has some pretty significant blind spots that he can at least make us aware of and begin to work out how really to see what is in the Bible.

I encourage you to look again at what "God told us is going to happen." I suspect it may be more than you think it is!

Good points Bill. Rob has a very unique way of getting under my skin- and sometimes I vent before I think. Online comments sections are not the best place for that. I really like your broken clock analogy for Rob. I think you are absolutly correct that he is right twice a day- and points out some significant blind spots for Christ followers.

I suppose a lot of my disagreement with the kingdom telos theology is semantics. The perspective I view eschotolgy through is what Rob calls escapist. This world is not our home- God will judge it but he's made a way for us. Yes he will bring a new heaven and new earth- but how closely does that align with the physical world we live in now? I'm not really sure about that. Through my perspective- what I hear from Rob sounds like: "we need to be friends with the world in order to redeem worldly things". What my perspective tells me about what Jesus taught says: "store up for yourselves treasures in heaven where rust and moth don't destroy, and where the thief does not steal". Perhaps Rob believes exactly the same thing as me, and is just responding to a blind spot the church has- with wording that sounds different than my perspective, which then causes me frustration. Who knows? I do really like how that Romans 8 passage frames things- I'm just not sure about how that actually plays out. Maybe it will be a literal- New Heaven and New Earth that are still created things, so still a part of creation. Kinda like how a new believer is redeemed. He/she is in fact a new creation- the old life has been put to death- destroyed, and a new life has begun. Interesting thoughts- I need to ponder this more...
Thanks again Bill!

David Bentley Hart describes in his book, The Doors of the Sea, that there are two NT Greek words for "world." One means Creation (which is God's and it is good), the other means this fallen and corrupt world system, despoiled by the evil one. Both are part of the present age in which we live--though as others have said, the Creation is in bondage. I believe likely it is the Creation that Bell wants us to see and participate in Christ's redemption of (which starts here and now).

I think we should be careful making accusations of "hubris" about people we may have never met or known personally (so as to have a full context for what they do and say). When I do that, I nearly always find that I'm projecting and that three fingers are pointed squarely back in my own face!

Bill, as always I appreciate your contributions.

"I would ask her if she's a Christian. If she said "yes," I would say "Too late! You're already in full-time ministry!"

Wow, I agree with Bell on something. Unfortunately he left out letting all the saints participate when they gather instead of paying one guy to dominate verbal heart expression of truth and experience. I'm sure he likes getting paid for that kind of perpetual dependency so he probably won't confront it.

Reformers began to talk about vocation correctly but they never fixed the function of the system of gathering. So we have pulpits and pews and cathedrals and functional popeified paid experts very much like the Catholics. Vocation cannot and will not break through in this system. You can't talk about doing things differently, do the same thing, and then expect different results.

rob bell is a man so polarizing that his best points are almost invariably overlooked. such a shame.

if he was wrong about jesus? calling him a heretic would make sense. but being that the disagreements ive encountered center around non-essentials the label seems frivolous and ill-suited.

everyone is a heretic to someone. weigh what he says and be discerning but dont miss the good parts by allowing a sinful knee-jerk to masquerade as a champion of orthodoxy.

I see the Rob Bell speaks yet again...fascinating.

With the permission of Skye, and the hosts of Out of Ur I would very much like to leave these two videos which are in Mr. Bell's own words....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODUvw2McL8g

Rob Bell commercial for Love wins

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agRu8SZRMME&feature=related

Rob Bell defends his definition of Hell.

Perhaps, Skye, a follow up is needed, and perhaps, without innuendo or subterfuge, direct questions are asked with the expectation of direct answers given.

My own opinion is already known and thus I have no need to hear anymore from Mr. Bell; However, my concern is for our brothers and sisters who are either unmotivated to learn on their own, or less-inclined to be bothered with knowing the difference between a wolf and sheep.

Somehow I've managed not get sucked into the whole is Rob Bell the antichrist debate but just when I let my guard down I come across this interview. He's right on in this piece: we need to get our theological starting point correct (Genesis 1) so we can understand what the end of this age will loook like (a new heaven on a new restored earth). If not, we miss what the breaking in of God's Kingdom means for us today and then every Monday we get up looking forward to 5 or 6 days of hell until that little bit of heaven on sunday morn.... I'm with Kenton; I'll take a Rob Bell over an end of the world crap party anyday!

I completely agree that theology determines a person's worldview; i.e., how the person thinks and acts. With that said, if someone does not believe in hell, and that all will go to heaven, it makes the death of Jesus futile; then why do we want to take advice from that person on how to live as a follower of Jesus Christ? Are we making the same mistakes like the Corinthian church as described by Paul in II Cor. that we are awed by people who are eloquent and know how to "recommend" or "market" themselves?

". . . if someone does not believe in hell, and that all will go to heaven, it makes the death of Jesus futile; . . ."

Joe, that's only partly true. There's a difference between believing in hell as it is described in the Scriptures and believing in hell as it is understood by those who have been indoctrinated to believe that the central and only meaning of why God, the Son, had to become incarnate and die on the Cross, etc., to take away our sins and reconcile us to God is explained by "Penal Substitution" theory and its kin.

This is definitely not the perspective of the Greek Church Fathers, nor of the Eastern Orthodox Church which arguably has the deepest historic theological roots of any Christian group today in the world view and interpretive framework regarding Scripture of the early Church. Within Orthodoxy the focus is on Christ's victory over death that defeats sin and our union by faith with Him that overcomes the forces of sin and death in our own lives and so reconciles us with God.

". . . if someone does not believe in hell, and that all will go to heaven, it makes the death of Jesus futile; . . ."

On the flip side, I, having no affiliation with the Eastern Orthodox Church, and a mutual cooperative association with the Presbyterian Church USA in so much as we're both going in the same direction to G-d would point out that it doesn't really matter what denomination you align yourself with because G-d isn't going to automatically grant passage to "all" members of [fill-in-denomination-here].

You are responsible for yourself, albeit, this is a unique American quality...nay, a unique quality of Western civilization which runs contrary to the way the rest of the world operates communally.

I will take this opportunity to correct one thing of Karens of which I think it is critically important to state...there are no "forces of sin" there is just one force of sin and that is mankind's nature. Our human nature which is corrupt, and thus by that corruption we are damned.

Fortunately, there is an escape of that damnation through Y'shua/Joshua, aka Jesus. But herein is the point, and one that Y'shua often repeated throughout the Gospels in his teachings..."believe."
Such a simple word, and yet so powerful as to be world changing for a person, and for the world around them.
And herein is where the sheep and the goats look alike...there are many who believe, and yet want nothing to do with G-d.
And then there are those who believe, not because it buys them out of a damnable place, but because they have fallen in love with an amazing personality, G-d.

And thus, I bring us to "hell" and to "heaven."

What undermines Mr. Bell's "re-imagining" is that the bible uses the same eternal words for "hell" as it does for the heaven, and for some, including Mr. Bell, this seems a bit unfair.
And it's right there in the bible...it doesn't get much clearer than Daniel 12:2

"Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt."

Mr. Bell thinks that this is rather harsh, however, this is not of G-d's doing, this is mans. Mans' alone. The individual, standing before the Maker of all that is seen and unseen.
Y'shua made comparisons to gehenna, which he used the midden heaps outside the city of Jerusalem as an example of what "hell" would be like for those who hated G-d, or did not care for G-d, or thought G-d was their own personal genie to summon when needed.

Those midden heaps, were not nice places, harsh, rough scrabble for living for the cast-outs, and that is what Y'shua was talking about, and that is what Daniel was talking about...those who arise to eternal glory will flock to the city, to see their G-d, their maker, and those who arise to eternal shame will flee the city, will shun it, will avoid the maker of all that is seen and unseen.
Why?
Because G-d's glory wrapped up in both perfection of mind and spirit will make it impossible for those who are not reborn to be in his presence.

Rob Bell is wrong. Horribly wrong. And he is bridging the chasm with his words which are contrary to the bible.

So, read the bible. Study it, memorize it, and live it. Yes it's hard, yes it's difficult, but it will help to understand the love for G-d that we cherish.

"Rob: The problem goes back to how you read the Bible. A lot of Christians have been taught a story that begins in chapter 3 of Genesis, instead of chapter 1."

I don't know of even one Christian who has been taught chapter 3 without chapter 1. Seems that Rob wants chapter 1 without chapter 3. Both chapters explain where we are now and one doesn't make sense without the other. Bear in mind, if the sin of chapter 3 had not happened, we would still be in chapter 1; but we ain't. We got kicked out. Eve's sin was unbelief and disobedience; Adam's sin was going along with hers in spite of the fact the he appears to have known better. Sin is the great seperator and without shed blood there is no forgiveness of it. Focusing only on chapter 1 will never keep chapter 3 from being the hard truth.

For Nate labate- not sure if you'll ever read this, but your response to bill seemed really honest and balanced, and so contrary to the inflammatory/reactionary responses I do often read on this kind of thread. It is amazing to see real
Conversation happening. The type that is mature and loving.

Nice one

Dave d

Dave d,

"Christians throwing crap parties" appears twice in the original post. I asked in my first comment of this thread what a crap party is. Thus far...no response. Doesn't seem like much of a conversation to me.

If Jesus' death on the cross is seen differently than as a propitiation for our sins, what does the Orthodox faith do with the 4 very clear verses saying He was a propitiation for our sins? Rom 3:25, Heb 2:17, 1John 2:2, 1John 4:10?

And sheer, correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying you don't believe in satan and his demons? I do understand that the Bible says many times that we are born with an evil heart, and our evil heart leads us to sin, etc, so I am not a person that blames satan for everything bad. However, I do know that there are truly evil forces, including demons and satan, and the Bible is not speaking metaphorically about them, etc. Just as God and the angels exist, the demons are very much out there, they just usually are not seen by humans, it's as if they are in a different dimension. We can't pick and choose what verses of the Bible we believe in. When Jesus had the demons enter pigs and they ran off the cliff, that was visible to all who were there.

"And sheer, correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying you don't believe in satan and his demons?"

I see no where in my statement that say, or insinuates a position where I say I "...don't believe in satan and his demons."

And I'm curious...where do you get this "...his demons" from in the bible?

Liebchen, the word translated "propitiation" in the Scriptures is the same one that is used for "mercy seat" in the OT. Orthodox understand that the Cross is the seat of mercy, but we understand that the change it wrought was in mankind (i.e., expiation), not in God. The account of Penal Substitution seems to suggest otherwise.

elegance,

The comment immediately following yours provides an apt description of a "crap party".

I had a friend who was difficult to have fun with because, when, for instance, we found a nice antique that she liked she would run her hands along the wood's smooth patina and sigh, "It's all going to burn." Literally, those were her actual words. Anything beautiful or fun was not to be enjoyed, even though God made it beautiful or fun, because "it was all going to burn." That was her eschatology.

Matt, I guess I have to take your word on your friend's comment, but get real. Born-again believers simply don't go around saying stuff like that (except to yank your chain), sheesh! In fact, many posts on this blog accuse born-again believers of being greedy and materialistic and not caring for the poor. You can't have it both ways - or maybe you can.

But what I would really appreciate would be Rob Bell's explanation of his own accusations against others. Not holding my breath, of course.

Karen, there is a post on Penal Substitutionary Atonement you might find interesting over at http://www.mennonitebrethren.net/?p=426#more-426

(My previous comment should say "...not holding my breath...")

Thanks, Elegance. An earlier slightly more lengthy reply of mine (and a link to a different perspective by way of explanation) was apparently deleted by the moderators. I think this line of comment is getting too far afield from the original post.

I think Rob hit a home run on the Genesis 1/3 thing. Jesus takes care of the sin thing 100% - yet most Christians live as though he didn't - and then SIN becomes the focus of Christianity. The focus of Christianity is not SIN - it's CHRIST !!!

Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against Him. (Romans 4:8) Surely this statement written by David, copied by Paul is heresy?

And- Delight thyself also in the LORD; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart. (Ps 37:4).

Some (and I agree) think this means - God will put HIS DESIRES in YOUR HEART. When we delight in HIM - we end up wanting what He wants!!!

God is creating - continually forming, molding, shaping .... YOU. YOU (rough edges and all) are God's letter to the world. Are YOU going to let people into your life to see what God has done? OR -- Are you going to take the religious path - and put a standard on people neither you or them can possibly live up to? This path bypasses the heart and judges by performance standards.

One is a fascade - the other is real faith to believe that God has actually done something in YOU. Or even more faith - God has actually done/is doing something in the person standing/sitting/walking next to you.

Jerry, thank you. Pitting taking sin seriously (in the appropriate biblical sense) vs. affirming that God is all-good/all-merciful is a completely false dichotomy, too.

I've been gone during the weekend, so I haven't been keeping up with the conversation. But I do want to add my "ditto" to Dave d's comment regarding nate labate's response. I appreciate nate's courtesy and his perspective, and I think that he's right in that sometimes our disagreements are more about semantics. Unfortunately, too often we reduce our language to "code words" that we use to determine whether someone is "with us" or with "the heretics", whoever that may be! It's good when we stop speaking in code and actually start listening to each other and to what the other person actually means. Sometimes we discover we're not as far apart as we think we are! So nate lebate, if you're still listening, thanks again for listening to me and for sharing your thoughts with me!

And Karen, I always appreciate your courtesy, as well, and your perspective from the Eastern Orthodox tradition. Apart from my church history class in college, I'm not very familiar with that tradition, so reading your comments is always a learning and challenging experience for me!

"Unfortunately, too often we reduce our language to "code words" that we use to determine whether someone is "with us" or with "the heretics", whoever that may be! It's good when we stop speaking in code and actually start listening to each other and to what the other person actually means. Sometimes we discover we're not as far apart as we think we are!"

Bill, you've done it again--great observation. Thank you for the kind words.

wow thanks Dave D, and Bill Williams!

I'm glad that you guys are my brothers/sisters and that we will get to spend eternity together experiencing what we can only partially see now!

Cling to the King!

"I think Rob hit a home run on the Genesis 1/3 thing. Jesus takes care of the sin thing 100% - yet most Christians live as though he didn't - and then SIN becomes the focus of Christianity. The focus of Christianity is not SIN - it's CHRIST !!!"

What the...Do we even teach critical thinking anymore?

Whatever happen to being like the Bereans?

COME ON!

SIN IS A PROBLEM!
You, me, us all are human beings, we're corrupted, fouled, cruel, evil to the core, the fact that G-d has restrained his hand doesn't give you, me, or anyone else license to behave as if "Just focus on Jaysusus because sin shouldn't be our focus!"

Where did that come from? Bell? No, that's Satan! Satan folds lies, and evil into a wonderful tasting burrito called, "hey, you're saved, you can do anything you want!"

And for us who call ourselves :::cough:::: Christians...yeah, Christ died, booyah, whoopeee...and how bout all that "if you love me obey my commands!" bit that WE ALL IGNORE when we choose to ignore them...yeah, that's sin, SIN, SIIIIINNNNNN!!!

Are we damned by that sin, no, but is it something we should be concerned about?

YES, yes it is something you should be concerned about!

OY!

So the Blood of Jesus means absolutley nothing then, right? Our sin is greater than HIS Blood? Our fallen nature is greater than His redemption?

And so - we get free from sin by trying real hard - and making sure we know what every infraction is - and how to remedy any and every deviation from the perfect law? Really????

So when does grace become works? When does the free gift of righteousness become something we have to earn - or something we have to obtain?

And, if we spend all our time looking in the mirror - is there really any time to look at the one who is flawless, perfect, without spot or blemish of any kind?

We can never overcome the flesh by getting better - we need a miracle - we need to be transformed into something we are not - we need to be changed from the inside out.

This is not about behavior modification- this is about trusting in One who can turn me into something I never was without HIM.

I never said sin was not a problem - I said the fix for sin is never found in the sinner - it's found in the SAVIOR. Without HIM - there is no end to sin - without HIM - here is no cure for the sinner. Without HIS BLOOD - there is nothing left but the fearful expectation of the judgment of GOD. Most Christians trample that under their feet - as though their sin is something that God hasn't dealt with.

HE has dealt with it - now get over it. The scripture says "Clothe yourself with the Lord Jesus Christ - make no provision for the sinful nature".

I can NEVER stand before God because of my sinless condition - I stand before HIM because Jesus is able to make me stand - BLAMELESS and WITH GREAT JOY.

I love how the so-called righteous spew hatred toward Rob Bell. Seems the "Righteous" are always quick to attack with words and violate the very gospel they are defending. Before you attack Rob Bell with your hatred in the name of God, you should probably check out what He has to say about how we should disagree with each other. God loves Rob Bell too and Jesus thought he was worthy of His death. Your rants in your blogs, twitter pages, and Facebook are sinful. You hurt the cause of Christ and make us all look like hypocrites. Put down your stones. Jesus is writing in the dirt. I wonder what He would be writing about you? Now. Go and sin no more. Great article Skye. Big fan of your work.

Put your stones down too, Topher. Just sayin'...

I have the following questions:

The Jews were trained by God and had the scriptures for longer than any of us. Why do they have no concept of eternal torture and believe in an earthly paradise where the wolf shall lie down with the lamb?

Why didn't God threaten Adam with hell?

Do readers know that the concept of eternal fire in hell entered the Catholic Church from Islam through Dante's Inferno?

Would a God of Love torture a person for eternity after 70 years of sin?

Bell has a good point on Genesis 1, but where is Genesis 3? His views on the term "missionary" will kill the Global focus of Jesus.

Sheer, not to leave you hanging, but in answer to your statement:

"I will take this opportunity to correct one thing of Karens of which I think it is critically important to state...there are no "forces of sin" there is just one force of sin and that is mankind's nature. Our human nature which is corrupt, and thus by that corruption we are damned."

This "correction" I think raises more questions than it . . . ahem . . . "corrects." Well, at least it does from an Orthodox Christian perspective. I'm adding a couple of bracketed words (below) to clarify what I think it is your statement is implying.

If there is "only one force of sin that is [purely identified with] mankind's nature," and we affirm with the Scriptures (as we Orthodox do as well) that all human beings born since Adam inherit this corrupt human nature, and if we must add, as you seem to imply, that this necessarily means they must inevitably also commit personal sin and become guilty before God (this guilt, incidentally, in the Penal Substitutionary scheme, being is the only possible source of what you call "damnation"), how do you explain how it is Jesus Christ can be *born of the Virgin Mary, i.e., taking His human nature entirely from her--a fallen human being (we, Orthodox, like Protestants have no doctrine of the "Immaculate Conception" of Mary), as the Scripture declares, is tempted *in every way* as we are (i.e., not just as Adam and Eve were) and yet is declared also in the Scripture to be without personal sin? Calvinist doctrine accepting from Augustine certain of Roman Catholicism's prior presuppositions about the nature of "original sin" I think has a problem embracing what is universally recognized as orthodox Christology--that Christ fully shared our fallen human condition, except for personal sin.

By "forces of sin," I am speaking of sin in the same way the Apostle Paul does in Romans 7, when he doesn't identify it exactly with his (merely) "human nature" or proper "self." I am also speaking of it in the way Paul describes it in another context in Ephesians 6:12. Lest I be misunderstood (again), I am not here meaning to dispute that man's mortality and the sin unleashed in the world through Adam and Eve will not predispose and render every human being more vulnerable to the temptation to personal sin and, even absent personal sin (as with a young child before the "age of accountability"), but for the grace of God, will "condemn" all humans (the way a disease condemns its victim, not the way a judge condemns the accused), to death (i.e., extinction)--to the nothingness from which they were called by the Creating Word of God.

I think Rob is 100% correct about where the story of God’s relation with humanity begins in Gen. 1. Adam and Eve were the people God intended, made in his image, without sin, in a world that was all good. It is not unreasonable to project a sinless Adam and Eve and their offspring down through history to today, and to imagine a world today where all the nations are filled with people who would have followed in their first parents’ footsteps, people who know God, acknowledge him, follow and obey him, all living in a world where the peace of God reigns. It is easy to imagine that such a world would be as Bell describes it: a world “with life, and creativity, and vibrant participation with God in the ongoing creation of the world—which involves art, and law, and medicine, and education, and parenting, and justice, and learning, and thousands of other pursuits; callings that are holy and sacred in and of themselves.”

I think this is the kind of world God intended that Adam build back in Gen. 1-2, and it is reasonable to believe that God will finish what he started in Eden, here, on the earth, as Bell says. But this will never happen without Jesus Christ, because the story does go on to Gen. 3, and to this day includes Adam and Eve’s sin, which all of us humans have fallen into, becoming and being hopeless without a Savior.

With Jesus’ first coming, we have the beginning of the establishment of the kingdom of God on the earth as people learn of him, repent, experience and know Jesus’ forgiveness, and look first to the cross for that forgiveness, then to his resurrection for the gift of eternal life to us, all the while developing a relationship with him now. Here is the start of the wonderful scenario that Bell describes above, as followers of Jesus grow in his grace and knowledge here on the earth.

Unfortunately Bell doesn’t carry his eschatology far enough. Just as we learn the beginning of the story in Gen. 1-2, we also learn how the completion of the story will come about in Rev. 20-22. Why are people so unwilling to believe the early verses of Rev. 20? They tell of how the saints, who are resurrected at Jesus’ return—which the NT, and especially Paul, refers to so often as the true biblical hope for the future for Christians—will reign on the earth with Jesus here as the King of kings, Lord of Lords, the mighty God, the Prince of Peace, where the government all over the world will be on his shoulders. It is a time when 100’s of wonderful OT prophecies will be fulfilled, a time that, as Paul says in Rom. 11, when all of Israel will be saved. This is truly Good News, and it’s all to be right here on the earth.

But that’s not the end of the story. After this period of God’s kingdom and God’s ruling on the earth with Jesus here leading the way, those who did not live again at that first resurrection will come back to life. And with plenty of Scripture to back this, some of them will be given eternal life at that time. The scriptures are so clear about this that even a child can understand it. If adult people would be willing to believe and teach the whole story from Gen. 1 to Rev. 22, I think it could make a big difference in what we do with our lives today. Bell is right about that. And he is right—as I read between his lines—that now, during this life, as we prepare for the world to come after Jesus gets back here to the earth, we want to follow Paul’s words in Rom. 12: “… be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God,” and, as Peter says, to “grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ,” “…rightly dividing the word of truth,” as Paul says again in 2 Tim.

We can participate now in a portion of the wonderful world of God’s kingdom that Bell describes above as we follow in Jesus’ footsteps in our personal daily dealings, even in this evil world. And in doing so, we prepare to participate as resurrected saints in God’s kingdom in its full glory, with Christ here on the earth leading the way. This is wonderful, wonderful news for all the families of the earth. Come quickly, Lord Jesus!

I really only glanced through the artical and the comments. One issue that struck has to do with how we commonly express our eschatalogical hope. The way I hear it most often is that "We will spend eternity with Jesus in a place called heaven." We say this although what the New Testament actually teaches is, as Peter says, "We await a new heaven and a new earth in which righteousness dwells." At the end of Revelation the New Jerusalem descends out of heaven and it is declared that God's place is now among men. I think the old hymn, This Is My Father's World, expresses it best when it says "and heaven and earth be one."

I said that to say this: I love this earth because I know that it will one day be redeemed and remade, just as I will be redeemed and remade to be a perfect expression of God's will. It is going on now, but it will be brought to completion then for those whose hope is in Jesus. My hope for eternity is the motivation for service to God and my fellow men right now. A teacher of mine once said that we should stop saying "he is so heavenly minded he is no earthly good," and start to say "he is so earthly minded he is no heavenly good." Only the truly heavenly minded can be of any lasting earthly good.

I agree that the story of God’s relation with humanity begins in Gen. 1. Adam and Eve were God’s intended, made in his image without sin, in a world that was all good. Had they never sinned, we can imagine the perfect world Rob envisions.

But they did sin, along with all of us, their offspring.

Jesus’ first coming begins God’s kingdom on the earth. People learn of him, repent, and look to the cross for forgiveness and Jesus’ resurrection for the gift of eternal life, growing in his grace and knowledge now.

But as Gen. 1-2 tells the beginning, Rev. 20-22 tells the ending. Why are people unwilling to believe Rev. 20? The saints are resurrected from their graves—as the NT teaches—and reign on the earth with Jesus as Prince of Peace, when 100’s of OT prophecies are fulfilled, when all Israel will be saved (Rom. 11). This is truly Good News.

But it goes on. After this period of Jesus’ rule on Earth with the resurrected saints, the rest of the dead will live again. Some of these will have their name written in the book of life. Rob would love this. Why doesn’t he mention it? If adults would be willing to believe and teach the whole story, I think it would change what we do with our lives today.

We can participate in part in God’s kingdom that Bell describes now in this evil world. In doing so, we prepare to participate as resurrected saints in God’s future kingdom in its full glory here with Christ leading the way. This is wonderful, wonderful news for all the families of the earth.

"So the Blood of Jesus means absolutley nothing then, right? Our sin is greater than HIS Blood? Our fallen nature is greater than His redemption?"

Wow...folding a red herring into a strawman argument...why would you do that?
For what possible purpose would you throw that out?
To what end are you trying to game me with?

Perhaps because you think I'm an idiot?

Perhaps, you think you can cow me with the implied, "believe or be labled a non-believer!"

I should be insulted, and yet...I'm not...huh...now that is interesting, anyway, let us continue...

"I never said sin was not a problem - I said the fix for sin is never found in the sinner."

Jerry, I know dissembling, I've done it, and clearly I'm much better at it than you are...so, here's is an observation from the dark side of life...that life you like to dabble in, and from whence I came from...you did allude/implied/insinuate/allow-the-reader-to-draw-the-conclusion that sin is not a problem for Christians.
You did, and you own it.
Deny it to your friends, deny it to your family, deny it to the rest of the world, but don't even try to deny it to me.
So...if your claim to Jesus means as much to you as you say it does then take this opportunity to say, "oops, sorry, I misspoke in my zeal, here, let me clarify with what I wanted to say..."

Now, I must think of why I'm not insulted...for some reason, of which I cannot fathom, what you did should bother me and yet it doesn't...???

Interesting points Karen, and yet I find that even though I have an outline in my head about how to respond, something stills my hand...I must think about this before I respond.
Please allow me a day or so.

Sin was and still is a problem for all of us because all of us have sinned and fell short. Jesus is the only answer. Imagine when Jesus called Peter out of the boat to walk on the water. If the water represented sin then Peter was fine when he focused on Jesus. Only when he looked down at the water and fixated on it did he sink. It's real hard to sink in sin if we focus on the one God sent to suffer for our sins and rescue us from our sinful selves. Praise God for His grace, love and mercy because there is NO WAY this sinner could have ever saved himself. Thank you Jesus!

Here's a 10 minute video presentation of a short-hand (admittedly very broad brush) overview of an Orthodox Christian vs. Evangelical understanding of Creation, the Fall, and Redemption. It may help explain why some of us Orthodox "read" Rob Bell in a more sympathetic way than many of his fellow Evangelicals:

http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/stevethebuilder/love_wins_an_orthodox_view_of_salvation

I tend to view all media through a "all truth comes from God" filter, so I my reading of this interview left me with my focus on this one answer. How different would my impact on my world be if I truly lived this out? ..."Stop using the word 'missionary' and stop sending people out to the 'mission field.' Or keep the word, but also commission public school teachers, and dentists, and CPA's, and construction workers, and those people who take your money at the toll booth. We're all disciples, all ground is holy, every interaction and conversation is loaded with divine potential, anytime, anywhere. Ordain everyone, call everyone a minister, invite the whole church to be on staff."

Jesus doesn't "reclaim" anything, HE REDEEMS. the problem w/ bell is that he is both right and wrong; right in that we shouldn't have an escapist mentality, wrong in his understanding of eschatology. Jesus is coming back, it will be terrible for those who don't believe and the earth will be redeemed, not reclaimed. my question for rob is how can you follow Jesus and not believe what He said?

John, what do you identify to be the differences in meaning between redeem and reclaim? Do you think it is possible that they can be used as synonyms, depending on context?

I think many Evangelicals have a disdain for Rob Bell because he challenges their conventional thinking. He doesn't quite fit in the same mold as popular authors/teachers as: John Piper, John MacArthur, or Mark Driscoll, and others of their ilk. This is why I truly appreciate Rob Bell. We need someone to challenge our faith and cause us to go to the Bible more and ask ourselves, "Is this what I truly believe? If so, why?" Thanks Rob Bell for your "out of the box" thinking and always challenging us to dig deeper into Scripture and examine my heart.

Part 1

IF, we accept the argument that Y’shua is the second Adam, then we must accept the biblical, and very Hebraic concept that goes along with that comparison…that Adam, when first made prior to “The Incident” was perfect in all things, and that sin, corruption, was not to be found in him because he was made from G-d straight up then we can conclude that Adam, and Eve were sinless beings.
But they fell.
What did they fall into?
Well, lets back it up.
G-d tells Adam,

“The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

Note, that when Adam eats of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil he will die.
Also note Eve’s response to the serpent…

“The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

Compare the two, one G-d says, “eat of the tree, and you will die” and Eve says, “no touchy nor eaty!”
Where did the “no touchy” come from?
Not from G-d. He just said, “do not eat.”

So, we have here our first interpretation and expression of free will. Not only should we not eat it, but not touch it less we’re tempted. So, now we know, Adam and Eve had free-will to interpret G-d’s command.
Were the reprimanded for that command?
No where in Genesis is there a reprimand for interpretation of G-d’s will, and so we can only conclude that G-d allowed mankind, aka Adam and Eve, room to obey his commands through their own understanding.
But, that lasted about the same time it took Adam to gnaw the fruit that Eve ate.

Now, I hope we’re familiar with the concept of “sins of the fathers” Which stems from this little incident which has had long reaching ramifications…Adam watch Eve eat the apple, and when she didn’t drop over dead, he ate it too.
Did either one die?
Nope.
But something else did…their souls, their perfection, because they disobeyed G-d, and now there is no going back.

(to be con't)

part 2

Which brings us to Y’shua, well, I’ll use Jesus though I’ll admit that it makes me itch when I do.
Right, Jesus, also was made by G-d…note, and in all things Y’shua was tempted far more than Adam or Eve.
In fact, looking at the Gospels Jesus was put through a marathon course of temptations, not just in the desert, but throughout his three years…and each and every time he resorted to what?
To scripture and prayer. Always seeking G-d the Father's will.
Because?
It is G-d breathed, and good for correction, and guidance…just like the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
G-d put that tree there so that Adam and Eve, if they ever had a question or doubt could go to G-d for correction and guidance without falling into sin. All they had to do was rely on G-d. See the tree, a question pops into their head, go to G-d with it.

But, as we see with Eve, she saw the tree as good to eat, desirable for all wisdom…in short, Eve and Adam wanted to be like G-d, they wanted to be the source of their own wisdom. They wanted to be G-d.

Y’shua, showed how it should have happened, and by seeking G-d through scripture and prayer at every temptation Y’shua did not sin.at.all.unlike.Adam and Eve.

Adam, like Y’shua were both made from G-d, we don’t know the particulars of Adam’s birth, or if he had a mother (here’s a thought…if Adam was made from clay, he wouldn’t have need for one thing we all have…a belly button. So, did Adam have a belly button?).

I would posit therefore that Adam and Y’shua were both perfect.

Adam will-fully chose to disobey G-d by seeking to become his own source of wisdom, and thus fell into disobedience and rebellion against the will of G-d.

Y’shua, also perfect as G-d was his father, like G-d was to Adam, and by rule of bypassing the “sins of the father…” Y’shua too was perfect.
And since he was born of a woman, and we have no idea what Adam’s circumstances are, so we can only assume that since G-d called him man, then Y’shua, by association and direct lineage through Mary, can also be called man.
Adam chose to fall, Y’shua chose to obey G-d.
Adam ate the fruit of good and evil, Y’shua refused the fruit of power that Satan offered him, and also all the fruits of self-sustaining power.

Adam fell and eventually died.
Y’shua obeyed, and eventually died.

The difference between the two is that Adam’s crime, his disobedience, his seeking his own wisdom passed down throughout the millenniums to us today, but the tangential escape from that path of separation from G-d and (qualifier) spiritual death is through Y’shua’s line.

Adam’s inheritance to us is through blood line.
Y’shua’s inheritance to us is through belief…and…obedience.
Two things Adam couldn’t restrain himself to do, and thus, up to Y'shua, a pretty closed loop that required a level of faithfulness that was, for all intents and purposes, difficult to maintain.
Y'shua, on the other hand, all so easy, and yet...for some reason, even more difficult since we, humans, sons and daughters of Adam and Eve, are still neck deep in our old, very Adam and Eve like habits, albeit, a conflict of epic proportions in our minds, but as time goes, hopefully, we'll resemble Y'shua more, and the old Adam and Eve less...till we die.

A side note: Sorry for taking so long, I ended up writing a very long essay about Genesis 1, 2, and 3, and once done realized I had passed three pages, working on four. So, I had to stop, and focus my answer less I wander...which, I have to say, I'm going to go back to that essay and finish it...I'm finding it is very interesting.

Jesus was not "made" by God, Jesus has always existed as the third person of the Trinity. He is the I AM, the alpha and omega, and the Creator of all things.

"Jesus was not "made" by God, Jesus has always existed as the third person of the Trinity. He is the I AM, the alpha and omega, and the Creator of all things."

Hmm...I'm hesitant to explain this to you as it seems to me quite obvious through the thread what I am talking about, and you haven't picked up on it...huh...how to explain this...hmmm?

Yes, G-d the father through Miriam "made" Y'shua...just as your mommy and daddy made you...However, I suppose I should clarify what "made" means...

Alright, hows this...By "made" I mean in a physical manifestation through...okay...well, this is going to breach some interesting territory that I'm not ready to discuss...however, so be it...I'm not sure what to call Y'shua's conception...parthenogenesis?
asexual reproduction?
Consensual relations?
Ugh...
You see how it gets....rather tricky (I now know what it means to "dance on the head of a pin"/sigh, not pleasant at t'all)...hence the use of the more readily, explainable, and less controversial "made."

Therefore, I use "made" in the sense that G-d concieved (however he did that) through Miriam to bring Y'shua, his son, in the world.

I won't play your little put-down games, but Jesus existed before He became incarnate. He has existed for all eternity, as has the Trinity. This is what Christianity has been about for 2000 years. Jesus told the Jews that He knew Moses, and they picked up stones to stone Him with, because they knew exactly what He was implying, and the Bible says that Christ was with the Jews when they crossed the Red Sea. Be condescending with someone else, you don't know what you're talking about.

Sheer,

I have a few questions. (You need not answer unless you want to, obviously):

1. Are you of Jewish descent (by natural heritage)? Were you raised in an Orthodox Jewish home?

2. Why did you leave out (again) the part about the serpent (and hence the sin) that was already in the Garden before Adam and Eve sinned?

Do you have a problem with the idea that sin exists also independent of its admission and expression within a particular human being, and that there is an aspect of sin in its effect on us and our world that may be outside of a particular person's control and outside the category of personal responsibility and guilt for that person? This is not to deny that in regard to the will to sin that exists in the sinning person, there is also true culpability and guilt--not only sickness and death--that also needs to be dealt with in salvation. It's just that it seems to me your definition of sin and our "fallenness" in terms of all the ways the Bible talks about this is too narrow/reductionist.

3. Re: the "perfection" of Adam and Eve: There is a) "perfect" in the sense of "lacking nothing in and of themselves (including all wisdom and knowledge, immortality, etc.)," and b) "perfect" in the sense of perfect for what they were (i.e,., humans, not self-existent, but created, and needing communion with God for their ongoing maturation and completion) situated in an environment suitable for that purpose and innocent/sinless. Which (a or b) is the sense you intended for Adam and Eve's prelapsarian state?

1: No, I am not Jewish, but having extended discussions with both orthodox, reformed, and messianic over the past thirty years I have...uh...yeah, developed some habits...the research along with the encounters have left an indelible mark on my way of thinking.

2: Alas, the issue...as I said, I was in the midst of writing war and peace when I realized...ugh, I need to focus on the issue of Y'shua's humanity and the issue of sin and Adam with a comparison to Y'shua, of which you brought up, and so I could only "touch" upon the causation of sin, i.e. the fall.
Perhaps, if Ur's patience endures...I can touch upon that as well.

Per3: I would refer to the latter idea of perfection...I like the way you summed that up...so, yes, B.

Anyway, as you can see, I wanted to make sure your faith is strong...I know what I think and study, and often wonder about is often misunderstood as...well...as you can see...difficult to explain with such limited space.

"[quoting end to indicate entire post has been read]...Be condescending with someone else, you don't know what you're talking about."

Hmm, how unfortunate that you drew that conclusion.
Hmmm, and after rereading your post, and considering the overall tenor of it I can also see there is no point in trying to dissuade your from your conclusion.

So be it...it is what it is.

I wish you well in your walk with G-d.

fare you well.

Karen,
I was writing some more last night about the "force of sin being man's nature" and I felt it was a bit verbose...so I'm trying to focus it more.
I beg your indulgence as I pare the word count down to something managable to the confines of this space.

Isn't immortality of souls a plato saying; whereas resurrection of body is Christian?

Sheer, thanks.

I suspect what you wanted to say is that we are personally responsible when we choose to sin, and Adam and Eve were personally responsible for introducing sin to the human race, and I would agree with that. I personally think we need to be clear that when we talk about sin in our "human nature" what we are really talking about is what Scripture calls "the flesh." This is not identical with "human nature," though. Human nature, in and of itself, was created "very good" and remains very good--it still bears the image of God, even though it now is diseased with sin. Sin is like a parasite on our humanity and properly we should identify sin as originating in "the flesh" as the Scripture does, not our human nature per se. Make sense?

I do think it is probably time to table the discussion--it's a bit far afield of the original post. Thanks for engaging with me, though.

"This is not identical with "human nature," though. Human nature, in and of itself, was created "very good" and remains very good--it still bears the image of God,"

And therein lies the rub for which we have no response too...of all of G-d's makings, the one he doesn't declare "good" is man.
Read Genesis 2.
You won't find G-d declaring the making of man "good." He doesn't even hint of it.
Good isn't associated with the making of man...it is conundrum for which leaves open a lot possibilities...both "good" and...well, bad.

But out of deference...I will allow this to hang...perhaps, we'll pick this up again later.

Sheer, is not the creation of mankind included in the "everything" of Genesis 1:31? That's what I'm talking about. How can a creature made "in the image of God" Himself not be considered good? What was he then? Evil? Neutral? Surely not.

"Sheer, is not the creation of mankind included in the "everything" of Genesis 1:31?"

Based on how each aspect of creation is specifically treated in the texts...I can only conclude no...unless...

There is a compelling argument to be made that says Genesis 2 is a frame-focus-capture of Genesis 1:27, and then how do we explain that after G-d declares all that crawleth and wiggleth on the earth is good, THEN he makes man...without the aforementioned good following the making?
Now, granted, we get lumped into the who Day 6 making at the end in Genesis 31, but specifically...man is not declared good.

Not bad, not good, but in the overall state of things, ALL that walketh, crawleth, and wiggleth is good. Man specifically...not a beep.

"That's what I'm talking about. How can a creature made "in the image of God" Himself not be considered good?"

Exactly my point...if we accept that G-d's view is both the beginning and the end, why didn't he specifically say the making of man is good?
I don't have answer, but if we look throughout the bible whenever G-d talks about mankind in toto...yeah, uncomplimentary is about as good as it gets for us in G-d's thinking.

"What was he then? Evil? Neutral? Surely not." (subject, "he" meaning man for clarity)

Good questions...is man evil by design by G-d?
I'd say no, because G-d doesn't design evil so...is man neutral?

Well...my question would be is "neutral" the right word?

I'm not sure neutral is the right word here...certainly there are aspects that would hint at neutrality...G-d's lumping of man into one big pile of genomic jelly and declaring it all good...but it doesn't say much about us, mankind...are we special or not?
Our ego's say, "oh please, we're made in G-d's image, he became one of us, he allowed himself to be abused by us, and killed by us just so he can redeem us...how can we not be special?"
And yet...Genesis, day six...everything is declared good after it's making...but man...not a rousing endorsement from the get-go.

So yes, if all of what G-d made is considered "good" but...only mankind, after his making, is the term "good" left out...all other creations immediately got the seal of approval...but us.

I think we should be careful how we apply "good" to ourselves...I think it was purposefully left off for a reason...certainly, our presence here on earth is good in consideration of relationships with other species, but man, specifically good...we never got that seal of approval from our maker. All of creation got specific seals of approval of good...us, we're lumped in with the rest of the animal kingdom.

I take it as a "know your place."
At first glance...that looks negative...but...consider this:

G-d says we're meant for other things, greater things...and I think those things meant for us that we have yet to become part of means that our "relationship" with the rest of creation is tangential...parallel, but not in lock step.
Resident aliens...we're not suppose to view this world as it is...as our home, as our place...I think there is a very clear message to us here in Genesis...it's how we read it that determines whether we grasp what is going on now.

God created man in His own image to enjoy the good and oversee the good. It infers that God alone knows what is good for man and what is not good for man. To enjoy that good man must trust God and obey Him. God demonstrated his understand of what is good in the creation of man and woman. When He created man, He said, "It is NOT good," why? because man was alone. So, He created woman out of man for companionship and pleasure. They were to live and work in enjoyment of the good God created. This is Sabbath - to rest in the goodness of God. They disrupted that by attempting to create the good for themselves outside of God's plan rather than resting in it. Further reading on this is found in a "good" commentary on this by John Sailhamer "The NIV Compact Bible Commentary" pub by Zondervan.

Sheer, the best I can say about your interpretation of Genesis 1 is that it is idiosyncratic. (I've noticed that about your take on a few things, actually.) One might also notice that it is only after mankind is created "in the image of God" that God sees all that He has made and pronounces it not just "good," but "very good." God makes quite a point of describing man's creation as in God's "image and likeness," He blesses him to have dominion over all He has made and blesses them to be fruitful and multiply. I don't have any problem whatsoever in putting humanity in its creation by God in the category of good, and I have never known a Christian or Jewish scholar to suggest otherwise.

"idiosyncratic"?

Ouch...but I'll take the rebuke as intended.

Hmm.../sigh...perhaps I'm to narrowly focused.
I'll give it a break, and come back to it later, and see if my opinion is still the same or not.

Sheer, don't feel too bad. I'm certainly not immune to overthinking stuff myself and running down some rabbit trails in the process.

Just by reading the comments here it's easy to see that Traditionalists are afraid. I had to stop once I got to the "Wolf and Sheep" comment. Really?? We have to go there, huh? Couldn't take it anymore. This type of knee-jerk reactions are exactly what opened my eyes to the fact that people want to follow their little religious ways of "Doing Christianity" and if anyone comes along with a fresh word. They slap the label Heretic on it. My eyes were opened. I only have One Shepherd and that is Jesus.
I SEE why young people are tired of the "Religion as Usual" mindset and fear. I came to know Jesus through more the "Jesus People" days... Funny, but they were called "Cultic" and "Rebellious" and "trying to redefine Christianity"... I bet a lot of THOSE people are working for Christian companies now and are the same people bashing any new wave of thought (that really isn't new AT ALL)! Because their jobs would be in danger if this stuff catches on.
I personally think God is in control. And I like Bell's thoughts and artsy fartsy way of doing things! I don't like to be labeled a heretic or a wolf because I do. That is slanderous. It hurts. I have experienced it in the church as have a lot of people.