Love Wins - Rob Bell

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

I'm sure many of you have probably heard about Rob Bell's new book "Love Wins."

Here is an important review of the book that deserves to be read by anyone wanting to here both sides of the story (Bell's side and the opposing side):

God Is Still Holy and What You Learned in Sunday School Is Still True: A Review of ?Love Wins? – Kevin DeYoung

Here are some quotes from Rob Bell himself in the book (qtd. in the article):

"This [traditional understanding] is misguided, toxic, and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus’ message of love, peace, forgiveness and joy that our world desperately needs to hear" (Love Wins viii).

"It’s a cheap view of the world because it’s a cheap view of God. It’s a shriveled imagination” (Love Wins 180).​

Clearly, Rob Bell thinks this is a very important issue. If Rob Bell is right, then the majority of Christians throughout Christian history have taught a message that subverts the gospel. They have taught a message that Rob Bell calls "misguided, toxic" and a "cheap view of God" among other things.

These are very serious charges. They need to be seriously analyzed.

A few highlights from the article itself:

Bell asks a lot of questions (350 by one count), we should not write off the provocative theology as mere question-raising. Bell did not write an entire book because he was looking for some good resources on heaven and hell.... As Bell himself writes, “But this isn’t a book of questions. It’s a book of responses to these questions” (19).

[...]

Bad theology usually sneaks in under the guise of familiar language.

[...]

Judgmentalism is not the same as making judgments. The same Jesus who said “do not judge” in Matthew 7:1 calls his opponents dogs and pigs in Matthew 7:6. Paul pronounces an anathema on those who preach a false gospel (Gal. 1:8). Disagreement among professing Christians is not a plague on the church. In fact, it is sometimes necessary.

[...]

This is a book for people like Bell, people who grew up in an evangelical environment and don’t want to leave it completely, but want to change it, grow up out of it, and transcend it. The emerging church is not an evangelistic strategy. It is the last rung for evangelicals falling off the ladder into liberalism or unbelief.

[...]

Over and over, Bell refers to the “staggering number” of people just like him, people who can’t believe the message they used to believe, people who want nothing to do with traditional Christianity, people who don’t want to leave the faith but can’t live in the faith they once embraced. I have no doubt there are many people like this inside and outside our churches. Some will leave the faith altogether. Others—and they are in the worse position—will opt for liberalism, which has always seen itself as a halfway house between conservative orthodoxy and secular disbelief.

[...]

This bold claim [by Rob Bell that he is in the historical orthodox tradition of Christianity] flies in the face of Richard Bauckham’s historical survey:

Until the nineteenth century almost all Christian theologians taught the reality of eternal torment in hell. Here and there, outside the theological mainstream, were some who believed that the wicked would be finally annihilated. . . . Even fewer were the advocates of universal salvation, though these few included some major theologians of the early church. Eternal punishment was firmly asserted in official creeds and confessions of the churches. It must have seemed as indispensable a part of the universal Christian belief as the doctrines of the Trinity and the incarnation. (“Universalism: A Historical Survey,” Themelios 4.2 [September 1978]: 47–54)

Universalism (though in a different form than Bell’s and for different reasons) has been present in the church since Origen, but it was never in the center of the tradition

[...]

Universalism has been around a long time. But so has every other heresy. Arius rejected the full deity of Christ and many people followed him. This hardly makes Arianism part of the wide, diverse stream of Christian orthodoxy. Every point of Christian doctrine has been contested, but some have been deemed heterodox. Universalism, traditionally, was considered one of those points. True, many recent liberal theologians have argued for versions of universalism—and this is where Bell stands, not in the center of the historic Christian tradition.​

These are all the highlights I'll provide, but the article goes on to critique Rob Bell's book from other angels (it responds to the Scripture verses Rob Bell appeals to and it looks at Rob Bells Christology (view of Jesus)). An important issue, not just because Rob Bell is making serious charges about major doctrines effecting the gospel, but also because he is such a popular pastor over such a large congregation.

 

[trust_in_the_name]

11 Who knows the power of Your anger? For as the fear of You, so is Your wrath. (Psalm 90:11)

16 The Lord is known by the judgment He executes; The wicked is snared in the work of his own hands. Meditation. Selah (Psalm 9:16)

10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. (Revelation 20:10)

Most men lie to themselves and those around them (Romans 1:18-32; Jeremiah 17:20), but no amount of prevarication or fabrication will ever remove the eternal reality of hell.

30 There is no wisdom or understanding Or counsel against the Lord. (Proverbs 21:30)

Universalism is a clear indicator of a false teacher.

9 Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. (2 John 9)

15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them. (Matthew 7:15-20)

3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. (2 Timothy 4:3-4)

1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber. 4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; 6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly; 7 and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked 8 (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds)-- 9 then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority. They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries, 11 whereas angels, who are greater in power and might, do not bring a reviling accusation against them before the Lord. 12 But these, like natural brute beasts made to be caught and destroyed, speak evil of the things they do not understand, and will utterly perish in their own corruption, 13 and will receive the wages of unrighteousness, as those who count it pleasure to carouse in the daytime. They are spots and blemishes, carousing in their own deceptions while they feast with you, 14 having eyes full of adultery and that cannot cease from sin, enticing unstable souls. They have a heart trained in covetous practices, and are accursed children. 15 They have forsaken the right way and gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; 16 but he was rebuked for his iniquity: a dumb donkey speaking with a man's voice restrained the madness of the prophet. 17 These are wells without water, clouds carried by a tempest, for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever. 18 For when they speak great swelling words of emptiness, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through lewdness, the ones who have actually escaped from those who live in error. 19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by whom a person is overcome, by him also he is brought into bondage. 20 For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. 21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22 But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: "A dog returns to his own vomit," and, "a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire." (2 Peter 2)

 

[zone]

yes, thank you Credo.
been following that one.

 

[dmdave17]

My journey through the Christian faith took the opposite road than that of Bell's, if I read the post correctly. From trying to reconcile the Scriptures to my relatively liberal beliefs ("God couldn't have possibly meant that." ), to realizing that God's word is immutable and eternal ("Boy is this world in trouble!" ).
I concluded that times may change but God never does. Therefore, I believe that what distressed God in Noah's time still distresses Him today. And that includes false prophets who try to manipulate the message to their own designs.

 

[AnandaHya]

thank you for posting, i have not read Bell's book and don't really plan to now, but it does explain some misconceptions people have been spouting to me when we discuss theology. dmdave17 Satan told Eve that "God couldn't have possibly meant that" she would die and guess what she did.

When God warns us He's not lying and not joking and not forgiving of those who do not admit their guilt, repent and turn back to God's chosen path. Yes This world is in trouble, but those who chose to serve God will be taken out of this world into Heaven. Lets try and take as many people with us as we can?

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

Here is a pretty amazing interview with Rob Bell on MSNBC

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg-qgmJ7nzA[/video]

I've provided some transcript below so that you can read more carefully the interchange that was taking place and decide if Rob Bell was giving coherent, relevant responses or whether he was (as one commenter put it) just punting or deflecting the questions away.

HOST: This book you've written has been stirring some controversy because the implication is, as you put it, "God's love will eventually melt hearts." That's what you say in the book. So are you a universalist who believes that everyone can go to heaven regardless of how they respond to Christ on earth?

ROB BELL: Um, in regards to the question "Are you a universalist?" I would say first and foremost no. And that is a perspective within the Christian stream. There has been, within the Christian tradition, a number of people who have said "Given enough time, God will win everybody over." One of the things in the book I'm very clear on and want people to see is that this tradition has all of these different opinions--everybody will be won over, some will continue to resist God's love--and that Christians have disagreed about this speculation.

​

So Rob Bell isn't a universalist (someone who believes all persons will eventually be saved), even though he believes that God's love eventually wins or will "melt hearts"? How exactly does that work out? How can God's love for a person and desire for a person to be saved "win" if it doesn't achieve it's goal? In what sense then does love "win"?

But what is the alternative? The alternative to everyone eventually being saved is some persons spending an eternity in hell. But Bell refers to the belief in hell as a place of eternal torment as "...misguided, toxic, and [a belief that] ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus’ message of love, peace, forgiveness and joy that our world desperately needs to hear" (viii; qtd. in article above). So if Rob Bell is not a universalist, is he trying to say that he adheres to a belief that is, by his own thinking, misguided and toxic? Or is Rob Bell just speaking out of both sides of his mouth?

Furthermore, Rob Bell's answer here looks a bit ridiculous because it indicates that he wrote the book only to let people know that some Christians have believed in universalism, but he doesn't intend to persuade anyone to universalism. But this contradicts his stated purpose in the book:


“But this isn’t a book of questions. It’s a book of responses to these questions” (19; qtd. in the article above).

​

Well, what sort of questions is Rob Bell asking? One is: "Will everybody be saved, or will some perish apart from God forever because of their choices?" (115; ibid). So, if we are to believe what Rob Bell says in his book, he intends to provide us with answers to these questions, and I assume his answers are intended to beyond a history lesson of what a minority of theologians have held to.

HOST: So is it irrelevant and is it immaterial about how one responds to Christ in this life, in terms of determining one's eternal destiny? Is that immaterial?

ROB BELL: I think it's extraordinarily important.

HOST: But in your book you said that God wins regardless in the end.

ROB BELL: Um, "love wins" for me is a way of understanding that God is love and love demands freedom.
​

I think the host started to do a bad job at this point. Instead of exposing the fact that Bell's last response is completely vacuous, the host just repeats the question and Bell just repeats the answer he gave. The host should have asked him why it is important if the ultimate result is the same for everyone or the host should have pointed out that if "love demands freedom" then God's love can't necessarily win in the end, for the creature must be free to always resist the will of God. Thus, there is no guarantee that love wins.

HOST: So why do you choose, for example, to accept and promote the works of the early writer Origin and not, for example, Arius, who took a view of Jesus' deity as being not God? Why do you select one and not select the other?

ROB BELL: Because first and foremost I'm a pastor. And so I deal with real people in a real world, asking and wrestling with these issues of faith. And what I have discovered over and over again is there are people who have questions and hunches and have, sort of, "I'm really struggling with this..." And when you can simply give them the gift of, "By the way, within the Christian tradition, there are scholars and theologians and there are other people who have had the same questions."

​

Again, this looks like an entirely vacuous response. The Host raises a good question: why does Rob Bell seem to be cherry picking his theologians? As Kevin DeYoung pointed out, you can find professing Christians throughout church history that have believed all sorts of crazy and fringe ideas. Is that in itself sufficient to prove that these beliefs are within the "stream" of Christianity or viable options for Christians to take? Of course not. But instead of addressing the implied point of the host (he could have done a better job at making it explicit), Rob Bell says "Because I'm a pastor..." but so what? How on earth is that supposed to answer the question?

HOST: But you've just indicated though one of the problems with this book, which is, in a sense, you're creating a Christian message that is warm, kind, and popular for contemporary culture. But it's frankly, according to this critic, unbiblical and historically unreliable. That's true isn't it?

ROB BELL: No, that's not true.

HOST: What you've done is you're amending the gospel--the Christian message--so that it's palatable to contemporary people who find, for example, the idea of hell and heaven very difficult to stomach. So here comes Rob Bell, he's made a Christian gospel for you and it's perfectly palatable. It's much easier to swallow. That's what you've done, haven't you?

ROB BELL: No, I haven't. And there is actually an entire chapter in the book on hell. Throughout the book, over and over again, our choices matter--the decisions we make about whether we extend love to others or not, the ways in which we resist or we open ourselves to God's love, these are incredibly important.


​

Looks like another vacuous response. He asserts that he hasn't done this and, supposedly, to back up his assertion, he points out that he wrote an entire chapter on hell. But, again, so what? Just because he wrote an entire chapter on hell doesn't mean that this chapter is defending the orthodox view of hell. He may have written an entire chapter "on hell" arguing that hell doesn't exist, and so clearly this is another non-response on Bell's part. He reiterates that these issues are "incredibly important," but it's still not clear why.

Over all, an amazing display of question dodging and double speak.

 

[pickles]

Thankyou credo for stating the truth so well.
When will all see that the love of God Our Father is simply keeping us safe in Jesus from death and choosing hell.
In Jesus, God bless.
pickles

 

[1still_waters]

I haven't read the entire book. I've seen one intro video. I've read a few reviews. I just saw that MSNBC interview.

Given the fact that my insight in to this book is through the eyes of other people with limited, isolated quotes, I'm going to suspend judgement until I actually read the book!

I think it's possible, to hear what someone is saying when someone takes isolated quotes from a text. But the problem is, we may not be hearing what they 'mean'!

One problem with NOT reading an ENTIRE book or 'theory', is that you can certainly get snippets and hear what they're saying. Yet without the context, you may not be getting what they mean.

I'm suspending judgement until i read the book, because I know human nature and I know how this little game is played in Christianity.

I know there are SOME who almost make a living or lifestyle out of combing through EVERYTHING with a fine tooth comb, pulling out quotes that appear heretical, then leaping to swift judgement of those given quotes, without actually linking those quotes to the entirety of the work. Doing this seems dangerous and potentially slanderous of a potential brother/sister in Christ.

We are to TEST all things. But there is a difference between TESTING something and being so bent on finding heresy that you isolate a quote here and a quote there and contort a heresy out of thin air, instead of doing the honest work on your own and finding the truth.

So I have just downloaded this book to my handy ereader. I shall report back on my findings.

I would suggest strongly that folks maybe do the same. Don't view this potential brother in Christ solely through the eyes of someone else who took a snipper there and a snippet here and contorted a given view.

Let's not rush in to declaring someone a heretic. Let's not rush in to declaring it truth. Let's cautiously rush to test all things.

 

[1still_waters]

I just read Chapter 1.

My brief thoughts on it.

Picture a figurative beach, loaded with tons of 'theological rocks'. Picture someone going to each one of those rocks and turning it over to see what's under it. That seems to be what Bell does in the first chapter. He's asking lots of what ifs. Lots and lots of questions.

I can see how someone might take one of these questions he's asking and run with it and put words in his mouth and say he's teaching this or that. But from what I can see, if you simply read chapter one. There are just a load of questions he's asking in order to get us thinking.

So far Rob Bell isn't trolling.

 

[1still_waters]

I just finished chapter 2. It's about heaven.

Bell makes the case that heaven is a restored creation that will happen in the future. He also says that we can participate in heaven, to a certain limited extent now. By this he seems to be saying that as we're transformed by the Holy Spirit and as we overcome sin and all that's wrong with us, we're participating in a certain, limited aspect of heaven.

Bell seems to be saying, "Hey eternal life doesn't start some time in the future. It starts now! You can enter eternal life now and you participate in it by letting God change you."

I can see how some may have an issue with this. Some could read too far in to it and think Bell is getting our mind off the 'eternal'. But to me all he's saying is that we need to let God change us NOW, so we become more suitable for the restored creation to come.

On to chapter 3.

 

[AnandaHya]

GOD wins God is Love. However God is also JUST. so your reaction is important as well. if you accept Jesus then you will go to heaven if not you will go to hell. when you meet Jesus upon death you will realize you are wrong and be casted in hell anyway if your heart judges you as wrong and not loving towards God.

wow accusations are very harsh against Rob Bell. but he doesn't sound bad and he admits he is on a journey towards God. He might have some mistaken views but God will show him. we need to keep the faith alive and remember God works miracles.



God spoke this into my heart*May 2003

" Look on each day as a new day,
forgive the hurts of yesterday
.Let go of dreams of tomorrow.
Focus on today.
Look on every thing with fresh eyes for what you remember is what was.
Live and rejoice in what is.
Be it sadness and pain*
or happiness and joy.
wealth or poverty,
find ultimate joy in the truth and ultimate happiness in unconditional love.*
For they are the only things that remain constant.
For they are from God
The nature of beings is pure light and goodness
Rejoice in knowledge and learning
because that is the path toward God and truth
See with clear eyes the world
unfettered with misconceptions based on past experiences and attachments.
People change, things change.

True future selves are based on past self,
but have you truly seen them as they are or know who they will be?
Each person has choices/ experiences that changes them daily.
So greet everyone with happiness and compassion.

Be open to accept who they are now
and give them love for who they were*
and what they have done for you,
but never forget to see them as they are now
instead of imposing the picture of who they used to be"



People need to stop judging the past and look at the present day. enough if the evil therein.

 

[Red33]

Anytime that we speak of the love of God we have to also include God's justice. God loved the world and sent His only begotten Son to perform a willing act of justice that took the sins of the world on His own body, shed His blood for those sins and was crucified through death. All those sins went into the grave with the Son through death and were buried. Three days later the Son rose from the grave without sin, appeared unto many and then ascended to the Father. The death, burial and resurrection of Christ was an act of justice to satisfy the holiness of the Father by taking away the sins of the world so that the Father could no longer impute sin.

On the side of sinful man it was an act of love so that man could approach God through Jesus Christ and be reconciled through that act of justice that was demonstrated on the cross. When the justice of God was satisfied by the blood of the Son, the Son became the propitiation or mercy seat for the sins of the whole world. If that act of justice that became God's mercy seat for sinful man is rejected those sins that were put away by the Son could not be cleansed or forgiven through that blood that was shed and man would die in their sins without mercy. No amount of love, compassion or mercy exhibited toward man could save that man if man rejects the justice of God that was met and accomplished through His Son on the cross.

Rejection of that justice means that God must reject man on that same basis and be separated from man for all eternity. The place that God has created for the devil and his angels become the final abode for the wicked and the children of disobedience who have rejected and turned down the mercy seat of God's justice that was satisfied through His Son, Jesus Christ. This is the gospel we preach and lift up to all men in all the world, for without this gospel all men are lost.

Jn 12:31-33
31 "Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out.
32 "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."
33 But He was saying this to indicate the kind of death by which He was to die.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

Given the fact that my insight in to this book is through the eyes of other people with limited, isolated quotes, I'm going to suspend judgement until I actually read the book!

I think it's possible, to hear what someone is saying when someone takes isolated quotes from a text. But the problem is, we may not be hearing what they 'mean'!

This has been the common rejoinder of Rob Bell defenders throughout the ordeal (I'm not saying you're a Rob Bell defender, but you're using a similar line of reasoning anyway). The problem is, it's impractical as a rule of thumb. So this rejoinder only works in so far as the one using it applies it inconsistently or the person gives us a good reason to think that this is an instance in which we need to employ the method.

Every time you read a quote from someone in a book you don't "suspend judgment" until you actually read the entire book from which the quote was taken. To suggest that we need to do this or should do this is absurd. If we have no reason to think the person using the quote is twisting the words, then we have no need to go read the entire book.

Have you done this? If so, how long does it take you to finish a book? Let's be conservative and say that the average book contains 10 quotes or references to other books. This means that on average you'll have to read 10 books before you can get back to your original book without suspending judgment. Now if you can get through 1 book a week then you may be able to finish your original book in about 3 months. Not too bad. But have you done this? Most people I know can barely make it through 1 book in three months, let alone 11.

And you repeat or emphasize the words "isolated" and "limited" quotes. These are fairly subjective statements. And you yourself go on to give isolated and limited quotes from Bell. In the negative sense, I don't think Kevin DeYoung's review that I gave qualifies under these terms. And Kevin DeYoung has read the book in its entirety. So why should I believe that DeYoung is grossly twisting Rob Bell's words? Nothing Rob Bell has said in the interview gives me reason to doubt DeYoung's accuracy. And I have no prima facie reason to doubt DeYoung. And trying to argue that we should suspend judgment as a rule of thumb is clearly absurd.

So while I have no problem with people wanting to read the book themselves (I might do that eventually), to give as their justification an implication that others might be misrepresenting the book looks misguided unless they actually give us a reason to think this has been done. But on the contrary, when we look at Rob Bell's chance to defend himself or correct the misrepresentations in the MSNBC interview he only raises further suspicions by dancing around questions. He could have made it immediately clear how his position is distorted. Instead, he fumbled around.

One problem with NOT reading an ENTIRE book or 'theory', is that you can certainly get snippets and hear what they're saying. Yet without the context, you may not be getting what they mean.

But unless you can give us a reason to think this is the case with this particular book we have no reason to disbelieve someone else who has read the "ENTIRE" book and has no reason to grossly misrepresent the author's position.

I'm suspending judgement until i read the book, because I know human nature and I know how this little game is played in Christianity.

I guess this is supposed to be your reason for us suspending judgment. But it proves too much. For to be consistent you now have to do this with every book, because your reason captures every person who writes books. In fact, when you read Rob Bell's book you'll have to do it with his too. Anyone he quotes must be checked out first hand because, after all, you know human nature and the little game is played.

Now you say you've read the first few chapters. How many people has Bell quoted so far? Have you read those other sources first hand yet or are you waiting to finish the book first?

Picture someone going to each one of those rocks and turning it over to see what's under it. That seems to be what Bell does in the first chapter. He's asking lots of what ifs. Lots and lots of questions.

This is exactly what Kevin DeYoung says in his review that I provided. So DeYoung hasn't misrepresented Bell here. DeYoung says:

Bell asks a lot of questions (350 by one count)...​

I provided that highlight in my initial post I think. But you go on to say in relation to these questions:

There are just a load of questions he's asking in order to get us thinking.

Yet DeYoung addresses this very point in the same exact sentence I quoted:

...we should not write off the provocative theology as mere question-raising. Bell did not write an entire book because he was looking for some good resources on heaven and hell.​

What's more, DeYoung quotes Bell to prove his point:

“But this isn’t a book of questions. It’s a book of responses to these questions” (19).​

Is this an isolated quote? Yes. But then you go on to give your own "limited" and "isolated" quotes. So what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. And clearly the fact that it is isolated does nothing to call into question it's accuracy. So now that you've read the first chapter and you've read DeYoung's statements (at least from the "isolated" quotes I've given of him... maybe you should read DeYoung's review for yourself so you know I'm not grossly misrepresenting him) you can confirm whether DeYoung's "isolated" quote is misrepresenting (and then you can confirm whether my isolated quotes of DeYoung are misrepresenting... but then of course all the other people reading this thread will have to read it too, in addition to all that you've said and I've said, to decide for themselves!!)

So far Rob Bell isn't trolling

I'm not sure exactly what this means in this context. But this does raise another issue that many others, including DeYoung, have pointed out. It's a bit naive to think that questions only serve one purpose: to obtain information one is lacking. That's clearly not what Rob Bell is doing, by his own admission.



We don't have to play naive. Questions can be rhetorical, leading, loaded, suggestive, declarative, etc. Not every question is just an attempt to acquire some missing information. This is what we might call the "innocent" question. And if this is all Bell is doing then he doesn't need to write a book about it. In fact, writing a book for that purpose is a very odd. He can just do the research himself.



But the fact that there are innocent questions is why questions are also used for a different purpose. That some can be innocent is what makes them useful as a rhetorical ploy. To not recognize this and be on the look-out for it is to ensure that you'll be duped by rhetorical ploys when they do arise.

I just finished chapter 2. It's about heaven.

Bell makes the case that heaven is a restored creation that will happen in the future. He also says that we can participate in heaven, to a certain limited extent now. By this he seems to be saying that as we're transformed by the Holy Spirit and as we overcome sin and all that's wrong with us, we're participating in a certain, limited aspect of heaven.

Bell seems to be saying, "Hey eternal life doesn't start some time in the future. It starts now! You can enter eternal life now and you participate in it by letting God change you."

I can see how some may have an issue with this. Some could read too far in to it and think Bell is getting our mind off the 'eternal'. But to me all he's saying is that we need to let God change us NOW, so we become more suitable for the restored creation to come.

On to chapter 3.

The problem with what you're doing here is that it falls victim to your own comments regarding limited, isolated quotes. If anything, this drives my point home about the need for the line of reasoning to be employed inconsistently. And no one would have any more reason to take your own analysis as a valid representation of Bell's point than Kevin DeYoung's.

 

[AnandaHya]

we should let the Holy spirit guide us. we can only LEARN so much, sometimes we have to TRUST in God.

I read at least 400 pages a day. i just don't want to buy the book. So i too suspend judgement until I have all the facts and have PRAYED about it. Ultimately its GOD"S truth not our own understanding that matters most.

 

[1still_waters]

This has been the common rejoinder of Rob Bell defenders throughout the ordeal (I'm not saying you're a Rob Bell defender, but you're using a similar line of reasoning anyway). The problem is, it's impractical as a rule of thumb. So this rejoinder only works in so far as the one using it applies it inconsistently or the person gives us a good reason to think that this is an instance in which we need to employ the method.

Every time you read a quote from someone in a book you don't "suspend judgment" until you actually read the entire book from which the quote was taken. To suggest that we need to do this or should do this is absurd. If we have no reason to think the person using the quote is twisting the words, then we have no need to go read the entire book.

Have you done this? If so, how long does it take you to finish a book? Let's be conservative and say that the average book contains 10 quotes or references to other books. This means that on average you'll have to read 10 books before you can get back to your original book without suspending judgment. Now if you can get through 1 book a week then you may be able to finish your original book in about 3 months. Not too bad. But have you done this? Most people I know can barely make it through 1 book in three months, let alone 11.

And you repeat or emphasize the words "isolated" and "limited" quotes. These are fairly subjective statements. And you yourself go on to give isolated and limited quotes from Bell. In the negative sense, I don't think Kevin DeYoung's review that I gave qualifies under these terms. And Kevin DeYoung has read the book in its entirety. So why should I believe that DeYoung is grossly twisting Rob Bell's words? Nothing Rob Bell has said in the interview gives me reason to doubt DeYoung's accuracy. And I have no prima facie reason to doubt DeYoung. And trying to argue that we should suspend judgment as a rule of thumb is clearly absurd.

So while I have no problem with people wanting to read the book themselves (I might do that eventually), to give as their justification an implication that others might be misrepresenting the book looks misguided unless they actually give us a reason to think this has been done. But on the contrary, when we look at Rob Bell's chance to defend himself or correct the misrepresentations in the MSNBC interview he only raises further suspicions by dancing around questions. He could have made it immediately clear how his position is distorted. Instead, he fumbled around.



But unless you can give us a reason to think this is the case with this particular book we have no reason to disbelieve someone else who has read the "ENTIRE" book and has no reason to grossly misrepresent the author's position.



I guess this is supposed to be your reason for us suspending judgment. But it proves too much. For to be consistent you now have to do this with every book, because your reason captures every person who writes books. In fact, when you read Rob Bell's book you'll have to do it with his too. Anyone he quotes must be checked out first hand because, after all, you know human nature and the little game is played.

Now you say you've read the first few chapters. How many people has Bell quoted so far? Have you read those other sources first hand yet or are you waiting to finish the book first?



This is exactly what Kevin DeYoung says in his review that I provided. So DeYoung hasn't misrepresented Bell here. DeYoung says:

Bell asks a lot of questions (350 by one count)...​

I provided that highlight in my initial post I think. But you go on to say in relation to these questions:





Yet DeYoung addresses this very point in the same exact sentence I quoted:

...we should not write off the provocative theology as mere question-raising. Bell did not write an entire book because he was looking for some good resources on heaven and hell.​

What's more, DeYoung quotes Bell to prove his point:

“But this isn’t a book of questions. It’s a book of responses to these questions” (19).​

Is this an isolated quote? Yes. But then you go on to give your own "limited" and "isolated" quotes. So what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. And clearly the fact that it is isolated does nothing to call into question it's accuracy. So now that you've read the first chapter and you've read DeYoung's statements (at least from the "isolated" quotes I've given of him... maybe you should read DeYoung's review for yourself so you know I'm not grossly misrepresenting him) you can confirm whether DeYoung's "isolated" quote is misrepresenting (and then you can confirm whether my isolated quotes of DeYoung are misrepresenting... but then of course all the other people reading this thread will have to read it too, in addition to all that you've said and I've said, to decide for themselves!!)





I'm not sure exactly what this means in this context. But this does raise another issue that many others, including DeYoung, have pointed out. It's a bit naive to think that questions only serve one purpose: to obtain information one is lacking. That's clearly not what Rob Bell is doing, by his own admission.



We don't have to play naive. Questions can be rhetorical, leading, loaded, suggestive, declarative, etc. Not every question is just an attempt to acquire some missing information. This is what we might call the "innocent" question. And if this is all Bell is doing then he doesn't need to write a book about it. In fact, writing a book for that purpose is a very odd. He can just do the research himself.



But the fact that there are innocent questions is why questions are also used for a different purpose. That some can be innocent is what makes them useful as a rhetorical ploy. To not recognize this and be on the look-out for it is to ensure that you'll be duped by rhetorical ploys when they do arise.





The problem with what you're doing here is that it falls victim to your own comments regarding limited, isolated quotes. If anything, this drives my point home about the need for the line of reasoning to be employed inconsistently. And no one would have any more reason to take your own analysis as a valid representation of Bell's point than Kevin DeYoung's.

I guess we disagree on that one. I need to read someone's entire book before I go spreading judgments about them. Others feel free spreading judgments about someone by going off the opinions of others on a certain person.

It's just a difference on how I and people not like me approach the world.

In the end God will judge.

 

[1still_waters]

I guess it's just in how a person approaches life.

Some feel totally comfortable viewing another human through someone elses interpretation, without doing the heavy lifting themselves. Then they feel totally comfortable making a judgment and spreading that judgment around. By judgment I mean an opinion on if what they are teaching is true. I'm not talking about the kind of judgment where you declare them saved or unsaved.

Some feel more comfortable viewing another human being's work through their own eyes, in its entirety, then making the judgment. Because to them, they know it's totally possible that the lense someone else views the world through could be flawed, biased or whatever due to their own theology, world view or what ever.

For people like me, we need to know that our opinions of others work isn't tainted by the potential bias/flaws of someone else. For people like me we like to make sure before we potentially go telling others that so and so teaches such and such, because of this or that.

It's just an honest difference in how folks approach life.

 

[AnandaHya]

I guess it's just in how a person approaches life.

Some feel totally comfortable viewing another human through someone elses interpretation, without doing the heavy lifting themselves. Then they feel totally comfortable making a judgment and spreading that judgment around. By judgment I mean an opinion on if what they are teaching is true. I'm not talking about the kind of judgment where you declare them saved or unsaved.

Some feel more comfortable viewing another human being's work through their own eyes, in its entirety, then making the judgment. Because to them, they know it's totally possible that the lense someone else views the world through could be flawed, biased or whatever due to their own theology, world view or what ever.

For people like me, we need to know that our opinions of others work isn't tainted by the potential bias/flaws of someone else. For people like me we like to make sure before we potentially go telling others that so and so teaches such and such, because of this or that.

It's just an honest difference in how folks approach life.

Amen, we should seek GOD"S Truth not man's understanding.

 

[1still_waters]

I don't think some folks grasp the weightiness, the heaviness, the gravity that is involved in judging someone else and their teaching/work/book/whatever.

Some seem to approach it as if they're just giving opinions on how good a restaurant or tv show is. This could be the furthest from the truth.

We're doing heavy, heavy lifting here folks when we go about trying to test and discern and then spread our findings around. This is HEAVY lifting!

I believe if someone is going to step in the ring, and engage in this heavy lifting, they need to have the most informed opinion as is possible. Which of the following statements is most true?

I can have a more informed opinion of a work/book by just reading someone else's interpretation of said work/book.

I can have a more informed opinion by actually reading the entire work/book myself.

I'd say option two is the closest to the truth for those truly seeking to have the most informed opinion on a work/book.

Some may then say , "But reading someone in their entirety is too much and it isn't necessary."

To such a person I'd reply with, "But you're doing heavy lifting here. You're doing a grave, weighty, heavy thing by judging someone and their work. If you're not willing to do the heavy lifting, then maybe you shouldn't enter this heavy thing in the first place."

If you're going to engage in this task of judging someone and their work and then spreading your findings around, you had better be as informed as is possible. It's not possible to be informed as possible if you haven't at least read "A" book in its' entirety.

Plus can you really have a well developed opinion if you're not as informed as is possible?

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

I guess it's just in how a person approaches life.

Some feel totally comfortable viewing another human through someone elses interpretation, without doing the heavy lifting themselves. Then they feel totally comfortable making a judgment and spreading that judgment around. By judgment I mean an opinion on if what they are teaching is true. I'm not talking about the kind of judgment where you declare them saved or unsaved.

Some feel more comfortable viewing another human being's work through their own eyes, in its entirety, then making the judgment. Because to them, they know it's totally possible that the lense someone else views the world through could be flawed, biased or whatever due to their own theology, world view or what ever.

For people like me, we need to know that our opinions of others work isn't tainted by the potential bias/flaws of someone else. For people like me we like to make sure before we potentially go telling others that so and so teaches such and such, because of this or that.

It's just an honest difference in how folks approach life

I don't think it has anything to do with an approach to life. As I suggested in my last post, no one could take what you're suggesting is an "approach to life" and apply it consistently. And you look inconsistent when you give us your "interpretation" on Bell and expect us to give any value to that interpretation, however small.

I've used this example countless times in other context, but it works here too: when you go through the education system you don't question whether Einstein really meant what your physics teacher says he meant about relativity theory. You don't question whether Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address is indicating what your history teacher says and you don't question whether the sections of it that your history textbook quotes are legitimate.

Now are you going to give all students your negative spin about their lightweight approach to life and spreading judgments about the views of Lincoln? I doubt it. We take it for granted that a person is giving an accurate report unless we have some reason to doubt it. The only reason you give--human nature--applies across the board, undercutting everyone's statement of everything, including your own statements about Rob Bell (or anyone else you happen to speak on).

For people like me, we need to know that our opinions of others work isn't tainted by the potential bias/flaws of someone else.

For people like me, a person's report of what is the case isn't guilty until proven innocent. In fact, that's true for people like you too; regardless of what you want to model in Rob Bell's case. I find it too implausible that you approach all testimonies in the same manner.

Now, I'm not saying it's wrong to check primary sources or see if something is accurate. But I'm saying it's a bit silly to assume this is the normal modus operandi. And it looks even more silly to try and pass it off as an approach to life.

If you want to say you have reasons to believe Rob Bell isn't saying the things people are saying he is saying, fine. That gives you a good reason read it yourself. But don't sell it to me as a pious rule of thumb or approach to life. We don't just assume that persons like Kevin DeYoung have nefarious reasons to misrepresent. And if we did, how would assume someone else as being nefarious be a more pious approach to life? Doesn't cash out...

Because to them, they know it's totally possible that the lense someone else views the world through could be flawed, biased or whatever due to their own theology, world view or what ever.

Right. It's also possible that you are actually Rob Bell and you're just trying to drum up sales for your book by making people go out and buy it to read it first hand.

Guess we'll have to suspend judgment on whether or not that is the case until we confirm it firsthand. That is, after all, one approach to life.

 

[1still_waters]

I don't think it has anything to do with an approach to life. As I suggested in my last post, no one could take what you're suggesting is an "approach to life" and apply it consistently. And you look inconsistent when you give us your "interpretation" on Bell and expect us to give any value to that interpretation, however small.

I've used this example countless times in other context, but it works here too: when you go through the education system you don't question whether Einstein really meant what your physics teacher says he meant about relativity theory. You don't question whether Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address is indicating what your history teacher says and you don't question whether the sections of it that your history textbook quotes are legitimate.

Now are you going to give all students your negative spin about their lightweight approach to life and spreading judgments about the views of Lincoln? I doubt it. We take it for granted that a person is giving an accurate report unless we have some reason to doubt it. The only reason you give--human nature--applies across the board, undercutting everyone's statement of everything, including your own statements about Rob Bell (or anyone else you happen to speak on).



For people like me, a person's report of what is the case isn't guilty until proven innocent. In fact, that's true for people like you too; regardless of what you want to model in Rob Bell's case. I find it too implausible that you approach all testimonies in the same manner.

Now, I'm not saying it's wrong to check primary sources or see if something is accurate. But I'm saying it's a bit silly to assume this is the normal modus operandi. And it looks even more silly to try and pass it off as an approach to life.

If you want to say you have reasons to believe Rob Bell isn't saying the things people are saying he is saying, fine. That gives you a good reason read it yourself. But don't sell it to me as a pious rule of thumb or approach to life. We don't just assume that persons like Kevin DeYoung have nefarious reasons to misrepresent. And if we did, how would assume someone else as being nefarious be a more pious approach to life? Doesn't cash out...



Right. It's also possible that you are actually Rob Bell and you're just trying to drum up sales for your book by making people go out and buy it to read it first hand.

Guess we'll have to suspend judgment on whether or not that is the case until we confirm it firsthand. That is, after all, one approach to life.

Credo nice reply. I mean we can say our perspective in 200 words or less or 500 words and more. But the bottom line is this.

Some believe you can have the most informed view of someone's work by simply reading someone else's interpretation.

Some believe you can have the most informed view by reading their entire book.

A book which in this case happens to be around 200 pages. And honestly it could probably fit on 100.

I think it's apples and oranges to compare what I'm calling for here and to say it's like saying we can't trust our history teacher on Einstein or Lincoln.

We're talking about heavy lifting here. We're talking about declaring another human created in God's image to be a heretic or false teacher. To reach such a conclusion it's best to have the most informed opinion as is possible. If one is not willing to do the heavy lifting of at least reading their book, then they really shouldn't try and engage in the discussion.