As a seminary grad who actually READ Rob Bell's book, I don't understand critics that seem accuse him of universalism (or emergent subjectivism[?] Sorry, but you have to do more than wear trendy clothes to be emergent). To me, these criticisms seem to come from theologians who either 1.) misunderstand Bell or 2.) misunderstand universalism. Bell DOES appear, based on this book, to be universal salvationist. There are similarities to universalism, but there are very fundamental differences.

i would propose a third way -- the writings of Soren Kierkegaard . which is this : accept objective uncertainty and live by faith in a subjective process toward the most passionate inwardness . this leaves post modernism and anemic christian apolegetics both in the dust . when we encounter Christ we have the most most passionate inwardness , but as Kierkegaard states - we must hold fast to it in order to endure to the end .

@FlockOfSharks Err, "What I said was that..." and "Calvinists are isolated..." Sorry for the skipped text.

I will say that I agree with Pastor Douglass that there are interpretational differences and tonal differences between Bell and Lewis. Lewis' writing is much more "absolute truth-centric" as Douglass suggests. But the differences between Bell and Lewis are interpretational and exegetical. Not epistemological, as Douglass suggests.

@ElasticGiraffe what? shouldn't we critique doctrine based on it's truth in relation to the text, not based on what fallen men have said about the text? because those churches couldn't possibly be wrong about that doctrine right?

@ElasticGiraffe you should read agustine.... or paul he's pretty good do, Romans 9 in particular. they wrote before calvin, most people conquer. I would encourage you, again, to make an argument based on the text, not from the history of the church that you seem to think all agreed on the topic, with no defence for that claim.

Universalism basically says, "Everyone goes to heaven no matter what, doesn't matter." Bell not only doesn't say this but actually spends several chapters emphatically destroying this position - a point which most critics of his book seem to conveniently omit. What Bell does say is that God has the potential to save everybody should God so choose based on God's own transforming sovereignty towards justice, and our inferences on this say a lot about our theology of the character of God..

I am ignorant of any of Rob Bell’s writings, I only know of those clever,short vids, that he produced. But it seems to me, that biblical testimony should be presented when painting an individual with such a negative way.

@ElasticGiraffe the point was you said he couldn't be taken seriously because he was a calvinist. that was clearly not a very well thought through statement now was it?

@FlockOfSharks No, the universal Christian Church did not grievously err about the scope of the atonement for the first FIFTEEN CENTURIES of its existence until one anointed Frenchman came along to set us all straight about the doctrine of salvation.

I am not a "newer brand of evangelical", having been a Christian for over 40 years and raised in the Nazarene church. And I am a Rob Bell fan. He shows that Ultimate Restoration is indeed a historical, valid orthodox doctrine, despite the outcries of many modern theologians, and people can indeed use their God-given conscience to reconsider the doctrine of eternal punishment. As much as I enjoy some of Doug's writing, I believe his condescension in this case is not impressive

@paullywallee It is highly presumptuous to say that just because Rob Bell writes in a modern, conversational style, that he is somehow lacking in intellectual maturity. I find him far more mature, and surely engaging, than most modern preachers or Christian writers. He has never compared himself to Lewis, and would probably dare not, as I'm sure his respect for Lewis matches yours.

@dankxng

3 жыл бұрын

Hysterically, Lewis and Bell believe most all of the same things: Christian universalism, Scripture is not inerrant, nonexistence of Hell, etc. The mental gymnastics people like Wilson and Piper have to go through in order to applaud and uphold one while denouncing and condemning the other is truly baffling.

Lewis believed in Christian universalism, did not believe Scripture was inerrant, nor did he believe in the existence of Hell. Bell believes in Christian universalism, does not believe Scripture is inerrant, nor does he believe in the existence of Hell. it's honestly hysterical to me how people like Doug Wilson or John Piper do so many mental gymnastics to applaud and uphold one as a great theologian while denouncing and condemning the other as a heretic. Had they been alive during the time of Lewis and not been able to see through the lens of history and retrospect that they have now, they would have most certainly condemned Lewis as a heretic.

This is VERY different from universalism, but I suppose it sounds sort of kind of enough like it for scared, anxious theologians to hop on the bandwagon and say, "Nooooo! Listen to us instead!" There are plenty of other reasons to criticize Rob Bell's book. His exegesis, for example, is very questionable in places (this was my biggest issue with the book). Universalism, however, is not one of them.

It's not rocket science. Eternal condemnation, eternal damnation, and eternal punishment, are the same. Eternal death, the wage of unforgiven sin. NOT ETERNAL PUNISHING.

@ElasticGiraffe right, ignore calvin and spurgeon and john knox, they weren't as intelligent as you or rob bell. gotcha.

Doug Wilson's critique that Rob Bell likes to "blur that line" is a criticism indicative of someone who hasn't read Bell's writing (and if he has, he needs to go back and read it again). Bell is almost anal in his insistence on backing up his points with Scripture - a trait I haven't seen used to fiercely since Leslie Weatherhead. His EXEGESIS of those texts is questionable in places, but to say that Bell is trying to "blur the line" or "ignore absolute truth" is a very odd critique indeed.

@FlockOfSharks His commentary suggests otherwise because he mischaracterizes Bell's views. But Wilson can only approach Love Wins from a Calvinist perspective, so one shouldn't take his criticisms or soteriology too seriously.

To compare rob bell to cs Lewis is laughable

@dankxng

3 жыл бұрын

Lewis believed in Christian universalism, did not believe Scripture was inerrant, nor did he believe in the existence of Hell. Bell believes in Christian universalism, does not believe Scripture is inerrant, nor does he believe in the existence of Hell. What is laughable is that people like you or Wilson here do so many mental gymnastics to applaud and uphold one as a great theologian while denouncing and condemning the other as a heretic. Had you been alive during the time of Lewis and not been able to see through the lens of history and retrospect that you are now able to, you would have most certainly condemned Lewis as a heretic.

@FlockOfSharks What I said Calvinist soteriology should not be taken seriously, and indeed it shouldn't. I firmly stand by that. Calvinists isolated theologically from literally all other Christians (Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Arminians, Anabaptists, Messianics, etc.) on account of their relatively novel, fringe ideas about the nature and scope of the atonement. As such I don't think their doctrine of salvation deserves any serious spiritual consideration aside from intellectual curiosity.

@chipsmydog

7 жыл бұрын

It is stunning the toll that self serving narcissism and willful ignorance takes on the adamantly carnal soul. When the Reformed, Pauline, and primordial doctrine of Jesus Christ is frivolously despised, it is sadly obvious that the heart of the critic is still hard, and in place of repentance is the malicious projection of an anemic relationship with God on every one who doesn't have one.

Universalism is a contradiction of even the most basic of biblical teachings. The fundamentalist nature of Lewis' thought defies even a speculation on the verity of such an unchristian view. Lewis would and indeed did attack anything resembling universalism or a view that denies the reality (supposedly [ I should probably mention that I am an atheist who only admires Lewis' resolve and intelligence]) of hell.

@RocketKirchner

3 жыл бұрын

not unless its Trinitarian Universalism as laid out by Origen of Alexandrian , St Gregory of Nyssia , Julian of Norwitch and many others who are Orthodox to the core . a universalism with Christ atonement at the center .

Mark Driscoll lack luster and an acquired taste! So far I've not acquired his theology or his form of delivering the gospel of Christ. GED student against Doug Wilson!

Doug is a bit arrogant to insult Bell in order to disagree with him. Bell's take *is* a lot like Lewis. Perhaps I didn't understand the Great Divorce but nothing said here points out differences in the books. Just differences in the respect Doug gives to the authors.

@CanonPress

6 жыл бұрын

Even in The Great Divorce, Lewis affirms the existence of eternal absence from God (which is Hell). Bell doesn't. That means he's not an orthodox Christian, and the Bible has stronger words than Doug for those who pervert the Gospel (e.g., Gal. 1:8).

@dhaqq18

6 жыл бұрын

Canon Press Thank you for your reply. I thought Lewis had an idea of people deciding to follow God after death. Maybe in the Narnia books? I guess I need to do some re-reading.

@CanonPress

6 жыл бұрын

That's an interesting discussion! Maybe you're thinking of Emeth from the Last Battle? Here's an article on that from one of our authors if you're interested in reading about one take from it. www.apologeticscanada.com/2015/02/12/c-s-lewis-universalist/

@dhaqq18

6 жыл бұрын

Canon Press Thank you. That article is an interesting take as are the comments. (They even mention Sahdu Sundar Singh who I read years ago). Personally, I'm back and forth on what I have always accepted as Orthodox. I hope you have more videos on the topic.

@CanonPress

6 жыл бұрын

Well, there are parts of the Christian faith you must affirm to be saved (eg, what's summarized in the Apostle's Creed) and parts we can disagree on (CS Lewis's views). You should read GK Chesterton's great work "Orthodoxy" if you're interested in the topic. Thanks for watching and commenting!

@ElasticGiraffe oh look. another youtube critic who knows nothing of this theologian claiming to know what he has and has not read. He has CERTAINLY read love wins.

@FlockOfSharks As if Arminians and universalists can't name-drop like you?

Oh look. Another theologian who condemns Bell without having read his book. :/

Not to mention the fact that on sheer intelligence Lewis utterly destroys Bell. Lewis understood literature and how to write, while Bell's writing style is indicative of a very bad amatuerish writer. Regardless of content.