Please everyone take a pace back, and sheath your swords..
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
We may "reside/live" here, but its not our house, please respect the house rules which include this isnt a debating site and Logos has asked us not to use these forums for it..
Never Deprive Anyone of Hope.. It Might Be ALL They Have
alabama24: Room4more:By the way who is Rob Bell and why does he speak[write] so strongly against him in this book? Rob Bell is a prominent member of a loose organization of pastors in what is called the "emergent" church. He wrote a book called "Love Wins," in which he denies the possibility of a literal hell. Much hoopla was made over this book by some prominent evangelicals (and Catholics), including John Piper who tweeted "Farewell, Rob Bell." "Erasing Hell" is a response to Bell by Francis Chan. I have not read either book (yet).
Room4more:By the way who is Rob Bell and why does he speak[write] so strongly against him in this book?
Rob Bell is a prominent member of a loose organization of pastors in what is called the "emergent" church. He wrote a book called "Love Wins," in which he denies the possibility of a literal hell. Much hoopla was made over this book by some prominent evangelicals (and Catholics), including John Piper who tweeted "Farewell, Rob Bell."
"Erasing Hell" is a response to Bell by Francis Chan. I have not read either book (yet).
I haven't read either book, and truthfully I probably won't. I have rather put a dent in the unread books already on my shelves (both physical and electronic).
You can't buy any of Bell's books from Logos or Vyrso. You can however buy this response book through Vyrso. Haven't read that one either, just found it searching for Rob Bell or Love Wins.
I agree that this debate doesn't need to happen on Logos forums. I'm just adding this response to show another resource available through Logos.
I have not read the Chan response, but did read the Bell book as a part of a reading group. While it is certainly POSSIBLE that what you say is what he says, I kind of doubt it. To be honest, I did not like the Bell book, largely because Bell seemed to like to throw around tough questions, take simplistic "answers" as the "orthodox" view, question them, and throw around many biblical quotes without much context.
Bell certainly believes that Hell "exists" - people do experience it here and now, One of the few organized biblical sections of the book shows how the Biblical terminology read as talk about the afterlife does come from this worldly things. (eg. Gehenna was a garbage pit) He does have some, uh, highly unexpected and original readings of scripture in the process, eg. Lk 10.12 means that there is still hope for Sodom, and therefore there is hope for all of us. He references Origen as a witness for his side, ignoring to tell the reader that Origen's own ideas were quite controversial and were eventually condemned.
The biggest problem in this book was when I started asking "What does Jesus have to do with his Kingdom", THIS didn't seem to be addressed. Instead at key points were were told to try to imagine what would be the greatest way for God to act. This type of Christological thinking is indeed is what I have found "orthodox theology" to be talking about, letting me talk and ask questions like Mr. Bell asks.
But is he a heretic or a breath of fresh air? I must confess, to hear someone not afraid of asking questions that I want to ask but are often stifled in our churches, I can certainly understand why he has his fans. I agree that real pastoral care and real building up the body of Christ will not avoid the real questions we have. But I have found his treatment of them to be lacking. "Orthodoxy" is more complicated and frankly much more interesting than often portrayed. Christianity grew up in a late Roman world where, as one of my professors said, the people thought all religions were equally true, the philosophers thought all religions were equally false, and the politicians thought all religions were equally useful. These questions are hardly new. They are instead precisely those behind the development of orthodox Trinitarian and Christological thought.
"You don't fix faith, River. It fixes you." - Shephard Book in "Jaynestown"
Kenneth McGuire:Christianity grew up in a late Roman world where, as one of my professors said, the people thought all religions were equally true, the philosophers thought all religions were equally false, and the politicians thought all religions were equally useful.
Great analysis! I love that quote.
How to Ask for Help | Logos Wiki | My Machine Specs | My Blog
Rosie Perera: Kenneth McGuire:Christianity grew up in a late Roman world where, as one of my professors said, the people thought all religions were equally true, the philosophers thought all religions were equally false, and the politicians thought all religions were equally useful. Great analysis! I love that quote.
Yes! Really nice.
NB.Mick -- running Logos 5.1 Beta 8 (Verbum Master, Minimal Crossgrade) on Win7 Home Premium 32bit & some Android apps on Kindle Fire
Josh:
Know how you feel Josh, Room4more statements are either to confuse or he's confused himself. He doesn't seem to know whether the book is disagreeing or agreeing with Bell.
OOOHHHH!!! I GET IT NOW!! It is not really a book about hell, it is really a book from one so called christian ripping and tearing at another so called christian….How thoughtful........
No wonder the quote being used does not make sense ….oh by the way Josh, you never did show how it was NOT Biblical other than to stoically tell me what Bell believes.......so yes i would cover my face as well. it s okay Josh, I understand really I do.
Thanks for clearing that up guys, thanks Josh for, well something.
Boy, I am glad that was free, would sure have hated to spend money on a book where one so called christian ripping and tearing at another so called christian......
**********
Yes, I know about the debate thingiee and it was not a debate, there was really only one other who conversed and, well, there was no debate there, not even clear answers. But thanks for the reminder,,,,
Room4more:Boy, I am glad that was free, would sure have hated to spend money on a book where one so called christain ripping and tearing at another so called Christian
I didn't even download it for free. But I doubt it's a christian ripping and tearing another christian. It's more likely a christian standing up to a truth of scripture.
Evan Boardman: Room4more:Boy, I am glad that was free, would sure have hated to spend money on a book where one so called christain ripping and tearing at another so called Christian I didn't even download it for free. But I doubt it's a christian ripping and tearing another christian. It's more likely a christian standing up to a truth of scripture.
Thanks Evan, but I am still curious how the statement in the book that I have shown is NOT Biblical, but I guess it doesn't really matter now.
Sorry, but then............
I would rephrase "It's more likely a christian standing up to a truth of scripture" to "It's more likely a christian standing up to a truth that he believes is in scripture." I would also say that Rob Bell is doing the same thing, standing up to a truth that he believes is in scripture.
tom collinge: Evan Boardman: Room4more:Boy, I am glad that was free, would sure have hated to spend money on a book where one so called christain ripping and tearing at another so called Christian I didn't even download it for free. But I doubt it's a christian ripping and tearing another christian. It's more likely a christian standing up to a truth of scripture. I would rephrase "It's more likely a christian standing up to a truth of scripture" to "It's more likely a christian standing up to a truth that he believes is in scripture." I would also say that Rob Bell is doing the same thing, standing up to a truth that he believes is in scripture.
Well, I do not totally agree.
But the point I was trying to make was:
Chan made a quote of another to prove a point, but the quote did/does not fit the point attempting to be made nor does it show that the person to whom was quoted was wrong when attempting to make the point that they were/are wrong.
[I'll bet they were neighborhood kids and one of them was the bully of the other...]
Somewhere in this thread I got totally lost as to who was trying to make what points and I'm not going to try sorting it all out now. I'll only add a couple of verses to the discussion and hope they mean something to someone :-)
Daniel 12:2 - Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.
Matthew 25:46 - “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Halo-hound,
Granted I am not familiar with either of the two names of the Author's, nor of the one who is pointed out in the writ.
Yet, I am always open to reading. I was under the impression that this was "This is not a book about who is saying what." and that it was truely a "It's a book about what God says.", which after reading, that these statements are a slightly mis-leading.
Others were so kind as to point out that this is really a "response" book. Which now makes a clearer sense of the quote that I used.
Hope this helps.
****
As to the two citations you used, yes I agree, but also adding that these are also referring to AFTER the day of Judgment.
Well, thanks everyone for your comments.
To me personally, I would gladly use the label:
Not because of any heretical statements, but rather using this quote from Jim:
" ....a) It immediately warns me that the author is a poor writer. If he has to slap a label like this on his work then he is likely to be incapable of making his points through a valid persuasive argument and he lacked the effort or ability to present his "heretical" material in a way that makes clear either what he thinks of the material or to teach people how to analyze it critically. I would be highly skeptical that such a book would be worth reading....." http://community.logos.com/forums/t/46986.aspx?PageIndex=2
Thanks again, everyone for your comments...
Please have a good friday Saturday...
Thanks.
alabama24: Rob Bell is a prominent member of a loose organization of pastors in what is called the "emergent" church. He wrote a book called "Love Wins," in which he denies the possibility of a literal hell.
Rob Bell is a prominent member of a loose organization of pastors in what is called the "emergent" church. He wrote a book called "Love Wins," in which he denies the possibility of a literal hell.
I hope this doesn't cause a debate but I feel I should offer a slight but significant correction. Bell doesn't deny the possibility of a literal hell at all. In fact, Love Wins is quite noncommital on that point, and ends up about where C.S. Lewis did – anyone who goes to hell goes there because they ultimately have chosen it for themselves.
Bell's main point is that belief in an unending and purely punitive version of hell is not a necessary Christian doctrine, and that the significant number of people who have turned away from the Church due to this single point of doctrine should reconsider, because there has been at least a minority of Christians throughout history who have believed otherwise.
mitchellisdumb:I feel I should offer a slight but significant correction.
Thanks for clarifying. I have not read the book, but tried to give a non-controversal answer based upon what I have heard Bell say. I understand the distinction you are making and am thankful for you correcting my understanding of Bell's position.
Mac | iOS | L5 Gold | Win Logs | Mac Logs
mitchellisdumb:Bell's main point is that belief in an unending and purely punitive version of hell is not a necessary Christian doctrine, and that the significant number of people who have turned away from the Church due to this single point of doctrine should reconsider, because there has been at least a minority of Christians throughout history who have believed otherwise.
interesting take. Makes me want to read the book to see what is actually said. However I would disagree with him still. someone, or a group of people, do not define a teaching as unncessary simply because they don't believe it. Necessary for Christians must be determined by what Jesus taught (to include all of scripture) and not by what any particular person believes. From my perspective Jesus clearly taught on Hell and so it is a necessary teaching. If I believe Jesus clearly taught on the topic of Hell and I believe its not necessary to believe it what am I saying about my opinion of Jesus?
Halo Hound: mitchellisdumb:Bell's main point is that belief in an unending and purely punitive version of hell is not a necessary Christian doctrine, and that the significant number of people who have turned away from the Church due to this single point of doctrine should reconsider, because there has been at least a minority of Christians throughout history who have believed otherwise. interesting take. Makes me want to read the book to see what is actually said. However I would disagree with him still. someone, or a group of people, do not define a teaching as unncessary simply because they don't believe it. Necessary for Christians must be determined by what Jesus taught (to include all of scripture) and not by what any particular person believes. From my perspective Jesus clearly taught on Hell and so it is a necessary teaching. If I believe Jesus clearly taught on the topic of Hell and I believe its not necessary to believe it what am I saying about my opinion of Jesus?
I think Bell would agree with you there. He doesn't claim it's scripturally sound to deny the doctrine of Hell. What he claims is that it's scripturally sound to deny the particular vision of Hell that has taken hold in Western Christianity, namely that Hell is a) wholly punitive in purpose (as opposed to rehabilitory, a la the punishment of Israel in the OT) and b) unending (he leaves the door open for post-mortem conversion). I think point A has a lot of merit, but to make point B he interprets αἰώνιος as referring not so much to an infinite amount of time, but timelessness or... well, I can't think of a good way to put it, but he thinks it doesn't have to mean an infinite ongoing time period. At this point if you want an accurate representation of his view you'll have to read the book, my memory is getting poorer by the minute. Suffice to say, Bell doesn't deny Hell.
mitchellisdumb: I think Bell would agree with you there. He doesn't claim it's scripturally sound to deny the doctrine of Hell. What he claims is that it's scripturally sound to deny the particular vision of Hell that has taken hold in Western Christianity, namely that Hell is a) wholly punitive in purpose (as opposed to rehabilitory, a la the punishment of Israel in the OT) and b) unending (he leaves the door open for post-mortem conversion). I think point A has a lot of merit, but to make point B he interprets αἰώνιος as referring not so much to an infinite amount of time, but timelessness or... well, I can't think of a good way to put it, but he thinks it doesn't have to mean an infinite ongoing time period. At this point if you want an accurate representation of his view you'll have to read the book, my memory is getting poorer by the minute. Suffice to say, Bell doesn't deny Hell.
Which is why we also need Bell's book in Vyrso. This way we can read what he wrote instead of letting other people tell us what he wrote. Because Logos gave away a book the only has one side of this conversation, Logos should also give away the other side of this conversation.