It's been several months since my original critique, and today I felt the need to revisit and polish it up a bit. I have redacted most of the original disclaimers, but the most important note remains. Obviously, I cannot speak for everyone who has written against Love Wins, but I for one am not criticizing Rob Bell on the grounds of simply asking questions about our faith. What I take issue with is his answer to those questions, his method of questioning, and the logical fallacy on which his entire argument rests.
All Scripture quotations of mine are from the NLT unless otherwise noted.
The Critics
"A staggering number of people have been taught that a select few Christians will spend forever in a peaceful, joyous place called heaven, while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better. . . [To many], this belief is a central truth of the Christian faith and to reject it is, in essence, to reject Jesus. This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus's message of love, peace, forgiveness, and joy that our world desperately needs to hear." -Preface, viii
Unfortunately, baseless statements like this are the norm for the book: Bell says that a lot of people have been taught X, but X is wrong, just because. He never offers an explanation of why he thinks the traditional view of Heaven and Hell, of which he draws a crude caricature here, is wrong. No Biblical evidence for that view and no explanation of the traditional view are provided, just that this is what people have been told, and it's wrong because it's wrong. And if you believe this view, then you're "misguided." This is the tone he takes to preemptively delegitimize any argument against his view. He caricatures what "some people" think and then silences them by calling them "toxic."
The truth is, the orthodox understanding of Heaven and Hell is found in Scripture, and Christians believe it for just that reason. Not because we are prideful, arrogant mockers who want to see all those filthy heathens rot in hell, but because that's just the way it is. Bell appears to have not realized it, but he answers his own question. Jesus' message of "love, peace, forgiveness, and joy" has no ultimate ramifications if divorced from the looming specter of eternal punishment for rejecting Jesus.
Christians don't call the shots here. Christians don't decide who gets into heaven or hell (despite what the Westboro Baptist "Church" likes to think).
God offers us the choice between life or death, leaving us ultimately responsible for our decision. He has made that perfectly clear throughout the Bible. But in order to see that, we need to revisit the basics of God's story.
God and Man
It starts in Genesis. God creates the universe, and we get an idea of how He formed this planet. God creates human beings in His image, and gives them the garden of Eden, along with the freedom to eat any fruit except that of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. "If you eat of its fruit, you will surely die" (Genesis 2:17b). Adam and Eve choose to disobey God and eat the fruit, in an act of disobedience that we call the Fall of mankind. Mankind is now corrupt and in need of redemption from sin, which God promises in Genesis 3:15. Because of man's sin, man cannot be reconciled to God, for God is holy (Habakkuk 1:13, Isaiah 6:5), necessitating the promised redemption.
Thousands of years pass. Jesus arrives on the planet, preaching the Gospel:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life." -John 3:16
Jesus is crucified, and rises from the grave on the third day. Through His sacrifice on the cross and victory over death in the Resurrection, we are saved from eternal death if we choose to accept salvation through faith in Him, and only those who believe in Him will be saved (Romans 5:8-11, 1 Timothy 2:5-6, Acts 2:21, 4:12; Ephesians 2:8-9, 2 Timothy 1:9-10). Those who do not believe in Him will be damned for eternity (Acts 3:22-23, Revelation 21:7-8). The Bible is very clear on this point. We can have debates over the nature of what will happen to these people, or whether or not the "lake of fire" is to be interpreted as a literal body of fiery water, etc. But the heart of the matter is this: those who do not believe in Jesus will not be granted eternal life. Revelation 20:15 tells the truth as clearly as it can be told:
"Anyone whose name was not found recorded in the Book of Life was thrown into the lake of fire."
Why would a loving, compassionate God allow this to happen? If God loves people so much, why doesn't he just allow them all to have eternal life, regardless of whether or not they follow one particular religion?
Because of choice. God wants us to choose to love and accept Him, which is why He allowed the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to stand in Eden, even though He knew the consequences it would have. Sure, He could have made it easy and never given human beings the opportunity to disobey Him, but then we would not truly love. Giving someone no other option but to love is coercion.
If we have the option to choose God, we also have the option not to. Those who do not believe in God have no excuse; they can't say that they never knew. Romans 1:18-20 spells it out.
". . .God has put this knowledge in [people's] hearts. From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God." -vv. 19-20
As for believing a particular religion, Jesus established it Himself. The essence of Christianity is that people take up their cross and follow Christ (Luke 9:23). Not all religions lead to God because only one points to Jesus, without whom there is no salvation (Acts 4:12).
Those are the basics. God created man, man sinned and is separated from God, God provides redemption from sin in the person of Jesus, and man has the choice to accept Him. If man doesn't accept Jesus, then man is separated from Him forever, because God is holy and cannot reconcile with sin.
Keeping that in mind, let's take a look at what Rob Bell has to say.
The Straw Man
This is a logical fallacy where the opponent of argument X describes it in an intentionally weak way so that he can easily disprove with his own argument. Unfortunately, Bell engages in this a lot. Within the first 10 pages, there are at least 3 or 4 instances of this. The text from the preface that I quoted earlier is one of them. The next one is on page 2:
"Does God punish people for thousands of years with infinite, eternal torment for things they did in their few finite years of life?"
People don't go to hell on the basis of only doing things. He makes it sound like God punishes people just because they were bad. On its face, this has some truth to it: because of our sins, we are separated from God. However, if we accept Christ's forgiveness, we will be saved. People don't go to hell because they did wrong; people go to hell because they rejected Jesus. This is disingenuous on Bell's part in that he's asking the questions in such a way as to supply his own answers without having to engage the question (this is otherwise known as "the Socratic method," the most famous example occurring in Meno, 82-85d). If you ask a question like he did above, well, of course the answer is "No, He doesn't." But Bell has to intentionally misrepresent the argument that he is attacking because that is the only way his own argument can make sense.
The next straw man is on page 5, where Bell questions the concept of "the age of accountability," which says:
"Some Christians believe that up to a certain age children aren't held accountable for what they believe or who they believe in, so if they die during those years, they go to be with God. But then when they reach a certain age, they become accountable for their beliefs, and if they die, they go to be with God only if they have said or done or believed the 'right' things."
Notice that Bell never provides any real examples of such a theory. He just puts it out there. One of the most important rules in any kind of debate is that you need to provide evidence for the viewpoint you're arguing against, otherwise your arguments are baseless--they are straw men. Bell is a pastor: one would expect him to throw in a sermon, or a website, or a Bible verse about the age of accountability. Something. Anything. But he doesn't do that, because he's more interested in using this "age of accountability" as the impetus for asking numerous questions about the nature of salvation and how it is attained, questions that all lead to his own conclusion. Building the argument on a theory that only "some Christians" hold is logically weak.
"Some Christians believe and often repeat that all that matters is whether or not a person is going to heaven. . .If that's the gospel, the good news--if what Jesus does is get people somewhere else--then the central message of the Christian faith has very little to do with this life other than getting you what you need for the next one." -page 6
Again, the problem here is that he never provides an example of how many Christians supposedly believe this, or what the details of their belief are. But that's okay, because that snippet is all the information he needs to move on to his next point, which is this:
"If you truly believed that, and you were surrounded by Christians who believed that, then you wouldn't have much motivation to do anything about the present suffering of the world, because you would believe you were going to leave someday and go somewhere else to be with Jesus. . . [if this message prevailed], you could possibly end up with a world in which millions of people were starving, thirsty, and poor; the earth was being exploited and polluted; disease and despair were everywhere; and Christians weren't known for doing much about it. If it got bad enough, you might even have people rejecting Jesus because of how his followers lived."
His point is that the problems in this world are caused because Christians care solely about the next life and can't be bothered to care about this one.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Yes, there have been points in history, including today, when Christians don't engage the world as much as they should. Francis Schaeffer lays some of that criticism out in his book "How Should We Then Live?" But Bell's argument is flawed in that
a) the problems in this world are because of sin, not uncaring Christians (Romans 8:19-22, Genesis 3:17), and
b) Christians have done more than most to alleviate the world's suffering.
Think about William Wilberforce, who was the loudest voice in England calling for the end of the slave trade--a Christian. Think about William and Catherine Booth, founders of the Salvation Army--Christians. Think about Compassion International, World Vision, Mother Teresa, Bono--Christians and Christian organizations all. I'm barely scratching the surface here. Yet it's the Christians' fault that the world is such a dark place?
The last straw man I'll look at is the one that Bell props up on pages 7-9. He gives extreme examples of Christians in Eastern Europe who gun down Muslims, a "Christian" father who raped his daughter while reciting the Lord's Prayer, and the image that Bell has visited in the NOOMA series: the "bullhorn guy," who makes Jesus out to be some "antiscience, antigay" lunatic, "telling people that they're going to burn forever." The context is that
"...all that matters is how you respond to Jesus. And that answer totally resonates with me; it is about how you respond to Jesus. But it raises another important question: Which Jesus?" -pg. 7
Obviously, none of the Jesuses mentioned in his examples are representative of the real thing. But Bell uses these extreme examples to make his own view, which we will look at later, sound like the most reasonable alternative.
Shamefully, some churches out there are merely cults with a Christian face and do not represent the true Jesus as revealed in the Bible. But Bell doesn't go into that. He just uses some of the most revolting examples imaginable to legitimize his own view, then he jumps through several hoops, questioning whether or not a "personal relationship" with God is truly the heart of the faith, since that phrase never occurs in the Bible (a dangerous argument, since the word "Trinity" never occurs in the Bible, but Bell believes in the idea anyway); questioning whether or not going to heaven is "dependent on something I do," questioning just about everything he can.
Not that asking questions about your faith is bad; it isn't. As Bell rightly points out in the prologue,
"Some communities don't permit open, honest inquiry about the things that matter most. Lots of people have voiced a concern, expressed a doubt, or raised a question, only to be told by their family, church, friends, or tribe: 'We don't discuss those things here.'
I believe the discussion itself is divine.' -page ix, emphasis mine
But there's a difference between asking honest questions and asking leading questions. Honest questions, asked in humility and out of the desire to seek God's truth, will get you somewhere (Isaiah 1:18, Matthew 7:7). Leading questions get you to where you already wanted to go, regardless of whether or not it's true. Unfortunately, that's exactly what Bell is doing in this book.
Heaven
According to Rob Bell, Jesus never told people how to get to heaven, because "it wasn't what Jesus came to do." He goes on to discuss the Greek word for "age," aion, and how when applied with the proper meaning, means that "eternal life" is best understood as "the age to come," or "a new era," which Bell interprets as heaven merging with earth (pgs. 33-40). He talks about freedom from war and poverty and racism and death as if those are the best things that God has to offer in "the age to come." He goes on to describe this new age as "the day when earth and heaven would be one."
The problem with this view of heaven as explained in pgs. 33-40 and 44-47, is that Bell views it as Jesus "dragging the future into the present" and His followers make that happen by doing good things. He denies this at first, saying
"Taking heaven seriously, then, means taking suffering seriously, now. Not because we've bought into the myth that we can create a utopia given enough time, technology, and good voting choices, but because we have great confidence that God has not abandoned human history and is actively at work within it, taking it somewhere" -pg. 45
But the utopia myth is exactly what he is putting forth, both here and elsewhere (which I have written about at length).
"When Jesus talked about heaven, he was talking about our present eternal, intense, real experiences of joy, peace, and love in this life, this side of death and the age to come. Heaven for Jesus wasn't just "someday"; it was a present reality. Jesus blurs the lines, inviting the rich man, and us, into the merging of heaven and earth, the future and present, here and now." -pg. 59
In other words, heaven is only as good as the good things we experience in this life. Which is all fine and good, except Jesus never, ever spoke of heaven as being anywhere near what Bell describes above. No one else in the Bible does either. Yes, there are verses that describe a very real renewal of Creation (Romans 8:19-22 is probably the most well-known one), but they never indicate what Bell seems to think they do.
This rather shocking idea is followed up with a brief discussion of what eternal life actually means, and here, I have no issue with what he's saying. He says that eternal life doesn't start when we die, but it starts now, "in connection to God." And this is true: from the moment you accept Jesus as your Savior, your eternal life begins. But to go from "eternal life starts now, not just when you die" to "'Heaven' is really code for 'making the world a better place'" requires quite a few hoops to jump through, including the abandonment of logic--and Scripture.
(For a much better discussion of aion than I can provide, check out this review.)
Hell
"God is loving and kind and full of grace and mercy--unless there isn't a confession and repentance and salvation in this lifetime, at which point God punishes forever. That's the Christian story, right? Is that what Jesus taught?" -pg. 64
An oversimplified explanation, in which the expression of God's wrath is interpreted as an abandonment of His love and mercy, which is patently false. Love and punishment are two sides of the same coin. In God's love, he reached out to us "while we were yet sinners," and provided the path to salvation and restoration to eternal life in His presence, in the person of Christ. However, if we choose to ignore Christ, eternal punishment must necessarily follow because He is the only way eternal life can be attained. Punishment is not the absence of love, it is the forewarned consequence of rejecting Jesus.
So to answer Bell's question, yes, Jesus taught that (barring said oversimplification).
"And since we have been made right in God's sight by the blood of Christ, he will certainly save us from God's judgment." -Romans 5:9
"For God decided to save us through our Lord Jesus Christ, not to pour out his anger on us. He died for us so that we can live with him forever. . ." -1 Thessalonians 5:9-10a
"I don't want you to die, says the Sovereign Lord. Turn back and live!" -Ezekiel 18:32 (emphasis mine)
Bell's approach to hell is the same as with heaven: Jesus isn't so much concerned with the afterlife than he is with the earthly life. Bell interprets the idea of hell as all of the horrible things that people do on earth, including molestation, adultery, corporations that exploit the planet's natural resources, the disparity between the rich and poor, and the sex trade (pg. 78). Notice how Bell is only too happy to name a couple of progressives' favorite scapegoats as some of the worst things on earth, effectively propping up progressive talking points as orthodoxy. This is a shame, to say the least, because he starts off on page 73 talking about Jesus' rhetoric in the verses where He tells people that they would be better off mutilating themselves rather than commit certain sins. The discussion comes to a dramatic climax here:
"[Jesus] uses hyperbole often. . . it can all sound a bit over-the-top at times, leading us to question just what he's so worked up about. . . But when you've sat with a wife who has just found out that her husband has been cheating on her for years, and you realize what it is going to do to their marriage and children and finances and friendships and future. . . in that moment Jesus's warnings don't seem that over-the-top or drastic; they seem perfectly spot-on.
Gouging out his eye may actually have been a better choice."
This is a powerful statement about the destruction that sin causes, and I'd be hard-pressed to find a better description of just how bad sin is. Unfortunately, that's what hell is limited to in the Rob Bell view. "Hell" is the painful, horrible consequences of sin, which we experience here and now, in the same way that heaven is here and now, or as Bell puts it, "a particular period of time" (pg. 92). Furthermore, the consequences of sin are not eternal, but last as long as it takes for the sinner to realize what he has done and eventually come to repentance, at which point he is brought into fellowship with God (pgs. 83-93), which sounds an awful lot like Purgatory (another unbiblical concept). This is where his theology becomes even more precarious than it already is. The Hebrew word for "forever," olam, when used to describe God, more or less means "forever" as we understand it to mean: never-ending, everlasting, eternal. But in other passages, when it isn't describing God, it means "a particular period of time." The consequences are thus:
"So when we read 'eternal punishment,' it's important that we don't read categories and concepts into a phrase that aren't there. Jesus isn't talking about forever as we think of forever. Jesus may be talking about something else, which has all sorts of implications of what happens after we die. . ." -pg. 92, emphasis mine
Bell's proof for the "period of time" understanding of olam? The word described Jonah's time in the belly of the fish, which turned out to be three days, along with most of the other non-God-referencing occurrences in the Bible. Note that he doesn't apply the same exegetical, textual look at Jesus' actual words when He speaks of "eternal life." Instead he says, more or less, "Olam means a certain period of time in most other places in the Bible, so that's probably what Jesus meant too."
"That's probably what Jesus meant" isn't a very good standard for theology.
Does God Get What God Wants?
This is where Bell goes from bad arguments and selective quoting of Scripture to outright blasphemy.
"I point out these parallel claims: that God is mighty, powerful, and 'in control,' and that billions of people will spend forever apart from this God, who is their creator, even though it's written in the Bible that 'God wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth' (1 Timothy 2). So does God get what God wants?"
The obvious answer to that question is "not always." This is verified, not only by looking at the Bible, but the rest of history. Because of His character, God did not want the Holocaust to happen, God does not want children in Africa to suffer and die of AIDS, God does not want there to be illness or death. Yet, the Holocaust happened, children in Africa are experiencing unspeakable torment, and people everywhere die, every day. This does not mean that God is somehow indifferent to suffering or that He caused it. The Problem of Evil indicates the belief to the contrary, stating that if God is omniscient and omnipotent, then He knows of all evil and how to prevent it, but He does not, therefore God is not omniscient and omnipotent. Bell, like the philosophers who argue against God, makes the same mistake: the confusion of capability with culpability (the idea that because God has such and such characteristics, He has to act in a certain way). Bell's argument has the same fallacy inherent.
1. God is all-powerful and "in control" and wants everyone to be saved.
2. But billions of people will be doomed for eternity, which is not what God wants.
3. Therefore,
"[God is] great enough to achieve what [He] sets out to do,
or kind of great,
medium great,
great most of the time,
but in this,
the fate of billions of people,
not totally great.
Sort of great.
A little great." -pgs. 97-98
It is unwise to mock God, and that's putting it gently.
Bell then goes through and quotes various verses, like Philippians 2:10-11 ("Every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord"), Job 23:13 ("Who can turn [God] from his purposes? Whatever he wants to do, he does"), and Psalm 30:5 ("His anger lasts for a moment, but his favor lasts a lifetime"), all with the intent of showing that God is not powerless, despite the satirical statement to the contrary on page 97; that God can do whatever He wants; and that God will not be angry with us forever. This is all fine and good (and true). Bell continues the Scriptural references, talking about the parable of the lost sheep in Luke 15, to show that
"The God that Jesus teaches us about doesn't give up until everything that was lost is found. This God simply doesn't give up. Ever." -pg. 101
Then he contrasts this unstoppable God with churches that declare that those who don't accept Christ are going to be damned for eternity. He makes the bold statement that if God lets some people suffer for eternity, then God gives up.
God fails.
Nothing could be further from the truth. But Bell isn't content to stop there.
"As it's written in 2 Timothy 2, 'God cannot disown himself.'
As Abraham asked in Genesis 18, 'Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?'
Which is stronger and more powerful, the hardness of the human heart or God's unrelenting, infinite, expansive love?"
-pgs. 108-109
Not only does Bell mock God, but takes Scripture wildly out of context in order to justify his view. Yes, Abraham really did ask that question to God, but he was asking God to spare what righteous people lived in Sodom and Gomorrah, which God had marked for destruction, as punishment for their immorality--Abraham was not asking God to give everyone a free pass because God is just that nice of a guy. He did not want the innocent to perish along with the guilty, which propelled his question, and if you read a little further, you will see that God promises Abraham that the righteous will not perish on account of the sins of the wicked. However, Sodom and Gomorrah are still destroyed, even though Lot and his family were spared.
Remember Philippians 2:10-11? Bell takes them to mean that the entire world will be reconciled to God; redeemed, regardless of whether or not all of these people accepted Jesus Christ.
Bell takes 2 Timothy 2:13 to mean that for God to deny people access to heaven is to deny Himself.
To put the icing on the cake,
"Many people find Jesus compelling, but don't follow him, because of the parts about 'hell and torment and all that.' . . .Not all Christians have believed this, and you don't have to believe it to be a Christian. The Christian faith is big enough, wide enough, and generous enough to handle that vast a range of perspectives." -pg. 110
"Hell and torment and all that" are the reasons for Jesus' sacrifice. The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), and in order to save us from that death, Jesus came so that none may perish, but have everlasting life (John 3:16). Those who do not accept Jesus will be condemned (John 3:36).
To say that there is no hell, no eternal punishment for our sins that every single one of us deserves (Romans 3:23), is to say that the worst that sin can do is make us miserable on earth, which negates the power of Christ's sacrifice. If all that God wanted was for human beings to never suffer, He would have never given us the choice.
Universalism
"I am the good shepherd; I know my own sheep, and they know me, just as my Father knows me and I know the Father. And I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep, too, that are not in this sheepfold." -John 10:14-16a, emphasis mine
"This same Good News that came to you is going out all over the world." -Colossians 1:6a
Bell uses the italicized portion of John 10:16, and the quote from Colossians 1, to prove not only that God has proclaimed His gospel to the entire world, but that He has done this through every single religion and belief.
"What he doesn't say is how, or when, or in what manner the mechanism functions that gets people to God through him. . . Jesus is the way, but. . . the all-embracing, saving love of this particular Jesus the Christ will of course include all sorts of unexpected people from across the cultural spectrum.
As soon as the door is opened to Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Baptists from Cleveland, many Christians become very uneasy, saying that then Jesus doesn't matter anymore, the cross is irrelevant, it doesn't matter what you believe, and so forth.
Not true.
Absolutely, unequivocally, unalterably not true.
What Jesus does is declare that he, and he alone, is saving everybody. And then he leaves the door way, way open. Creating all sorts of possibilities. He is as narrow as himself and as wide as the universe." -pgs. 154-155
This is heresy. In Bellspeak, "absolute, unequivocal, unalterable" heresy.
It is not true by any stretch of the imagination.
It is logically impossible for all religions to point to Jesus, because every religion says something different. The Bible, God's revealed truth to us, is consistent. God is consistent. For God to say that every religion ultimately points to Him, with all of their mutually contradictory beliefs and conflicting paths to salvation, is inconsistent. As pointed out in 2 Timothy 2, God cannot disown himself.
Acts 4:12: "There is salvation in no one else! There is no other name in all of heaven for people to call on to save them." The Bible does not make any provisions for Buddha, Mohammed, or Krishna.
1 Corinthians 1:23: "We preach Christ crucified."
Romans 1:16: "I am not ashamed of this Good News about Christ. It is the power of God at work, saving everyone who believes. . ."
The gospel is Christ crucified. The apostles acknowledged this in saying that there is no other way to salvation but Christ.
The End: Everyone Goes To Heaven
"As Paul writes in Philippians 3, 'Let us live up to what we have already attained.'
The father has taken care of everything. It's all there, ready, waiting. It's always been there, ready, waiting. . . On the cross, Jesus says, 'Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing" (Luke 23). Jesus forgives them all, without their asking for it. . . Forgiveness is unilateral. God isn't waiting for us to get it together, to clean up, shape up, get up--God has already done it." -pgs. 188-189
"The only thing left to do is trust. Everybody is already at the party. Heaven and hell, here, now, around us, upon us, within us." -pg. 190
The late Richard John Neuhaus interpreted the gift of salvation, not as a free pass to everyone who ever lived, but as a testament to the boundless love of God:
"...absolutely no one is beyond the reach of God's love in Christ. All are found, and therefore are not lost. That some may choose not to accept the gift of being found is quite another matter. We pray and hope that all will accept the gift of salvation that is most surely available to all." -the August/September edition of First Things, under the section "The Generosity of God" (emphasis mine)
Rob Bell's troubling conclusion about eternal life raises the question: if God is going to spare everyone, regardless of what they believe or don't believe, then what does it matter what good we do or don't do here on earth? There is no point in "dragging the future into the present" by fighting evil corporations, child molesters, and the rich, because we're all going to have a blast in the future-present-pluperfect heaven with Mother Teresa, Hitler, and Gene Simmons. In Bell's framework, there is no reason for us to do anything good here on earth except to avoid the harmful consequences of sin (an issue that he never takes to its Biblical conclusion). All this talk about sin and dragging the future into the present boils down to cosmic utilitarianism.
Absent the possibility of ultimate condemnation for our sins, there is no reason to follow Jesus Christ. Sure, we might feel a whole lot better if we do, but if Jesus is in every religion; if every Christian, Muslim, Hindu, pagan, and atheist are all going to be spared because "love wins," there is no compelling reason to give a damn.
The Response
Unfortunately, if you disagree with Bell, you're "toxic and misguided," as he stated in the beginning of the book.
The founder of Recovering Evangelical throws the Bible under the bus in an attempt to defend Bell, and writes off the controversy surrounding Love Wins as being one of "the stupid battle Christians fight."
Juvenile rabble-rousers at "The Online Discernmentalist Mafia" took my throwaway line about Gene Simmons and built a straw man out of it, mercilessly mocking me for my critique of Bell.
Criticizing him makes you a "Pharisee," according to Eugene Peterson.
A commenter on the above-linked page asks the critics, "Why are you so anxious to make sure there are people in hell? The fact that you NEED Bell to be wrong and have people in hell communicates much more about yourself than either Bell or God."
No Bible-believing Christian wants people in hell, because that isn't what God wants.
"Do you think, asks the Sovereign Lord, that I like to see wicked people die? Of course not! I only want them to turn from their wicked ways and live." -Ezekiel 18:23
The reason that we need to be clear about the eternal consequences of denying Christ, which are real and revealed by the Scriptures, is because that's what is at stake.
Jesus did not die a criminal's death and rise from the grave so that we could all feel good about ourselves, have a nice life, drive fast cars, and be rich.
Jesus did not become a man so that his sacrifice could save the world from his bipolar father.
Jesus did what he did to save our souls.
That is the real story. That is the real truth.
"I don't want you to die, says the Sovereign Lord. Turn back and live!" -Ezekiel 18:32
0 comments:
Post a Comment