Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Couple of early reviews of Rob Bell's Love Wins

See Tim Challies and Kevin De Young.


Derek Leman said...

Hey, Joel. Met you at SBL and we have friends in common.

Actually, I'm glad I read the book reviews you recommended because, if anything, they demonstrate perfectly the opposite of what they intend. I'm really rather agnostic about the universalism issue right now (and Robin Parry's book is what has had me thinking). But Challies and De Young make universalism sound really good (by arguing so very poorly against it).

Sounds like the bottom line for them is: the good news isn't good if there isn't some everlasting bad news too.

Jeremy said...

You understand DeYoung as well as Bell understands the Bible. And that isn't a good thing. Yep, you pretty much nailed DeYoung's bottom line.

jeff miller said...

It is not like, "oh we have got to have some bad news so that the good news can be good". We should realize that the good news was first and foremost good news to Israel. And they had already received the bad news...EXILE as the testimony of God's displeasure and wrath. So the good news came into a particular setting. We might also note that the good news wasn't a generic offer of forgiveness but rather a demonstration of Isaiah 40, that the wrath of God had been fully pored out, and that Israel was now to be delivered from the consequences of their disloyalty...which had been foreign domination and more...through their favored King -Jesus.

Derek Leman said...

Jeremy, so I've missed DeYoung's point? Really? Well, here is an examination by a blogger of eight points DeYoung makes against universalism. Each one of them boils down to "we need wrath to be motivated" (i.e., good news isn't good unless there is bad news to match): http://www.postost.net/2011/02/kevin-deyoung-rob-bell-argument-about-hell

Ron Krumpos said...

In his new book "Love Wins" Rob Bell says he believes that loving and compassionate people, regardless of their faith, will not be condemned to an eternal hell just because they do not accept Jesus Christ as their Savior.

Concepts of an afterlife vary between religions and among divisions of each faith. Here are three quotes from "the greatest achievement in life," my ebook on comparative mysticism:

(46) Few people have been so good that they have earned eternal paradise; fewer want to go to a place where they must receive punishments for their sins. Those who do believe in resurrection of their body hope that it will be not be in its final form. Few people really want to continue to be born again and live more human lives; fewer want to be reborn in a non-human form. If you are not quite certain you want to seek divine union, consider the alternatives.

(59) Mysticism is the great quest for the ultimate ground of existence, the absolute nature of being itself. True mystics transcend apparent manifestations of the theatrical production called “this life.” Theirs is not simply a search for meaning, but discovery of what is, i.e. the Real underlying the seeming realities. Their objective is not heaven, gardens, paradise, or other celestial places. It is not being where the divine lives, but to be what the divine essence is here and now.

(80) [referring to many non-mystics] Depending on their religious convictions, or personal beliefs, they may be born again to seek elusive perfection, go to a purgatory to work out their sins or, perhaps, pass on into oblivion. Lives are different; why not afterlives? Beliefs might become true.

Rob Bell asks us to rethink the Christian Gospel. People of all faiths should look beyond the letter of their sacred scriptures to their spiritual message. As one of my mentors wrote "In God we all meet."

Jojo P. said...

The most important message from Rob Bell's book is that you don't get saved by believing in hell.