« Reviewing Rob Bell's Love Wins by Peter Lumpkins | Main | Doktor James White on Fudging His Teaching Assignments by Peter Lumpkins »

2011.03.21

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

drwayman

Not being a Baptist, I can't comment on that aspect of this review. I have not read the book so I can't comment on his connection of this book with Arminian thought. However, being a Wesleyan Arminian, I would have liked Dr. Owen to outline that connection a bit more.

I don't know what to say about #4 "We don’t know who all of the elect are, and many of them may well lie outside the boundaries of the visible Church." I cannot disagree with that statement; yet, there is something that doesn't resonate with me, yet does. I have to think more about that statement. Maybe some of the other commenters thoughts on this review will clear that up for me.

Thanks for sharing this review :-)

drwayman

A bit of a different perspective over at Arminian.net : http://thearminian.net/2011/03/21/because-far-too-few-have-responded-to-rob-bell/

Craig L. Adams

This is an excellent review. Dr. Owen understood the book (which many reviewers do not) and interacts with it critically in a way I find quite helpful. Thanks for posting this.

Paul Owen

Thanks for the kind words Craig.

Dr. Wayman,

In labeling Bell as an Arminian, I simply meant that ultimately, for him, salvation depends on the free will of man, not the secret decree of the God who in his wisdom dispenses mercy and justice on sinners as He wills.

drwayman

Dr. Owen - I guess where I was tripped up was that you connected Bell to Arminianism, yet #4 had a Calvinist flavor to it and #3 had an Arminian flavor to it. Thanks for replying, your review makes more sense in my mind now. I thought your review was excellent. Much appreciated...

Kevin Jackson

Thanks for the balanced review, I found it helpful.

Paul Owen

Hmm. I guess I don't see #3 as uniquely Arminian (though I obviously get the gist of what you are saying). I am a Calvinist, but I believe the death of Jesus was sufficient to save all men, and that God genuinely desires the salvation of all men.

drwayman

I was thinking of the Calvinist belief of irresistible grace. Hence, when you said reject/choose, my mind went into Arminian mode.

Paul Owen

Ah. Well, I certainly do not deny that unbelief is a choice that people make. People are moral agents, with rationality and the faculties of conscience. They have the natural freedom to accept or reject God's grace (Acts 7:51). Because of human depravity, we will, without the intervention of divine grace, always misuse this freedom though, to our own destruction. Wesley and Arminius would agree. The question then becomes, to whom is this grace given? Is it given universally, or are some excluded from that gift of grace which enables men to come to Christ? I say the latter, as a Calvinist.

drwayman

I would say that grace is given universally. The question is whether grace can be resisted or not. I say the former, as an Arminian.

David Smith

Thank you for your insights Dr. Owen! I enjoyed our discussion of the review in class today.

Don Johnson

As a non-Calvinist I agree God desires the salvation of all men. But I can not understand how God desires the salvation of all men yet at the same time withholds from some (many) the grace neccessary for them to be saved.

Eric Opsahl

All the tension over misjudging this book by Bell before reading it is well founded. And just like we shouldn't misquote or misrepresent what the Mormon believes, we should be very clear that they are promoting a false Gospel.

As wrong as it is/was for folks to judge a book they never read, we should be crystal clear on what Bell is promoting.

A crystal clear Biblical warning should go out to those who are influenced by him.

See one of the latest interviews of bell about his book on utube. He was on with Martin Bashir.

Paul Owen

Don,

I don't claim to fully understand it either. But if that is what Scripture teaches (and I think it to be so) then I have to accept it. In some cases, God allows men to persistently reject him through their free will, and in other cases, he chooses to heal and so influence the will as to move the soul to conversion. Why he gives to some, what he denies to others, is to some extent a mystery. I can only confess the words of Job 2:10 and shut my mouth.

Doogs

The Calvinist also believes God desires the salvation of all men, that all would come to Christ, but that none can. God withholds intervening grace from some because He is just; men will suffer the consequences of breaking the law. God gives grace to others because He is also merciful. It may be that your understanding is a question of fairness which Paul addresses in Rom. 9:14-23.

peter lumpkins

All,

Keep in mind the post pertains to a scholar's book review of Bell's hell. I appreciate Dr. Owen's kindness (and patience) for posting his review here. However, the question is not the theological orientation of the reviewer, and hence his theological presuppositions are not the real question here. Unless, of course, someone makes an observation that Dr. Owen's Reformed views in some way tainted a fair representation of Bell's book. If one would care to make such a point, do so. if not, let's keep the discussion on the review proper.

Thanks all.

With that, I am...
Peter

Paul Owen

Thanks for keeping us on track Peter! :)

Ron Krumpos

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 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."

Doogs

Hello Peter,

I believe your Southern Baptist and non-reformed views qualify you to give a fair representation of Dr. Owen's review. Do you believe Dr. Ownen's review is accurate?

Doogs

peter lumpkins

Doogs,

Well, thanks, bro. Sorry to say I could not make such a value judgment just yet. Truth is, unless I read Bell, I cannot know if Dr. Owen has rendered a "fair representation" of Bell's book. What I can say is, given Dr. Owen's careful, non-abrasive engagement with Bell, it would surprise me if he did not fairly represent Bell's thesis. And, contrasting Dr. Owen's calm review with the scud missiles fired from what appears to be battleships makes one wonder about the accuracy of some people's views. I mean think about it. If one goes out on a limb and explicitly commits oneself to a book's content before one has actually engaged the book, how likely is it one will be motivated to find in the work precisely what one said was there--especially if one said so publicly? Highly, I suspect.

I'll let readers know my thoughts on the book when I've read the book. And, then one may compare my review with Dr. Owen's.

With that, I am...
Peter

Job

There is a huge difference between there being some prominent past and contemporary evangelical Christians who espouse the views of Bell (which is true) and claiming that Bell is "well within the mainstream of the evangelical world" (which at best highly debatable). Instead, Bell is an outlier and should be treated as such. The main problem is the lack of a good, theological definition for "evangelical Christian." It honestly seems in these times that anyone who professes to believe in the deity, virgin birth, atoning death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and objects to homosexuality and abortion on some level can be identified as "evangelical" if he so chooses to. I do acknowledge that Bell can be considered "Baptist", but much more along the lines of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship than the SBC. (There are outliers in the SBC that are very similar to Bell, but they are just that ... outliers.) So, is the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship evangelical? If not, it is only because they choose not to identify with the evangelical movement. But if the evangelical movement cannot definitely say that salvation requires human responsibility towards the gospel of Jesus Christ and make such a statement their dividing line between "evangelical" and "not evangelical" then for what purpose does the evangelical movement exist?

Job

Peter Lumpkins:

"And, contrasting Dr. Owen's calm review with the scud missiles fired from what appears to be battleships makes one wonder about the accuracy of some people's views. I mean think about it. If one goes out on a limb and explicitly commits oneself to a book's content before one has actually engaged the book, how likely is it one will be motivated to find in the work precisely what one said was there--especially if one said so publicly? Highly, I suspect."

Have you read "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" by Charles Darwin? Or the Koran? Or Dianetics by Scientology's L. Ron Hubbard? Or the Book of Mormon? Or any number of books on Hinduism, Buddhism, shintoism, New Age etc.? Or the books that James Cone and Jeremiah Wright have written on liberation theology? Yet, somehow I can hazard a guess that you are able to "explicitly commit yourself" to an opinion on their fidelity to the gospel of Jesus Christ WITHOUT having actually engaged those books. Am I right or am I wrong?

The folks blasting away at Rob Bell A) know Rob Bell's approach to the Bible and B) know that the book challenges one of their core doctrines, which is that salvation in Jesus Christ requires a human response to the gospel. And these people are aware that Bell's message isn't new or innovative, but instead that Christians have encountered, debunked and rejected beliefs and arguments similar to Bell's for centuries. So, the same response that was good for contending against liberal mainline denominational preachers who were espousing "many paths to heaven" pluralism 100 years ago is good for contending against Bell today, and these folks aren't going to be more circumspect because of Bell's prominent status among evangelicals.

As I hinted above in my prior comment, were Rob Bell promoting homosexual marriage, abortion on demand, socialist economics, environmentalism and sharia law in "Love Wins", the "scud missiles" would be fired from the very same folks who are now urging restraint over Bell's "only" challenging solus Christus. I mean come on, agitating for the secular state to protect traditional marriage, the right to life, and the principles of our founding fathers is a much more fundamental and basic to Christianity than "Christ alone", right? Abortion and gay rights are "hills to die on", but now "Christ alone" is subject to negotiation I guess. Is this the modern state of evangelical Christianity?

Paul Owen

Uh, Job. Bell doesn't deny that salvation in Jesus Christ requires a human response to the gospel. That isn't even a remotely fair paraphrase of his book. Maybe you should, I don't know, read his book and then comment on it? :)

peter lumpkins

Job,

"Have you read..." First, the list you make is entirely incredulous. Lumping world renowned shakers of thought into the same clump as those who comparatively have so less light, if any light, hardly poses a challenging query. But the truth is, I would not gratuitously presume upon any of the authors above, pretending I both knew and understood their views--and, consequently, publicly give exposition of their views--without first attempting to engage their views (i.e. read their books).

Here's a principle I learned--you hardly will appreciate this either--from a Mormon no less: seek first to understand, then to be understood. I still have my 80s coffee cup with the little bit of interpersonal wisdom on it.

Hence, how hard such an elementary principle of scholarship worthy of its name is to accept by many bloggers--unfortunately including you, Job--I cannot understand.

Nor is your nonsense about "dying on a hill" even relevant to this discussion. Please, guy. If you want to contend with Dr. Owen's review, be my guest. But, if you're here to share about a book you've apparently not read, and contest his view when you haven't even read the book Dr. Owen actually did read, so long, Job.

With that, I am...
Peter

A.M. Mallett

Is this the modern state of evangelical Christianity?

It is the state of liberal, emergent postmodern evangelicalism. It is not representative of orthodox Protestantism. From my perspective, Rob Bell, and to some extent, most of those who support his endeavors, have cast themselves in the role of redefining orthodoxy to accommodate a most unorthodox theology allowing them to typecast biblical Protestantism as a lessor "traditionalism". This allows the "postmodern theologian" to claim a high ground opposed to the villain fundamentalist knowing full well that orthodox Protestantism is not defined by "tradition" or "fundamentalism".

peter lumpkins

A.M.

My own view is, the confusing woes evangelicalism experiences presently are self-inflicted. Indeed it's why I do not embrace what can only be called a quasi-ecumenical evangelicalism, the very evangelicalism toward which some of our Baptist leaders insist on nudging us as Southern Baptists. Our history and our public doctrinal confessions assist in anchoring us from drifting too far out to theological sea (not implying the SBC alone has such anchors).

I continue being as clear as I know how: contrary to your suggestion that "Rob Bell, and to some extent, most of those who support his endeavors" while your statement may apply elsewhere, it has no foothold here. Period. Neither I--nor Southern Baptists at large--are not among those who "support [Bell's] endeavors."

With that, I am...
Peter

Doogs

Peter wrote: I continue being as clear as I know how: contrary to your suggestion that "Rob Bell, and to some extent, most of those who support his endeavors" while your statement may apply elsewhere, it has no foothold here. Period. Neither I--nor Southern Baptists at large--are not among those who "support [Bell's] endeavors."

Peter, I thought I've read you to say somewhere that you've never read any of Bell's books. Using your own theory, if this is true how do you know not to support Bell's endeavors?

peter lumpkins

Doogs,

So far as I know I’ve never suggested I’ve not kept up with Rob Bell at all.  Instead, you’d hear me characterize it similar to this comment What has been clear from my standpoint is Bell’s thoroughgoing commitment to the postmodern construct. Hence, I do have enough data to see that Bell & I have some in common but much more to negate. Nor would I pronounce Bell out & out a “heretic” by what I know of him thus far.  And the way I understand it, not even the frenzied critics of late were prepared to do it either. But this book—at least in their minds—constituted the magic they needed.

With that, I am…

Peter  

Quartermaster

If all that had been said about it was Rom 9:14-18, then I could take it in the way you take on it fairness. Paul isn't addressing fairness, however, but righteousness, which is another thing. God has set out the conditions for mercy in the Gospels and the Pauline epistles. God does not, however, force himself on anyone. He will reveal himself to those who honestly seek him. Normally, that will be done through a missionary, or some other person who has the answers for which the person is seeking. God certainly can't be criticized for unfairness, not when the Church is here and we send people out to bear the good news.

Quartermaster

I can't comment on the evenhandedness of the review since I have not read Bell's book, and probably will not. I can say that the tone is not what one would normally see in the absolutely negative polemic I've seen about the book. Frankly, much of what I see in criticism of books about which the reviewer disagrees do not pass muster as Christian reviews. Too often the reviewers theology passes as the standard, rather than scripture. From his own admission I can see that he is a Calvinist, yet he seems to possess a humble spirit that I have rarely seen among Calvinist writers. Based on that, I think I can say his review is mostly likely even handed.

Much of what I have heard about Bell has not been good. I went to his website following a link on an earlier post and his site does not contain anything you can read quickly and determine where he stands. A good exmaple of a better website, in that regard, is David Cloud's where you see where he's coming from within 10 minutes of arriving at his site. Between professional activities and writing teaching materials for my Church, I don't have the time to download and listen to his sermons.

In response to #1, hell and the lake of fire are two different things. One is temporary, the other permanent (although annihilationists, such as Martin Luther, would disagree). On #3 & #4, I am in the camp with drwayman and I won't repeat what he has said.

The review is such that I will not buy the book. I don't like supporting aberrant teachers with the money God grants me. I think I'll buy a Mounce text instead :-)

Clayton Williams

Sufficient to save all men, yes, but efficient only to save His elect! However, I only believe that God would genuinely desire the salvation of all men if and only if all men could "choose" God, but because they cannot choose God apart from Him regenerating their hearts, God decrees that only His elect will be saved. As Christians, God genuinely desires us not to sin, but when we do its becuase we are free to make that choice because we are no longer bound to sin but are free from it, and it is in this sense that when we are free to choose we can go against God's desires. Therefore, since apart from God the "non-elect" are not free to choose God, because he is unable, he is not going against God's desire. It follows then the "non elect" are therefore going with God's desire and it remains that they are "non elect" which defeats the argument that God genuinely desires the salvation of all men.

The comments to this entry are closed.