SBC Tomorrow welcomes Dr. Paul Owen as guest contributor*
Having heard all of the internet buzz about Rob Bell’s new book, I decided to stop in at the local bookstore and pick up a copy. It’s an extremely short book, and only takes a couple of hours to read. It has a relaxing and engaging tone and writing style, and I’m sure it will sell well, given all the publicity it has received on Morning Joe and other news venues. But what of the content?>>>
Let me just start out by saying that there is nothing particularly amazing about the theological contents of this book. His theology is evangelical, Arminian, and Baptist. His view of Scripture is well within the mainstream of the evangelical world. His openness about the question of the salvation of people outside the Church is hardly remarkable. He plainly upholds justification by faith, the Deity of Christ, the Trinity, the bodily resurrection of Christ and all the faithful at the end of the age, etc. All of the typical evangelical shibboleths. So what of the particulars? The book has its merits, but certainly it is not beyond criticism.
In his opening pages he addresses a couple of central issues. One has to do with the fate of souls who die outside the Christian faith. People like Gandhi. What should we say about them? Bell fairly asks the question, “Gandhi’s in hell? He is? We have confirmation of this?” (p. 1). The other question has to do with the nature of the afterlife for billions of people who die as non-Christians: “Does God punish people for thousands of years with infinite, eternal torment for things they did in their few finite years of life?” (p. 2).
I think Bell’s questions are fair, as they reflect the rather glib approach to these matters that too many evangelicals assume, at least at a popular level. With respect to the first question, the possibility that God’s grace may be wider than the visible Church is hardly unique to Bell. It is maintained by a wide assortment of religious inclusivists (like Pinnock and Rahner) who maintain that while Jesus is the sole source of salvation, grace is still available through channels other than the Bible, the sacraments and Christian preaching. This position is not far from that expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which does not exclude from the possibility of salvation those who “through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church” (para. 847). “Through no fault of their own” can embrace a wide variety of circumstances, and it allows for people who may know “of” Christ and his Church (different from knowing Christ and his Church), but for various reasons do not come to a saving acceptance of grace prior to death. And the charitable Christian hope (and that is all that orthodoxy can express) for the eventual salvation of all or at least many human souls who die outside the Church is found (with different emphases and details) in Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Ulrich Zwingli, some of the Anabaptist Radical Reformers, Karl Barth, C. S. Lewis, Thomas Torrance, and (with more caution) Richard Mouw and the late Donald Bloesch.
While I would not agree with every detail of Bell’s viewpoint, he asks fair questions. While there is no promise of eternal salvation outside the Christian Church, we really ought not to dogmatize about the fate of particular souls who have died. We do not know the mysteries of God’s secret election. God says in Romans 9:15, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” That is God’s call, not ours, and it is foolish to act as though if God were to be merciful to more people than we expect on Judgment Day, we would take up our Bibles and quote Scripture at the Almighty. Peter said of Cornelius (before he received the Holy Spirit and water baptism), “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:34-35). So Cornelius was in some sense “acceptable” to God even before he was saved (cf. Acts 11:14). If he was run over by a chariot on his way to meet Peter, must we assume he would be damned to hell? Revelation 20:15 says that one must have his name in the book of life to avoid being thrown into hell; it does not say one must have been in the visible Church prior to death. And Romans 11:26-29 promises that at the return of Christ, all of the elect within physical Israel will be saved (apparently including many of those who rejected the gospel during Paul’s day). So while we cannot dogmatically offer assurance of salvation outside the Church, there are hints in Scripture that the mercy of God is wider than our present knowledge.
Chapter 2 is largely unexceptional. His larger point about heaven not being the hope of believers (but rather a renewed earth) is certainly overstated in light of John 14:2, 1 Thessalonians 4:17 and 5:10, 1 Peter 1:4, and Colossians 3:1-2, but clearly the eschatological renewal of all things will include the physical world and spatial order. Anyone who has read Anthony Hoekema or N. T. Wright has heard these themes before.
The weakest chapter in my view is chapter 3. Few educated readers will be convinced by the argument that the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16) was really all about the “hell” that the Rich Man was making of his own life in the here and now (pp. 77-79). Nor will they follow his suggested understanding of Matthew 25:46 as referring to an “age of pruning” (aion of kolazo?). There must have been some oversight in the editing process at this point (p. 91), for neither aion (a noun) nor kolazo (a verb) is used here, nor the genitive case “of,” but rather the phrase is kolasin aionion (literally “eternal punishment”). Somebody really should have caught that before this book went to print, as it makes the reader skeptical as to Bell’s level of care in the handling of Scripture.
And how can you have a whole chapter on hell with no real discussion of the lake of fire in Revelation 20? Certainly, it depicts non-elect people, whose names are not written in the book of life before the beginning of the world (Rev. 13:8), as being condemned to the flames of eternal judgment. Now certainly, we can understand these apocalyptic flames to be something other than physical torments in a literal lake of fire, but we still have to grapple with the fact that at least some people (cf. Rev. 14:9-11; 19:20; 20:10) are consigned to an eternity of punishment outside the heavenly city (Rev. 21). The text cannot simply be glossed over.
The only thing that needs to be said about chapter 4, is that Bell certainly does stop short of outright universalism. “Will everybody be saved, or will some perish apart from God forever because of their choices? Those are questions, or more accurately, those are tensions we are free to leave fully intact” (p. 115). Which he does quite explicitly. “We don’t need to resolve them or answer them because we can’t, and so we simply respect them, creating space for the freedom that love requires” (p. 115).
Bell’s discussion of Colossians 1 in chapter 5 (pp. 125, 134-135) is a helpful reminder of the cosmic scope of redemption. Colossians 1:20 states that the purpose of Jesus’ death was the reconciliation of “all things” to himself, and that would include all the invisible orders of angelic beings as well (v. 16). The Church is the center of that reconciliation (vv. 22-23), and the means of entering into its subjective benefit, but the goal of this action moves beyond the Church to embrace all things. This must be part of what Paul speaks of in Philippians 2:10-11, how every knee will bow, and every tongue will one day swear allegiance to the enthroned Son of God (cf. 1 Cor. 15:24-28). Whatever “eternal punishment” means, it does not mean an ongoing state of hostility between God and his creation. Even those who remain forever outside of the New Jerusalem will nonetheless be subjectively reconciled to God, though without the blessing and reward that will belong to the elect in heaven.
Chapter 6 is essentially just an amplification of the theme of God’s universal presence that we find in Acts 17:28 and Psalm 139. While I can agree with the essence of what Bell says, I am not sure he does adequate justice to the reality that the Church is the body of Christ, the place where his Real Presence is enacted through the Eucharist, and therefore the Temple of God in the present age. God is not simply present and available everywhere, and recognized as such in the Church (pp. 156-157); rather he is present in the Church in a way that cannot be accessed through any other earthly channel. Maybe Bell would agree with this, but his discussion leaves one with questions as to the uniqueness of the Church (as the sole bride and body of Christ) and the sacraments and the preached gospel as the mechanism of God’s saving grace on earth.
In chapter 7, Bell seems very concerned that the gospel not be undermined through petty depictions of God. “God is a merciful and loving Father, but if you make the wrong choice and don’t accept Jesus into your heart, he will punish you with eternal torments in the fires of hell forever.” Something along these lines seems to be Bell’s problem. It seems to me that, rather than extending the hope of salvation wider than the Church has historically seen fit to do (which means that ordinarily there is no hope of salvation without baptism into the visible body of Christ, for this is how God’s election manifests itself), it would be better to emphasize the following points:
1) Hell is not a literal lake of fire. To take it otherwise is to misinterpret symbolic apocalyptic imagery.
2) Hell is a continuation of physical existence in a place which is not free of tears, death, mourning, crying, and pain (Rev. 21:4). Only in the love and embrace of God can we find freedom from all that pains and troubles us in this life, and that love has been revealed in the life and death of Jesus Christ.
3) Those who choose to reject God’s love, despite his benevolence and good will towards them, and despite the death of Jesus which made salvation possible for them, choose to alienate themselves from eternal life and God’s free gift.
4) The details of God’s election are a mystery. We don’t know who all of the elect are, and many of them may well lie outside the boundaries of the visible Church.
5) We know that God is a God of love and justice, and that the punishments meted out on those who do not seek refuge in Christ, will be suited to their choices and in accordance with what they deserve (Rev. 20:12).
*Paul L. Owen is Associate Professor of Bible and Religion at Montreat College in North Carolina, where he has taught for the last ten years. He earned his Ph.D. in New Testament at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland. His work in theology and biblical studies has appeared in a number of venues, including the Calvin Theological Journal, Trinity Journal, the Journal for the Study of the New Testament, and the Journal of Biblical Literature. His most recent publication (co-edited with Larry W. Hurtado) entitled, Who Is This Son of Man? The Latest Scholarship on a Puzzling Expression of the Historical Jesus (London: Continuum, 2011), is the first multi-authored, edited volume exclusively devoted to the historical and linguistic background of the Christological title “son of man” in the New Testament. He is also a recognized authority on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and has published in numerous LDS and non-LDS forums in the service of Christian apologetics and interfaith dialogue.
IF THIS POST IS HELPFUL MAKE SURE TO "LIKE" IT ON FACEBOOK BELOW
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 :-)
Posted by: drwayman | 2011.03.21 at 06:30 AM
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/
Posted by: drwayman | 2011.03.21 at 08:16 AM
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.
Posted by: Craig L. Adams | 2011.03.21 at 08:51 AM
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.
Posted by: Paul Owen | 2011.03.21 at 09:04 AM
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...
Posted by: drwayman | 2011.03.21 at 10:14 AM
Thanks for the balanced review, I found it helpful.
Posted by: Kevin Jackson | 2011.03.21 at 10:47 AM
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.
Posted by: Paul Owen | 2011.03.21 at 10:58 AM
I was thinking of the Calvinist belief of irresistible grace. Hence, when you said reject/choose, my mind went into Arminian mode.
Posted by: drwayman | 2011.03.21 at 02:20 PM
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.
Posted by: Paul Owen | 2011.03.21 at 02:59 PM
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.
Posted by: drwayman | 2011.03.21 at 04:29 PM
Thank you for your insights Dr. Owen! I enjoyed our discussion of the review in class today.
Posted by: David Smith | 2011.03.21 at 05:02 PM
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.
Posted by: Don Johnson | 2011.03.21 at 05:57 PM
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.
Posted by: Eric Opsahl | 2011.03.22 at 01:50 AM
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.
Posted by: Paul Owen | 2011.03.22 at 07:52 AM
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.
Posted by: Doogs | 2011.03.22 at 08:33 AM
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
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2011.03.22 at 11:31 AM
Thanks for keeping us on track Peter! :)
Posted by: Paul Owen | 2011.03.22 at 11:55 AM
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."
Posted by: Ron Krumpos | 2011.03.22 at 12:46 PM
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
Posted by: Doogs | 2011.03.22 at 01:06 PM
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
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2011.03.22 at 08:59 PM
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?
Posted by: Job | 2011.03.23 at 10:57 AM
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?
Posted by: Job | 2011.03.23 at 11:20 AM
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? :)
Posted by: Paul Owen | 2011.03.23 at 12:02 PM
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
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2011.03.23 at 12:54 PM
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".
Posted by: A.M. Mallett | 2011.03.23 at 01:04 PM
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
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2011.03.23 at 01:36 PM
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?
Posted by: Doogs | 2011.03.24 at 02:14 PM
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
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2011.03.24 at 02:39 PM
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.
Posted by: Quartermaster | 2011.03.26 at 06:25 PM
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 :-)
Posted by: Quartermaster | 2011.03.26 at 06:47 PM
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.
Posted by: Clayton Williams | 2011.04.06 at 12:18 AM