Rob Bell & There Is No Hell

[T-Bone]

http://youtu.be/I7YKkDSHIF0

 

[Izdaari]

Note that Bell absolutely does not say there is no Hell. And he says there is Hell in people's lives today (which is in a sense true), but he does not say there is no eternal Hell also.

He may be walking a fine line, but I don't think he steps out of the bounds of orthodoxy either in that interview or in the book.

 

[christundivided]

Note that Bell absolutely does not say there is no Hell. And he says there is Hell in people's lives today (which is in a sense true), but he does not say there is no eternal Hell also.

He may be walking a fine line, but I don't think he steps out of the bounds of orthodoxy either in that interview or in the book.

You're being silly. This is the traditional view of those who not believe in a literal "burning", Eternal hell. Bill Clinton said he did not have "sexual relations" with that women. He never came out and specifically said how the dress got soiled.

Nobody has "hell" in their everyday lives. Everlasting torment isn't part of our "everyday life".

 

[Izdaari]

Note that Bell absolutely does not say there is no Hell. And he says there is Hell in people's lives today (which is in a sense true), but he does not say there is no eternal Hell also.

He may be walking a fine line, but I don't think he steps out of the bounds of orthodoxy either in that interview or in the book.

You're being silly. This is the traditional view of those who not believe in a literal "burning", Eternal hell. Bill Clinton said he did not have "sexual relations" with that women. He never came out and specifically said how the dress got soiled.

Nobody has "hell" in their everyday lives. Everlasting torment isn't part of our "everyday life".

I've read the book, where he had a lot more time to explain himself than in that short interview. I have it in my library. It's been a while since I read it, but I don't remember Bell going beyond the bounds of traditional Christian orthodoxy... and that's something I was specifically looking for as I read it. Of course, by "traditional Christian orthodoxy", I do not mean modern fundamentalism, which is a late 19th century innovation.

 

[christundivided]

Note that Bell absolutely does not say there is no Hell. And he says there is Hell in people's lives today (which is in a sense true), but he does not say there is no eternal Hell also.

He may be walking a fine line, but I don't think he steps out of the bounds of orthodoxy either in that interview or in the book.

You're being silly. This is the traditional view of those who not believe in a literal "burning", Eternal hell. Bill Clinton said he did not have "sexual relations" with that women. He never came out and specifically said how the dress got soiled.

Nobody has "hell" in their everyday lives. Everlasting torment isn't part of our "everyday life".

I've read the book, where he had a lot more time to explain himself than in that short interview. I have it in my library. It's been a while since I read it, but I don't remember Bell going beyond the bounds of traditional Christian orthodoxy... and that's something I was specifically looking for as I read it. Of course, by "traditional Christian orthodoxy", I do not mean modern fundamentalism, which is a late 19th century innovation.

In your view, does traditional orthodoxy Christianity teach an eternal, literal, burning hell?

Forget fundamentalism. You're the one saying he holds a proper "traditional Christian orthodoxy".

 

[T-Bone]

Bell's teachings is that eventually everyone gets to heaven.  That's why "love wins".  It is a form of universalism, which by definition denies the existence of hell as the Bible teaches.  He is very clear in the interview to make it his case that hell is here on earth and very careful not to answer the question as it was given.  He is the ultimate politician in this interview, answering a question not asked while appearing to do so.  He is far from orthodox...and I am not talking about modern day fundamentalism, I am talking about the Scripture (I have never been a part of modern day fundamentalism).

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=T-Bone]It is a form of universalism, which by definition denies the existence of hell as the Bible teaches...[/quote]

Actually, it doesn't.

Hell being empty is not the same as Hell not existing.

[quote author=T-Bone]He is far from orthodox...and I am not talking about modern day fundamentalism, I am talking about the Scripture (I have never been a part of modern day fundamentalism).[/quote]

I've read several things by Bell. I've never seen anything (that I recall) that would fall outside of orthodoxy. McLaren on the other hand...

 

[Reformed Guy]

Note that Bell absolutely does not say there is no Hell. And he says there is Hell in people's lives today (which is in a sense true), but he does not say there is no eternal Hell also.

He may be walking a fine line, but I don't think he steps out of the bounds of orthodoxy either in that interview or in the book.

If he's not out of bounds all he has to say is "There is a place of punishment where the wicked will be tormented for eternity."  His willingness or unwillingness to do so demonstrates his orthodoxy or lack of it.

This controversy didn't happen in a corner.  It has been widely broadcast for a few years now.  Granted, he could have been misunderstood, or even lied about.  Either way, a faithful man of truth isn't going to drag his feet for years about making a clear statement to clear up the matter.  A faithful man is more concerned about the truth than his own reputation.

He's a heretic.  It's as plain and simple as that.

 

[Izdaari]

Note that Bell absolutely does not say there is no Hell. And he says there is Hell in people's lives today (which is in a sense true), but he does not say there is no eternal Hell also.

He may be walking a fine line, but I don't think he steps out of the bounds of orthodoxy either in that interview or in the book.

You're being silly. This is the traditional view of those who not believe in a literal "burning", Eternal hell. Bill Clinton said he did not have "sexual relations" with that women. He never came out and specifically said how the dress got soiled.

Nobody has "hell" in their everyday lives. Everlasting torment isn't part of our "everyday life".

I've read the book, where he had a lot more time to explain himself than in that short interview. I have it in my library. It's been a while since I read it, but I don't remember Bell going beyond the bounds of traditional Christian orthodoxy... and that's something I was specifically looking for as I read it. Of course, by "traditional Christian orthodoxy", I do not mean modern fundamentalism, which is a late 19th century innovation.

In your view, does traditional orthodoxy Christianity teach an eternal, literal, burning hell?

Forget fundamentalism. You're the one saying he holds a proper "traditional Christian orthodoxy".

IMHO orthodoxy allows but does not require that version of hell. The scenario depicted in C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce is one allowable alternative, and Eastern Orthodoxy has another. Annihilationism is another possibility, and is held by many prominent theologians, even conservative ones. Scripture is less than perfectly clear on the matter.

And not quite.  To say that Bell is fully orthodox would go beyond what I actually know. But I don't know otherwise from reading Love Wins.

 

[Izdaari]

Bell's teachings is that eventually everyone gets to heaven.  That's why "love wins".  It is a form of universalism, which by definition denies the existence of hell as the Bible teaches.  He is very clear in the interview to make it his case that hell is here on earth and very careful not to answer the question as it was given.  He is the ultimate politician in this interview, answering a question not asked while appearing to do so.  He is far from orthodox...and I am not talking about modern day fundamentalism, I am talking about the Scripture (I have never been a part of modern day fundamentalism).

"Bell's teachings is that eventually everyone gets to heaven."

That would be Universal Reconciliation, which is similar to but not identical with Universalism. And Bell stops short of teaching UR. He hopes for it, speculates about it, but does not teach it as doctrine. That was precisely the position of several Early Church Fathers.

 

[Izdaari]

[quote author=T-Bone]It is a form of universalism, which by definition denies the existence of hell as the Bible teaches...

Actually, it doesn't.

Hell being empty is not the same as Hell not existing.

[quote author=T-Bone]He is far from orthodox...and I am not talking about modern day fundamentalism, I am talking about the Scripture (I have never been a part of modern day fundamentalism).[/quote]

I've read several things by Bell. I've never seen anything (that I recall) that would fall outside of orthodoxy. McLaren on the other hand...
[/quote]

Agreed. Bell seems orthodox enough to me, McLaren not so much. Though I like McLaren, I rate him about halfway to Spong on the heresy scale.

 

[subllibrm]

My problem with Bell is how he phrases things in such a way that he can't be pinned down. In D.C. it is known as plausible deniability. Instead of "what I mean is" his answer is "that's not what I said".

 

[christundivided]

Bell's teachings is that eventually everyone gets to heaven.  That's why "love wins".  It is a form of universalism, which by definition denies the existence of hell as the Bible teaches.  He is very clear in the interview to make it his case that hell is here on earth and very careful not to answer the question as it was given.  He is the ultimate politician in this interview, answering a question not asked while appearing to do so.  He is far from orthodox...and I am not talking about modern day fundamentalism, I am talking about the Scripture (I have never been a part of modern day fundamentalism).

"Bell's teachings is that eventually everyone gets to heaven."

That would be Universal Reconciliation, which is similar to but not identical with Universalism. And Bell stops short of teaching UR. He hopes for it, speculates about it, but does not teach it as doctrine. That was precisely the position of several Early Church Fathers.

What early church Fathers? Name some. Don't run away.......

 

[Castor Muscular]

Anyone who has lived in Missouri knows there's a hell. 

 

[christundivided]

Hell being empty is not the same as Hell not existing.

You're so silly sometimes. God didn't create a "place" to remain "empty".

Heaven being empty is not the same as Heaven not existing. Do you see how silly that sounds?

 

[Castor Muscular]

You're so silly sometimes. God didn't create a "place" to remain "empty".

Yes he did.  The heads of Marxists, for example. 

 

[christundivided]

[quote author=T-Bone]It is a form of universalism, which by definition denies the existence of hell as the Bible teaches...

Actually, it doesn't.

Hell being empty is not the same as Hell not existing.

[quote author=T-Bone]He is far from orthodox...and I am not talking about modern day fundamentalism, I am talking about the Scripture (I have never been a part of modern day fundamentalism).

I've read several things by Bell. I've never seen anything (that I recall) that would fall outside of orthodoxy. McLaren on the other hand...
[/quote]

Agreed. Bell seems orthodox enough to me, McLaren not so much. Though I like McLaren, I rate him about halfway to Spong on the heresy scale.
[/quote]

Bell readily accepts unions between homosexuals. This is not "orthodoxy" as defined by anyone.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Hell being empty is not the same as Hell not existing.

You're so silly sometimes. God didn't create a "place" to remain "empty".

Heaven being empty is not the same as Heaven not existing. Do you see how silly that sounds?

Hell was created for the devil and his angels so no, not completely empty.

 

[christundivided]

You're so silly sometimes. God didn't create a "place" to remain "empty".

Yes he did.  The heads of Marxists, for example.

I'd say their head is fully of stupidity.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]What early church Fathers? Name some. Don't run away.......
[/quote]

Most notably, Gregory of Nyssa. Also Clement, Origen, Theodore of Antioch, Diodore, Theophilus, Jerome, the other Gregory, John Chrysostom, Isaac of Ninevah, and others.

Augustine, while not accepting it, acknowledged that it was a common belief in the Church.