By Brian Jones
With the release this spring of Rob Bell”s new book, Love Wins, we finally have confirmation of what many of us have suspected for years””he”s a flipping genius. Only a brilliant thinker and writer could make heresy sound like refreshing orthodoxy. But this is in fact what he”s done, with flair. Taking something so clear and unambiguous as the reality of Hell after death for nonbelievers and replacing it with false hope, and making even the most grounded among us scratch our heads, is no easy feat. The fact is we shouldn”t be surprised””this has been going on for 2,000 years.
Misguiding Christians
One of the Bible”s most frightening passages is 1 Timothy 4:16: “Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.”
The implication of that verse scares me: we can be responsible for other people going to Hell by how we live and by what we teach.
Misguiding Lifestyles
Christians intuitively understand the way we live can turn people away from Christianity””at least most Christians understand this. In fact, at some point you may have turned away from Jesus because of a Christian who was less than committed. The apostle Peter tried to counteract this among first-century believers by advising them to be godly examples: “Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us” (1 Peter 2:12).
Living a godly life among non-Christians is pretty simple to do:
Be kind.
Don”t gossip at work.
Be the kind of neighbor your neighbors would want to have.
Don”t punch old ladies in the face.
Generally, it”s an easy principle to put into practice.
Misguiding Beliefs
What”s not as readily understood or obeyed among Christians is the “what we teach” part. Our words can be responsible for propelling another person headlong toward the gates of Hell. It”s one thing not to share the gospel with someone. That”s an error of omission. It”s quite another to knowingly teach something contrary to Scripture.
Christians can negatively impact what another Christian believes. Specifically, we can influence another Christian to stop believing in Hell and steal from him his passion to reach his friends and family members for Christ. The end result of that action is much worse than directing one non-Christian to Hell. When one Christian influences another to stop believing in Hell, it has ripple effects throughout that person”s life.
If you rob a Christian of his or her passion to evangelize, what you lose is not the singular soul of a non-Christian to Hell, but every single non-Christian that Christian could have reached in his or her lifetime. Instead of becoming a Christian who multiplies his or her life 30, 60, or 100 times, like Jesus talked about in the parable of the sower (Matthew 13:23), this person will become a believer whose influence is metaphorically buried in the ground.
False Teachers
Jesus foresaw this kind of thing happening. He warned his disciples, “Many false prophets will appear and deceive many people” (Matthew 24:11).
Very shortly after his resurrection and the birth of the early church, his words became a reality before the apostles” eyes. False teachers sprung up everywhere. As the early church evangelized people around the Mediterranean, new converts began to deviate from orthodox Christian teaching.
In fact, the presence of false teachers became so great that Jude, Jesus” own brother, felt the need to write a letter to all of the known churches at the time:
Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you (Jude 3, 4).
Other apostles and church leaders sent similar warnings to churches they helped oversee:
“There will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies” (2 Peter 2:1).
“Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings” (Hebrews 13:9).
“See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father” (1 John 2:24).
The apostles described false teachers this way: as cunning, crafty, and deceitful schemers (Ephesians 4:14); as conceited people who understand nothing (1 Timothy 6:3-5); rebellious, mere talkers, and deceivers (Titus 1:10); corrupted, detestable, and disobedient (Titus 1:15, 16); grumblers, faultfinders, and flatterers (Jude 1:16); and as exploiters (2 Peter 2:3) and seducers (2 Peter 2:14).
While those adjectives may seem harsh, they”re accurate and well deserved.
Everyday False Teachers
Here”s the danger: when we read New Testament warnings about false teachers, our minds quickly bring up images of popular pastors and authors””like a Rob Bell””who write books devoid of solid biblical facts. If only false teachers were that easy to recognize.
The reality is the false teachers the apostles confronted had very little in common with our telegenic 21st-century pastors. Instead, the apostles confronted everyday people with regular jobs who were trying to raise families and do their best to make life work. They were normal people who had their own ideas of how Christianity ought to be taught, and freely expressed those ideas over dinner, on the job, or while caring for their children.
The cunning, crafty, and deceitful false teachers the apostles had in mind were 26-year-old moms with two kids, farmers down the road, and the fisherman everyone rubbed shoulders with at the market. Occasionally a popular pastor went off the deep end, but more often it was the everyday soccer mom on the street that everybody knew.
These are the folks we should be concerned about as church leaders, not Rob Bell. Years from now when his new book is being hawked for $1 at discount bookstores, the influence of everyday false teachers in our churches will continue.
The stark reality is you and I can become a false teacher at any time.
Or we can be influenced by one.
That”s why the biblical advice for how to interact with false teachers is as stern as the words used to describe them:
“Command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer” (1 Timothy 1:3).
“Guard what has been entrusted to your care” (1 Timothy 6:20).
“For the defense of the gospel” (Philippians 1:16).
“Refute those who oppose it” (Titus 1:9).
“Stand firm” (2 Thessalonians 2:15).
“Fight the good fight” (1 Timothy 1:18).
Admittedly, these are hard things to do when the person teaching false doctrine is your grandmother, your friend in accounting, or your small group leader. But this is one of the important but unpleasant duties of every Christian.
Everyone Is Accountable
Outside of Billy Graham, there was probably no more influential 20th-century Christian than Mother Teresa. When asked if people became Christians before they died through her ministry to the poor in Calcutta, she responded,
Oh, I hope I am converting. I don”t mean what you think. . . . If in coming face to face with God we accept him in our lives, then we are converting. We become a better Hindu, a better Muslim, a better Catholic, a better whatever we are, and then by being better we come closer and closer to him. If we accept him fully in our lives, then that is conversion. What approach would I use? For me, naturally, it would be a Catholic one, for you it may be Hindu, for someone else, Buddhist, according to each one”s conscience.1
How do you think the apostle Paul would have responded to Mother Teresa?
I”m convinced he would have rebuked her!
No question about it.
“No way,” some might say. “This is Mother Teresa, a selfless saint who dedicated herself to serve the poor and destitute. I could see Paul going nuts on Rob Bell, but not Mother Teresa!”
I wouldn”t be so sure.
We are talking, after all, about the same Paul who opposed the apostle Peter “to his face” (Galatians 2:11) and rebuked him in front of his entire congregation in Antioch for inaccuracy in his teaching (Galatians 2:14).
Jesus himself clearly taught, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). Did Mother Teresa get a memo from Heaven that Jesus changed his mind?
Paul warned, “If we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!” (Galatians 1:8, 9).
That includes seminary professors.
Soccer moms.
Your mechanic.
Your Sunday school teacher.
Your grandmother.
Even me.
And you.
And Rob Bell.
And believe it or not, even Mother Teresa.
________
1Mother Teresa, Daily Readings with Mother Teresa, edited by Teresa de Bertodano (London: HarperCollins, 1994), 74.
Brian Jones is founding pastor of Christ”s Church of the Valley in Royersford, Pennsylvania. He”s the author of Second Guessing God and Getting Rid of the Gorilla: Confessions on the Struggle to Forgive (Standard Publishing). This article is adapted, with permission, from his latest book,Hell Is Real: But I Hate to Admit It, ©2011 Brian Jones, and published by David C. Cook. Find out more about his ministry and writing at BrianJones.com.
Thank you, that confirms what I thought.
Brian,
I think you completely missed the point of Love Wins, because (contrary to what you and others in this issue of CS implied) rather than claiming that everyone will be saved, he simply lays out multiple historic Christian views of the afterlife but doesn’t claim any of them as 100% certain. Whether or not hell is populated, his point is that “Love Wins”, regardless: If God eventually saves everyone, then it would only be because they eventually turned to God, through Christ, post-mortem. If hell is full of people, it is because God loved them enough to give them the free will to reject Him, and they did so.
His thesis statement is: “It’s been clearly communicated to many that this belief (in hell as conscious, eternal torment) 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’ message of love, peace, forgiveness and joy that our world desperately needs to hear.”
It is not the belief in hell as conscious, eternal torment that is “misguided and toxic”, but the treatment of this doctrine as so core that to reject it is to reject Christ which he argues is wrong.
In the January 2 Christian Standard, Glen Elliot put forth a well-thought-our and researched piece on annihilationism, which has just as much (if not more) Scriptural support as conscious, eternal torment. Bell lays out multiple views of hell (including annihilationism and Eastern Orthodox belief), but chooses none of them. When speaking about the view of Universal Reconciliation, he wrote “Whatever objections a person may have of [the Universal Reconciliation view], and there are many, one has to admit that it is fitting, proper, and Christian to long for it.”
In Love Wins, Bell is not making a heretical claim that all will be saved in the end – but rather that it should be our desire that God would find such a way, and that the purpose of the Gospel is not to escape from hell. The Gospel is not a viral marketing campaign for fire insurance, but when we treat it as such, we completely miss the point of it, trading the Kingdom we are called to live in today for a theology of evacuation.
It is fine to be discerning and critical of views that are not biblical, but it is not honest to create straw men of what other Christians believe and then call them heretics on such a basis.
Did you read the book before you wrote this?
Chris L is on the money. Thanks for thinking through these issues thoroughly, with accuracy and precision.
Brian Jones spends the whole article talking about the fear of Hell, which is supposed to lead people to want to give their lives to Jesus. A better way is to love people into the kingdom of God. This is basically what Rob Bell is trying to say in “Love Wins.” He agrees that Jesus is the way, that there is a heaven and hell, but if that’s all we focus on, we miss beginning our eternal life with Christ right now. Thank you Chris L for your accurate summary of “Love Wins.”
Some people, held hostage to particular views, don’t want to recognize false teaching and won’t be argued into getting it right. So I’m not going there. I’m just happy to hear a leader like Brian say that false teachers are out and about TODAY and that Mother Theresa wasn’t such a saint after all.
The article stimulated my thinking. I have not read the book but I certainly intend to. One thing the author was accurate with and that is this type of debate has been going on for 2000 years. It is important to understand the consequences of living a life without Christ. There was a Middle Eastern poet who wrote that it was a shame that men and women would come to God out of fear of hell rather than out of the love of sons and daughters for a loving God who refers to himself as father and who holds nothing back from his children including his Jesus. It is amazing to me that people would actually come to Christ out of fear of hell instead of gratitude and desire for eternity.
It is interesting that Brian mentioned Billy Graham, since it was Graham that stated:
This is quite similar to Mother Theresa’s quote, and both restate a basic precept of the Roman Catholic church:
This is also quite similar to what C.S. Lewis theorizes in The Last Battle and The Great Divorce.
This doctrine is one of “exclusive inclusivism” – which I would wager 99%+ of the Restoration Movement holds to some degree. “Exclusive inclusivism” is the belief that there are groups of people whom God will save who did not have the adequate opportunity to accept Jesus, but whose hearts He can examine to determine if they would have (or who never developed the mental capacity to do so).
If you believe that the aborted unborn will not be condemned before God, you hold to a form of this doctrine. if you believe that the mentally infirm will not be condemned, you hold to a form of this doctrine. If you believe that the classic “unreached native” might have a chance of God’s salvation beyond this life, you hold to a form of this doctrine. If you believe in some sort of “age of accountability”, you hold to a form of this doctrine. If you’re in the Restoration Movement church, which practices a “believer’s baptism” and not infant baptism, you hold to a form of this doctrine.
The question becomes – at what point is someone culpable for their knowledge of Christ and at what point have they accepted/rejected him? The truth is – we don’t know how God decides, we only know that those who are saved are saved “through Christ”.
As noted by MT’s quote, the Catholic church likely takes this too far when they choose not to evangelize because of it.
And this really gets to the nub of all of the discussion around “false teachers” – we in the Restoration Movement (and most of Evangelical Christianity in the US) get quite worked up about “orthodoxy” – that is, right belief – but orthodoxy is pointless unless it leads to correct orthopraxy – right action. You must have both.
In many cases, though, there are a plethora of theological disagreements that have little or no impact on orthopraxy, and we would be wise not to try and call those who disagree with us “heretics” or “false teachers” when it may simply come down to a matter of translation or interpretation. Yes, we need to discuss and “sharpen iron” and wrestle with spiritual topics, but it is incredibly unhelpful when we drag out the big guns (like charges of heresy or false teaching) without fully understanding the other person’s point of view (in a way that they would agree that we understand their view) without creating a straw man of it.
Shalom
Aside from the general discussion–I wanted to ask about one of your assumptions–that Hell is the primary motivator for Christians to evangelize. Does Hell really scare Christians into loving people and sharing the Gospel with them? It seems to me that the congregations that talk about Hell the most, evangelize the least. Your thoughts?
I’m going to read the book before I have any opinions. I’ve read other Rob Bell stuff and enjoy his teachings on some things, but I’ve also read Brian Jones and enjoy him. I do know Heaven is for real and Hell is for real and Heaven is to be gained for those who choose God freely and Hell is for those who freely reject.
Chris L,
The problem with the book is not that Rob Bell poses that some throughout history have been universalists and so it is not foreign to Christian thinking, but that he pretty much attacks the cross as the only way view. He almost goes as far as to say that pictures teaching children that the cross is the only way to Heaven is worthy of having a millstone tied around your neck and cast into the sea. There are repeated questions that make it sound if you do believe the road is narrow and few find salvation then you have a lesser, more barbaric view of God.
With his education, he should know better than the things he says in this book. People with little to no understanding of the Bible, church history, or Christian orthodoxy are reading this book and walking away with the idea that it is more reasonable, just, and highly orthodox to be a universalist. He actually uses quotes from Luther and Augustine to make it sound like they believed universalism to be a viable option. Yet in the context of these quotes they are actually condemning the view. Augustine especially made it a focus to stamp out this highly unorthodox view, yet Bell convieniently fails to share this tidbit of information.
I found it quite obvious that he is not just posing questions, but pushing an agenda. He is not providing a balanced perspective here, but has stacked the deck and presents loaded, unfair questions for the reader to ponder which lead to heretical views. Maybe he is not a universalist, but it is quite clear from the book what concept he wants his readers to walk away with . . . his “better story” (which only implies traditional Christian views on salvation are inferior). Its not just that he is suggesting that morally good people who don’t know Jesus may potentially get saved, but that in the end “love wins” and people who are not in Heaven will have eternity to change their bad attitudes and then be invited into God’s party in Heaven. This goes beyond exclusive inclusivism. Yet beyond that, and what is most disturbing is that he is not just posing it as a question, but improperly representing the various views which push people toward an unorthdox position when it seems obvious that he knows better. A terrible book that I find will lead many seekers and new believers toward unhealthy, heretical views on sin, God’s holiness, Christ’s work, and salvation.
Brian,
Have you discussed this with Rob before launching these railing accusations against him? If you haven’t, you may wish to go to him alone and “gain your brother.”
Thanks, Tom
Chad,
Some observations, from your comments, the book and some of the subsequent interviews. (of which I would recommend this one from England, and this one from the Denver Seminary (both of which were designed to ask tough questions)).
You observed: I found it quite obvious that he is not just posing questions, but pushing an agenda.
I think this is where a number of critics miss out on the style of questioning and its background. Rob’s background in Hebrew contextual studies comes primarily from folks associated (directly or indirectly) with the Jerusalem School for Synoptic Research (Ray VanderLaan, Brad Young, Dwight Pryor, David Bivins, etc.), and he uses more of a rabbinic style of questioning than a rhetorical style of questioning.
In rhetorical questioning, the answer is automatically assumed from the question, itself, and is typically a “yes” or a “no” from a leading question.
In rabbinic questioning, the point of the question is not to make a rhetorical point, but to actually construct/deconstruct a meaning that is not necessarily straightforward in nature.
For example (from Rob’s writing) – the (to some) controversial section of Velvet Elvis which dealt with the Virgin Birth was actually meant to deconstruct much of the Mary doctrine that has been built up over the years (primarily in the RCC) – like perpetual virginity, Marian sinlessness, and the systematic idea that Jesus’ divinity was dependent on a virgin birth – and not the virgin birth, itself (which he affirmed on the same page).
Now, I would agree that he’s “pushing an agenda” – but that agenda isn’t to embrace universal reconciliation (or any other view), but to stop using the afterlife as the “selling point” of Christianity. If you cannot preach the Gospel without preaching hell in the afterlife, then you’ve missed the point of Jesus’ teaching.
He almost goes as far as to say that pictures teaching children that the cross is the only way to Heaven is worthy of having a millstone tied around your neck and cast into the sea.
“Almost”? Really? No, not really. The point of the picture (and his criticism of it) wasn’t that there’s anything wrong with the cross being the only way to Heaven. Rather, the idea he was critical of was that the purpose of the cross was to evacuate this world to escape hell and go somewhere else.
He is not providing a balanced perspective here, but has stacked the deck and presents loaded, unfair questions for the reader to ponder which lead to heretical views.
Again, I would completely disagree. If the reader is led to believe that (a) we can’t say for certain what will happen in the afterlife; and (b) we shouldn’t allow any model of hell flavor our obedience to the Gospel; then the reader has reached the conclusion the author intended.
As for the idea that people might be able to make some sort of decision after death, this isn’t new (particularly considering that many of the church creeds included the Harrowing of Hell, and that other early church doctrines, based more on the Jewish tradition than the Greek tradition, allowed for this as well). Again, he presented multiple views – that one can’t change their minds post-mortem, that perhaps one could, and that – even if one could – it may not be likely that they ever would.
It is all about epistemic humility vs. epistemic closure, and Bell weighs heavily on the side of epistemic humility when it pertains to the aftelife, urgency as it pertains to accepting Christ today, and trust that – no matter how God has engineered the afterlife – His love will win.
Jesus spoke of hell more than anything else. Non Christians NEED Christ- Christians are led to repentence through God’s kindness. The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all unrighteousness. The scripture is clear. God does not desire to send anyone to hell. Stating that desire as a reason NOT preach about hell is idiotic and dangerous. Hell is real- its a Christless existence. Quoting authors and books which are NOT scripture is useless and fruitless. The scripture is the final authority. Leading people by appealing to their emotions is dangerous ground- we lead people on the basis of God’s Word- and THAT WILL BE AN OFFENSE TO THOSE HARDENED BY THEIR SIN- and it will be a fountain of living water to those open to the gospel. Sugar coating our teaching to appeal to people is wrong. The issue of fire insurance has always perplexed me- I hear Christians state constantly “Well you dont want people to enter the Kigdom because they fear going to hell” then I refer to the scriptures and see Jesus say “For God sent not the Son into the world to judge the world ; but that the world should be “saved” through Him.” John 3:17— now what was the world being saved from (rather those who accepted the gift offered by Christ)? Uh seems like a Christless-Godless eternity which seems to mean HELL- is that insurance- YES THAT IS INSURANCE- why would I need insurance for anything? Because I am NOT CAPABLE OF PAYING THE PENALTY OWED BY THE CONSEQUENCES TO COME- if I have a fire in my house and if it is destroyed only insurance will pay the cost. In terms of my eternal destiny Jesus has stepped in and paid the cost and you know what? That is only offensive to a person who is too proud to admit he or she NEEDS THAT INSURANCE and that my friend is the cause of rejecting the gospel- human pride.
Articles like this exhibit the poor thinking and arrogant assumptions that intelligent non-Christians often associate with “closed-minded” religious types. The sad part is that your main point has a good message, we could all easily (and I would argue all do at times) teach false doctrine and we need to watch carefully examining the scriptures and praying for guidance. But you built this case on a premise that without any sound reasoning is nothing but baseless opinion presented as absolute truth. I may or may not agree with you concerning “Love Wins” but the unequivocal presumptions made at the onset of this article about him being, without question, a false teacher and heretic is simply disappointing. After reading this article through carefully, one thing is certain to me, “love” did not win here, and sadly neither did logic, rational thinking, objectivity, humility or reason.
Sky – 100% agreement.
MarkR:
Not to pick on you, specifically, but I’ve heard this phrase tossed about quite a bit recently, and I really have to challenge this line of thought, because in actuality, Jesus didn’t talk about hell that much at all.
He speaks of Gehenna (the Jerusalem city dump, translated “hell” in English) ten times, and James, once. Six of Jesus’ mentions of Gehenna are in nearly identical teachings (“it is better to have (a body part) removed and thrown into Gehenna than your entire body”), one is an epithet (“a child of genenna“), and one is a warning against hating your brother (which puts you in danger of the “fires of gehenna” – which, in context, could just as easily be a real literal place – the burning dump where bodies of the wicked were discarded – as a figurative one.).
The remaining two mentions of Gehenna are both reminders that man can destroy the body, but God can destroy the body and soul “in gehenna” (which could, again, be literal allusion to the city dump where physical bodies were destroyed).
Besides Gehenna, Jesus mentions Hades (which is the Greek equivalent of Sheol, “the grave”, where all of the dead go to await final judgment) twice – once in naming a literal place in Caesarea Philippi (the “Gates of Hades”), and once in a parable about the Rich Man and Lazarus.
Hades is then mentioned four times in Revelation, in which the final two mentions are the symbolic event where “death and Hades” are destroyed in the lake of fire.
That’s it – all of Jesus’ mentions of “hell”.
Certainly he preaches urgency (ex. Matt 25), but not in context with “hell”.
So what was Jesus most common topic of discussion? What did Jesus preach?
The Kingdom of God/Heaven. The Kingdom that was ushered in at his coming to earth, proclaimed by his cousin, John, and to be complete upon his final return. Something which exists today, and will continue on into fullness in eternity.
Jesus mentions the Kingdom 102 times (ten times more than his mentions of “hell”), and his apostles mention it 28 more times in the NT.
So no, Jesus didn’t speak on hell more than anything else. He spoke of the Kingdom, of love, of finances, and a plethora of other topics far, far more than he spoke of hell…
I believe it is healthy to wonder about metaphysical topics. In addition, I believe we should promote healthy “conversations” about our faith.
Yet, I wonder . . . what responsibility, if any, should Christian teachers/preachers/leaders consider when they present non-typical, faith-based questions in published books to general audiences–where feedback is limited and each reader comes to the text at a different stage in their own personal faith?
Chris,
I just have to strongly disagree with your reading of this book. Allow me to address some of the topics you put forth by quoting Bell’s book:
(after quoting the millstone passage) “Death by drowning–Jesus’ idea of punishment for those who lead children astray. A haunting warning if there ever was one about the spongelike nature of a child’s psyche. Im not saying my grandma’s picture (of the cross as the only path leading to heaven) did that, but it clearly unnerved at least two of us.”
He then goes on to call the painting a fusion of Dungeons and Dragons, Billy Grahamn and a barbecue pit. Now I understand he has many points he is trying to make (such as not wanting to abandon the world for a better place) through this series of illustrations and points, but a primary one cannot be more clear than faith in the cross of Christ alone as a means to bring us to an eternal dwelling with God in the world to come is to be shunned as “unnerving” if not damaging and leading children astray. The image of people being tormented who are not on the narrow path of the cross is a focal issue here.
Furthermore, the idea that Bell is using some rabbnic technique to deeping thinking rather than provide answers is simply untrue. Many of his thoughts are not questions at all, and many of the questions he answers himself in quite clear and poignent ways.
“Telling a story about a God who inflicts unrelenting punishment on poeple because they didnt do or say or believe the correct things in a brief window of time called life isnt a very good story.”
“Will all people be saved, or will God not get what God wants? Does this magnificent, mighty, marvelous God FAIL in the end?”
“On the cross, Jesus says, “Father forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” Jesus forgives them all, without their asking for it. Done. Taken care of. Before we coudl be good enough or right enough. Before we coudl even believe the right things. Forgiveness is unilateral.”
Clearly we have a theological difference here. We obviously SHOULD allow pictures of hell to flavor our obedience, for that is the very purpose of such warnings. There is a combination of love, grace and judgment that all work together to bring people to the truth and to hold to us diligently.
This is not about epistimological humility. If it were he would not speak of his “better story” and pose the picture of a God of jugment and eternal punishment in such a negative light. I would encourage the readers here to examine a very in-depth review of the book that is spot-on at:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/april/lovewins.html
Let me leave you with a few verses becasue I believe the Bible provides some clarity so that we can hold an attitude of humility and yet have some epistimological certainty on the work of Christ, necessity of the Gospel and our eternal destinies.
“remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. “ (Ephesians 2:12″“13, NIV84)
“for they themselves report what kind of reception you gave us. They tell how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead””Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath. “ (1 Thessalonians 1:9″“10, NIV84)
“They displease God and are hostile to all men in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved.” (1 Thessalonians 2:15″“16a, NIV84)
One more thing Chris,
Jesus may speak of the actual word “gehenna” a few times, but the point is that this name for Hell is more of an illustration than a title. The fact that Jesus doesnt use this specific phrase often does not mean he does not speak of Hell often. Bell makes this same mistake in the book. Regularly Jesus speaks of torment, being cut to pieces, being thurst out into darkness, etc. Jesus is not after social change as many try to portray it, but calls people to store up treasures in heaven and be ready for the coming of the Son of Man. In this regard he speaks far more of the punishment of the wicked than he does the rewards of the righteous. That is the point. Therefore, we should not gloss over such discussions.
Chad,
I would honestly say (not condescendingly at all) that perhaps you might want to sit down and read straight through the Gospels (or at least one of the Gospels) if this is how you view Jesus and his teaching. His primary topic in his sermons and teachings and illustrations is “the Kingdom of God” – which is not something that happens someday in the future, but something that exists today, that we can only choose to interact with in the present, and which we simply trust God to complete in the future.
Prior to the events at the end of his life, we read that he “preached the Gospel”, with the basic message of his Gospel conveyed in the Sermon on the Mount. And even there, when hell is mentioned, it is not as a threat of future post-mortem judgment, but as a comparator to how we should act toward one another in the kingdom. For example, Matt 5:21-26 is not about hell or the threat of hell, but about loving and forgiving your neighbor. And Matt 6:19-24 is about generosity – here today – trusting that God will reward you later.
I would agree that Jesus is “not after social change as many try to portray it” – particularly when applied to politics and government. Jesus, however, is specifically for social change as it applies to our individual actions and their congruity with the Kingdom of God/Heaven.
The whole notion that “Jesus speaks of hell, wrath and judgment more than any other topic” is simply and completely false and ludicrous. You are correct that he also doesn’t dwell on the rewards of the righteous, but there is a whole lot of room for topics of discussion between “punishment of the wicked” and “rewards of the righteous”, and Jesus’ teaching is firmly rooted in the present, and our actions in the present, because that is all we have been given to work with.
If we require a specific post-mortem manifestation of hell in order to preach the Good News, then we have a pretty warped view of what the Good News is.
But that is not the “focal point” of the cross, nor is the Gospel simply a fire insurance policy. It is a call to action, not a call to avoidance – and that is Bell’s point. Trying to “scare the hell out of people” may not be the way to spread the Gospel.
Actually, it is quite true – he’s said so himself. Additionally, I know the people who have most influenced him in this regard (Ray Vander Laan, Tim Brown, Brad Young, etc.) with the study of the Hebrew cultural roots of Scripture and the rabbinic methods – I’ve learned quite a bit from them, myself, and am very familiar with the culture and techniques.
One of the quotes you cite I would use as my primary example:
“Will all people be saved, or will God not get what God wants? Does this magnificent, mighty, marvelous God FAIL in the end?”
This is at the beginning of a chapter, and Bell is quoting the most common argument used by folks who are dogmatic about the UR view (which I’ve argued long and hard against on a number of occasions). In the remainder of the chapter, Bell illustrates how God does not fail if all people are not saved – because in His love, He gives them the free will to reject Him, and some choose to – and several explanations for this. His point in asking the question is not to give a rhetorical answer, but to demonstrate that the question, itself, is invalid because it assumes our rejection of God is a failure on His part.
it is all about epistemic humility – we don’t know how the afterlife works. So, we have the choice of taking one particular position with tissue-thin Biblical support (eternal conscious torment), elevating it to certitude, and then basing our gospel on it – OR we can take a more honest approach which sees the Gospel as active in the present with a promise for the future – whatever it holds – and an urgency to choose today, not because we’re buying fire insurance, but because it is a source of circumstance-independent joy and life.
God’s primary aspect is His holiness (being set apart), and His primary mechanism is love.
Scot McKnight’s article about What Love Wins Tells Us About Christians and his chapter-by-chapter critique (which is pretty fair in its criticisms and accolades) are far better than anything I’ve read (including the CT article), and McKnight is pretty harsh in some of his conclusions. Even so, he would agree (contrary to the thesis of the article above) that Bell is not a “heretic”.
Good article. I haven’t read the book, but I have read several reviews, such as this one – Analysis of Love Wins . Having not read it, I won’t comment on the content of Bell’s book,
Calling a firm and important doctrine into question, not resolving it Biblically, and leaving people with (even a possible) false hope is irresponsible and dangerous. It seems that Bell’s book does just that (whether or not it was intended that way).
I don’t know Bell’s intentions with all the questions. If he intended them as some ancient rabbinic form, he must have forgotten that he is not writing primarily for ancient Jews. I’ve noticed the questions in other Bell products. It seems more likely to me that his questions serve two purposes. 1) promote controversy and uncertainty about his views to promote sales and 2) to allow him to state things without stating them in a way he could later be held accountable for.
Regardless of all that, the points about the dangers of false and heretical teaching, and the various sources it can actually come from should be heeded. The example of Rob Bell’s recent book isn’t central to this article. It is merely, a recent, highly-visible, high-profile example used to introduce a bigger and more important series of thoughts. We must guard the doctrine entrusted to us, teach it faithfully, and refute false doctrine with sound, Biblical teaching.
Mike,
I understand the point of the article, and it’s possible/probable that my personal experience is not the norm, but I’ve observed Christians (in our own tradition and others) pull out the “heresy” card way too quickly and far too often in matters (like pereschatology, in this case) which are non-essentials and simply matters of interpretation.
CS just published an article today that is probably the best one on Bell’s book and the controversy around it: https://christianstandard.com/2011/06/why-we-need-to-listen-to-the-message-of-love-wins/ It points out a number of the book’s weak points (which are truly there), but also points out the soundness of Bell’s key theses.
You wrote:
The thing is, he “resolves” it Biblically by not resolving it (with “it” being “how heaven and hell work, and who’s going where”). Christian Standard has even left this somewhat unresolved by publishing articles that support the annihilationist view and others that support the eternal conscious torment view. The truth of the matter, as Dustin Fulton pointed out in the CS article linked above, is that the rules which govern hell are a mystery to us not revealed in the Bible.
You also wrote:
I would point out that the teachings we, as Christians, hold most dear came from two recognized rabbis (Jesus and Paul), whose primary audience were ancient Jews. And the form (rabbinic questioning) has a specific purpose (unlike rhetorical questioning):
1) If I tell you the answer to a question, or tell you what to think, then what you have is my answer. It is something you’ve not wrestled with, and it’s something that you will not hold onto if “something better” comes along.
2) If I ask you questions that lead you (and maybe force you) to think through what you know, and to wrestle with it, and then come up with an answer … then it is your answer (not mine) and you’re far more likely to hold on to it and go through the same process when faced with alternative answers.
Asking the questions is not a means of “driving sales” or “escaping accountability”, but a means of trying to force a person to think, rather than regurgitating rote answers they’ve not truly thought through.
For example: Where in the Bible (if anywhere) does it teach that a person’s soul is immortal? Why did the religious Jews who consulted Jesus ask him how to “inherit eternal life”?
Chris,
I understand your point that Jesus focuses a great deal on the “here and now.” However, the “here and now” focus of Jesus and the Gospel writers is not making the world a better place or making you a more friendly person…and Rob Bell portarys. Rather, the here and now of the Gospels has to do with people embracing the Messiah and his work in the “here and now.” Many times this embracing of Christ has to do with a changed life, but often it also has to do with simple faith and confession. As you point out, Jesus speaks a great deal of the “Kingdom of God/Kingdom of Heaven” in Matthew (over 50 times). However, this present Kingdom is not about a social project, but a subjection to the Messiah. Jesus (and Matthew) is showing his people that the Kingdom he has come to establish is not one of overthrowing Rome or setting up a Jewish eutopia, but rather a spiritual Kingdom in which people enter through faith in God’s appointed King. At these points we see the very strong emphasis on eternal destruction for those who reject Jesus.
So the point is that the Gospels are focusing on the world to come in the midst of their talking about the here and now. If people will embrace that Jesus has set up his Kingdom by his work on earth, then they can partake in that kingdom currently as well as in the age to come. However, the great focus on this is joy and freedom from the Law, life in the Spirit in the present, and a future Kingdom. Thus, I think you are mistaken when you say the focal point of the cross is not a future eternity in heaven. True, it is something that begins now, but that is because through faith, baptism, etc. we die with Christ, are cleansed and seated (resting from our works) with him in the heavenly realms where we become more than conquerers through faith in Him. Thus our “here and now” is only transformed when we embrace who we will be and how we are seated with him spiritually and eternally. Those who do not embrace the person and work of Christ are dead in transgressions, foreigners to the promise, separate from Christ, without hope and without God in the world (see Ephesians 2).
Again, Bell’s pondering about whether or not God fails by not bringing all people to himself is a bit more focused than I think you give him credit for. He goes on to speak of concepts along this line that show different ways in which God does not fail (in Bell’s mind) such as ideas where people have eternity to change their minds post-mortum and thus God’s love wins, and ideas that God gives us what we want because he loves us so much. Yet these are not the pictures we get from Scripture. We see nothing of post-mortum opportunities to repent and enter Christ’s Kingdom, nor do we see God sending people to punishment because it is “what they want because he loves them so much.” Such concepts are dismissive of Biblical teaching in light of cultural sensitivities, dismissive of the seriousness of sin in the eyes of a Holy God, and dismissive of Christian history and the mass teachings of Christian leaders throughout the ages which have shunned such ideas as wholly unorthodox and destructive. Yet Bell (and clearly he knows better) suggests they are strongly supported and orthodox.
Finally, I would argue that eternal conscious punishment does not have paper-thin Biblical support. In fact, I think it has overwhelming weight, especially compared to the posturings in Bell’s book that you are giving credence to. While I agree that we may not have a really clear picture of what exactly hell will be like, I think it is disengious to suggest that this allows such room for extra-biblical speculation and post-mortum second chances. For not only the Gospels, but the didatic passages in the Epistles make it clear that the wrath of God is coming upon this wicked and corrupt world, and the only refuge is through the preaching of the Gospel and faith in Christ. I’m fine if someone wants to argue in annihilationism, or other such concepts of punishment, but to portray Hell as a product of a loving God who is only giving people what they want (and likely only temporarily until they come to their senses) is dangerous, misleading, unorthodox and unbiblical.
[First off, just to be transparent, I spend about an hour a day in the car, so I listen to 3-4 church’s podcasts weekly, along with a 150+ hour study on Hebrew roots of Scripture. The churches are fairly diverse – my own Stone-Campbell RM church, Mars Hill Bible Church (where Bell preaches about 50% of the time), North Point (Andy Stanley) and Mars Hill Seattle (Mark Driscoll). I certainly have issues and/or disagreements with each (as they do with each other), but I consider them matters of non-essentials. Since I do listen to Bell on a regular basis, I don’t do a good job separating what was said in “Love Wins” (which covers topics not often covered at MHBC) and what was said in his sermons or 90-minute seminary Q&A’s. As such, that gives me the advantage of understanding his view, as a whole, and nuances of his spoken cadence and written cadence, along with the disadvantage of viewing any one work as a “stand-alone”. My primary interest in study is in the Hebrew roots of our faith, and it is actually through that study and a common teacher (Ray VanderLaan) that I even became familiar with Bell. ]
You say this as if these are mutually exclusive propositions. I would argue (as would Bell) that the first is merely a subset within the second. As Bell was quoted in yesterday’s CS article “Often the people most concerned about others going to Hell when they die seem less concerned with the hells on earth right now, while the people most concerned with the hells on earth right now seem the least concerned about Hell after death”. He’s stated numerous ways that when we live in the kingdom, we’re balancing both concerns, and not pitting one against the other, or saying “rather than worrying about making the world a better place or you a better person, the Gospel is about simple faith and confession”. Faith without works is dead, and confession with out repentance is pointless.
I would disagree. A future eternity in heaven is in God’s hands, not ours. The cross frees us, today, to live in the grace we’ve been given. Today. So, unless you happen to die today, the focal point of the cross, today, is living a life in grace. Tomorrow will worry about itself, and God will provide what we need – be we alive or dead. When we make the focal point of the Gospel something that happens somewhere else someday, we’ve completely and utterly missed the point.
Actually it is not, because he’s been pretty clear in his post-publication lecture/Q&A’s that if some people spend eternity apart from God (be it conscious or unconscious), it is because of their own free will, given to them by God. He’s been pretty clear about this in the times it has been addressed from the “pulpit” at MHBC, as well. The whole point of the book’s title, “Love Wins” is not that God will save everyone (and therefore “love wins”), but rather that no matter what form eternity takes, God’s love will win. Scot McKnight correctly points out that Bell’s view would be best described as “libertarian free will” – which is agnostic on the form of the afterlife, but hinges on God’s love expressed through the gift of free will (which allows one to reject God).
If you don’t believe me (regarding his Q&A’s), read Chapter 5 of his book, Sex God, “She Ran into The Girl’s Bathroom”, which is about how God, by giving us the free will to choose or reject him, expresses love for us – because it opens Him up to not get what He wants. (Besides which, Sex God is a far better book than Love Wins, IMO).
.
Actually, we do get a glimpse of that (potentially), with Christ witnessing to the souls in prison. We can disagree on exactly what the traditionally viewed Harrowing of Hell is, but it is not absent from the orthodox stream of Christian faith.
In The Problem of Pain (which Bell admits to pulling some of this from) CS Lewis’ interpretation of the Harrowing and other hints in Scripture is that “the doors of hell are locked from the inside” , and from Lewis’ The Great Divorce, where he writes “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.” Lewis didn’t invent these concepts, either, nor are they outside the historic orthodox stream of Christianity. Bell has explicitly stated that his libertarian view is “identical” to what Lewis espoused, in this regard. It doesn’t minimize sin, but rather puts the onus of choice (free will) on man, as an expression of God’s love.
Ultimately, the form of hell, postmortem, (be it conscious or unconscious) ought to be a matter of non-essentials.
Even so, Unless you are relying almost exclusively on eisegesis, ECP’s support is far worse than that of annihilationism or other views of conditional immortailty, and not all that much better than a functionally reconciliationist view.
The Old Testament doesn’t really even give many thoughts as to what lies beyond Sheol, the grave.
By Jesus’ day, the most likely common view of Sheol, among the religious Jews, was that it was segregated into two parts – Hades and Paradise. Those in Paradise would immediately go to be with God at the time of His judgment (physically resurrected, said the hasidim, and only in spirit said the Sadducees – Jesus sided with the Pharisees (a subset of hasidim) on that argument). Most of those in Hades at the time of judgment would undergo punishment, up to a year, and then go on to be with God, while the most wicked would be eternally destroyed and forgotten – “blotted out of the book of life”.
[The idea of a soul having innate immortality came from Hellenism, and a view of eternal conscious punishment didn’t show up until after the Gentile church was well established and the Apostles were gone. If you do not begin with an assumption that a soul is innately immortal, you will find little support for eternal conscious punishment.]
So, as we interpret Jesus’ and his Apostles’ teaching, looking for clues as to their pereschatology in some ways becomes looking for the dog that didn’t bark. If the Jewish view – which didn’t include any sort of eternal conscious punishment of humans – was so far off, we would expect that Jesus would have taken a significant amount of time correcting that view. Instead, he borrows from that construct on a few occasions, and has very little corrective to say about it, aside from stating that the resurrection will be physical.
So, yes, the Biblical support for an exclusive ECP view is tissue thin, especially to embrace with such certitude and to proclaim as a primary “selling point” of the Gospel.
Chris,
Not to sound overly harsh here, but if aniyone is practicing eisegesis here it is Bell. As someone who’s fond of Hebrew history I am surprised at your stance. Clearly Hebrew history reveals a perspective that they alone were a covenant people with the light of Gods grace in a corrupt world filled with evil and darkness. Thus we have God eliminating entire races of people and even the majority of His own people at times (by the assyrians and Babylonians) because of His intolerance for sin and idolatry. I do not think it was their own self infliction or Gods love at work which eradicated the Amakelites or Edomites. We must allow the tension of Gods love for us and His hatred for sin that brings His wrath in balance or we will be in danger of the same destructive teachings that have been denounced for centuries (such as emphasizing the humanity of Christ over his deity or the love of God over his holiness which is so common today among liberal theologians and social agendas.
Also, I agree with your summation of Hebrew thought on the after life prior to Hellenization. However, certainly you would agree that the NT is Divinely inspired and not merely the Hebraic religion influenced by Greeks. Jesus speaks heavily on eternal suffering both in the Gospels and in Johns Revelation and that should be the focus of our faith…. Not modern sensitivities.
Also, I think it is pretty clear from Bells forward and his style that he is not writing to seminarians or Hebrew scholars, but to the average reader. A ten year old could easily read and understand this book and the message is abundantly clear, “the traditional story of our faith isn’t very good, so let’s consider embracing views such as universalism and post mortum conversion and act as if they are mainstream and orthodox.”. I am not sure if you are over thinking this simple and conversational style book or if your loyalties to Bell are keeping you from this simple, straight forward reading. Christianity today has an excellent review of the book you should read.
I am surprised you read 1 Peter 3:19 as post- mortum repentance. I see this as nothing more than the spirit of Christ (which is peters regular name for the Holy Spirit in his letters) at work in Noah who sought to call people to salvation. In the same way, the Spirit is at work today, calling people to be separated from a perishing and wicked world (hence the connection between the flood and baptism). Yet clearly post Christ resurrection there is no concept to second chances…rather we see dozens of examples to the contrary.
Finally, the NT is loaded with calls to focus on the day of Judgement and eternity… NOt just personal transformation. Sanctification is a work of the Spirit in the heart of one submitted to the Lordship of Christ. It is not about making heaven on earth, but surrendering to the Lord which brings about a changes life. But let us be clear, it is surrender to the Lordship of Christ that always comes first. Those who refuse to make Christ Lord and identify with his death and resurrection are aliens to the covenant, foreigners to the promises, without God and without hope. Scripture is very plain on this. Even when believers turn from this truth they are in great peril as we see in the letters to the churches in Revelation. How much more the unbeliever! Bells book quite simply gives false security, false peace, and blatantly skews historical views to make it sound like the universalism of Origin or other similar perspectives have been embraced by the Church as orthodox. It is false, dangerous and void of any real biblical support. This is clear in how Bell glosses over the passages on Gods wrath and judgement and offer absolutely no biblical support for his “better story” other than leading questions, stories of single moms God wants to use to run the world and allegorizing parables such as the prodigal son to propose post mortum repentance. If anyone is guilty of eisegesis here it is Bell. Dangerous stuff here and you would do well to distance yourself from it because I get the impression you really do not embrace his direction.
As someone who”™s fond of Hebrew history I am surprised at your stance.
The period of Hebrew history I primarily focus on is the intertestemental period, particularly the time just prior to and during Jesus’ ministry. By this time, the hasidim (pious ones) – the branch which begat the Pharisee and Zealot parties (and the branch Jesus’ teaching and philosophy most lined up with) were very much interested in reaching the pagan world, in order to make them God-fearers (with disagreement on whether or not the gentiles needed to be circumcised). Much of Paul’s writing is heavily drawn from this branch, including the idea that God created man in order to perform mitzvot (good works) for the purpose of tikkun olam (God’s repairing of the world) (Eph 2:10) – and Paul takes this farther by tying the Father to the Son, in whom we are freed to do this work.
The purpose of God’s choosing the Hebrew people, in their understanding, was not that they would be the only people saved – here on earth, or in an afterlife. The purpose of their choosing was to that the world would know about the One true God and that they would honor Him and take part in tikkun olam. The Hebrews were blessed in order to be a blessing – salvation from postmortem torture was never a motive they were given, nor did they believe that the Gentiles were damned.
A ten year old could easily read and understand this book and the message is abundantly clear, “the traditional story of our faith isn”™t very good, so let”™s consider embracing views such as universalism and post mortum conversion and act as if they are mainstream and orthodox.”.
I guess I’d rather take the author at his word and what he says the intended message is, rather than your hypothetical ten-year-old.
You also completely ignore the millions of people in the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic branches of our faith who would probably disagree with what we westerners might call “the traditional story of our faith”. (The EO view of the afterlife, for example, is much closer to some of the options Bell gives than our “traditional” view).
Bell has specifically stated in a number of forums (like this one) that he isn’t suggesting we embrace any view of the afterlife as certain, but that we allow the uncertainty/ambiguity to exist, as it did in the first century church, and to let the Gospel be the Gospel, instead of making it a viral marketing campaign for fire insurance.
Also, I think it is pretty clear from Bells forward and his style that he is not writing to seminarians or Hebrew scholars, but to the average reader.
More specifically, an average reader who may have rejected Christianity (or be resistant to the message of Christ) because they were told that it’s purpose was to rescue you from eternal torture (and the implication that their loved ones who had previously died were likely already being tortured) – an audience innoculated against the Gospel because the gospel they were given requires the threat of an eternal, conscious torture of hell in order for it to be “good news”.
I am surprised you read 1 Peter 3:19 as post- mortum repentance.
While the SC-RM church has no creeds, the idea that Jesus witnessed to the souls in Hades (i.e. the “Harrowing of Hell”) is part of the Reformed, Catholic and EO traditions of Christianity, and it is partially based on 1 Pet 3:19. which references Jesus witnessing to the souls in Tartarus (part of the Greek underworld). So, whether we agree with this or not, it is clearly within the stream of historic, Christian orthodoxy.
Yet clearly post Christ resurrection there is no concept to second chances”¦rather we see dozens of examples to the contrary.
Actually, we have no concrete examples of what the deceased actually experience between death and the final judgment. It is all speculation (to Bell’s point).
Bells book quite simply gives false security, false peace, and blatantly skews historical views to make it sound like the universalism of Origin or other similar perspectives have been embraced by the Church as orthodox. It is false, dangerous and void of any real biblical support.
I would disagree. It is quite apparent that what he teaches gives a real sense of urgency – that the gospel matters today, not just when you die. That the cross is important today, not just as a ticket to heaven. It is not an “either/or” proposition (which you seem to be making), but a “both/and” proposition. The last chapter of the book (on Matt 24-25) deals with this urgency and the idea that, at some point, there is no “second chance”.
I completely disagree with the UR view (and the only person I’ve ever banned from commenting on the group blog I write for was the Methodist pastor who was supposedly fired for his FB post on Love Wins, and he was a UR zealot), and I thought Bell made it pretty clear that the UR view has its own problems, as well, with libertarian free will. At the same time, I agree that he gave pretty weak historical support for those who’ve held that view. Even so, I’d say that to teach and hold the ECT view with certainty is just as big a problem as doing so with the UR view.
It is all speculation, so why try to claim any one view is certain – so certain that we tend to base a primary reason for accepting the Gospel on it? There’s no cause to wring our hands over this book and create a bunch of straw men out of “dangerous stuff here”. When we do, we become little more than the “boy that cried ‘wolf'”…
Just as an FYI, here’s the original set of sermons that gave impetus to Bell’s thought, and writing of the book. (Parts one, two, three and four.)
(I’m not sure why, but my “blockquote” tags didn’t work in the previous comment. Sorry if it’s confusing.
I missed this:
I would agree this. What I’m saying, though, is that the idea that the soul is immortal did not come from the Hebrew faith, nor does Jesus (or Paul) state this. It is a Greek idea borrowed by Gentiles and extended to the uncertainty of what the afterlife must be like.
Also, what I’m saying is that the first century Jewish view of the afterlife (which looks more like purgatory with annihilation of only the most wicked), most likely held by the people Jesus was primarily speaking to, was never contradicted by him. Thus, if eternal conscious torment of an immortal soul is the actual form of the afterlife, it is quite problematic that Jesus never corrects the prevailing view of the afterlife.
It is hard to understate how problematic this is, and how little a leg we have to stand on when we claim that we believe “just what the bible says” with a blind eye toward our own contextual assumptions that aren’t at all included there (like the immortality of the soul, and the age of accountability).
In our own tradition (which generally accepts an “age of accountability”, since we practice a believer’s baptism), if we truly believed that an overwhelming majority of people will suffer eternal, conscious torment, we’d just kill every child before they reached the age of accountability, lest the errant 13-year-old find themselves 13 million years from now still being actively tortured by God for their brief period of accountable sins.
By “heavily” do you mean “hardly, if at all”? Even the passages in Matt 24-25 are not focused on eternal suffering, but rather on the urgency of action, (and the punishment mentioned in the parabolic sections isn’t even explicitly eternal conscious torment). The closest you come is Matt 25:46 and Rev 20:15 (and even these two examples do not preclude annihilation, nor do they “correct” the prevailing Hebrew view), and even those are tenuous at “proving” eternal conscious torment. (And it’s incredibly amusing to see how we can understand the form and focus of a parable as metaphor, but when we get to the negative consequences described in the parable, we get incredibly literal and certain.)
And even so, the focus of small set of parables of Jesus which speak to the urgency of action and preparation is not on avoiding the ill consequences of inaction. Rather, it is a positive call to act – now – regardless of what the actual postmortem experience is.
Chris,
Thanks for your well thought out reply. I agree with your history and distinctions between Sadducees and Pharisees. Yet I think the point I am trying to make is simply this (and I apologize for the oversimplifications in this discussion, but I am trying to keep the comments concise): Rob Bell pictures this concept of God’s love winning either by bringing all to heaven initially or by his love not allowing them to enter heaven because it is not what the person really wants and God obliges in love. Again, while the Hebrews may have argued amongst themselves with regards to bodily resurrection or spirit resurrection, the existence of angels, etc. this still does not diminish the fact that there was a general appreciation and reverence for the judgment of God upon wickedness. The “Day of the Lord” foreshadowed in the OT prophets was one of locust plagues, starvation, pregnant women being cut open, death and captivity. These are a foreshadowing of the final day of Judgement when the wicked call for the rocks to fall upon them to hide them from the wrath of the Lamb. So while we can debate ECP, annihilation or other such ideas, what is clear is that the dead will be raised to be judged…some for life and some for punishment (likely eternal, perhaps temporary). It is not a picture of God, in love, keeping people out of heaven because they wouldn’t be happy there.
I agree that the idea of hell should not be used as a call for fire insurance or the sole motivation to call people to repentance. However, I hardly think that is the danger we face in our culture. If anything, most churches have all but abandoned talk of judgment and hell. If there is any danger, it is a continual slip toward a permissive, loving, all-embracing God who has created many paths to eternal bliss. This is likely why so many new age, buddhists, b’hai and other such religious persuasions are praising Rob Bell and his book. I personally believe that many people do not pursue sanctification not because they are only seeking fire insurance from God’s wrath only, but because they feel sin is really no big deal because God is loving. Bell’s argumentation unfortunately bolsters this mindset.
Also, I think the point in the 1 Peter 3 passage I am trying to make here is that even if 1 Peter 3 is making a case for a second chance (which I think it is clearly not), it has been viewed historically as part of the immediate work of the cross and not considered as an ongoing opportunity for those who had rejected Christ. Perhaps this is why Bell does not use this passage, or any other to validate his posturing. So again, it has not been considered an orthodox view, even if 1 Peter 3 suggests Christ did offer that opportunity to those who lived in the days of Noah. It is the portrayal of the unorthodox as orthodox, mainstream teaching that is especially troubling in this book. There are debates on matters of eternity..but there are orthodox discussions and unorthodox ones and this book misguides seekers into thinking such doctrines are embraced as orthodox within Christendom.
While I am a strong supporter of historical context to aid in biblical interpretation, we should be careful we do not take it too far. First, as you know, the Hebrews were probably more divided on almost every doctrinal issue than Prostestants are and so we can take any group (Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, etc.) to argue what Jesus’ mindset (or Paul’s) likely would have been to support our argument. We also should be careful arguing from silence in saying that Jesus didnt correct their thinking on ECT and so that proves he taught or believed a certain way. Jesus certainly did heighten the focus on the resurrection, end judgment and the intense suffering of those who would not repent at his preaching than anyone in his day or the days before. Furthermore, many of the Hebrews were wrong about a lot of things, including what the Messiah would look like, his work, the kingdom of God, ect. So while it may give us some context, it certainly does not prove, or disprove anything. Perhaps more convincing is what the early church taught in light of the teaching of Jesus and the apostles…and the primary view of the early church was ECP. We see this throughout their writings and accounts of martyrdom (see the Martyrdom of Polycarp).
Finally, just because Jesus (or Paul, Peter, etc.) is making an urgent call to immediate action does not mean that this discounts hell or eternal punishment. In fact, it is likely that the reality of God’s judgment is what makes such calls so urgent and immediate. For instance, Acts 2:38-40 is a call to immediate action, because of an upcoming judgment which is why people are pleaded with to “save themselves from a wicked and corrupt generation.” Jesus’ call to pluck out one’s own eye rather than be thrown into gehenna is not (as Bell suggests) a mere hyperbole that is warning people against the pain sin causes in one’s own life and the lives of others. Rather, it is a call to repentence because of the way in which God will judge such wrongdoings (the sufferin from the natural reprocussions of sin is real, but it is not what Jesus is talking about here by any means!) The judgment of the wicked is described as fire, outer darkness, weeping, gnashing of teeth, anguish, torment, torture, burning sulfer, and a lake of fire. While all these pictures may by metaphors, yet they are portraying a wrath and finality that combines the most terrible pains and images that were avaliable to the first century audience. This should grab our attention all the more rather than be reasons to excuse such language as mere metaphor or exhortation. Well, thats too much already! Better run.
To respond to the regular “paper thin” evidence of ECT, let me post some passages and comments:
1 Thess. 1:8-9; Matt. 3:12; Matt. 23:33; Matt 13:42, 50; Jude 7, 13; Rev. 21:8; Matt. 25:41, Is. 66:22-24; Dan. 12:1-2; Matt. 18:6-9; Mark 9:42-48; Rev. 14:9-11; Rev. 20:10-15.
Certainly this argument is not “paper thin” especially in contrast with the complete lack of verses that suggest universalism, post-mortum repentence, etc. While I am sure you may contend that some of these verses may suggest annihilationism, I think the focus on “eternal suffering,” “everlasting contempt”, “everlasting destruction”, and other such phrases are not throw away lines. Rather, it seems many of these passages emphasize that this is a suffering that is endless in duration and that both the wicked and righteous will be aware of this fact. Not to mention the parable Jesus tells of the rich man and Lazarus. While clearly it is a parable, and not likely a narrative, still it seems to give some indication as to the mindset of Jesus regarding punishment in the life to come.
Then, when you add this evidence with the overwhelming weight added by the majority perspective of the teachers in the early church, you have much more than a “paper thin” argument. Nothing like what Bell is proposing was ever seen in the church until Origin in the early 200’s and his disciple Gregory of Nyssa. These views were condemned by the church and thus was discredited in the theological tradition of the East. In the West, Augustine’s teaching of hell prevailed without question for centuries. Tertullian, Chrysostrom, Hippolytus, Lactantius, Aurelius Augustine, etc. all spoke strongly on the matter…contrasting the eternal bliss of heaven with the eternal conscious punishment of hell. There is a reason it is considered the traditional view of the church, and it isnt because there is no scriptural or historical evidence to substantiate the belief.
Chad,
First off, I’m not arguing for the UR view (or for pluralism, which completely different from UR, though they tend to get conflated in Evangelical discussion). Certainly Origen, Clement of Alexandria and Gregory of Nyssa believed UR was a possibility (there is some suggestion that they didn’t teach this as their exclusive view), in the second century. It wasn’t until 300 years after they were gone that the UR view was declared heretical. If you’re wanting to hang your hat on Augustine, he didn’t show up until the 5th century. If anything about pereschatology is clear in the early church, it is that the incarnation of the afterlife wasn’t the selling point of the Gospel.
The pereschatology tradition of the Eastern church is radically different than any of the West’s “traditional” views, and could actually be considered an amalgamation of all of them, to some degree. [The Eastern Orthodox church does not see that heaven and hell are separate places, but rather seperate experiences of the common destination of all humanity. They say that all are resurrected in the presence of God and refined in His fire, with the most wicked completely burned away. “Second chances” are irrelevant, because the EO church sees it as a fluid experience from life to death.]
To say, though, that the UR view has a “complete lack of verses that suggest universalism, post-mortum repentence, etc.” is rather inaccurate, as well. UR supporters would point to a number of Paul’s writings about the reconciliation/restoration of “all things”, and to I Cor 15 (which some would suggest speaks of baptism for the dead). I think it would be more accurate to say that our tradition would have a different (and I believe more accurate) interpretation of Scriptures that others might use to support the UR view. Bell even states that there are many problems with the UR view, and that his belief in God’s gift of Libertarian Free Will would contradict the UR view.
As you accurately point out – ALL of the passages you reference would just as easily (and probably more accurately, IMO) support annihilationism. “Everlasting destruction”, “everlasting contempt” (for which having one’s name forgotten from history/erased from the book of life would fit), etc. are quite easily descriptions of destruction rather than immortality in torment. Also (if we’re going to take snippets of Rev. literally – an assumption, itself, up for debate), the only beings destined for “eternal torment” in Rev 20 are the beast and the false prophet, who are called out separately. The rest who are thrown into the lake of fire are described as receiving a “second death”.
As for The Rich Man and Lazarus, Jesus identified Hades/Sheol as the setting of the parable – which is the destination of all humanity prior to the final judgment. In the Jewish view/mythos of the first century, Sheol was divided into two parts – Paradise/The Bosom of Abraham and Gehenna/Hades – where the dead were segragated by God between the good and the wicked to wait for God’s final judgment. So even if it were not a parable, this passage clearly does not refer to an eternal destination in any form whatsoever, because it’s setting is after death but prior to the final judgment.
The Biblical support for the ECT view is truly paper thin because Scripture doesn’t support the idea that all souls are innately immortal – a thoroughly Greek idea.
Part of the problem we face when we say we are going to approach an issue “only from Scripture” is that there are an awful lot of things that provide context that aren’t explicitly in Scripture – things we often just call “the culture”. If we don’t have the original context in mind, we bring our own context into our interpretation of Scripture – completely missing that we’ve added something that was never there.
In this case, Jesus’ original audience had a cultural context that believed that the soul was NOT innately immortal, but that it rested with the body in Sheol until the time of judgment, after which the souls of the faithful were brought directly to the presence of God, the remaining souls were punished for a short time (and then brought into the presence of God), and the souls of the fully wicked (a small number) ceased to exist. It was a model that assumed that eternal life was a gift given by God, and those who did not receive it were dead for eternity.
Jesus’ words all fit within that context. All of them.
We, in the West, bring our own context to the conversation – based on the Greek roots of our culture and our church traditions based in those roots – and assume that all souls are immortal and that the souls of those we were not faithful in life will continue to exist after the judgment in eternal conscious torment. They also (per Augustine and others) bring in a great deal of dualistic thinking that wasn’t present in the Hebrew culture.
This causes a number of conflicts when we try to lay out a certainty around ECT: directly with Scripture, logically with the nature of God, and in the presentation of the Gospel.
Just to give one of the references to support the idea that immortality is not the innate human condition. From Paul’s second letter to Timothy:
This suggests that immortality is not an innate feature of our beings, but rather that it was brought to light through the gospel (which would imply that those who reject the light of the gospel would also not have “eternal life”).
Chris,
Thanks for the reply. A few quick thoughts:
1) I would like to point out that I am not arguing for the immortality of the soul (although you pointed out that the Hebrew perspective according to Jesus is a conscious existence in sheol (Abraham’s bosom and torment)… so I’m not sure what your beef is here). My point is that I am arguing for the bodily resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous and an eternal judgment on those in these resurrected states. Some who are resurrected will be raised for punishment….this is not a state of the soul..but of a resurrected body. So I dont think my arguments are skewed by modern context but are shaped by the historical and biblical contexts themselves.
2) Revelation very clearly speaks of not only the false prophet and beast going to hell, but the devil and people as well:
It is very clear in Revelation that the “second death” is “the fiery lake of buring sulfur” (cf. Rev. 20:14; 21:8).
“But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars””their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.” Re 21:8.
“The “second death” (which is the fiery lake of burning sulfur) is referred to many times as a punishment not only for the beast and false prophet, but for the devil and people as well.”
“And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” Re 20:10.
“He who overcomes will not be hurt at all by the second death.” Rev. 2:11
“Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them” Re 20:6.
“Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone”™s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” Re 20:14-15.
So you are clearly mistaken here. We do not even have to look to Matthew 25 with this regard. Revelation spells it out quite clearly.
3) Augustine was baptised in the late 4th century (386 I think) and continued in ministry into the 5th century. However, as you know, most of the earlier Christian writings were apologies against heresies such as Gnosticism and defending their practices against the false accusations by many pagans (i.e. athiesm, cannibalism, incest, etc.). So Augustine is, in fact, a very early figure in discussing matters of this regard as it was not even considered legal to be a Christian in the Roman empire until the Edict of Milan in 313. However, as I pointed out, those early church fathers who did write on such matters clearly held the view of ECT. Augustine merely taught extensively on the matter in the West which revealed what the church already believed on the matter.
Again, this argument against early church teachings is similar to those who strive to work against the canon of Scripture saying it was not established until the 4th century. However, as you know, there was already a consensus on the matter well prior to that, but the councils and teachings on the matter only established what was already believed with clarity to counteract false teachings (or false gospels).
4) I am not opposed to your belief about final judgment. Clearly this is a debatable matter (so I wont even go into the issues on “eternal destruction” here because it is besides the point). My point in this whole discussion is Rob Bell’s approach in this book. He clearly portrays the mainstream view of hell as “not a very good story” and throws out other suggestions as acceptable…such as universalism and so forth. Regardless of whether or not Bell claims to be a universalist, his whole point in looking to Origen and misquoting Augustine and Luther is to make it appear that universalism is a valid, orthodox approach. He does the same with post mortum repentence, etc. This is simply a false representation of orthodoxy and a very harsh, slanted presentation of traditional views on ECT. That is the point of my writing…not to argue for ECT, but that Bell’s writing is deceptive in its history, claims and argumentation. It misleads people to veiw the unorthodox as orthodox. This is not a new discussion, but one that has been going on for thousands of years, and one in which Bell’s options have always been deemed as dangerous and highly unorthodox.
My point is that Sheol only exists in this age – not the age to come. Sheol is eliminated at the end of this age (per the same section of Revelation you quotes), and those who are not in the book of life experience the “second death”. Jesus’ story of the Rich Man and Lazarus is not set in eternity, but in the current age, prior to the final judgment.
But the Bible doesn’t state anywhere that those whose names are not in the book of life receive eternal life after the final judgment. It does say, though, that they receive a “second death”.
But they, indeed, are (with “modern” being a product of Hellenism). Where does it say that the resurrected bodies of those whose names are not found in the book of life receive eternal life – albeit an eternal life in torture?
Nowhere. It is a product of Hellenism that assumes that the being of a person continues in eternity, which in the Hebrew context never existed.
Actually, the verses you cite here make my point for me (and I would point out that none of them speak of “hell”).
If you go back and read that section of Revelation, along w/ Matthew 25, you will note that it is stated that the fire was prepared for “the devil and his angels” – which pulls from the Book of Enoch the concept of an eternal prison prepared for angels (not humans), and only the beast and the false prophet are singled out as being tormented “day and night for ever and ever” there (which was a punishment for fallen angels, only, according to the Book of Enoch). So the beast and the false prophet are basically being given the punishment of fallen angels.
The fate of those whose names are not written in the book of life, though, come later in the passage, right after the lake of fire has destroyed Death and Hades – and is called “the second death”. So it’s pretty funny that to argue for ECT, you must argue that a literal entity (the lake of fire) which just destroyed two abstract entities (death and Hades) and is NOT a “second death”, but eternal life in torment. Talk about twisted hermeneutics!
I’ll take it a bit more straightforward – it says that “death and Hades” (i.e. the exiting of our temporal life into a temporary holding place, awaiting the final judgment) were thrown into the LoF and have been destroyed. In the very next verse, the LoF is the “second death”. So – I could decide that “second death” actually means “eternally alive, but in torment”. Or, I can take the straightforward commonsense interpretation that the “second death” must be different than “death and Hades” (which were destroyed), but also experientially close enough to “death” that “second death” would have meaning to me similar to “death” (i.e. a cessation of existence for which there is no Sheol/Hades to house one afterward).
I agree, though with opposite conclusions. (Perhaps demanding “clarity” from apocalyptic literature isn’t a route that we should dogmatically pursue? Just a possibility.)
Actually, they were all over the map, and it depended (literally) where they were located on the map as to where they landed. Those in Egypt/Alexandria (like Origen) did not favor ECT. Those in the West (like Augustine) favored ECT (and double-predestination and a number of other ideas that we don’t hold, I’d point out). Those in the East had radically different views from these two (which we see in the Eastern Orthodox faith, today).
There were three primary groups in the early church, based upon their primary language-roots. We in the west come from the Greek/Roman church, whose roots were in Latin & Greek, the eastern church came from the branch with Aramaic language roots, and the African/Coptic churches were those w/ the Coptic linguistic roots. With languages come all sorts of baggage (including mythologies, cultures, etc.) The schisms that broke off the Coptic and Eastern branches of the church produced churches that have vastly different views of Christianity and the afterlife than we in the Western church have. Only the Western church settled on ECT, and that was arguably a function of their Hellenistic culture, not simply biblical theology.
Now – I will agree that Bell made hash of the western basis of Universal Reconciliation, though he did point out that there are a number of objections one might have with it. The thing is, he ultimately argues against it with his support of libertarian free will. Personally, I have much less a hard time with a Christian who holds out UR as a possibility than I do with a Christian who demands that ECT is a certainty (to Bell’s point).
If someone rejects Christianity because they believe that they will have a second chance after death, that is no worse than someone who rejects Christianity because they cannot accept that God would torture people for eternity. Either way, though, this is a false choice, because we’re not called to follow Christ to avoid an eternal fate of some sort. We’re called to follow Christ in order to be a light in the darkness of the world. Today.
Now, you can say that you do not believe that the Gospel is simply “fire insurance”, but if this is true, then why are you so interested in the question of second chances?
Dangerous? Hardly.
Highly Unorthodox? I’ll believe that when I see Evangelical book burnings of C.S. Lewis and Billy Graham.
Chris,
Revelation describes the lake of sulfur as the second death. We agree on this. Revelation 20:10 says that the devil, the beast and the prophet were all thrown into this location where they are tormented forever (not just the beast and prophet..you are simply incorrect here). It is also spelled out clearly that people will also be cast into this location. Now for one who wants to be hermeneutically proper in your approach to scripture (and namely apocalyptic literature in this case) I find it odd that you want to argue for a wooden image of “second death” as one of non-existence when clearly that lake of fire has elsewhere been described in the very words of John in this book as ongoing torment (not to mention you indicate that Sheol can be understood as a place of awareness…not non-existence). Nothing in Revelation indicates that the punishment of people in this second death/lake of fire is different than that of the Devil, beast and false prophet. In fact, in Revelation 20:14 makes it clear in the Greek that this lake is named “the second death” and not that people or evil go into non-existence. The Greek literally says, “This the second death is, the lake of fire.”
Also, you seem to be quick to attack the supposed presuppositions of a church influenced by hellenism (which began back in the days of Alexander and was not a post early church influence) and yet you yourself are quick to explain phrases such as “eternal contempt” as merely having ones name erased from history as though this is a given based on literary and historical understanding. My point is simply that it seems a bit haughty to put on as though you are walking some hermeneutical tightrope that the overwhelming majority of the Church today and throughout history has missed and that you are basing all your assumptions and historical hebraic thought whereas the majority of the Church is decieved by Hellenistic additions and manipulations.
It seems somewhat irrelevent what you are arguing with regards to Hebraic thought and Hellenistic thought on the soul and the Christian doctrine of ECT. It is simply incorrect to argue that Platonism is the root of such doctrines. While the Hebrews did not teach on immortality as a natural quality of the soul as did the Greeks, they certainly did have writings and teachings that suggested the immortality of the soul as a reward for the righteous (see Fourth Maccabees 14:6; 18:23) and eternal torment of the ungodly as seen in 2 Esdras 7:75ff as well as the text below.
“The pit of torment shall appear, and opposite it shall be the place of rest; and the furnace of hell shall be disclosed, and opposite it the paradise of delight. 37 Then the Most High will say to the nations that have been raised from the dead, “˜Look now, and understand whom you have denied, whom you have not served, whose commandments you have despised. 38 Look on this side and on that; here are delight and rest, and there are fire and torments.”™ Thus he will speak to them on the day of judgment””” 2 Esd 7:36″“38.
So to suggest that ECT is merely the product of Hellenism is simply a poor argument. Clearly the dominant teaching (if we could suggest such a thing among Hebrew theology) was one that rejected the resurrection or any reward or punishment at all. In fact, the Sirach claims that one a person, good or bad, enters the underworld, they maintain a shadowy existence without reward or punishment! Thus, one could just as easily argue that your view of any afterlife judgment is a product of Hellenism and all the Biblical texts which make such assertions are merely symbolic and understood by the Hebrew mind as hyperbolic exhortations. Again, trying to use a common Hebrew understanding to undermine early church teaching on judgement is nothing but a straw man. There simply was no uniform Jewish doctrine on the matter and the closest we get to such a uniform view resembles nothing of NT teaching!
Perhaps Bell argues against Universal Reconciliation by his free-will discussion, but it seems more likely to me from my reading of the book that he is throwing a bunch of options against the wall and hoping something will stick…anything but a traditional view that is. After all, that does seem to be the point. He is trying to give a bunch of options of how love wins and how there are plenty of orthodox options other than one which poses a cruel, tyrant God which makes people suffer forever. But the problem is, these options are not orthodox. Do I really need to break out a laundry list of quotes and church council statements to prove the point that UR and free-will options that carry on post-mortum are unorthodox?
Finally, I see you are once again trying to draw connections where there are none. Billy Graham and CS Lewish did not argue for universalism or post-mortum repentence. They may have argued for the possibility of grace for those who have never heard the gospel, but this is a different matter altogether as you well know.
Chad – I think you’re conflating the postmortem process described in Scripture:
1) You live
2) You die
3) You exist in Sheol (possibly consciously)
4) You are resurrected
5) You are judged & Death (step #2) and Sheol (step #3) are destroyed.
6) You either receive either a) eternal life or b) second death.
With that in mind:
I guess I didn’t think that I ever disagreed that Satan would be cast into the LoF. The beast and the prophet are (most likely) humans, whereas Satan is an angel, which is why I singled them out. Matthew 25:41 and Jewish mythology (ex. the Book of Enoch) both describe this as the place “prepared for the devil and his angels” (who are eternal beings). I agree that the devil is cast here.
[Note: I don’t want to head down this bunny trail, but the purpose of the LoF is also up for debate. Symbolically, its purpose is either destruction or purification – and “eternal torment” of the devil, beast and false prophet could be a function of either of these.]
From a hermeneutical standpoint, there are a few items of significance:
1) Because the LoF was prepared for angels (not humans), it is significant that the beast and the false prophet were cast there (since there are clues in the text that they may be earthly rulers). Why is this significant? Because they’re given the punishment of fallen angels, not fallen humans. It suggests something about both the beast and false prophet and their punishment that they are lumped in with the devil and given the punishment of angels from Jewish mythology.
2) Typically, in ancient literature, repetition (and lack of repetition) and placement are important. in Rev 20:10, we have the devil, beast and false prophet cast into “the lake of burning sulfur” (limnhn tou puros kai theiou) and tormented. In Rev 20:14-15, we do not have any repetition of “tortured day and night”, but rather the Lake of Fire (in this case limnhn tou puros), described as “second death”, and then described as the destination of those who were not found in the book of life. The word for sulfur (theiou) is also rooted in the word for God, and has the linkage (described above) to angelic punishment. This word is NOT used in Rev 20:14-15, but the function of the lake is re-described (destroying death and hades, and as “second death”) before mass humans are cast into it.
Note that Sheol is in Step #3, above, and is destroyed in Step #5 and no longer in existence in Step #6.
Jesus’ culture – ancient Israel – was actively opposed to hellenism (aside from the Herodians), and his teaching was to people who were actively opposed to it. His disciples spread the Gospel to a hellenistic world, and just as we lose/change/alter things when we translate from one language to another, it occurs even moreso when we translate from one culture to another. Recognizing that what Jesus spoke, and to whom he spoke it (a primarily Jewish audience) is quite important – especially if we unconsciously use our own cultural context to “fill in the gaps” rather than the original culture.
We in America tend to treat the ECT as the only view the church has ever really had when the other two major branches of the early church (Eastern and Coptic) came to vastly different conclusions. Because we’ve made the “selling point” of the Gospel to be simply fire insurance, we’ve taken this doctrine much farther than the early church fathers did in any of the three branches. Origen wasn’t treated as a heretic until 300 years after his death, once his branch of the church had already split from the Eurasian church.
Not at all. Hellenism IS the root of that doctrine. Hebraic though did see eternal life as the gift to the righteous and destruction as the fate of the unrighteous. The passage you cite is part of the basis of the teaching of Shammai about gehenna/sheol being the place where humanity would be punished for a time (up to a year) and then the wicked destroyed.
The basic Hebrew belief at the time of Jesus was what I described in #’s 1-6 above. The righteous receive eternal life and the unrighteous a second death. Only in our convoluted interpretations does this become “the righteous receive eternal life and the unrighteous don’t receive a second death, but rather eternal life in eternal torment.” I’ll take both the plain reading and the careful grammatical-historical hermeneutic, thank you very much. I could be wrong, but those seem to be the most consistent methods across Scripture.
I’ve always found the truth to be a good argument, myself, so I’ll stick with it.
Not in the hasidim, the strain from which Jesus came. What you describe was the common belief in the Sadducee branch, which Jesus ruled against. Even the most conservative school of the hasidim, the Shammites, believed in an eternal reward after the final judgment. Jesus weighed in on this argument in Matt 22:23-32. (Which really makes my point, again, because Jesus ends up siding with the hasidim view of the afterlife, but never “corrects” them by saying they’ve got conditional immortality all wrong.)
It’s not “hoping something will stick”, but per his original thesis (that treating unbelief in ECT as a denial of Christ is anti-Christian) he was trying to demonstrate that pereschatology is not a settled matter, and that coupling it with the Gospel ends up perverting the Gospel.
Actually, he was demonstrating that, no matter how it pans out, we can say that “love wins”. If hell is eternal and conscious, it is because we chose it (with God’s love granting us that choice). If hell is eventually empty, love wins, because they would have chosen it (via second chances). If hell does not exist after the final judgment, love wins because eternal life was a reward. No matter what happens, love wins.
Which then goes back to his original point – that since love wins after death, the gospel is a way of life – today – and not a waiting room before the “big show”.
(On Libertarian Free Will) – CS Lewis (from the Problem of Pain): There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’
“Finally, it is objected that the ultimate loss of a single soul means the defeat of omnipotence. And so it does. In creating beings with free will, omnipotence from the outset submits to the possibility of such defeat. What you call defeat, I call miracle: for to make things which are not Itself, and thus to become, in a sense, capable of being resisted by its own handiwork, is the most astonishing and unimaginable of all the feats we attribute to the Deity. I willingly believe that the damned are, in one sense, successful, rebels to the end; that the doors of hell are locked on the inside.”
CS Lewis’ book, The Great Divorce, is entirely about the idea of postmortem repentance, and Bell has claimed multiple times in his Q&A’s that his discussion on UR and postmortem repentence in LW was heavily pulled from this work of Lewis’.
I brought up Graham because both Lewis and Graham are inclusive exclusivists (the other primary complaint about LW that gets wrapped up in the discussion on orthodoxy).
Billy Graham: Well, Christianity and being a true believer–you know, I think there’s the Body of Christ. This comes from all the Christian groups around the world, outside the Christian groups. I think everybody that loves Christ, or knows Christ, whether they’re conscious of it or not, they’re members of the Body of Christ. And I don’t think that we’re going to see a great sweeping revival, that will turn the whole world to Christ at any time. I think James answered that, the Apostle James in the first council in Jerusalem, when he said that God’s purpose for this age is to call out a people for His name. And that’s what God is doing today, He’s calling people out of the world for His name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ because they’ve been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don’t have, and they turn to the only light that they have, and I think that they are saved, and that they’re going to be with us in heaven.
Just to build on where I think we disagree (and where the disagreement w/ Bell lies), if we use the process above:
Step 1) You live
All agreed.
Step 2) You die
All agreed.
Step 3) You exist in Sheol (possibly consciously)
All agreed, generally, with disagreement on specifics:
In this step, the hasidim believed that the dead were segregated into Gehenna (the unrighteous and the wicked) and Paradise/Bosom of Abraham (the righteous).
It is also in this step that some segments of Christianity believe that one may be witnessed to by Christ (i.e. receive a second chance). You would disagree completely with this. I would disagree generally, though not with certainty (66% agnostic). Bell would say that it’s a possibility, but not a surety (33% agnostic). UR-adherents would agree with this completely.
Step 4) You are resurrected
All agreed.
Step 5) Death (step #2) and Sheol (step #3) are destroyed, and all people are judged by God
All agreed.
Step 6) You either receive either a) eternal life or b) second death.
All agreed, in general, with differences on who will be in Population (A) and Population (B), and what they will experience.
Population (A):
All agree that Population A will receive eternal life.
A1: The most strict RM position is that Baptized believers will only be in Population (A)
A2: The mainstream RM position is that all Christians and the “feeble” (below age of accountability, mentally infirm, etc.) will be in Population (A)
A3: Inclusivist/Exclusivists’ position is that Christians and many non-Christians called by God through Christ (who may have never known the name of Jesus or his message) will be in Population (A).
A4: The view of the hasidim was that a subset of Population (A) (unblievers) would not immediately enter Population (A), but would first be punished for up to a year before entering Population (A).
A5: The UR view is that the righteous will be in Population (A), and that the rest of humanity will undergo some sort of punishment in Step #3, along with being witnessed to by Christ, such that all will be in Population (A) after the judgment (because they chose Christ in the end).
A6: The Pluralist (“Universalist”) view is that everybody makes it into Population A, regardless, with no need for Christ pre- or postmortem.
I am guessing that you believe A2.
I remain agnostic on who exactly will end up in Population (A), because that is up to God, and it is likely much larger than who I would “pick” by any man-made criteria. I figure it will be A2, A3, or A4 (based on my reading of Scripture).
Bell/Lewis/Graham’s position seems to be A3, with some level of agnosticism between A2, A3, A4 and A5. Most of the screaming tends to come because he includes A5 in the list of possibilities.
Population (B)
B1: The classic Western position (and yours) is that Population (B) will experience eternal, conscious torment.
B2: The view of the hasidim was that Population (B) – “the wicked” – will not inherit eternal life and will return to the dust of the earth in permanent death. This would also be held by Martin Luther and annihilationists.
B3: The view of the Eastern Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox churches is that Population (B) will be in the same place as Population (A), with all that is not of God “burned away” (such that some may cease to exist, but that most unbelievers will experience torment in that their sinful desires can no longer be indulged).
B4: The view of UR’s and the Pluralist/Universalists is that nobody will end up in Population (B).
You seem to hold B1 with certainty.
I would remain agnostic, in terms of certainty, but say that B2 is most likely (based on my reading of Scripture).
Bell would remain completely and purposely agnostic on what Population B looks like and experiences, because it is not the focus of the Gospel, and we don’t need to know it in order to live as Jesus taught.
Chris,
I hope you can take the position in this discussion as one of an open scholarly discussion where we examine various documents and works on the matter and not a dogmatic digging-in as it appears thus far. Comments like, “I”™ve always found the truth to be a good argument, myself, so I”™ll stick with it” really do nothing but make the discussion sound distasteful and argumentative rather than providing materials and rationale to show why your views are more acceptable. I am not a novice on these topics and would appreciate if you sought to substantiate your comments rather than the “I know more than you and that settles it” type of approach. Comparing degrees and titles is foolish so I have no intention of doing so, but I can assure you that I have plenty of education and so I hope we can carry forth with mutual respect.
As far as the foundation of the bulk of your argument that Jesus agreed with the Hasidim camp, the Hebrews never taught ECT as part of final judgement and this perspective was derived from Hellenism, I simply must respectfully disagree. This is just simply not the consensus view of scholars to say the least. Pardon the lengthy quote below, but I think the entire context will be helpful for our discussion.
“Leaving aside the teaching of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigraphic Writings (to which Dr. Pusey has sufficiently referred), the first Rabbinic utterances come to us from the time immediately before that of Christ, from the Schools of Shammai and Hillel (Rosh haSh. 16 b last four lines, and 17 a). The former arranged all mankind into three classes: the perfectly righteous, who are “˜immediately written and sealed to eternal life;”™ the perfectly wicked, who are “˜immediately written and sealed to Gehenna;”™ and an intermediate class, who “˜go down to Gehinnom, and moan, and come up again,”™ according to Zech. 13:9, and which seemed also indicated in certain words in the Song of Hannah (1 Sam. 2:6.) The careful reader will notice that this statement implies belief in Eternal Punishment on the part of the School of Shammai. For (1) The perfectly wicked are spoken of as “˜written and sealed unto Gehenna; (2) The School of Shammai expressly quotes, in support of what it teaches about these wicked, Dan. 12:2, a passage which undoubtedly refers to the final judgment after the Resurrection; (3) The perfectly wicked, so punished, are expressly distinguished from the third, or intermediate class, who merely “˜go down to Gehinnom,”™ but are not “˜written and sealed,”™ and “˜come up again.”™
Substantially the same, as regards Eternity of Punishment, is the view of the School of Hillel (u. s. 17 a). In regard to sinners of Israel and of the Gentiles it teaches, indeed, that they are tormented in Gehenna for twelve months, after which their bodies and souls are burnt up and scattered as dust under the feet of the righteous; but it significantly excepts from this number certain classes of transgressors “˜who go down to Gehinnom and are punished there to ages of ages.”™ That the Niphal form of the verb used, × ×™×“×•× ×™×Ÿ; must mean “˜punished”™ and not “˜judged,”™ appears, not only from the context, but from the use of the same word and form in the same tractate (Rosh haSh. 12 a, lines 7 &c. from top), when it is said of the generation of the Flood that “˜they were punished”™””surely not “˜judged”™””by “˜hot water.”™ However, therefore, the School of Hillel might accentuate the mercy of God, or limit the number of those who would suffer Eternal Punishment, it did teach Eternal Punishment in the case of some. And this is the point in question.
But, since the Schools of Shammai and Hillel represented the theological teaching in the time of Christ and His Apostles, it follows, that the doctrine of Eternal Punishment was that held in the days of our Lord, however it may afterwards have been modified. Here, so far as this book is concerned, we might rest the case. But, for completeness”™ sake it will be better to follow the historical development of Jewish theological teaching, at least a certain distance.
The doctrine of the Eternity of Punishments seems to have been held by the Synagogue throughout the whole first century of our era. This will appear from the sayings of the Teachers who flourished during its course. The Jewish Parable of the fate of those who had not kept their festive garments in readiness or appeared in such as were not clean (Shabb. 152 b, 153 a) has been already quoted in our exposition of the Parables of the Man without the Wedding-garment and of the Ten Virgins. But we have more than this. We are told (Ber. 28 b) that, when that great Rabbinic authority of the first century, Rabbi Jochanan ben Zakkai”””˜the light of Israel, the right hand pillar, the mighty hammer”™””lay a dying and wept, he accounted for his tears by fear as to his fate in judgment, illustrating the danger by the contrast of punishment by an earthly king “˜whose bonds are not eternal bonds nor his death eternal death,”™ while as regarded God and His judgment: “˜if He is angry with me, His Wrath is an Eternal Wrath, if He binds me in fetters, His fetters are Eternal letters, and if He kills me, His death is an Eternal Death.”™ In the same direction is this saying of another great Rabbi of the first century, Elieser (Shabb., 152 b, about the middle), to the effect that “˜the souls of the righteous are hidden under the throne of glory,”™ while those of the wicked were to be bound and in unrest (זוממות והולכות), one Angel hurling them to another from one end of the world to the other””of which latter strange idea he saw confirmation in 1 Sam. 25:29. To the fate of the righteous applied, among other beautiful passages, Is. 57:2, to that of the wicked Is. 57:21. Evidently, the views of the Rabbis of the first century were in strict accordance with those of Shammai and Hillel.”
Alfred Edersheim, vol. 2, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (Bellingham, WA: 1896), 1061-62.
If nothing else, this clearly shows that some Hebrews clearly taught and believed in ECT and that the NT and early church fathers reflected this theology.
Finally, I have read the Bell’s book in careful detail. When I make a comment on what I believe Bell to be saying and you disagree, I would appreciate if you explain why and perhaps even quote or point to a page number. To simply disagree and say, “Hes not saying that, hes saying…” is not really helpful.
“Loving one moment, vicious the next. Kind and compassionate, only to become cruel and relentless in the blink of an eye. Does God become totally different the moment you die? That kind of God is simply devastating. Psychologically crushing. We cant bear it. No one can. And that is the deep secret in the heart of many people, especially Christians; they dont love God. They cant, becaue the God theyve been presented with and taught about cant be loved. That God is terrifying and tramatazing and unbearable….if your God is loving one second and cruel the next, if your God will punish people for all eternity for sins committed in a few short years, no amount of clever marketing or compelling language or good music or great coffee will be able to disguise that one, true, glaring, untenable, unacceptable awful reality.”
Now you may suggest he’s not slamming and discounting ECT as a possible view, saying, “Actually, he was demonstrating that, no matter how it pans out, we can say that “love wins”. If hell is eternal and conscious, it is because we chose it (with God”™s love granting us that choice)” That is not what I see as the very clear, slanted presentation he is making. Gotta run, reply to the rest later.
Chris,
As for CS Lewis’ book, The Great Divorce, this is quite a stretch. The book is more of a modern rendition of Dante’s Divine Comedy and Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress. It is a story picturing a journey from Hell to Heaven which ultimately turns out to be a dream and the book is really more a contrast of two destinies and the importance of repentence to bring one to the joys of heaven. In any case, it is a work of fiction, and using this to try to point to a theological perspective of Lewis is like trying to argue that he held a ransom view of atonement based on Aslands interaction with the witch in the Chronicles of Narnia. No where in his actual theological writings does he make such claims for post-mortum repentence. That is quite clear.
As to the other CS Lewis quote, what is clear here in context is that he is not saying that such persons in hell are able to unlock the door and enter heaven. It is true “in one sense” they themselves were successful rebels and locked themselves away from God, but yet in another sense that once consigned to this punishment they have sealed their fate. Lewis believed firmly in hell and taught nothing in accordance with Bell’s posturings. He also writes in that very book,
“Some will not be redeemed. [The doctrine of Hell] …. has the full support of Scripture and, specially, of Our Lord’s own words; it has always been held by Christendom; and it has the support of reason. If a game is played, it must be possible to lose it. If the happiness of a creature lies in self-surrender, no one can make that surrender but himself (though many can help him to make it) and he may refuse.”
“The problem is not simply that of a God who consigns some of His creatures to final ruin. …. Christianity, true, as always, to the complexity of the real, presents us with something knottier and more ambiguous””a God so full of mercy that He becomes man and dies by torture to avert that final ruin from His creatures, and who yet, where that heroic remedy fails, seems unwilling, or even unable, to arrest the ruin by an act of mere power. I said glibly a moment ago that I would pay “any price” to remove this doctrine. I lied. I could not pay one-thousandth part of the price that God has already paid to remove the fact. And here is the real problem: so much mercy, yet still there is Hell.”
Perhaps CS Lewis believed that if a person died in rebellion, they would maintain such a posture for eternity. However, one thing is clear, CS Lewis taught there was a hell, and there is no concept teaching here that the concept of Hell is unreasonable nor that there is the potential to leave hell once one has entered it.
As for Billy Graham, it is true that he has made comments in the more recent years such as that one that are not consistent with mainstream Christian teaching, and I disagree with him strongly in this regard. However, again, this is speaking of the fate of those who have never heard and not regarding people (such as Gandhi) who have heard and rejected the atoning work of Christ, and yet still may likely either be in heaven, or have opportunities to enter heaven in the life here-after. This is a colossal difference as I have noted many times already.
Finally, the difference between such quotes you point to and what Bell has done in his book is that Bell not only poses far more liberal positions on hell and life after death, but that he undermines traditional teachings of hell and judgment as though they point to a duplicitious God. Billy is pondering a possibility…perhaps a hope. Bell is clearly on the attack. I know you dont read it that way, but millions do..and I think rightly so. Bell takes things out of context, provides slanted, one-sided rationale that such views of hell make God appear schitzophrenic, and then offers alternatives that are way outside the realm of orthodoxy and argues for their rationality and historical validity. Huge differences here. Huge.
Chad – sorry for the snarky reply above.
I would cite most of the same passages as Edersheim to demonstrate that the majority view was not in ECT for all unbelievers, and that even the hasidim who held the view that ECT was a possibility only held it to be so for the most wicked (a small number). I would suggest The Death of Death and/or Jewish views of the Afterlife, which examine the Jewish view (throughout history, with some focus on the Second Temple period and the hasidim).
To take Edersheim’s comments as proof that the first century majority report on the afterlife in Jesus’ culture was ECT for all unbelievers would be like me, two thousand years from now, pointing to Brian MacLaren as proof that 20th Century Christianity was pro-abortion. It just doesn’t wash. Certainly the non-Christian world around us tends to be pro-abortion, and some in the church are, but the vast majority do not. If the church were to become predominantly pro-abortion, I would be quite accurate to say that the pro-abortion stance of the church was a product of postmodern culture, not Christian belief.
In the same way, to say that the majority view in the first-century religious Jewish community was that ECT is the destiny of all unbelievers (the “intermediate class” and the “wicked”) would be absolutely and utterly wrong. It is quite easy to demonstrate (from Plato, as you note, and others) that the majority view in Hellenism was in ECT for most (if not all) of humanity. That the Western/Roman church gradually adopted the Hellenistic view over the one from Jesus’ culture is rather obvious.
The term “second death” was a loaded term, as well, that we can find in a number of First Century targums. For example, if you look at the Targum for Jeremiah 51, the “second death” is the punishment for the unrighteous who “will not live in the world to come”. Other Targums suggest that those who suffer the “second death” are not given physical bodies, but are simply judged by God and cease to exist.
Nowhere do we have a suggestion that, in Jesus culture, the view of the afterlife was “the righteous go to heaven and everyone else experiences eternal conscious torment”. Nowhere. And Jesus says nothing to “correct” this view, aligning it with the secular Hellenistic view of the Roman Empire, later adopted by the Roman church.
Part of the problem in following this method is that, in many cases, I would have to cite the entire chapter. Bell’s writing style is almost identical to his speaking style – which is to use multiple voices (representing differing views or differing presentations of the same views) in a conversation, sometimes (as you would expect) contradicting one another.
I’ve read the book a few times now, but I’ve also listened to a number of lectures where he specifically answers questions about the topics he brought up in the book, or summarizes his view for the audience. Probably one of the best, concise ones is the Denver Seminary one I linked to, above. In the case of ECT, the passage you quoted was one particular presentation of ECT – part of the reason Bell goes down the different lines (and my apologies, but I don’t carry LW with me everywhere) of thought around free will (like with people choosing to become “less and less human” to where they would never want to change their direction) is part of his demonstrating that no matter what hell exists after death, it was their choice (via God’s love and lack of coercion) that resulted in their fate – not a schizophrenic god that some present Him as, when presenting an eternal hell.
So, when I say “I’ll take Rob at his word that this is what he believes/meant” it is because I’ve heard him say it, and I’ve got no reason to suggest that he’s lying about what he believes. (A friend of mine, who has served on staff at MHBC w/ Rob, noted the other day that a follow-up guide of some sort is being published by Rob, and may specifically deal with some of the misunderstandings and/or lack of explanations from LW, BtW).
This is the point Bell makes, in LW, as well, and the primary reason he argues with UR (which he notes that “there are many” objections one may have with UR (p. 101, I believe)). I wonder why it is, though, that some folks feel that, just because Bell brought up the UR view that he must fully deconstruct it and show it to be false?
Again, I would ask the question, if you don’t believe that the Gospel is simply “fire insurance”, then why does it matter if we get a second chance postmortem or not?
And you haven’t even begun to address the Eastern Orthodox church, which sees no literal hell as we in the West teach, but rather one’s individual experience with the presence of God. Bell’s agnosticism on hell is so offensive to you, then 2000 years of EO teaching ought to be an out of the park infraction.
Liberal? Not as we in the RM have defined Liberal (and split from) in the 20th/21st centuries. This is not some watered down “I’m Ok, you’re OK” puppies and unicorns UCC argument from 1920. “Liberal” is becoming to be just a boogeyman that means “a teaching I don’t like”. Let’s not even start down that road.
Actually, what he describes (a focus on urgently living the gospel today without trying to couple it to what you speculate will happen after you die) is something that we should all embrace. The way God is often presented today in America IS duplicitous, and Steve Chalke’s description of the common presentation of SPA as “divine child abuse” is right on the money. That may be offensive to us, but our reason for offense ought to be at our own laziness in demanding certainty over humility and pronouncement over debate when it comes to matters like this.
All of the caterwauling about Bell (and others) view of secondary matters, like perseschatology, and cries of “heretic” do nothing but demonstrate to the world why they would never want to become a Christian.
I would hope so. Churches like Mars Hill and many Restoration Movement churches, as well, tend to get the folks who have suffered the abuse of heresy hunters and Reformed churches in search of “doctrinal purity”. Bell has stated in several venues that “Love Wins” is primarily aimed at people who have left the church – or never given it a chance – because of the puritanical closed-mindedness with which parts of it pursue nonessential matters.
Grand Rapids sits right in the middle of Dutch Reformed hell, where there is a Reformed church of 100 folks on most every street corner because they are constantly splitting over the stupidest of theological arguments. And they’re pretty good at running those who question them out on a rail.
The doctrine of hell is a nonessential, and should have absolutely nothing to do with how we live. Whether it is ETC, annihilation, EO experiential, or UR should not matter in how we live or spread the Gospel. That we treat ETC as an essential belief required for orthodoxy is a damnation unto itself.
So Bell is right to be on attack against that.
Sorry to post yet again, but I do not want to ignore some of your points. Perhaps you can provide more clarity as to how the Orthodox views of hell provide validity for Bell’s propositions. As you know, the entire theological framework of the Orthodox Church is quite different with regards to the situation of humanity. They do not the world so much as under the guilt and vices of sin and thus objects of God’s wrath in need of cleansing, but those who have refused to embrace the image of God and so are left imprisoned in corruption.
So I agree with you that they see this order reversed in the present through reestablishing union with God by and putting on the divine by the work of Christ, and so their understanding of final judgment and so forth is quite different. They certainly do not see things in the legal sense as we do in the West but more in a relational (or transformational) and experiential sense. However, with regards to the eternal state of those who are not united with God, they experience eternal suffering because his Holy presence before them is, to them, eternal suffering. What the believer sees as Divine glory, the unbeliever sees the fires of hell. Although not all maintain this perspective. Some do hold to the concept of Hell as being cast from the presence of God.
Yet the point of all this is simply to say that while their theology may differ regarding the situation of mankind, how Christ resolves that situation, and the possible location of those not transformed by Christ, this really has little to do with ECT, universalism or post-mortum repentence. For they do believe in ECT. Those not transformed by Christ will suffer eternally, but not as those shut out from the presence of God, but those forced to endure the holiness of God in their corruption (although as I noted, this is not a consensus). If you are referring to their “prayers for the dead” as indication that they believe in post-mortum repentence, this is not the case. The purpose of these prayers is not specifically spelled out. However, even if it were to have some bearing on salvation, it is clearly regarding the saints interceding for others rather than the dead having opportunity to repent post-mortum. However, as I said already, this is not spelled out and therefore not (in my opinion) a valid suggestion that Bell is merely falling in line with Eastern Orthodox teaching. EO’s do believe in the finality of the Final Judgement, ECT, and do not embrace universalism or that people have eternity to change their minds and enter God’s party.
Chris,
Thanks for your reply and sources. I enjoy reading, especially on the historical perspectives, and this discussion has encouraged me to do more looking into ancient views on this topic. I already addressed the EO view, so I’ll just leave that alone.
My point in quoting Edersheim was not to suggest that ECT was the prominent view among Hebrews in the first century. I think most scholars are adament that there is really no such thing as a prominent view on the matter for two reasons: First, there are a plethora of views and a lot of debate on numerous theological ideas. Second, because as you likely know, the Hebrews were far more concerned with orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy. My point is simply to say that is quite established that some Hebrews did hold the view of ECT. Thus, when Jesus makes reference to concepts of the “eternal fires of hell prepared for the devil and his angels” or other such ideas of ongoing suffering, it is safe to say that we cannot write off ECT as though it was foreign to the Hebrews and only thought of by Greeks. We simply cannot say (in my estimation), the Hebrews did not have a doctrine of ECT and therefore it was brought in later by Gentile Christians. Nor can we say, as you did, “the first century Jewish view of the afterlife (which looks more like purgatory with annihilation of only the most wicked), most likely held by the people Jesus was primarily speaking to, was never contradicted by him.” Since we have agreed that some Hebrews did teach ECT, we can dismiss the claim that the first century Jewish view was a consensus view of limited suffing with only the most wicked being annihilated. The fact that Jesus and other NT writers makes statements about the punishment of the wicked which emphasized “eternal” (aionios) fire or suffering could possibly suggest that they are taking sides or even expanding on limited ECT perspectives of the time. After all, this would not be unlike Jesus. He often expanded on their views or even used common stories with changed details to provide a radically different picture than what may have been expected. In any event, I think we can rule out that this type of thinking was foreign (or completely rejected) to first century Hebrews and thus cannot be considered as a way of thinking for Jesus or his hearers. Since it was possible, I think we can then turn to the texts themselves and the views of the early church as a help solving this debate rather than claiming the view was set in stone in the mind of the Hebrews but is not reflected in the teaching of the early church.
My only other thought is that if what you are saying about Bell is correct, then we can simply conclude that he is a much better oral communicator than writer. I mean, he expressly wrote without apology that a view of God who eternally torments people for sins committed over a few short years as an “untenable, unacceptable awful” concept. He does not say anything about certain concepts of ECT, but seems to be very clear in pointing to the doctrine itself and now merely how it is sometimes communicated. Again, this may be what he really means, but I must say that he simply did not communicate this in the book in any way. I myself love emphasizing the love and grace of God and want to highlight that continually and applaud Bell for this emphasis. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt as I do all brothers and sisters in Christ as they teach (as I teach myself and want the same grace). However, I simply could not find anything in his wording to permit me to see his writing this way.
You asked me a question that I do not want to overlook, but I am out of time, so I will reply later today.
Be blessed.
“if you don”™t believe that the Gospel is simply “fire insurance”, then why does it matter if we get a second chance postmortem or not?”
I appreciate the question and apologize if I missed it before. Let me first start with this: As I read Scripture, I find often a multi-layered or multi-angled approach to the rationale for accepting and clinging to the Gospel. One such example, as I am sure you are aware, is in Hebrews 9-10. The author of Hebrews powerfully examines the work of Christ on the cross and the freedom of conscience it provides and how Christ’s blood provides salvation and opportunity to go boldly before the throne of Grace. So the love of God in Christ’s cross is a focus issue.
Yet the discussion does not stop there. The author of Hebrews then goes on with challenges and warnings that his audience (believers in my estimation) should not shrink back or lose confidence in this blood for there is no sacrifice left once one abandons faith in Christ. All is left is “fearful judgment,” “raging fire” and “severe” punishment for such people. For “it is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God.”
My point is simply this: I do not see this discussion as an either/or matter. We do not have to only side on God’s love and grace or on God’s holiness and judgment. Both are brought fourth by the NT authors as compelling evidence to come to faith and to stay in the faith.
So to answer the question of “why does it matter if we get a second chance?” This section in Hebrews is just a sampling of many other like sections in Scripture where there is a great imperative of accepting and clinging to the grace of God in Christ. Not only because of the life, hope, joy, peace, purpose and salvation it brings, but also because of the dire consequences of spurning that grace and considering the blood of Christ an unholy, or insignificant thing. These promises and warnings exist for a reason, and it is not to blur the lines of what might transpire after death, but to clarify. Jesus was clear with the Pharisees that if they would not believe they would certainly die in their sins, which seemed to clarify an imperitive call to repentence in that moment. For if they carried on as they were, they would go to the grave in a sinful condition which was clearly one of grave consequence. So we do not see in the preaching of the apostles or in the teaching in the epistles this hope that though they reject in this life, hopefully they may accept in the next. Paul told his hearers, “”We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles.” To reject the message is to reject eternal life. I think any other message not only contradicts the imperatives of Scripture, but also dillutes faith in the work of Christ. We are saved by faith…not by dying…seeing and then believing. To sum up, I simply think it is an issue of maintaining the imperatives of scripture and not putting ourselves in a position of giving people the false security of thinking they can go to their grave in rebellion against Christ and still recieve grace and mercy. Jesus didnt teach this, his disciples didnt teach this, the early church did not teach this (and rejected it when it was taught), and so neither should we teach it. We should be faithful with the message given to us, and not allow gaps in our understanding of such matters to construct alternative paths to salvation when God has give no such revelation.
Kind of late to this conversation, but the whole article is from the get-go based on a strawman of what Bell talks about in Love Wins. Actually the article doesn’t really seem much related to anything in the book at all.
Bell clearly teaches we’re all accountable, and that we’ll all stand before God, and that God is both loving and just. I don’t see what the issue is, really.
As far as hell being an impetus to evangelize, I doubt its effectiveness. A negative motivator only works for so long. Even when I believed something closer to a version of hell that was like Dante’s, it didn’t really motivate me to evangelize. It simply made me feel guilty that I wasn’t doing enough. Honestly, I could never do enough. After all, you can only talk to so many people and hand out so many tracks. What if I missed some opportunity? Would that persons eternal destiny be on my hands? I was taught that for many years, and I unfortunately believed it. It wasn’t until later in life that I realized that Father isn’t the harsh taskmaster my Evangelical teachers have made Him out to be, and for that I’m eternally grateful. To me, that’s truly the good news, and, now, I actually have plenty of motivation to share this gospel with people.
Bell’s overall proposition is that the American/Evangelical position on hell (as understood by the hearers, I think it’s important to note – which I think is an important distinction) is not, by any means, the only orthodox view across Christianity. While he alludes to the EO view (more in the section on Heaven, which I think you’d agree is pulled from Surprised by Hope by NT Wright), I know folks who are more solidly in the UR camp point to this view (and the “prayers for the dead”), and that even the EO view doesn’t assume that the experience of the unrighteous in the presence of God isn’t an eternally static experience. God’s presence, as a purifying fire, is active on the individual. Rather than a legal/transactional model (where we talk about “second chances” as transactions/decisions to be made), the experience is fluid and may result in change – where the parts of the individual that are not “burned away” remain.
So, in the EO model, a “second chance” may look more like “infinite second chances” – where the increments aren’t a you’re-in-or-you’re-out thing, but increments in how one experiences the holiness of God.
[Please don’t ask me to defend the EO view, though, as I cannot claim enough interest/study in the area to do it justice. I have some friends in the EO church (one who went to Milligan w/ me) who have patiently explained it to me and answered a number of questions/concerns/curiosities I’ve had with the EO theology and practice.]
I would agree on these counts, though I would also challenge this as a complete caveat because the Gospels provide enough “hints” as to the stream of thought Jesus belonged to (the hasidim, which included the Pharisee and Zealot parties), and that most of his commentaries were on the debates between the School of Shammai (which he only sided w/ in the case of divorce) and the School of Hillel (which he frequently agreed with – or took even more “liberally”, as with the Good Samaritan). Most of Jesus’ teaching we have recorded was within 3-5 miles of Capernaum, and within the Galilee region settled by the hasidim returning from Babylon in the second and third centuries B.C.
As such, we can get a good idea of what the people he taught to most often (and from which all of his disciples likely came) considered “new teaching” (not heretical) and what they considered orthodox. The only idea that ECT would apply to humans was in the case of “the most wicked” – which was reckoned to be less than a dozen, in one account I read – and even there, it was disagreed whether it was ECT or second death.
As you note, Matthew refers to the fire “prepared for the devil and his angels” – which has a rich history, as well, and is somewhat analogous to Tartarus. It is something never intended for humans, where humans could not survive – a place where angels would be punished for rebelling against God. For John to bring in “second death” isn’t “wooden”, at all, and (as I note above) has loaded meaning behind it, as well. I don’t recall any linkage between “second death” and conscious torment in any first century Jewish literature.
To bring this back to the present debate, perhaps the “prosperity gospel” is a better analogy than pro-life. I think you would agree that the PG, in its current form, is greatly a product of our affluent culture and not a solid Biblical system. Two thousand years from now, if PG was the dominant teaching, we would be wrong to argue that it is correct simply because it is the majority report. Additionally, we would be correct to point out that its roots came not from a careful reading of Scripture, but from the cultural influences around it.
Similarly, ECT was not by any means a common Hebrew view in the Second Temple period, in which Jesus lived, but it WAS the most common secular view of the time. If the people Jesus primarily spoke to (almost all Jews) had it all wrong because they believed (I think it is safe to say) that only a small handful of humanity, at most, might experience eternal torment, I think it would also be safe to say that he would have spent a great deal of time and energy correcting this view, which he didn’t do. Paul’s teaching, even more so, focuses on “death” and “destruction” of the wicked, with no real allusion to ECT.
The difference in opinion was only on whether the “most wicked” would be punished or destroyed. And when teaching about “eternal fire” – it is the fire (a God-symbol) that is eternal, not the objects thrown into the fire. The objects thrown into the fire (depending on the passage) are either consumed or purified. i think you’re mistaking the nature of the fire with the nature of the objects thrown into it.
I wouldn’t disagree with that assessment, at all. Of his books, Sex God is the primary one (usually the only one) I recommend to folks, because I think it hits a lot of topics that are important in applying God’s view of us to the way we view our own sexuality in a way other authors have not. I think Love Wins has a good premise but poor execution in a number of places, which – in listening to the follow-up discussion w/ Bell – becomes pretty clear when he has to answer a number of the same questions every time.
I believe that a Rabbinic style of question/answer/debate works far better in oral format than written format, and that the type of deconstruction he does (using multiple streams of thought as separate “voices”) is far more effective orally. When you’re reading LW, he frequently uses “some say”, “other Christian voices…”, etc., and doesn’t firmly denote which ones he believes. This can work in conversation, but not as well in print.
I would agree, but I’m not sure that preaching a certainty of ECT does any better. When you talk about a “sense of security”, you’re now dealing with motivations. While a subset of the population is motivated by delayed gratification, studies have shown that few are truly motivated by possible future punishment. Bell’s discussion on Matthew 25 in LW (and MHBC’s follow-up sermon on this topic, “When the Bowl Breaks”) stress the urgency in Jesus’ message *today*. If you’ve listened to the Denver seminar linked above, what Bell says is that (paraphrasing) “In Love Wins, I wanted to leave the urgency of our action and the ambiguity of what happens after death in unresolved tension – because that’s where I think Jesus leaves us.”
I would agree – our choices today are urgent today, because they either bring about hell on earth or reflect the kingdom of heaven on earth (“Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven”). We have no control what happens after death, so we just have to trust God and know that whatever happens will be consistent with His love.
Chris,
I certainly would not claim to be an authority on EO teachings either, but from what I have read and understood, there is no doctrine of a post-mortum change from enduring the presence of God as one of wrath to one of light and beauty. From my understanding, the way in which one enters into God’s presence is the way they remain.
Ultimately, that is the real issue here (and this is also directed to you, Phil). It is not just about a motivation of fear (although I would argue that the warnings of Scripture are not arbitrary. God does not highlight wrath for the ungodly as a mere factual reality but as a motivating warning.) It is primarily about the necessity of clothing one’s self with Christ. As RM people, we are probably in agreement that the “sinner’s prayer” is not really found in Scripture. In fact, I would argue that the combination of teaching a “sinner’s prayer”, perseverence of the saints, and lack of discipleship has brought many into the faith with the concept that they can merely jump through a hoop and then live however they want. Certainly a very unbiblical and dangerous way to percieve a relationship with God and faith. I would say a similar thing is taking place here in Bell’s book. Our current culture is enamored with the concept of epistemological humility to the point of relativism in many cases. When we, eager to connect with such audiences, begin down roads where we question the necessity of faith in Christ in our soteriology, then we do a great disservice to our hearers as well as the Word of God. As I mentioned to you before, though I adamently affirm the Scriptural teaching of ECT, I do not claim that the idea of annihilationism is dangerous or strongly unorthodox. So it is not that we have to be overly dogmatic about the nature of duration of the punishment of the wicked (as many such passages are metaphorical), but we must not shrink back on the necessity of faith in Christ. I believe Bell to be either incredibly inept in communicating in the written form or is purposefully attempting to bolster ideas of universalism or post-mortum repentence WHILE undermining ECT at the same time. Again, from the quotes I pointed to before, he doesnt attack certain presentations of ECT, but the very notion.
To return to the Jewish mindset, the points I am trying to establish are simply these:
1) ECT was not foreign to their thinking and seems to be common in both the schools of Hillel and Shammai.
2) The “eternal” nature of the fire then would likely have been understood as ECT as it would make little sense to highlight an “eternal fire” or “contempt” or “torment” if it is primarly speaking of God’s nature as a fire and not the actual torment itself. I think this is especially the case if there was a common understanding that some of the wicked would burn up and then be scattered while the most wicked would endure the flames forever. Why emphasize the enternal nature of the flame, contempt, torment if they were trying to point to the lesser punishment.
3) I think Jesus (as is Edersheim’s point) is emphasizing the punishment of all the wicked in much of his teaching. For instance, on the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus declares that if one does not exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, they will CERTAINLY NOT (ou mey subjunctive) enter the Kingdom of Heaven. He then carries on to highlight the seriousness of sin by saying in essence, not only don’t commit adultery, but dont even lust because if you do, you will be subject to “a fire that is not quenched…where the worm does not cease (quite in contrast to those who are burnt up and scattered)…
Finally, to compare orthodox views on hell and the prosperity Gospel is kinda a head-scratcher to be honest. We are not dealing with concepts that are 20 centuries removed from the early church and reflect the thinking of a wealthy nation in a world of poverty. ECT has been the prominent view of the church throughout church history, across various cultures and people groups, and was the overwhelming majority view of every early church father that ever decided to write on the subject. I think the burden of proof is on you to prove that the earliest Christians, such as Polycarp and others who either knew some of the Apostles directly or were but a generation removed were somehow confused on the topic and allowed Hellenism to influence them more than the Apostles. Personally I believe this has not been done to any degree. I think I have proved without doubt that not only was Hellenism not the root of ECT, that it was established in Hebrew thought in the times of Christ, and also that the earliest Christians held ECT as the prominent view. More than that, I think I have proved that universalism has been utterly shunned by the church whenever it has reared its head and that post-mortum repentence has been considered unorthodox in Church history and is entirely unsupported by Scripture and prominent Christian leaders today. Bell not only attacks ECT as vicious, untenable, cruel, unberable and unacceptable, but lifts up these other views as better options. Again, nowhere in the book does he say he is merely undermining certain presentations of ECT, but the very notion itself. I do not think his writing could be any more clear. If this is not what he means, he should make a public retraction rather than a public defense. I have heard some of his post publication presentations, and I was not at all convinced that he was retracting anything. I will look at the link you provided..but nonetheless…you do not print millions of books to teach on a topic without being held accountable. If you make such attacks against a traditional view of the Church and twist history in the process and exalt unorthodox teaching as more acceptable and then try to defend such a thing. While he may not “believe” all these ideas, he certainly presents them as not only orthodox, but MORE orthodox and Scriptural than ECT. There has been a strong negative response to this by Christian leaders and rightly so.
For clarification…Jesus does in fact say, “You will NEVER enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:20). While it may not exclude annihilaiton, it certainly excludes universalism and post-mortum repentence. And THAT is the issue at hand.
Chris,
I listened to one of the interviews from a link you provided. While Bell is friendly enough and must be commended for his passion for the love of God, it certainly did not change my dislike for his book or his views on a number of these areas. For instance, he speaks of the “purifying” fire of God as though people are innately good. While some may give themselves over to sin and then find there is not much left when they face the purifying fire, it give the impression that people are all innately good and deserving of glory at their core. This is not at all a biblical picture of humanity or the purpose of Jesus. Jesus came to call people to faith and discipleship, not so they can increase their innate goodness and the goodness of the world around them, but to save people whose righteousness is as filthy rags before God. Very different and unorthodox picture of the human condition and the purpose of Christ.
Also, it seemed more like explaining away questions than anything. Clearly he was incorrect on his Greek explaination of “aionios” by suggesting it is not suggestive of an everlasting condition. Yet one would think that humility would call him to say, “Yes, I was a bit off there…but we do agree that perhaps our calander year is not the way we should think of this endless state.” And to write a book that leaves a “tension” of whether or not accepting Jesus is necessary is irresponsible as a supposed Christian leader. Certainly the Jesus was ambiguous about a number of topics, but faith in him was not one of them. So while I admire Bell’s love of proclaiming the love of Jesus, his epistimic humility that leads him to seemingly throw up his hands regarding the importance of faith in Christ and final Judgment is more than disappointing. I certainly would never teach at or attend any school or church that taught such ideas or encourage anyone else to do so. I disagree with the claim that we have “a great deal to learn from him” as the interview said. These arent new ideas, they are historically rejected ideas. We can still emphasize the love of God without throwing out doctrines of God’s hatred for sin and judgment of evil (and I disagree that Christians do not want to look at the mud on their own hands..as Bell portrays…honestly..that mud is what drives us to Christ and why we are thankful and celebrate!).
Chad,
One of the reasons I brought up annihilationism is that the top graphic in this article singles it out, specifically (suggesting that it is heretical, I assume). I would suggest that it is probably closer to the view of the early church (as the fate of the wicked), but that we have created a hard systematic connection (where none exists) between the great commission and a speculative, minority-view of hell (ECT for 99% of the world’s population) and called it “the gospel”, which is simply another gospel altogether. We’ve taken the faith that Jesus lived and practiced (which was heavily weighted, as you note, on orthopraxy and the temporal) and turned it on its head (where it has become all about orthodoxy, heresy, and the eternal).
This article is a perfect example of such thinking.
Let’s look at Matt 5, in context:
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Our view of the afterlife has bupkis to do with the Law or the Prophets – and Jesus’ sermon here is about the kingdom of God/heaven (which arrived with him, 2000 years ago), and (in this passage) deals with personal purity and our inability, without grace, to live by the standards of the kingdom. This has nothing to do with the afterlife or its formation. (Note that his focus is on the “commands”, “the Law” and “the Prophets” – this is about praxis, not doxis.)
Modern Evangelicalism, in many ways, has created a god who, in Matthew 25, when he separates the sheep from the goats institutes a theological purity test, not one that has anything to do with orthopraxy. All this prattle about “dangerous” view of the afterlife is only concerning to those who feel that the Gospel isn’t good enough without the fear of eternal conscious torment and eternity as top billing. We preach about “begin with the end in mind”, as if that were written in the Bible (Steven Covey, a Mormon wrote that, BtW), and our Gospel has become one of pragmatism, rather than life change.
I agree that salvation is a process, not a “sinner’s prayer” step-change that you just try to slip in as late in the game as possible before you die. At the same time, I believe that the process is focused on the temporal (the only thing we can direct/control), leaving the eternal (for myself and for others) completely up to God.
That was my point for bringing up the prosperity gospel. The idea that God might allow unbelievers to suffer earthly consequences of their sins and the righteous to experience earthly blessings for their faithfulness is not foreign to our RM thinking. Even so, were we to elevate this to the degree that the Word-Faith movement has, it would no longer resemble what we believe to be Biblical truth. In the same way, while the hasidim believed that either annihilation or ECT was the destination of “the wicked” (a very very small group of individuals – not analogous with “the unrighteous”), to say that Jesus’ audience would have accepted the idea that the vast majority of humankind was destined for ECT would no longer resemble what they believed to be Biblical truth. The early church fathers were not of one mind as to eternity, and the EO tradition (which does a lot more study into the early church fathers) tends to see the question of transactional salvation and universal reconciliation in the early church (and today) as the wrong questions to ask, because they make too many assumptions about the afterlife, in and of themselves.
Actually, (pulling this from a pastor friend of mine who got his doctorate in Hebrew studies and angelology) fire is exclusively a “God symbol” throughout scripture, and its primary purpose is purification. For angels, who do not have true free will, nor can they repent, their experience in God’s fire is eternal. For humans, though, the purpose of God’s fire is purification (which can be experienced as punishment), but has an endpoint (since humans, in the Hebrew mind, are not innately immortal), where either nothing remains (annihilation) or only that which is protected by the grace of Christ remains.
Paul: For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person”™s work. If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved””even though only as one escaping through the flames.
The Eastern Orthodox church has this view, as well (I’ve done a little research/asked some questions before leaving on vacation). You are correct that they don’t talk about postmortem “conversion” (for a number of reasons – primarily that “conversion” isn’t a transaction, but a process), though they believe that the prayers of the saints may have an impact upon the experience of the dead on the Day of the Lord. Whether the dead may be altered between death and the Day, apart from prayer, “isn’t known”.
Actually, the quote about “where the worm does not die” is a remez directly from Isaiah 66, where the dead bodies of the Assyrian bodies were burned and eaten by maggots. Prior to the (post-Christ) Christian reinterpretation, it was never assumed to describe conscious torment of any sort.
Not at all, by any means whatsoever. It is without a doubt that the Hellenistic/Roman view of the afterlife was that only a select few would be able to navigate the stars to reach heaven, and that all the rest would suffer eternal torment in Hades. The view in Jesus’ culture was that only a very small number would suffer an eternal fate, and that the bulk of humanity would either simply cease to exist (the Sadducees’ belief) or would be undergo a time of punishment before entering the the restored heavens and earth. I think it’s pretty plain which view the church adopted, and that it adopted it in the late third to fifth centuries (the same time period the church fully engaged in antisemetic practice, removing itself from the synagogues and, in some cases, actively persecuting Jews and rejecting anything that appeared Jewish.)
So, while I would agree that the conclusion is “without a reasonable doubt”, I would say that the obvious conclusion is that ECT, as believed by the modern American church, is a product of Hellenism, not the culture Jesus lived and taught in. Obviously.
I would say that he undermines and rejects the perception many/most non-believers (and many believers) have of ECT, where it is God actively punishing individuals for their lack of appropriate orthodox belief for all of eternity. The chapter on hell gives a number of potential explanations of how ECT could exist (as a product of free will). In one of his lectures (I forget which one), he even points out the UR misses the point because even if someone could change their mind after death, there is no action (orthopraxy) they could take based upon it, which still makes eternity based on a theological test of orthodoxy, and not a test of the heart.
I’d say it’s most accurate to say that, in Love Wins, Bell is trying to demonstrate that nailing down the exact morphology of “hell” (whatever its manifestation) is meaningless, in terms of the Gospel, and that trying to do so does more harm than good. It only makes sense that this requires undermining the (currently) most popular view of hell in America, since that view will have the most passion around it. And the fact that (like this article) much of Evangelicalism (which is a population much smaller than “Christian leaders”) has demonstrated hell on earth in its response to Bell is an ultimate irony. So to judge that as “rightly so”, is simply a demonstration of how seductive the forces of hell are here, today. Let’s worry about that plank in the eye rather than the mote of dust in the eye of a preacher in Grand Rapids.
Paul’s pretty clear what the Gospel is, and that list of beliefs is incredibly short.
And hell isn’t part of it.
So caterwauling about whether or not Bell is a “heretic” utterly misses the point.
That’s not what Paul says: “For we are God”™s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” The concept of Tikkun Olam runs throughout Jesus’ teaching, and even more explicitly in Paul’s. Again, when we cheapen the Gospel to become a viral marketing campaign for fire insurance (which is what you’ve described), it is no longer really the Gospel because it has missed a significant portion of its purpose. Our focus on the individual and on eternity (a product of Calvin and of modernism, I would note) has caused us to miss the boat as it pertains to the church and the temporal reality we live in.
I would agree that Bell has probably swung the pendulum too far, but its distance from the center is far closer than where the fundamentalist/envangelical church lies today.
Chris,
I agree with you that the kingdom of heaven arrived with Jesus 2k years ago. But you seem to be going back and forth with this concept. On one hand you suggest that our entrance into the kingdom of heaven as followers of Christ marks the beginning of eternity, and on the other you suggest it has nothing to do with eternity. Which is it?
Again, I think you are putting too much weight on the Hebrew perspectives here. First, we should note that the Hebrews were wrong about a great many things in their theology. Second, we have plenty of records of that early church fathers believed in ECT well before the late 300’s. Third, Edersheim certainly disagrees with your conclusions and also I would encourage you look at David Powys “Hell: A Hard Look at a Hard Question.” In it he goes into great detail on early Hebrew views of ECT and the changes that took place back in the Hasmonean era. In short, he also comes to quite a different perspective on Jewish assumptions in the times of Jesus than you do.
While the Jewish mindset was heavily focused on orthopraxy, this is not the general focus of the early church. As I said before, certainly the NT is full of calls toward changed behavior. However, there is an overwhelming focus on Final Judgment by the early church. This is likely the case for two primary reasons: 1) The heavy persecution and risk of martyrdom the early Christians faced and 2) the focus on the Second Coming of Jesus. The Hebrews though much more in terms of an earthly kingdom on a physical earth whereas the early Christians thought more in terms of a heavenly kindom where this earth would be consumed, purified and reordered at the Second Coming. Furthermore, the NT is absolutely filled with talk of Judgment and being prepared for the coming of Jesus. I am amazed you are even debating this idea. Certainly the NT made a dramatic shift from looking at judgment in merely a temporal sense as did the Hebrews from their history, toward an eschatological judgment that would be brought forth by Jesus at his return. Thus, the calls for servants to “be alert” were always predicated by the perspective that the Master (Jesus) would come back to deal with those good servants (who believed in the Master’s immanent return) and the wicked servants (who thought nothing of that return and so engaged in evil works). It is certainly NOT a focus on an INNATE goodness on our part (that verse you quoted goes on to speak of God working IN US). Not only that, but the ENTIRE book of Philippians is about living through an eschatological lens!!! Paul is facing a possible death sentence as he writes!
Finally, if taking soteriology seriously means I am being judgmental against Bell with a plank in my eye, in your view, so be it. This is not a simple matter of how the wicked suffer as you suppose. It is a matter of whether or not faith in Jesus is necessary. That is the issue at hand. It is not simply that Bell has exaggerated a bit but is actually attempting to right the ship more from its current off course. The implications of this view is that trusting in Jesus is not essential, and perhaps not even necessary. This is not a secondary issue. Don’t you think it significant that nearly every prominent leader in the RM is standing against this book? I heard leaders at the NACC speak out against it. I have heard sermons by prominent RM colleges and Seminaries speak out against it. I don’t think it is because these people are unaware of their Hebraic or church history.