Rob Bell: Universalist?

[Todd]

That seems so obvious not to be the point being made -- other translations say "not by its own choice" instead of "not willingly" -- and the referrant seems clearly to be "the creation" (a thing, not a person).

I disagree. To me it seems obvious to refer to mankind.

Gen 3:19
By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.

Psalm 90:3
You turn people back to dust, saying, “Return to dust, you mortals.”

Psalm 104:29
When you hide your face, they are terrified; when you take away their breath, they die and return to the dust.

Eccl 3:20
All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return.

Mankind was unwillingly subjected to futility. Man lives his lifetime, dies, and returns to dust. Mankind is irrevocably tied to this "bondage to decay". Only in the resurrection (the redemption of the body) is there hope to be delivered from this bondage. Mankind (the creation) waits in earnest expectation for the Sons of God to be revealed (resurrected) because the dead in Christ must rise first (1 Cor 15:23, 1 Thess 4:16). Once that happens, mankind will be resurrected to join the Sons of God in glorious liberty (Rom 8:21).

Again, the context here is "the bondage to decay" (the flesh returning to dust) and the "redemption of the body" (the resurrection).

Todd

[Todd]

In what way could "raised to" refer to "the shame and contempt suffered by unrighteous"? I am aware that some of the "raised to life" passages can be taken in a spiritual context(Eph 2), but can't see how "raised to condemnation and contempt" could refer to the present life of unrepentant sinner.

Brody,

This is a great question. While it is easy to see how being raised to life could be referring to one's conversion through faith in Christ, it is not as easy to see how the condemnation of the Holy Spirit could be referring to being "raised to shame and contempt."

When John the Baptist spoke of the coming of the Holy Spirit he said the following:

Matt 3:7-12
7 But when he [John] saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, 9 and do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. 10 And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 12 His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”

Also, John 16:8 tells us that one of the functions of the Spirit is to convict the world of sin. The advent of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost brought about something new in the hearts of the unrighteous - an unquenchable fire of conviction with the purpose of encouraging repentance. This, I believe is what is being referred to as being raised to shame and contempt.

Ive never heard of that view, but nonetheless I can't see how it squares with the passages that speak of fearing God, whom after He has destroyed the body, can also destroy the soul in hell(Matthew 10:28)

Matthew 10:28
And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Here is the exact verse. Destroying the soul in hell, as it is written here, would refer to suffering the conviction of the Holy Spirit and the present-life consequences of one's sin.

And are you suggesting that unrepentant sinners like Hitler, Nero, Etc..will simply wake up at the resurrection in a glorified state, ready and willing to serve God? Where is the justice in a view like that?

Yes.

Justice is not a synonym for punishment. Justice is doing the right thing. One must be punished when he does not act justly. A just man is a righteous man.

I have little doubt that these two men suffered for their sins. Didn't they both die an untimely death? This is a big price to pay.

Not all sinners receive punishment in this life. Psalm 73 speaks on the contrary of such a position. So again I ask, where is the justice in such a view?

Again, we view the definition of justice differently. God always acts justly. Jesus refuted "eye for an eye" and countered with "love your enemies" in order to be like God (Matt 5:38-45). The Bible teaches that everyone without respect of persons reaps what he sows and is rewarded according to his works whether good or bad. As a result, all sin has present-life negative consequences. One who is overcome in sin will spiral downward into corruption (Gal 6:8).

Rom 5:8
But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Todd

[look2jesus]

Todd,

1. Rocks and Trees cannot feel frustration or futility; only man can feel this.

This is true, but, inanimate objects can be spoken of in ways that attribute emotions to them in order to make a certain point. Did not Jesus say that if the crowds had remained silent (at His triumphal entry into Jerusalem) that the rocks would cry out? Can innocent blood that has been shed cry out to God? Can trees clap their hands? So then, can Creation not groan? I think this nullifies your point unless you can show contextually that it must be understood as you have tried to show.

2. Mankind was part of creation, so even if you include rocks and trees, there is no basis to exclude mankind.

But there is a basis to exclude mankind. The reason mankind must be excluded in this context is that man was not an unwilling actor in being subjected to futility.

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. Genesis 3:6

And Adam was not deceived... 1 Timothy 2:14a

Then to Adam He said, "Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat of it': "Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you... Genesis 3:17,18a

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned...For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation...Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation... Romans 5:12,16,18

Adam was told beforehand that he would suffer death (corruption) if he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But we see that his sin also resulted in Creation being cursed, which was not foretold, therefore, Creation, not mankind was subjected to futility “not willingly”.

3. The subject here is the resurrection of the dead and the bondage to decay. When someone dies, his body decays. This is the futility that Paul is speaking of here. Mankind is to be released from this bondage in the resurrection to join the Sons of God in glorious liberty.

I would also disagree here. What Paul is mainly pointing out is how the glory that is to be revealed in us—and, likewise, the natural creation apart from us—will far surpass the sufferings/curse that must be endured in the present circumstances. The references to the revealing of the sons of God, and the glorious liberty of the children of God, and our adoption (the redemption of our bodies) are mostly time indicators to let us know when these glorious changes will happen. The subject is not the resurrection of the dead and the bondage to decay, as you stated. Also, I think you go further than what the text says when you seem to say that all mankind will enjoy this new liberty, without limiting your statement to those alone who are led by the Spirit of God.

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. Romans 8:14

steve7150,

We agree since Adam willfully sinned but had no choice but to accept curses,thorns and thistles, "not willingly."

I have to agree with Darin, in that, it is clear that Adam wilfully chose to sin and God had clearly warned him that there would be severe consequences. The fact that creation was cursed as well as himself does not mitigate the fact that he willingly chose to sin. It could be that the curse on creation played a major role in the death of Adam (and all of us, as well), so there is no room to consider that the consequences of Adam’s sin can be seen to be unwillingly assumed, when the sin itself was wilfully committed.

l2j

[darinhouston]

I have to agree with Darin, in that, it is clear that Adam wilfully chose to sin and God had clearly warned him that there would be severe consequences. The fact that creation was cursed as well as himself does not mitigate the fact that he willingly chose to sin. It could be that the curse on creation played a major role in the death of Adam (and all of us, as well), so there is no room to consider that the consequences of Adam’s sin can seen to be unwillingly assumed, when the sin itself was wilfully committed.

It seems like what is in view here is to make it clear that though Adam's curse was a result of his own willful choice, there are consequences beyond ourselves. It was Adam's fault, and Adam's fault alone by a conscious choice of the will that led to the curse to all mankind and all of Creation. There was no flaw or defect in Creation that led to the curse -- the land was cursed resulting from Adam's own sole willful act, and not because of some defect in the created order.

[brody196]

Hi there,

Brody,

This is a great question. While it is easy to see how being raised to life could be referring to one's conversion through faith in Christ, it is not as easy to see how the condemnation of the Holy Spirit could be referring to being "raised to shame and contempt."

When John the Baptist spoke of the coming of the Holy Spirit he said the following:

Matt 3:7-12
7 But when he [John] saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, 9 and do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. 10 And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 12 His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”

Also, John 16:8 tells us that one of the functions of the Spirit is to convict the world of sin. The advent of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost brought about something new in the hearts of the unrighteous - an unquenchable fire of conviction with the purpose of encouraging repentance. This, I believe is what is being referred to as being raised to shame and contempt.

That is reading an awful lot into "raised to shame and contempt". If being "raised to everlasting life" is a metaphor for our conversion experience(which is debatable), then it seems unnatural to understand "raised to shame and everlasting contempt" as being a present conviction in this life. Thanks for your explanation, but it still seems to come up short.

Ive never heard of that view, but nonetheless I can't see how it squares with the passages that speak of fearing God, whom after He has destroyed the body, can also destroy the soul in hell(Matthew 10:28)

Matthew 10:28
And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Here is the exact verse. Destroying the soul in hell, as it is written here, would refer to suffering the conviction of the Holy Spirit and the present-life consequences of one's sin.

Sorry Todd, but that just doesn't fit the context. If present-day conviction is being spoken of here in regards to people who are alive, why did Jesus specifically mention the killing of the "body"? It seems that Jesus was instructing that the only thing men can destroy is the body. God can destroy the body and the soul. This also fits with the other scriptures that say "the soul that sins, it shall die"(Ezekiel 18)

And are you suggesting that unrepentant sinners like Hitler, Nero, Etc..will simply wake up at the resurrection in a glorified state, ready and willing to serve God? Where is the justice in a view like that?

Yes.

Justice is not a synonym for punishment. Justice is doing the right thing. One must be punished when he does not act justly. A just man is a righteous man.

I have little doubt that these two men suffered for their sins. Didn't they both die an untimely death? This is a big price to pay.

I agree that justice is not a synonym for punishment, but punishment goes hand in had with it. God seems to be very concerned about justice in the scriptures. Both testaments are filled with God's care for those who are oppressed. But justice isn't always dealt out in this life, which is why I quoted Psalm 73 which speaks of the wicked who prosper and have painless deaths. This Psalm seems to contradict your whole argument that men only pay for sins in this life. Also, when coupled with passages like Hebrews 10 which say it is appointed unto man once to die and after this the judgement, it makes a pretty strong case that there is a punishment that follows death for the unrighteous.

As for Hitler and Nero dying untimely deaths, are you suggesting that one man dying in the arms of a loved one(Hitler), somehow absolves him from the immense wickedness he displayed? Is that a fair price to pay for the horrors he inflicted upon so many?

Again, we view the definition of justice differently. God always acts justly. Jesus refuted "eye for an eye" and countered with "love your enemies" in order to be like God (Matt 5:38-45). The Bible teaches that everyone without respect of persons reaps what he sows and is rewarded according to his works whether good or bad. As a result, all sin has present-life negative consequences. One who is overcome in sin will spiral downward into corruption (Gal 6:8).

Would it be just for God to punish His enemies after death and destroy them into non existence? Do you think that it would be unjust for God to do this?

[look2jesus]

Todd,

Mankind was unwillingly subjected to futility.

I’m still wondering where you get this idea that mankind was unwillingly subjected to futility. We see in the scripture that Adam wilfully sinned. Because of this tragic event Adam was forever changed in respect to both his physical and spiritual nature. In the physical realm he became susceptible to death. I don’t have a complete grasp on what exactly changed, but it seems that God ensured that he would die physically by removing him from paradise—not allowing him to eat of the tree of life—and forcing him to get by in a cursed world, as opposed to the world that was created in all ways good (We can only surmise what role living in the cursed world played in Adam’s death but I think it possible that it had some role to play).

Spiritually speaking things changed, as well. Again, though I don’t feel that anyone has a complete grasp on what exactly happened to Adam spiritually when he sinned, it’s obvious (to me at least) that this change would forever have a negative impact on all his posterity—at least one aspect of that being a propensity to sin as soon as we are able to do so. Romans 5:12, as was quoted earlier is one place that would justify these statements, I believe.

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned…

Now, it appears to me that it was this first sinful act of Adam that subjected the world, including Adam and all his posterity to futility, as Paul wrote about and as we have been discussing. But if you agree with what I’ve stated above (if not, please explain where you disagree) then it seems that you would have to admit that Adam (and as a consequence all his posterity—because we are all in Adam and have all sinned) became subjected to futility willingly, i.e., Adam freely chose to ignore the consequences of his actions, and ate of the forbidden fruit. But what role did the natural world play in this tragedy? If we were to personify it, as I believe Paul did, we would have to conclude that it was subjected to futility also because of Adam’s sin, but we would have to admit that it was not a willing partner in it. Therefore it would be proper to say that creation was subjected to futility not willingly. But it would be improper to say that creation was subjected to futility unwillingly, if by creation, we mean mankind together with the irrational world.

Mankind (the creation) waits in earnest expectation for the Sons of God to be revealed (resurrected) because the dead in Christ must rise first (1 Cor 15:23, 1 Thess 4:16). Once that happens, mankind will be resurrected to join the Sons of God in glorious liberty (Rom 8:21).

But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming. 1 Cor. 15:23

For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 1 Thes. 4:16

…because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. Romans 8:21

I’m sorry, but the first statement seems to me to be a non sequitur. And in the last statement you seem to be using circular reasoning because you haven’t come near to establishing that in Romans 8:21 creation is synonymous with mankind. I don’t understand how these verses fit into your argument. Perhaps you could expound on that a little further.

l2j

[steve7150]

I’m still wondering where you get this idea that mankind was unwillingly subjected to futility





There is a difference between the sin itself and the consequences of sin. Adam willfully sinned but he certainly did'nt want the consequences of sin which were the curses,thistles and thorns. That fact that God placed angels with flaming swords to guard the entrance back into to the Garden would prove that Adam was unwilling to face the consequences.

[Todd]

Now, it appears to me that it was this first sinful act of Adam that subjected the world, including Adam and all his posterity to futility, as Paul wrote about and as we have been discussing.

l2j,

I agree that Adam sinned knowing there would be consequences for his action. The fact that Adam's sin has impacted all mankind underscores my point. Mankind (the creation) was sentenced to death because of one man's sin. Mankind was not a willing participant. That the ground was cursed, we are told, was for man's sake. To me this means that mankind was really the recipient of the curse because of the added toil to farm the land. Rocks and trees don't care; it's no difference to them whether a weed grows or a flower, but to man his burden is much greater. But I believe the main point is not man's increased workload, but the fact that he was sentenced to return to the dust. His body decays when he dies and he returns to the dust. The redemption of the body in the resurrection is what our hopes rest on.

Gen 3:19
By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.

We know that everyone will be resurrected. Paul said that both the just and unjust will be resurrected. As you pointed out, the Sons of God are the Christians. According to Rom 8, the Sons of God will be revealed first, then the rest of mankind will be raised to join them in glorious liberty, having been liberated from the bondage to decay of which they were unwilling participants.

Your view demands your interpretation, my view is supported with the interpretation I just presented. Reasonable arguments can be made both ways. Which is why I fall back on the more obvious philosophical arguments against eternal torment. I refuse to believe that God would allow the torture of helpless souls, which to me sounds horrific and serves no useful purpose.

.....................

Brody,

you wrote....

That is reading an awful lot into "raised to shame and contempt". If being "raised to everlasting life" is a metaphor for our conversion experience(which is debatable), then it seems unnatural to understand "raised to shame and everlasting contempt" as being a present conviction in this life. Thanks for your explanation, but it still seems to come up short.

Fair enough. My point was simply this: The Holy Spirit is both life-giving and condemning. The first is the reward for obedience, the second is the reward for sin. Both of these take place in the present-life. This is how I view Daniel 12:2 & John 5:24-29. There is an alternative Preterist interpretation which can be found here.

http://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=73&t=3325

Todd

[RickC]

Re: Rob Bell: Universalist?

I finally got Love Wins from my library and read it in about 2.5 hours this weekend.

Before commenting on it....
Thanks to Michelle, Matt, Rich, and others who posted about the book. Special thanks to Matt for explaining some stuff from BW3's (Ben Witherington III's) blog, where we discussed CI (Conditional Immortality) and regarding other things about Wesley and "Wesleyanism."
===================

OK, re: Love Wins.
I generally agree with Rich's and Michelle's reviews. I read the book "straight through" without pausing much to consider technical points. This isn't how I usually read, as I often re-read passages for context; to consider what all is being said. I decided to do this "straight through" reading, so as to try to get the book's Big Picture. What is Rob Bell really driving at? (so to speak).

At one point Rob wrote that some in the "early church" took the universalist view (naming Clement of Alexandria, Origen, others). True. However, folks in this stage of the early church weren't the primitive (original) Christians. Rob didn't attempt to make a case that the primitive Christians were universalists. He merely explained that post-apostolic Christians held the view. That differing views have been held, and that we need not necessarily believe in ECT (eternal conscious torment). In this sense, Rob presented "options." In passing (at some point) he alluded to CI, and briefly touched on N.T. Wright's unique view. I was hoping for a bit more about CI.

I was somewhat surprised -- (though I had told myself to be objective about this book!) -- when Rob presented the 'usual' case for universalism, then stated (not exact words), "The more important question is not "Does God get what God wants?" but, 'Do we get what we want?""

He went on to defend "free will" and seemed to assume that we exist (in some sense) post-mortem, (along with our free will). Related to this is, in his appearance on the Unbelievable! radio program, Rob conceded that ECT was "possible." So while Rob stops short of being an all-out universalist, he seems to believe that it is theoretically possible that at least some will be "saved" after they die. This may be some form of modified universalism. I'm not sure what one could call it. Rob Bell didn't call it anything. I guess he's just trying to get people to think. He's admittedly agnostic about hell (in an afterlife). But has some theories....

What I appreciated in the book was Bell's honesty. Asking questions that many or most of us probably think about but were afraid to ask.

Rob's Christology was "higher" than I anticipated. What do I mean by that? Rob presents Jesus as the transcendent and omnipresent Lord, Who is "over" all religions and "with" all people. Rob doesn't explain his view about exculsivism v. inclusivism in detail. He simply says Jesus is everyone's Savior. I can't argue with his "high" Christology, nor with Who the Savior is. Rob Bell just leaves it at that, though he clearly believes some who haven't heard of Jesus can be saved. To what extent or how many, he doesn't say.
====================

Well, I read this book rather fast, which I usually don't do. I think I got the "feel" of where Rob was going, what he was really trying to say. He wasn't 'saying' as much as he was 'asking'. The book left me with a good feeling. I'm not sure why. Maybe it's because I don't have everything figured out (re: Hell, especially)? Or perhaps Rob's emphasis on the NOW part of heaven made me think of the present reality of it, and of Jesus in my life. And how I can help to stop "hell on earth" as Our Good God has done, is doing, and will do as we come into the New Heavens and New Earth.

Thanks!

[CupofJava]

Must be a popular book, my local library has a waiting list for this one.