The Evangelical Universalist Forum

"The Prodigal Gospel of Rob Bell" (aka JRP's long review)

Featured Writers Jason Pratt
#161

Having very briefly touched on Colossians 1 (and to be fair his point here wasn’t to do a full argument from there, only to show different ways the Bible talks about what was accomplished on the cross), Rob moves to Romans 3 where Paul writes that we’ve been justified by grace through faith in Jesus. That’s a legal metaphor from the world of courtrooms and judges: we’re guilty, standing before the judged with no hope, except for Jesus Christ, Who pays our price and sets us free. (I will mention here that this is not very obviously what Romans 3:21-26 says, but Rob is certainly reporting a common interpretation of what it means.)

But then there are also battle images of victory and destruction, provided by Paul and John (for example) in 2 Timothy 2 and 1 John 5 (respectively).

And there are the times (such as in Ephesians) when what happened on the cross is expressed as “redemption” which is financial accounting language.

BUT ALL THOSE MEANINGS MEAN ONE THING ULTIMATELY, EXPRESSED IN DIFFERENT WAYS!

I tend to agree, and I suspect Rob does, too; but he doesn’t go out of his way to nail down (or nail up!) that one common meaning.

YOU SUSPECT…?

In his final list of New Testament meanings, he adds one to the end which isn’t actually a cited image from the NT, and which isn’t at all a metaphorical description, but is a theme common to all the others:

“enemies being loved”.

#162

UH… OKAY WE GUESS WE CAN AGREE WITH THAT, TOO; BUT WE MEANT THAT THEY ALL MEAN GOD THE FATHER PUNISHED HIS INNOCENT SON SO THAT HE COULD KEEP HIS LAW THAT SOMEONE, EVEN IF THEY AREN’T ACTUALLY GUILTY, HAS TO SUFFER INFINITELY FOR ANY SIN! WHICH WE NOTICE ROB DOESN’T MENTION, THAT HERETIC!!

That could be said to be tacitly included in Rob’s category of judicial metaphor.

BUT IT’S MORE THAN A METAPHOR! BELL DOESN’T BELIEVE IN ANY ATONEMENT BECAUSE HE TREATS THEM ALL AS ONLY BEING METAPHORICAL!! WE KNOW BECAUSE OPPOSITIONAL REVIEWERS HAVE TOLD US SO!!!

Actually, he thinks all the Biblical explanations are true. (Although I gather from other things that have been said, not necessarily in LW, that he does in fact reject penal substitution theory of the sort mentioned above. :wink: But he does accept that the work of Jesus on the cross somehow frees those under judicial penalty.)

Yes, he talks about them being metaphorical, but not reductively so. He thinks the images represent a truth larger than any of the images, and so none of the images should be left out or minimized in favor of one predominate way of talking about what happened on the cross.

“The point, then, isn’t to narrow it to one particular metaphor, image, explanation, or mechanism. To elevate one [way of talking about what happened Biblically] over the others, to insist that there’s a ‘correct’ or ‘right’ one,” by which Rob means insisting that there’s only one correct or right way of Biblically talking about what was accomplished on the cross, “is to miss the brilliant, creative work these first Christians were doing when they used these images and metaphors. They were reading their world, looking for ways to communicate this epic event in ways their listeners could grasp.

“The point then, as it is now, is Jesus. The divine in flesh and blood. He’s where the life is.”

#163

Now, having talked some about the meaning (and meanings!) of the cross and what Jesus accomplished on it, Rob goes on to talk about the resurrection and what Jesus accomplished there!

I do have a minor gripe about Rob’s claim that “resurrection” after death was not a new idea in Jesus’ day. The sort of rebirth he’s talking about which was popular and prevalent, is not the same thing as resurrection–even bodily resurrection. But taken as a preparation for the gospel, it fits well enough. The discussion here is similar to that from Lewis on the subject, including in his account of his own conversion where he was impressed how the resurrection of Christ historically fulfilled and transcended the pagan themes of death and rebirth in nature. Rob is a Lewis fan, so there’s a good chance he had Lewis in mind when writing this part!

I like how Rob even goes a step farther than Lewis, in talking about how we all live by feeding on the death of something else, whether that’s dead plants or dead animals. But he doesn’t relate this very well to the actual resurrection, and the theme that ultimately we live by the voluntary self-sacrifice of the Living One Himself. In the end he only vaguely connects the death-into-life of the resurrection with the topic of the mystery of death-into-life we find in nature and in human relations–

WAIT!–DOES HE ACTUALLY REFERENCE PERSONAL RELATIONS HERE?

Yep, in the death of heroes for the sake of other people. Which of course pagan antiquity would have known something about and admired, although often their heroes died for something less or other than–

PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS!!!

Heh.

#164

Rob’s second point in regard to the resurrection is supposed to be that the first Christians understood the resurrection (and the cross) “to be an event as wide as the world, extending to all of creation.”

He picks a weird way to try to show this, though. First he appeals to seven signs in GosJohn, even though John stops numbering the signs early leaving more dubiousness than Rob acknowledges about how many signs are supposed to be there; then connects this with the seven days of creation in Genesis, which complete God’s creation; then posits the resurrection as the official eighth sign of GosJohn; which happens in a garden; like the seven days (which are really only six days in Hebrew reckoning, since the seventh day, the Day of the Lord, hasn’t actually come yet); which means it’s the eight day of creation (not mentioned anywhere in scripture); and so the resurrection applies to all creation.

Um, the end. You can comment now.

WE DON’T RECALL JOHN CLAIMING ANY OF THIS IN GOSJOHN. AND WE DOUBT BELL SUPPLIES REFERENCES.

Your doubts are well-founded. No, it’s just an esoteric completely implicit guess that’s based on semi-faulty data.

HAH! WE CALVINISTS KNEW HE HAD NOTHING TO GO ON!!

Yes, not all Christians are going to accept this, which is why I’m a bit perturbed that Rob chose this way as his big gun for the topic. Sure it’s pretty, and suggestive, and suggestively pretty–but it isn’t even pretty suggestive!

The problem I have with it is not that I’m a dull logic-chopping wet-blanket; I write whole books of colorful suggestive thematic ideas (as well as whole books of dull logic-chopping :mrgreen: ) in my own evangelism. My problem with it isn’t even that his illustration hangs on definitely defining things that are undefined or defined different ways in the scriptures. My problem is that half his opponents (theologically speaking) are going to have problems with the claim being made here and he leads out with this frothy castle of cloud as though it clearly settles the matter. Ta-daa!

(Okay, this may be the thing that annoys me most in the actual chapter, not the amusing references to something he discounted over-conveniently near the start of his book because a particular phrase didn’t appear in the Bible. :wink: )

#165

BUT WE ARMINIANS KNOW THERE ARE STRONG DEFINITE THINGS BEING SAID IN THE SCRIPTURES ON THIS TOPIC!!–THOUGH YEAH BELL IS GOOFING AROUND WITH HIS OPENING MOVE THERE…

And Rob does eventually start talking about those stronger definite things being said. He doesn’t go into any details in his brief textual references (because it’s a popular-written book, no doubt); which leaves them very open to Calv rebuttal attempts, none of which he even tries to discuss or anticipate (except to suggest in principle that “a gospel that leaves out its cosmic scope will always feel small.”)

He saves the strongest for last, perhaps, since it’s much harder to get around statements like Jesus “is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2).

CALVS DO HAVE THINGS TO SAY ABOUT THAT, TOO, YOU KNOW.

I know; but here as elsewhere the book is written mainly to Rob’s fellow Arminians (on one hand), and to non-Christians (on the other) who naturally feel like they’ve either been judged by other Christians already as being non-elect (and so utterly hopeless even in principle for gospel outreach) or who doubt (on Calvinistic plans) whether Christ really has any interest in even loving them in any substantial way.

I expect this is what Rob has in mind when he writes disapprovingly that “a gospel that repeatedly, narrowly affirms and bolsters the ‘in-ness’ of one group at the expense of the ‘out-ness’ of another group will not be true to the story that includes ‘all things and people in heaven and on earth’.”

Notice–

BUT THAT’S LIKE SAYING THERE’S NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CHRISTIANS AND NON-CHRISTIANS!! AND EVEN ASIDE FROM SIMPLY IGNORING CALVINISTIC CONCERNS ABOUT SCRIPTURAL TESTIMONY ON THE IN-ELECT AND OUT-NON-ELECT, IT’S FLAT CHEATING TO PRETEND LIKE THE SCRIPTURES TREAT CHRISTIANS AND NON-CHRISTIANS AS THOUGH THEOLOGICALLY THEY’RE THE SAME!!!

–Rob isn’t talking about theological differences.

He’s talking about gospel outreach, and whether a gospel outreach has a built-in (even if tacit) clause of necessary exclusion: no, the gospel was never, is never, and will never be for you.

That’s admittedly a theological difference, but it’s a difference between Christians, not a difference between types of theism (or atheism).

OH.

#166

And it leads to Rob’s third point: the cross and resurrection are personal.

Go ahead. You might as well call it:

PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS!!!

Heh.

There are plenty of good things in this chapter, but I’ll end out this part with a quote from here near the end.

“This cosmic event has everything to do with how every single one of us lives every single day. It is a pattern, a rhythm, a practice, a reality rooted in the elemental realities of creation, extending to the very vitality of our soul.

“When we say yes to God, when we open ourselves to Jesus’s living, giving act on the cross, we enter into a way of life. He is the source, the strength, the example, and the assurance that this pattern of death and rebirth is the way into the only kind of life that actually sustains and inspires.”

And any Calv or Arm,

Protestant or otherwise,

ought to be able

to agree

with that.

[Part 9 is the next post afterward.]

God Wins: A weak rebuttal to Bell’s “Love Wins”
List of favourite quotes from "Love Wins" & good reviews
#167

Part 9: Rock On

Well, this Part will be even more boring than the previous one, because I have only a few inconsequential gnat-picks with Rob’s chapter 6. I don’t suppose I can just skip ahead to chapter 7…?

WE DEMAND THAT EVERY POSSIBLE DARKNESS BE UNEARTHED SO AS TO EXPOSE THIS HERETIC FOR THE AGENT OF SATAN HE IS!!! SO–PROCEED!

No.

HAH!–ROB BELL IS SO RIDICULOUS WHEN HE DOES THINGS LIKE… WHAT?

No. It means, “No”.

AT LAST THEN. AT LAST YOU’RE GOING TO SHOW YOUR TRUE COLORS AND REFUSE TO SMITE HIM WHEN HE DESERVES IT. WHAT BELL DOES IN THIS CHAPTER MUST BE HIS KEY TO EVERYTHING, WHICH YOU DON’T WANT TO WRITE AGAINST BECAUSE THEN YOU WOULD BE UNDERMINING YOURSELF. ADMIT IT! ADMIT IT!!!1!!

Okay, sure, why not? In this chapter is Rob’s key to everything, which I don’t want to write against because then I would be undermining myself. Let’s go with that, shall we?

AH-HAAAA!!! YOU ADMIT IT!!! FINALLY!!! VICTORY!!!

So, you insist I cover this chapter, then, and not ignore the key to what Rob’s doing?

YES! YES! YES!YES!YES!YES!YESSSSSSSSSSSS!!!

So be it. :slight_smile:

#168

Rob starts off with two stories of people being convicted of their sins by God in mystical experiences (one in practically a death experience), leading them to repent and change their lives for the better, seeking God’s forgiveness and healing.

HAH!–WHAT PAGAN HERETIC ROT BELL INSISTS ON… WAIT, WHAT?

Sorry, I happen to be listening to a particularly awesome rap/rock version of the Libera Me mass right now, and I’m too busy praising Jesus Christ for His mighty saving victories to type coherently. Please continue. (Do the impossible, see the invisible, touch the untouchable, break the unbreakable–row, row, fight the power! :smiley: )

#169

OKAY, UH… YOU DIDN’T MENTION JESUS CHRIST, SO, UH… SO WHAT DID ANY OF THOSE STORIES HAVE TO DO WITH JESUS CHRIST!? HA!–SO THERE!

Jesus Christ is the life-giving Word of God incarnate, Who acted to convict those people of their sin and lead them to repentance and salvation; the Word Who is the living action of God and so is God Himself; Who brings order out of chaos, indeed brings even the chaos of the universe into existence, and continues to give life to all things. Through Jesus all things were made (John 1). Jesus is the One “through Whom [God the Father] made the universe.” (Hebrews 1) “He is before all things” (Colossians 1). He is “the very one Who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe” (Ephesians 4): Jesus Christ, the one “through Whom all things came and through Whom we live.” (1 Corinthians 8)

God, this ultimate God, became a man. Are you open or closed to that?

UH… OPEN, OBVIOUSLY. BUT…

Rob insists that when people saw Jesus, and see Jesus today, that 1st century rabbi who healed and called disciples and challenged the authorities to the point of death, we see the divine in skin and bones, the Word in flesh and blood. Jesus isn’t someone or something God cooked up at the last minute when we made a mess of things. Jesus, the Son, was there all along from the beginning and still is today as the action of God Who Himself is God. In the Incarnation, Jesus exposes what God has been up to all along.

THAT… WELL, YES, BUT THAT…

What God has been up to all along, the mystery of God’s good pleasure which God has made known to us (Ephesians 1), is to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ.

RIGHT, YES, BUT BY THAT GOD MEANS–!

All things. God is putting the world back together, which only God can do, through and as Jesus.

#170

NO, NO, NOT ALL THINGS, ONLY US, THE CHOSEN ONES–!

God chooses to do this among and for the Gentiles, too, making known among them the glorious richness of His this mystery. (Colossians 1)

FINE, YES, AMONG JEWS AND GENTILES BOTH, BUT ONLY FOR US AMONG ALL PEOPLE JEWS AND GENTILES BOTH!!

Just as many Jews, who knew themselves to be the elect of God, refused in Paul’s day to think that whatever God was doing, it couldn’t be for Gentiles, too. It could only be for them, God’s elect; only through and only for them, the ones who believed and lived like them already.

And now many Christians believe the same as those Jews did. Us, not them. We, not you. Those Jews were wrong to believe that, but these Christians suppose themselves right to believe that.

BECAUSE THEY REJECTED AND SINNED AGAINST THE MESSIAH!!

Just as we all have sinned (so rejecting God, thus also rejecting the Messiah) and fallen short of the glory of God; yet (despite what those Jews thought) God does not wait for us to be righteous before sending Himself as the Messiah to save us and lead us to righteousness. Our salvation is not by works, but by grace unto faith, lest any man should boast.

Y–YEAH, BUT–!

Thus the mystery of God’s righteousness, which has existed since before time began, is to be proclaimed so that all people everywhere may come to the full riches of complete understanding.

And that mystery, hidden in God, true and present with God since time began: that mystery is God made into man. Christ Jesus.

#171

ROB BELL SAYS ALL THIS??!

I’m synopsizing. But I’m also quoting heavily. The answer is yes, he says all this.

THIS… THAT CAN’T BE TRUE! WE WERE TOLD BY PEOPLE WHO WERE SUPPOSED TO KNOW WHAT WAS IN THIS BOOK THAT ROB PREACHED A TOTALLY DIFFERENT GOD AND A SALVATION BY WORKS AND NO REPENTANCE FROM SIN AND–AND–THEY ASSURED US THIS WAS TRUE ABOUT ROB BELL!!!

I don’t know what Rob has written or said before this book, and I don’t know everything of what Rob has said (or written) after this book.

But I’ve read the book. And I’ve gone into detail about the book. And I’ve critiqued Rob with some hard words when he is being unfair to his opposition. And I’ve gone into detail about that, too.

I’ve done all that so readers who haven’t bothered to pay much attention to the book, or who thought or heard they shouldn’t pay attention to the book, will believe me when I report what is in the book.

And this is in the book.

#172

Now, I could gripe a bit about the minor gaffes Rob makes in this chapter. But that would be distracting from his key material in this chapter. Because none of those gaffes are due to unfairness to his opposition; all of them are easily fixable; and when fixed they do not remotely harm his key material in this chapter–which in the end is his key material for the whole book.

He preaches Christ the one and only Lord Most High and Son of God; and he preaches Christ crucified: drawing all men to Himself when He is lifted up from the earth, giving His flesh as bread for the life of the world.

Jesus takes our salvation from sin that seriously. He is willing to die for this, “for the life of the world” (John 6). To die, and to rise again.

We can point to Him, name Him, follow Him, discuss Him, honor Him, and believe in Him–but we cannot claim Him to be ours moreso than He is anyone else’s. We are His; He is only ours in that we, we all are His. He is not ultimately only the god of a tribe. He is ultimately the Lord and the God of us all; and as the Lord and the God of us all (even though, especially though we are sinners against Him) He gives His life to die and rise again.

Therefore the gospel of Christ is to be proclaimed, and has in Christ been proclaimed, to every creature under heaven. As wide as creation. Including everybody. The whole world.

BELL SAYS THAT!?!?

He does.

#173

BUT… BUT HE HAS TO MEAN… HE HAS TO MEAN THAT JESUS IS ONLY ONE OF THE WAYS TO THE FATHER! HE HAS TO!–HE’S A UNIVERSALIST!!!

Rob insists (quoting Jesus from John 14) that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life and that no man comes to the Father but through Him.

RIGHT!–BUT… BUT THAT MEANS…

Whatever, whatever God is doing in the world to know and redeem and love and restore the world is happening through Jesus Christ. Jesus is exclusively the way to God.

BUT ROB REJECTS EXCLUSIVITY! WE KNOW HE DOES! STOP CONFUSING IN OUR HEARTS WHAT WE KNOW TO BE TRUE!!!

He only rejects the exclusivity of Jesus acting only to save some, of being the Savior only of some, instead of being the real, true, one and only Savior of all (though especially of those who believe).

He also very explicitly and specifically rejects the inclusivity that thinks all religions are equally true, or that good people will get in on their own merits by having their actions measure up enough, by earning their way into the kingdom.

Instead Rob Bell insists Jesus is the only way, the only all-embracing, saving love and Way.

#174
#175

When Rob Bell refers to Jesus Christ, he is referring to the very life source of all reality Who has walked among us and continues to sustain everything with His love and power and grace and energy.

Not a token of tribal membership. Not a tamed mascot who waves the flag and promotes the values of a political group or nation. Not the supposed source of an imperial impulse to conquer the world. Not a slogan. Not a logo.

But the Logos.

The baptism of Christ, lowered like Christ into His death, raised like Christ into His life, is not only “true for us”. It is true, and so is true for everybody.

The table of Christ, when we enact and remember Jesus’ gift of Himself on the cross, His body, His blood, for the life of the world, our bodies, our lives, in His, for the life of the world, is not only “true for us”. It is true, and so is true for the world–and for the life of the world.

“These rituals are true for us, because they’re true for everybody. They unite us, because they unite everybody. They are signs and glimpses and tastes of what is true for all people in all places at all times–we simply name the mystery present in the world, the gospel already announced to every creature under heaven.” The Mystery Who holds the entire universe in His embrace, Who exists within and without time, Who is the flesh-and-blood exposure of an eternal reality, Who is the sacred power present in every dimension of creation.

“He is the rock, and there is water for the thirsty there, wherever there is.”

Rock on, Rob Bell!

[Next the grand finale, [url=https://forum.evangelicaluniversalist.com/t/miroslav-volf-yale-divinity/220/1]Part 10: “The Prodigal Gospel”]

#176

Interesting to note: the word “atonement” actually preserves the older pronunciation of “one”. I’ve had to explain to a number of disgusted children trying to learn how to read, that I have no idea why we say “wun” in modern English, but judging by the spelling it’s obvious that the word used to be pronounced with a long “o” sound, like we say the word “own.” :smiley:

So, if you try to say at-one-ment with the phonetic pronunciation of “one” it’s really hard to not make it sound like a-tone-ment.

Sonia

#177

:laughing: Well, I’ll keep that in mind afterward! Thanks!

Heck, maybe the difficulty in pronouncing it at-one(long o)-ment is how we got to wun. :smiley:

#178

Part 10: The Prodigal Gospel

Rejoice!–this is essentially Rob’s last chapter (chp 8 is an epilogue), and so we come also to the end of my fraternally anticipated questions. I said rejoice!!

DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING BAD TO SAY ABOUT THIS CHAPTER, OR WILL YOU SKIP THROUGH IT SUMMARIZING LIKE LAST TIME?

It happens I have a few things to gripe about in this chapter.

WE REJOICE!!!

But not many. Only one major gripe really.

DANG.

#179

The key theme for this chapter is whether or not we will trust that God persistently loves us.

DOES BELL EMPHASIZE THE SCOPE?

Very much so!

DOES BELL EMPHASIZE THE PERSISTENCE?

Yep, that too.

DOES HE CALL IT UNIVERSALISM?

Hell no. And he warns near the end (in chapter 8) that we had better take seriously various warnings provided in parables (and elsewhere, but he uses parables as the examples), because so long as we don’t we’re going to be missing out on sharing God’s life, in this life and in the next.

Although, it must also be said that while Rob does warn about consequences for the next life, when reporting about the parables he treats them in a way that could be read as only involving consequences for this life before death: “We won’t get the [opportunity] right in front of us again. That specific moment will pass and we will not see it again. It comes, it’s here, it goes, and then it’s gone. Jesus reminds us in a number of ways that it is vitally important we take our choices here and now as seriously as we possibly can because they matter more than we can begin to imagine.”

He doesn’t specifically restrict those parables (all the examples of which he mentions, feature Christ returning in judgment) to mattering only now. But an incautious or uncharitable reader might forget or overlook what Rob himself has stressed elsewhere on this topic, and so read it that way.

#180

WHICH PARABLES DOES HE REFERENCE?

Ones “in which things did not turn out well for the people involved”, as he acknowledges: the lazy servant with the treasure who hid it instead of investing; the five foolish wedding maidens; the goats; the vineyard tenants; the weeds among the wheat.

AND WHICH OF THOSE PARABLES INVOLVE “CHANCES” FOR SALVATION AFTERWARD?

None of them overtly (although the one about the baby goats hints strongly at it by story context–but Rob doesn’t present it as being hopeful, so he probably doesn’t know about those details yet. Including that it’s about baby goats!)

SO HE’S JUST READING IN HIS OWN ITCHY-EAR WISHFUL THINKING TO DELUDE HIS READERS INTO HOPING OTHERWISE!!!

That’s one way to put it. Another way would be he’s reading in information told elsewhere in the Bible, OT and NT, including in some other parables of Jesus, indicating the story of those parables doesn’t end with the end of those parables.