The Evangelical Universalist Forum

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

Featured Writers Jason Pratt
#61

SO WHAT’S HIS PROBLEM WITH THAT DEFENSE!?

“The problem, however, is that the phrase ‘personal relationship’ is found nowhere in the Bible.”

…WHAT?

I kid you not. That’s his “problem” with this defense.

…THAT IS THE LAMEST TYPE OF CRITIQUE EVER!!

Words fail me at how unutterably cheap a blow this is. How many times in the last twenty years have I seen people, whether sceptics or believers, whether universalists or non-universalists, attempt to avoid a point by claiming “that word or phrase is found nowhere in the Bible”? They might as well be hanging a sign around their neck reading “I am a loser and this is the best I can come up with! Please ignore me with all haste!”

DOES BELL DENY THAT PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS ARE FOUND IN THE BIBLE?!

No.

DOES BELL DENY THAT PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH GOD ARE FOUND IN THE BIBLE?!?

No.

DOES BELL DENY THAT PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH GOD ARE TREATED AS BEING EXTREMELY IMPORTANT IN THE BIBLE?!?!

No.

DOES BELL DENY THAT PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH GOD ARE TREATED IN THE BIBLE NOT ONLY AS BEING EXTREMELY IMPORTANT BUT NECESSARILY RELATED (IN ONE OR MORE WAYS) TO SALVATION?!?!?

No.

He affirms each and every one of those propositions–when it’s time to promote his idea. I can accurately report that the rest of his book is practically crawling with references to the importance of personal relationships, including in our salvation by God. (I would list them here, but I’ll probably mention them along the way–with a sarcastic callback to this wretched tactic.)

#62

YOU MUST HAVE FELT LIKE WANTING TO HURL THE BOOK AWAY AGAIN!

Yes.

There is no excuse for that attempt. None. It makes less than no sense on multiple levels.

I have some sympathy for non-trinitarians (for example) who want to just get around all the tough exegetical issues, or who at least want to alert people (if they don’t know already) that the doctrine is based on sifting through a bunch of tough exegetical issues (instead of being written out clearly as a prooftext somewhere), by pointing out that the word “Trinity” isn’t found in the Bible. It’s still kind of a cheap move, and it’s especially pointless to make that move against theologians who have bothered to do the exegetical pushups, but at least there’s a modicum of justification for doing so. And at least they’re doing so because they don’t believe in the concept they’re denying, and don’t believe the concept can be found in the Bible either.

But Rob actually agrees about Biblical testimony to the importance of having personal relationships with God. One of the great strengths of his book, is that he helps readers understand the importance of personal relationships between God and man (as well as between man and man under God). He even agrees later (when trying to avoid being a universalist!) that so long as someone refuses to have a personal relationship with God, there’s going to be increasing torment (in various ways) as a result!–and this torment isn’t ever going to just automatically run out or end! It could, and will, keep going for as long as the sinner holds out against repenting and coming to a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ, even if that’s forever!

Rob himself affirms all this!

Yet here, his “problem” is supposed to be that the phrase “personal relationship” is found nowhere in the Bible. Apparently because a non-universalist dared to refer to the concept, too. Jesus wept.

#63

WE COULD AT LEAST HOPE THAT PEOPLE WOULDN’T BE IMPRESSED BY THIS FLAGRANTLY CHEATING TACTIC!

By the time I downloaded the book to my Kindle, that sentence had been highlighted by more than 890 Kindle readers. I may be mis-remembering that no other portion of the book was underlined by so many Kindlers, but I feel pretty safe in saying I recall it being in the top three.

(Hindsight note: I have found two other paragraphs so far underlined more often than this one; and they’re good ones to have underlined. I’ll mention them later.)

(Incidentally, Rob also casually in passing mentions a concept, treating it as if it was a well-known or at least established fact, that a woman wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews. He does this while rhetorically and less-than-uselessly emphasizing that Jesus and various NT authors never used the phrase “personal relationship”. Pretending that it’s already well-established that a woman wrote EpistHeb, in order to blow people’s minds and check if they’re paying attention, since after all there is a huge debate over who actually wrote that text with a wide number of theories, might have been clever and amusing had he done so elsewhere, like when actually citing EpistHeb. Doing so here can only tar that theory–which I personally have never heard of before, but which for all I know may have some respectable merits–with shame by association.)

#64

IT SOUNDS LIKE WE COULD PRETTY MUCH STOP READING YOUR COMMENTARY NOW (AFTER, LORD SAVE US, 28 PAGES?!) AND REJECT THIS BOOK AS TWADDLE!

You’d be missing some great material from Rob’s book if you rejected it as twaddle. But I wouldn’t blame you if you did.

SO IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE IN THIS CHAPTER WORTH COMPLIMENTING? OR IS IT ALL FOOFARAW FROM HERE UNTIL WHENEVER?

Weirdly, after attempting this asinine point, Rob thinks it “raises another question”, although logically there is no direct connection between this next question and his preceding topic (which makes me suspect that the preceding topic, about the phrase “personal relationship” not appearing in the Bible and this supposedly being a problem for non-universalists trying to appeal to the concept, was added in at a much later stage of composing this chapter; maybe while he was whacked out of his gourd on allergy medicine…)

…UM… THAT DOESN’T SOUND LIKE IT’S WORTH COMPLIMENTING…

Oh the next point itself is entirely worth complimenting; I just wanted to point out its clumsy connection to the preceding topic. :stuck_out_tongue:

#65

Aside from that clumsy transition, Rob puts it quite well: “If the message of Jesus is that God is offering the free gift of eternal life through him–a gift we cannot earn by our own efforts, works or good deeds–and all we have to do is accept and confess and believe, aren’t those verbs? And aren’t verbs actions? Accepting, confessing, believing–those are things we do.”

He backs this up with reference to some Gospel incidents where Jesus has amazing approval and even salvific acceptance of people who don’t “confess” much per se, even though they clearly have a positive personal relationship with Christ. (Rob doesn’t bother to complain here that the phrase “personal relationship” doesn’t appear in the Bible in regard to those people, even though they clearly have some trusting personal relationship with Jesus!)

BUT ISN’T THAT CONVENIENTLY AND/OR IGNORANTLY OVERSIMPLIFYING THE GOSPEL TESTIMONIES?!

It would be if Rob stopped there; but to his credit Rob goes on to list several other categories of example, all of which involve actions by people in relation to salvation, although in a few cases the action is taken by people other than the one being saved!

BUT WASN’T HE JUST DENYING A MINUTE AGO THAT WE SHOULD HAVE TO DO ANYTHING IF THE GRACE OF GOD FREELY SAVES US WITHOUT HAVING TO EARN IT?

I think in this case he was only trying to acknowledge that the situation is wider with more options than people often realize. He pushes this point to epic levels again, quite brilliantly. (Which only makes me wish more that he hadn’t taken time out from his previous brilliant epic-ness to drop that snot-loogie of a tactic in between!)

#66

What does salvation depend on in the Gospels (and New Testament, but mostly he gives examples from the Gospels)?

“Is it what you say, or who you are, or what you do, or what you say you’re going to do, or whether you stand firm in what you say you’re going to do, or who your friends are, or who you’re married to, or whether you given birth to children, or what questions you are asked, or what questions you ask in return, or is it the tribe, or family, or ethnic group you’re born into?”

Rob gives examples of all those. (Though his loose application of a few could be exegetically challenged.)

To the person who tries to cut through those complexities again with a simple “just believe”, Rob again brilliantly replies that the one group of persons who most constantly believe from the beginning Who Jesus is and what He is up to… are the demons! But as Saint James says in his epistle, that doesn’t mean they’re on His side!

And so ends Chapter 1, with the observation that there are many more questions at stake than Rob’s readers might have been aware of, and with a promise that he’s going to look for answers.

AND CHEAT ALONG THE WAY.

No, he doesn’t promise he’ll do that; but the reader might be forgiven for expecting that, too. Sigh.

SO WHAT ABOUT THE TIRE?

…the what?

#67

THE TIRE. THE CHAPTER TITLE WAS “WHAT ABOUT THE FLAT TIRE?”

Oh that! That was one of his questions in passing: what if the missionary has a flat tire on the way to witness to someone and the someone dies?

BUT THEY AREN’T DAMNED BECAUSE THE MISSIONARY DIDN’T GET THERE IN TIME!–THEY’RE DAMNED FOR BEING A SINNER!

I know, and Rob doesn’t really cover that in this chapter (which could be considered a point against him.)

The question does however raise a couple of issues important to both Arminians and Calvinists. A Calvinist would say not to worry, because the person was either pre-elected or pre-dis-elected; the flat tire might have actually been sent by God so the missionary wouldn’t waste his time on that particular sinner who was never going to be saved anyway. Rejoice! Whereas if God chose to save that sinner, He must not have planned to use that particular missionary as part of the process.

An Arminian would say (perhaps not quite this bluntly) too bad, God just wasn’t strong enough to make sure that person was saved from their sins–but God will certainly be strong enough to make sure that person is damned for their sins! Rejoice!

Or the Arm would say don’t worry, God is strong and competent enough to make sure one way or another that the person has a chance to accept Christ, even if that particular missionary doesn’t make it there in time.

Rob only barely touches those issues in this chapter (and not near the tire question), but neither does he acknowledge (especially near the tire question) that Arms and Calvs both do have serious concerns about the tire question, too!

#68

I know they sometimes address those concerns in heartbreaking ways; and I don’t merely mean my heart breaks to hear them address those concerns. I remember hearing an Arminian missionary weeping grievously as he shamefully recounted how he had turned away a young woman at his door who wanted to talk to him, because he was too tired and too busy (with his personal things), asking her to come back tomorrow–and she died before tomorrow. He was stricken to think that he was part of the reason she went to hell. We had some Calvinists in the group listening to this, and they mentioned afterward that a Calvinist would never have to worry about that while doing mission work. Which led to a spirited discussion between the group’s Arms and Calvs about why Calvs would bother doing mission work at all!–which I thought the Calvs had some good answers to. (But then I was familiar with both sides already.)

My point here, though, is that both sides do take the tire question seriously. They don’t just ignore it.

(Whereas Rob, in this chapter, kind of ignores the fact that both sides don’t ignore the tire question and instead take it very seriously, each in their own way.)

BUT YOU SAY THE BOOK DOES GET BETTER, RIGHT?

Somewhat. On to chapter 2!

#69

WAIT WAIT WAIT, HOLD UP: AREN’T YOU GOING TO COVER THE GHANDI REFERENCE?

Why?

…WELL… UH… WELL, IT’S PRETTY (IN)FAMOUS BY NOW, AND BELL LED OUT HIS PROMOTIONAL VIDEO FOR THE BOOK TALKING ABOUT IT…

Okay: this is the chapter he talks about Ghandi, and he leads out his questions with “Really? Ghandi’s in hell? Someone knows this for certain?” etc. But overall it’s a small portion of the chapter, and the issues he alludes to are discussed (or at least more suggestively alluded to) elsewhere in the chapter.

BUT GHANDI WAS NOT REALLY THAT MUCH OF A SAINT AFTER ALL!

I can confidently say in Rob’s favor that he was only using Ghandi as a stock popular figure of a ‘good non-Christian’ (so there isn’t any point complaining that he “didn’t do his research” in mentioning Ghandi); and Rob was not doing so in order to try to argue (even by implication) that Ghandi had been good enough to earn his way into heaven.

However, because Rob’s main strategy throughout this chapter (as well as the preface to some extent) is to throw “challenging questions” at the reader, with at least some intention of making implied arguments from suspicious innuendo along the way, he has only himself to blame if opponents totally misread his reference to Ghandi as being a typically non-Christian hidden argument to the effect that people can be good enough to earn their way into heaven without being a Christian. Admittedly, an opponent is being incompetent (or if competent enough to see it, then uncharitable!) not to notice Rob isn’t even trying to imply that argument.

But that’s the problem with basing one’s strategy on implied arguments from suspicious innuendo: people start seeing implied arguments from innuendo elsewhere, too.

And that can get very tire-ing. :slight_smile:

Part 5, the commentary on Chapter 2, next.

#70

As for me, I laughed out loud when I read that and wrote a note in my book:
“Aha! NOW I understand why JP didn’t like the book!”
JP being John Piper of the infamous “Farewell Rob Bell” tweet.

Unlike you, I appreciated Bell’s casual acceptance and endorsement of the possibility of a female author of Hebrews. It is a breath of fresh air. :slight_smile:

Like I told you before, when I realized how WRONG JP, MacArthur, Driscoll, et al are about women and marriage, the next question was “How WRONG are they about hell?”. The woman question was a watershed issue for me in the journey toward UR. This little comment about women may not please the evang talking heads, but I bet it wins Rob some friends.

#71

My husband picked up on this and found it thought provoking, connecting it to the observation I had shared with him from our ladies Bible study some months back of the demoniac who was delivered from a legion of demons by Jesus. (Luke 8:26ff) The demoniac did not ask for deliverance. Jesus acted unilaterally. Once the antichrists had departedfrom him (1 Jn 2:18-19) , he sat down “at the feet of Jesus, clothed and in his right mind”.

#72

As I wrote, I would have appreciated it had he done so elsewhere (like when actually referencing EpistHeb). Here, I feel sorry for the attempt because it gets tarred with his tactic. It’s because I want to give the idea a fair shake, or at least appreciate Rob throwing it out, that I wish he had done it somewhere else.

Yep, he’s a good example, too; he couldn’t even ask to be saved, because the demons were preventing it!

(Based on my textual analysis of the story’s report in the Synoptics, btw, there seems to have been two demoniacs; the “mob” one arrives second and the demons panic because they’ve just seen Jesus acting unilaterally already on the first guy. :laughing: )

#73

(Incidentally, Rob also casually in passing mentions a concept, treating it as if it was a well-known or at least established fact, that a woman wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews. . . Doing so here can only tar that theory–which I personally have never heard of before, but which for all I know may have some respectable merits–with shame by association.)

You mean that you don’t know that Priscilla wrote the book of Hebrews? Think about it – it was she and Aquilla that “more rightly” explained the gospel to Apollos (you mean that a woman taught a man!!!)!

                                    [size=200] ***GO PRISCILLA!!!*** [/size]
#74

Little Priska was certainly awesome. :mrgreen: Obviously Paul thought so, because he always mentions her first in front of Aquilla–when he bothers to mention Aquilla at all!

(And considering that Apollos is one of the suspected authors, Priscilla would make some sense as an alternate proposal.)

#75

I’m not so sure she’s take too kindly to that! LOL

I admit that reference to “the woman who wrote Hebrews” distracted me from the “personal relationship” thing the first time I read that bit, and I spent the rest of the chapter thinking about it, instead of what I was reading, LOL.

Now I’ve skimmed that again, and I think that his point of saying that was that Christianity has made salvation into a simplistic formula. “Personal relationship” is one of those nebulous Christian catch phrases everyone throws around but most don’t really think about, that has kinda lost it’s meaning. It sort of means you said a sinner’s prayer, and you go to church and read your Bible, you’re saved. But scripturally salvation is more complex than that. The Bible doesn’t reduce salvation to simply “a personal relationship with Jesus.”

I think I get what he was trying to do with it, but it was done rather clumsily and choosing to pick on the “personal relationship” phrase probably wasn’t the best way to go about it.

I’m enjoying your review. I’m still stalled in chapter 3 and Dave is bugging me about it, so I guess I better get moving before I get* left behind*. :stuck_out_tongue:

Sonia

#76

In my defense, that’s how Luke refers to her. :wink: (Acts 18:2, 18, 26) Priscilla == Priskilla == Little Priska. While she’s instructing Apollos no less!

#77

Interesting … I hadn’t realized the name variations! :sunglasses:

Sonia

#78

Part 5: This Seems Like It’s Going On Forever

IT GETS BETTER NOW IN CHAPTER 2, RIGHT? YOU SAID IT WAS GOING TO GET BETTER!

Even Chapter 1 was mostly good material by bulk (and even by quality. Mostly.) But yes, it gets better. After more ineptitude. Ahem.

YOU’RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT HIS GRANDMA’S WALL PAINTING NOW, AREN’T YOU?

Yep. It upsets his tender feelings. Try making some guesses why. Go ahead, try. It’ll be amusing.

DOES ROB DENY THE EXISTENCE OF HELL?

Nope; in fact he’s going to extend the existence of hell later! (Not deny it.) Nor will he be terribly unconventional about doing so. But more on that later.

SURELY ROB DOESN’T DENY THE EXISTENCE OF HEAVEN!?

Nope; in fact he’s going to extend the existence of heaven, too, in this chapter! Nor will he be terribly unconventional about doing that either, by the way.

DOES HE DENY THAT PEOPLE ARE SAVED FROM HELL TO HEAVEN BY THE CROSS??

Not at all, although of course it’s by Jesus on the cross. In that sense the painting visually represents Jesus by the cross anyway. (Not that Rob bothers to mention this here. But he does believe it.)

DOES HE DENY THAT PEOPLE ARE SAVED FROM HELL TO HEAVEN BY JESUS?!

Nope! He affirms that very strongly.

SO HE MUST BE DENYING THAT JESUS IS THE ONLY WAY TO HEAVEN AND THE ONLY SALVATION FROM HELL!

Nope, he affirms both of those quite strongly, too.

…OH. UMMMMM… OKAY, WE’RE RUNNING OUT OF REASONS WHY HE MUST BE UPSET WITH THE PICTURE…

You’ll never guess why. But you’re welcome to keep trying. :smiley:

#79

IS HE REALLY THAT UPSET ABOUT IT?!

It upset him as a kid so much that he’s willing to deploy Christ’s warning about how it’s better to be drowned than to cause a little child to stumble. Though he tries to deny that he really means to apply that to this picture! But the reader could be excusably excused for thinking otherwise (not least because he bothers to apply that warning to this picture.)

WOW–THE MIND BOGGLES. IT MUST BE SOMETHING DREADFUL.

So to speak.

IS THE WAY VERY NARROW? OR OBSCURE AND EASILY MISSED? OR A TWISTY GNARLED TREE TRUNK OF A CROSS THAT LOOPS AROUND IN WEIRD SHAPES?

No no, not at all. It’s comfortably broad and straight and obvious. No one is at the least risk of falling off, even walking multiple people abreast (despite it lacking handrails for safety. Must not have been a Calvinist who painted it… :mrgreen: )

IS THE WAY WEAK LOOKING, LIKE IT COULD BREAK DOWN ANY TIME?

Not hardly!–it looks vastly more solid and stable than the hell it’s leading from!

ARE PEOPLE TAKING RUNNING LEAPS OFF IT? OR WALKING BACK TO HELL ON IT, MAYBE SENT BY THE GATEKEEPER?

Nope. Also, the gates (such as they are) are totally open.

ARE PEOPLE LEFT BEHIND ON THE OTHER SIDE, PREVENTED FROM GETTING TO IT?

Nope. In fact–

ARE PEOPLE SHOWN BACK IN HELL SUFFERING HORRIBLY?

–no one is shown back in hell at all! The place looks more than anything like a burning abandoned ruin. Admittedly, no one is shown actually stepping onto the cross from hell either; but the effect (though it may be inadvertent) from the lack of population still in hell, looks more like we’re watching the last people in hell finally leaving the ruin of hell behind and coming into the kingdom!

#80

NO WAY!

Way. The Way, one might say. :smiley:

GOOD LORD, BELL OUGHT TO BE USING THIS PAINTING AS AN AMAZING EXAMPLE OF GOD’S VICTORY OF UNIVERSAL SALVATION IN AND THROUGH CHRIST!!!

It creeps him out.

YEAH, BUT WHAT’S HIS PROBLEM WITH IT?!

That’s it. It gave him the creeps as a child.

…YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING. YOU’RE BEING SARCASTIC, RIGHT?

Yes; and sometimes one can’t be sarcastic enough.

But I’m not kidding, that really was his problem, and still is. (One of two problems.) He has nothing at all good to say about that painting, and insinuates that the painter and/or his grandmother ought to be punished as harshly as possible by Christ for hanging it in their house where kids could see it.

DOES HELL AT LEAST OVERWHELM HUGE PORTIONS OF THE PAINTING???!

Nope. Easily less than a third of it. And the composition is designed to point attention away from the hellish areas (though I’ll grant that this might be more obvious in the Kindle’s black and white rendering). This isn’t even remotely like most paintings of hell where the point is to warn you (or even merely revel in) just how nightmarishly hellish hell will be.