Time Magazine: Is Hell Dead?

[Gem]

Is Hell Dead?

[TGB]

I’m only disappointed that Bell is framed as the poster-child of UR for Time when his book (I thought) was the least persuasive account I’ve read to date. Put Talbott or Robin or Eric Reitan in Time. But Bell?

I guess Bell is there because of all the noise his opponents made.

Tom

[URPilgrim]

I’m only disappointed that Bell is framed as the poster-child of UR for Time when his book (I thought) was the least persuasive account I’ve read to date. Put Talbott or Robin or Eric Reitan in Time. But Bell?

I guess Bell is there because of all the noise his opponents made.

Tom

I second that motion

[revdrew61]

And a lot of people who read Time have heard of Bell and the popularity of his megachurch and his brand of Christianity which appeals to the young. He’s speaking
their
language
…and pointing them in the direction of real spiritual treasure. He may not always describe it perfectly but I think he’s a great communicator and doing a good job. I have the privilege of trying to help a number of young Christians grow in their faith and put it into practice. I find this much easier with those who cut their teeth on NOOMA and Rob’s books than those who came in through more traditional routes, with all of that baggage…

It would be nice for Robin or Tom or Eric to have a platform in Time, but nobody’s heard of them yet, except us!

[roofus]

Strange that the website mentions “no hell” in the title of the web page. I wasn’t aware that Bell ever said that there was “no hell”? That seems so typical of magazine covers like that.

[Lefein]

It is tantalising enough a title to get people reading. God uses people we’d never expect, people we’d never choose. The first breadcrumbs for the world have been lain to lead to a feast of rich food, and aged wine.

[roofus]

If it is a lie, a person of God should not rejoice in it, though.

[Lefein]

Depends on one’s definition of “Hell”. Most people associate Hell with Eternal Damnation, torture, and hopeless torment as the Devil and his demons laugh and gloat over you. I surely hope Hell is dead under this premise.

[TotalVictory]

Thanks Gem

Read that article last night and it’s really quite fair to Bell – though I still don’t think he presents the points and arguments very clearly or directly. Bell comes out looking pretty good I thought…

At the beginning of the essay Meacham says this in outlining the traditional “case” against Bell:

The traditionalist reaction is understandable, for Bell’s arguments about heaven and hell raise doubts about the core of the Evangelical worldview, changing the common understanding of salvation so much that Christianity becomes more of an ethical habit of mind than a faith based on divine revelation. “When you adopt universalism and erase the distinction between the church and the world,” says Mohler, “then you don’t need the church, and you don’t need Christ, and you don’t need the cross. This is the tragedy of nonjudgmental mainline liberalism, and it’s Rob Bell’s tragedy in this book too.”

… (skip several paragraphs) …

Bell insists he is only raising the possibility that theological rigidity — and thus a faith of exclusion — is a dangerous thing. He believes in Jesus’ atonement; he says he is just unclear on whether the redemption promised in Christian tradition is limited to those who meet the tests of the church. It is a case for living with mystery rather than demanding certitude.

From a traditionalist perspective, though, to take away hell is to leave the church without its most powerful sanction. If heaven, however defined, is everyone’s ultimate destination in any event, then what’s the incentive to confess Jesus as Lord in this life? If, in other words, Gandhi is in heaven, then why bother with accepting Christ? If you say the Bible doesn’t really say what a lot of people have said it says, then where does that stop? If the verses about hell and judgment aren’t literal, what about the ones on adultery, say, or homosexuality? Taken to their logical conclusions, such questions could undermine much of conservative Christianity.

All I can say is WOW! this makes me very sad…

to take away hell is to leave the church without its most powerful sanction.

What a tragedy! (sarcasm intended…) taking away the churches most powerful sanction…
Like maybe God actually imagines He can draw and win people to love and trust Him?? Instead of driving them into the kingdom by fear??

We’ve talked about these things lots of times elsewhere on this site so no need to rehash here…

Thanks again Gem

TotalVictory
Bobx3

[wildermuthn]

The most ironic part of Bell’s book, I think, is the very last line:

That loves wins.

Read it again if you missed it.

[roofus]

Why does everyone assume that Bell rejects hell? When did he ever say that? And that he takes away the fear associated with hell- does being tormented for ages and ages not sound like a long time?