I get the feeling that for a Christian blog to have any credibility the words "Rob" and "Bell" need to have been mentioned in the last couple of weeks. So here it goes...
It turns out that Rob Bell is controversial. Who knew? A big group of blogging gospel defenders are not happy with his latest book that hasn't been released yet. In fact they are "grieved" and "in mourning". Apparently the notion that God might just end up reconciling the whole world to himself through Christ is a terrible and tragic one. Why, exactly? This mentality reminds me of something Henri Nouwen wrote about teaching to a competitive culture. He remarked that people are only happy with their good grades when those around them have done badly. If everyone gets good grades then we don't really care about how well we've done. Might this also apply to salvation?
In a book review it was said that Bell's position is unclear and incohesive. But can't we throw those same words at the apostle Paul? He is, after all, the person who wrote universalist-friendly passages such as Colossians 1:15-20, Romans 5, Philippians 2:6-11 etc.
If those who are saying "farewell" to Rob Bell would just take their head out of the sand and realise that what they think is settled may not be as settled as they think, fruitful discussion amongst Christians might ensue. But God forbid that anything like that should happen.
Is it your view that 'in reconciling the whole world to himself' that God is not sending anyone to hell, or forgiving at some future point all who are in hell or in the end annilating everyone in hell, or some other view?
ReplyDeleteI have no settled view on this. Right now my view is that the work of Christ -- his life, death, and life again -- will have an efficacy that far outweighs the work of Adam. There is something uncomfortably cosmic and global about the verse you've quoted above. To domesticate it, to seek to narrow and control its scope, is to do it (and the passages similar to it) a grave injustice.
ReplyDeleteDepends how you understand and interpret 'reconcile' and 'world' doesn't it? I think you may be making it too wide though. This verse to be correctly interpreted has to be tempered and understood by what other scriptures tell us. It is not a verse to guide us in what we are to think about hell at all in fact.
ReplyDeleteIs there an alternative to the conventional understanding of "reconcile"? Also, what is the justification for making this verse (and others like it) conform to other verses, and not the other way around?
ReplyDeleteYou have a point about 'reconcile' even though there are nuances of meaning. Perhaps its the object of what is reconciled that is the main issue.
ReplyDeleteIf you have four white ducks and one black duck what can you say about ducks? Are they white or are they black? If you have two white ducks, two brown duck and one black duck, what does that say about black ducks? Or what if you had four ducks and one swan, is the swan a large duck or a duck at all? If I have four verses/passages and one verse/passage .... ?