I've read Love Wins. I haven't read the entire thread here, but I will when I get the time. I just wanted to note that Bell's theology is NOT something new. He acknowledges this, but I don't want others who haven't read it to get the impression that this is revolutionary or groundbreaking. His beliefs/discussion on Heaven and Hell have been believed by highly intelligent, God-loving people all throughout history. And it is, in fact, Biblical. Bell always does a terrific job of packaging tough concepts in an understandable, relevant way. Thus his success. Here is N.T. Wright's thoughts on hell, which go along with Bell's. C.S. Lewis was another popular theologian who had similar beliefs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vggzqXzEvZ0
One of the things I really like about Bell's book is that it makes me think. I'm still in the process of reading it, but already it has me engaged and gaining new perspective, and solidifying some other beliefs I've had. I know that I will still probably end up with more questions than I have answers but that isn't a bad thing. I keep trying to deepen and broaden my understanding. But I'm grateful when there can be dialogue back and forth here, and it doesn't devolve into "If you don't think the way I think you end up in hell" or "The bible is all false because one group's way of looking at it doesn't make sense or has shown to be incorrect about some fact." It is refreshing to see dialogue happen.
I believe personally that Jesus saves people I find that in many ways in the Bible I don't have a formula I use I simple accept that if someone believes in Jesus they can be forgiven Was trying to say that I understand the conflict between those who argue against eternal punishment and those who believe in it I have no problem understanding how God justly would condemn the wicked and evil of the world I have no problem understanding how Jesus saves the wicked and the evil of the world I don't think good works earn forgiveness I believe Jesus died for our sins because we couldn't earn salvation To me good works are good works- if a muslim helped the poor I wouldn't call that an evil work I believe that the works of Jesus come through our faith in Him That is why I said I don't consider myself doing alot of good with the effort I put in, I just love Jesus and I am amazed at what he has done in my own life, I consider the love in my own family (5 kids) a miracle, I see the morning sunrise as a miracle, I see hardship and trials as miracles... they are miracles to me because I find God's hand so caring and close on my life, He is my Father, I am the prodigal son I got all worked up with Grizzled because I get weary with my own excuses, I don't want to argue doctrine I want Jesus to be seen authentically in the church, I know doctrine is important, it needs to be clear and taught but I feel it is very religious to have your doctrine right and there be no living it out... deny yourself, take up your cross and follow me- that is simple enough for my faith.... I don't go around wondering or asking people how they were 'saved' You believe in Jesus? You are my brother and my sister What I was trying to say about selling possessions is I think it is very easy to blow off the hard sayings of Jesus, but there is true liberty when we believe those sayings I really think there is an American bias to following Jesus, kind of like we are more special than people in third world countries... Grizzled was right, no one needs to listen to me, I would much prefer people pick up the New Testament and read the words of Jesus
Good post. I'd also note that there is a wealth of early Christian literature that specifically denies John's version of "salvation through Christ alone". It took a few hundred years and a lot of effort by Irenaeus, Anathanasius, and eventually Augustine and Constantine to curb people from alternative (and historically just-as-valid) interpretations of Jesus' ministry/message and to stomp out all continuing "revelation" as heretical. Basically, to maintain control and to unify the disparate groups, it was necessary to counter or eliminate all rival sects, and then prohibit new sects from forming. It worked very well, sadly.
I think it’s important to read those passages carefully. I don’t think that passage conflicts with Bell’s understanding of heaven and hell, for example. I think what that passage is saying is that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross establishes essentially the legal basis for the forgiveness of sins. I don’t think it speaks to the question of who is eligible to receive that forgiveness.
That statement was a summation of John's ideology. As to your comment, John is quite clear. God is manifest solely in Jesus: 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. Believe in Jesus or burn in hell: 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 8:12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” 8:24 I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.”
I’m not going to have much time in the next week to check in on this thread, probably none, but I'll respond to this and then check out. John 1:14 isn’t really on topic, and the others are probably more subtle in their meaning than you may first think. First of all, remember John 5:24 from earlier in the thread in which Jesus said, “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.” In this Jesus, in John, says that believing God gets you eternal life, so you have to reconcile the passages. I don’t have time for a full discussion, but here are some things to consider. 8:12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” - This doesn’t say what it means to follow Jesus, and it doesn’t say that there isn’t any other way. Maybe believing in God is enough, as 5:24 suggests. Maybe believing in God automatically means that you believe in Jesus, because the two are one. Some people also feel that specifically rejecting Jesus puts one in a different category. 8:24 I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.” - I believe this was spoken to a specific group of Jews, so it may be a message to them in particular. Also, the concept of “dying in your sins” needs to be explored. See the concept of “dying to sin” in Romans 6, for example. I suspect that it has a more subtle meaning. 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. - This one is the most challenging, but remember that you have to reconcile it with 5:24, and all the other passages Bell quotes in his book. For this one you’d probably have to dig into a concordance and get back to the meaning of the original words. I’ve done this a few times when confronted with an apparent contradiction and have found subtle differences in the meaning of translated words that resolved the conflicts. Reading good commentaries about these passages can also be very useful. The bottom line is that you can’t separate 3:18 from the rest of the Bible, and it probably doesn’t mean what it looks like it means when read on its own. See Love Wins by Rob Bell for a more thorough discussion on heaven and hell.
First of all, to be clear, the “believe in Jesus or burn in hell” line from my previous post was just me being an ass, not an honest statement of how I necessarily interpret those passages. As the OP illuminates, tracing a clear line from “non-belief” to damnation basically hinges on pure speculation, and is accordingly touted primarily by fundamentalist wankers who have little else to offer to convince people to listen to them. This passage illuminates much regarding the debate in question, because here John (or the writer calling himself John), unlike any of the other gospels in the bible, very clearly demarcates man from god. The first chapter of John is a direct retort to the early Christian sects that believed that the “divine light” of god (reference the Genesis story) imparted into each human the ability to find, inside yourself, a Jesus. Indeed, John’s “gospel” is quite obviously a direct retort to the Thomas Christians of Syria. Regardless, three times John points out that this divine light of god did not contact humanity until, in 1:14, we see that John feels it became flesh in Jesus and finally made contact with us. John teaches that humanity has no innate capacity to know god, and that Jesus (as god manifest!) is the message – therefore the only way to find divine truth is through believing in Jesus. (Note that John is also the only gospel that makes any sort of claims regarding Jesus’ divinity as Yahweh’s only begotten son, as opposed to the more typical titles related to the Jewish messiah.) The remaining passages I mentioned are directly associated with the above take that Jesus alone has access to God, and only through him can you access it too. He is monogenes, in the Greek, “one of a kind”. The effect of this kind of doctrine is obvious and constantly on display thanks to centuries of effort to censor and remove any opposing view at all costs. Unlike any other major religion (except, perhaps Islam) Christianity is decidedly exclusive and unforgiving of deviation. It actively encourages you not to explore for yourself. In summary, according to John the people “eligible to receive that forgiveness” are only those who accept Jesus as god, believe in him, and obey him. Does this mean that the bible specifically damns unbelievers to hell? Well, that’s hard to answer and certainly subjective depending on one’s religious purview. Frankly, it’s not even that interesting to me as it’s so audaciously cultish that the idea is anathema to what I would consider “spirituality”. I would posit that most Christians would view not being forgiven of one’s sins as a form of separation from god, and therefore “hellish” – certainly anyone who reads the gospel of John is purposely led to such a conclusion, even though it’s basically a gospel written specifically for the exclusionary fundamentalist zealot (and look what resulted – what a surprise!). I’m interested in Rob Bell’s take, but having not read the books I cannot speak to it directly.
You certainly have some very strong and unconventional beliefs, but without any supporting evidence there isn’t really anything to even consider here. John 5:24 also clearly challenges your interpretation, but you’ve decided just bypass it. If you’re committed to your interpretation then I’ll simply wish you a good day, but if you’re open to new ideas I would strongly recommend Bell’s book.
I presented the evidence, both within the passages and from the perspective of the development of dogma. My "beliefs" are not strong, and they are only unconventional inasmuch as they deviate from the heavyhanded "norm" of orthodoxy. Which is kind of the point. Shrug it off and ignore it if you so choose. I bypassed it because your explanation was confusing. As it is, I don't see it changing anything, since if one believes Jesus is God and God is Jesus (you know, like 99.99% of Christians), none of what I said is at odds with the passage. I'm not committed to anything. I just read a lot and find the historical and political aspects ridiculously interesting.
My questions: 1) If there is a God, what is the point of our lives? To worship him? To prove that with free choice, God's love prevails? 2) If "love wins", why did God need to press 'reset' with the flood? Wouldn't the necessity of the flood show that love did not win? Why the need for a mulligan?
Although grizzled is obviously not interested in discussing that which is counter to his supposed understanding, this has annoyed me enough over the course of the day to respond once more. There is nothing uncoventional in the exigesis of my post. It is precisely an explanation of how the conventional view arose.
