This time it's Rob Bell.
A taste:
Universalism, in its broadest terms, preaches that everyone goes to heaven and that there is no hell. Critics say it represents a break from traditional Christianity, which they say holds that heaven and hell are very real places. In most Christian circles, universalism is a dirty word.
Perhaps it's my studies of the universalism of the Founding era that leads to this criticism. But, yes, SOME universalism holds there is no Hell; OTHER universalism holds there is a place of TEMPORARY punishment, whether we call it Hell, Purgatory of whatever. In fact the universalists of the Founding era were kinda hardcore in this regard. A typical "term" in Purgatory for many of them, I've read somewhere (forgive me for not getting you the footnote) was one thousand years.
As Benjamin Rush, a Trinitarian Universalist put in "Travels through Life," his autobiography:
At Dr. Finley's school, I was more fully instructed in those principles by means of the Westminster catechism. I retained them without any affection for them until about the year 1780. I then read for the first time Fletcher's controversy with the Calvinists, in favor of the universality of the atonement. This prepared my mind to admit the doctrine of universal salvation, which was then preached in our city by the Rev. Mr. Winchester. It embraced and reconciled my ancient Calvinistical and my newly adopted Arminian principles. From that time I have never doubted upon the subject of the salvation of all men. My conviction of the truth of this doctrine was derived from reading the works of Stonehouse, Seigvolk, White, Chauncey and Winchester, and afterwards from an attentive perusal of the Scriptures. I always admitted with each of those authors future punishment, and of long duration.
Heretofore I've operated under the assumption that though belief in universalism was some kind of "heresy" in orthodox Christianity, the issue wasn't as central as, say, belief in the Trinity. Indeed, a trinitarian-universalist could still be "Christian" according to orthodox standards whereas a unitarian-universalist could not. So for instance, even though Benjamin Rush and John Adams were both universalists and both THOUGHT of themselves as "Christians," Rush was a "Christian," but Adams was not. I still believe this (though for personal reasons, I don't determine who is a "Christian," who isn't; if you call yourself one, you are one, regardless of WHAT you believe or how you live your life).
But apparently, not all operate under the assumption that eternal damnation is less central than the Trinity in determining "real Christianity."
As Justin Taylor of The Gospel Coalition was reported saying:
"We’re talking about the big things here, things that have been historically defined as orthodox, " he said. "I have a high degree of confidence in what God is saying and what we can understand."
Though many things that separate Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox Christians, “this isn’t one of them," Taylor said. "We’ve historically agreed on many things, the person of Christ, heaven and hell. This isn’t a peripheral academic debate. What Rob Bell is talking about gets to the heart of Christianity.”
I know the idea of some kind of rewards and punishments is at the heart of orthodox Christianity, but I have a hard time believing Hell, eternal damnation is one. From the article:
In the promotional video Bell refers to the nonviolent Indian independence leader Mahatma Gandhi, a Hindu, and asks, "Gandhi's in hell? He is?"
"And someone knows this for sure?" Bell continues. "Will billions and billions of people burn forever in hell? And if that's the case how do you become one of the few?"
On a personal note, I seriously doubt most orthodox Christians of whatever stripe ACTUALLY believe this.
26 comments:
Have you read what Jesus says on the issue?
Yes. Though you do have to keep in mind that 1) Jesus' words were recorded originally NOT in English and you may not understand the interpretation to English. And 2) it's indeed all about the proper interpretation. You may be interpreting things too literally that weren't meant to be interpreted that way. This problem is a theme that runs throughout the entire Bible. If you take the Bible too literally you might think Jesus were talking about the actual animal -- "Sheep" -- instead of making a metaphor.
Almost all of the figures Dr. Rush invokes tried to justify their belief in universal salvation on biblical grounds by grappling with these issues of interpretation.
It could also be that those passages which suggest eternal punishment are not actually God's Word, but interpolations.
If you accept Jesus' Words then you believe God is Sovereign (Inspiration is God's Will, not man's), Who, preserved His Words for you. If you believe in interpolations, you reject God's Sovereignty in preserving His Words for you. And this is not an option as the Dead Sea Scrolls prove every concept and almost every word the Jews wrote is exact to the King James translators (Reformers). The Reformers copied the correct text (Syrian text) because Peter, in the Book of Acts, wrote the Syrians were the first Christians that made the copies.
"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels"
-Mat 25:41
Jon,
Notice Jesus links the punishment with the devil and his angels. The devil will never be released from his punishment. If God did not punish us eternally, He could not justify punishing Satan eternally; there is only one judgment for Sin; death, and the context has to be eternal, not only from the Greek word used but the context of who is being punished. If the punishment was not eternal God would have to free Satan, which would then attack his Onmipotence and Providence.
Salvation is based on Grace through faith, not by works. This is why God will accept a death-bed conversion. Jesus paid the fine for every sin Hitler or Stalin ever committed. Not one sin was left out on the Cross. That is why he could have forgiven them. God obviously adores believing in Him.
Calvin clearly destroys the notion of justification by working.
The Greek word for eternal is "aionios" or a derivative, is always translated eternal, and also used by Plato, Phocylides, Philo, Clement, Diodorus Siculus, Arrianus, Josephus, Maximus Tyrius, Ignatius, and Homer.
The word Translated in Matthew is the same word used in Romans, Hebrews, and 2 Thes 1:9. It's also the same context when referring to God's eternality.
Rush interpreted it wrong. Fortunately for him, the concept does not refer to the personhood of Jesus Christ.
Pardon me, Jon, but for Bible literalists there is a bountiful buffet from which to support both sides...
http://www.angelfire.com/dc/universalism/ScriptureToPonder.html
OFT:
On actual metaphysical reality, I consider myself an open minded outsider looking in. Though I have my own biases that cloud my conclusions, I'm not someone committed to debunking religion, defending atheism like some of my friends. I think it's much more interesting to look at the different ways the faiths present themselves as THOUGH they were true and try to sort out their competing claims amongst one another.
The Bible is too hard a book; on TULIP grounds alone we could get stuck forever.
Needless to say I am not all convinced from "evidence" and argument that Protestants even have it over Roman Catholics, if we take their shared premises as an assumption, which I don't.
What do you think of this link?
http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/apostolic-succession.html
It's a nice link. Thanks.
The Church agrees with church succession as Paul lays out in the Epistles, and hierarchy, that the Quakers rejected, but it isn't catholicism; that's for sure. Only the Apostles had the powers the Prof. is talking about.
That the Popes murdered millions should tell you their Apostolic Succession is bogus. Peter was never a Bishop of Rome, which, I believe, was mandatory at the beginning.
You make the Bible tougher than it really is.
OFT,
Given I'm not Roman Catholic (other than by baptism) I'm not sure if I am the right person to respond to you. But in reading the works of Dr. Beckwith and others, I've seen them rebut/answer every single claim you make.
And btw, the Bible doesn't just say Peter was a "Bishop" but the ROCK upon which Jesus said He would build His church! That's what PETER means, "the rock."
Craig,
Two comments of yours came through in my email but didn't show up. I don't know why. I can reproduce them in the thread if you'd like.
Thanks, Jon. That's fine if you think they are still on topic. Sorry about the comma's. I was trying to unsub from the thread. Sort of a darned if I do, darned if I don't which is also ironic for this thread. If you don't mind, if you could also unsub me from this thread. thanks.
CRAIG2 wrote in a comment that didn't make it through:
Here's one of those comments in which I'll not quite be practicing what I preach though I don’t like to preach anyway. But I can already see a way to make amends for that which I'll address below.
"'Rob Bell hasn’t sinned against me personally,' Taylor said, which is why he did not go to Bell before making his comments public." First off, I'm really glad this remark is included in the article/post. No one ever mentions or seems even to wonder. If Jesus said, "By this all...will know that you are my disciples if you love one another," and in Matthew 18 he explains the process of accountability. Jesus does say, "If your brother sins against you,..." Taylor adds personally for more force, but the rest of the context indicates that others are brought in as necessary which implies that the type of sin involved is the type that others would agree is a sin and not just a minor offense. I think Taylor has introduced a poor example and I'm already guilty of the same so I will email Taylor if I can. And if he replies, I will post it here.
Bell, though we don't have the book to be sure, and we all are aware of many Christian tempests in tea pots such as "Do not go see the movie...(insert Jesus Christ Superstar, Harry Potter, etc. etc.), Bell, by this account, at a minimum, has opened to the public square, the issue that many struggle with such as the Ghandi example. If permanent Hell is orthodoxy, then it should be defendable. So, let the debate begin. I am certainly, personally satisfied and comforted and see consistency in the concept of Hell and Dante's extra biblical depiction is one way of looking at it. I don't see purgatory in the Bible and if Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by Me," I take Him at His word. I ask myself, "Why, when I'm given clear information, would I want to find other less certain or obvious ways or alternate life or truth?" For the experience? To gain the whole world and lose my own soul? No thanks. On the other hand, one of my disappointments with Christianity is the blandness of its culture/art/music/cinema. If we were all Christians, would we sit around creating and gazing at depictions of the cross? Oswald Chambers started out as an artist and was not ashamed of it. The great minds of Christianity were well versed in literature and Witherspoon, founder, it seems new the classics as well as he knew the Bible. We need guys like Bell to push the edges around a bit, but we also need to evaluate it. As you point out, Jon, interpretation is key, and I admit, I'll have to read more Rush, but some err by only looking at a few verses often taken out of the immediate context and definitely out of context with the rest of the Bible. But after all is said and done, Jon, you show an amazing understanding of the topic and the sources so congratulations. I think there is a limit to how much one might understand unless one believes which also comes with the caveat that believers may err by closing their minds. Thanks for a great post as always. Ironic that Bell rhymes with Hell but I'm about to go to Bell at the end of the month and read this book, I think. See what you did Taylor?
Another version of CRAIG2's comment. Dunno why these didn't go through:
Here's one of those comments in which I'll not quite be practicing what I preach though I don’t like to preach anyway. But I can already see a way to make amends for that which I'll address below.
Taylor's comment, "'Rob Bell hasn’t sinned against me personally,' Taylor said, which is why he did not go to Bell before making his comments public." First off, I'm really glad this remark is included in the article/post. No one ever mentions or seems even to wonder. If Jesus said, "By this all...will know that you are my disciples if you love one another," and in Matthew 18 he explains the process of accountability. Jesus does say, "If your brother sins against you,..." Taylor adds personally for more force, but the rest of the context indicates that others are brought in as necessary which implies that the type of sin involved is the type that others would agree is a sin and not just a minor offense. I think Taylor has introduced a poor example and I'm already guilty of the same so I will email Taylor if I can. And if he replies, I will post it here.
Bell, though we don't have the book to be sure, and we all are aware of many Christian tempests in tea pots such as "Do not go see the movie...(insert Jesus Christ Superstar, Harry Potter, etc. etc.), Bell, by this account, at a minimum, has opened to the public square, the issue that many struggle with such as the Ghandi example. If permanent Hell is orthodoxy, then it should be defendable. So, let the debate begin. I am certainly, personally satisfied and comforted and see consistency in the concept of Hell and Dante's extra biblical depiction is one way of looking at it. I don't see purgatory in the Bible and if Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by Me," I take Him at His word. I ask myself, "Why, when I'm given clear information, would I want to find other less certain or obvious ways or alternate life or truth?" For the experience? To gain the whole world and lose my own soul? No thanks. On the other hand, one of my disappointments with Christianity is the blandness of its culture/art/music/cinema. If we were all Christians, would we sit around creating and gazing at depictions of the cross? Oswald Chambers started out as an artist and was not ashamed of it. The great minds of Christianity were well versed in literature and Witherspoon, founder, it seems new the classics as well as he knew the Bible. We need guys like Bell to push the edges around a bit, but we also need to evaluate it. As you point out, Jon, interpretation is key, and I admit, I'll have to read more Rush, but some err by only looking at a few verses often taken out of the immediate context and definitely out of context with the rest of the Bible. But after all is said and done, Jon, you show an amazing understanding of the topic and the sources so congratulations. I think there is a limit to how much one might understand unless one believes which also comes with the caveat that believers may err by closing their minds. Thanks for a great post as always.
Good, my post got posted in timely fashion. Taylor's response to my email just arrived:
"Hi Craig,
Thank you for your email.
Take care,
Josh"
I think perhaps the Bible ie Jesus and other NT writers were not speaking metaphorically about the importance of not leading others astray with incorrect teaching. Rush sounds like a Christian but unorhodox in regards to universalism. Not so much harm in that perhaps unless he is wrong and he comforts a non believer to be at peace, we all get saved in the end.
But in reading the works of Dr. Beckwith and others, I've seen them rebut/answer every single claim you make.>
Jon,
The Book of Acts says an Apostle had to personally see Jesus Christ and be filled with the Holy Spirit to carry on the miracles of the ministry.
"Am I am not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?"
-1 Cor 9:1
Catholics don't have one Scripture to back up Apostolic Succession. Check out that link at the bottom.
The Bishop of Rome didn't begin until 605ad. How could Peter be a Bishop? Peter or Paul never gave any scripture affirming succession. They both left the succession to the Scriptures in many places, as you yourself know.
"Peter said, "Moreover I will endeavor that even after my death you may often have occasion to call these things to mind." (2 Pet. 1:15) and "This, beloved, is now the second epistle that I am writing to you wherein I stir up your pure mind to remembrance, that you may be mindful of what I formerly preached of the words of the holy prophets and of your apostles, which are the precepts of the Lord and Savior." (2 Pet. 3:1-2).
Paul does not give Timothy his succession. On the contrary, "For from thy infancy thou hast known the Sacred Writings, which are able to instruct thee unto salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproving, for correcting, for instructing in justice; that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work." (2 Tim. 3:15-17).
and
the clincher that Apostolic Succession is bogus is from Paul himself. When he left the Church at Ephesus, he left no successor, but commended them to the Word of God:
"And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified."
--Acts 20:32
And btw, the Bible doesn't just say Peter was a "Bishop" but the ROCK upon which Jesus said He would build His church! That's what PETER means, "the rock.">
The Greek text says "Petros" for Peter and "Petra" for rock. "Petra" is feminine and describes a pebble.
Jon, that site does not represent our focus on understanding the truth; of the scriptures, and our goal of understanding the views of the framers.
That site claims there is no feminine in the Aramaic text, which is what the Greek is from.
But there is no Aramaic text. It's like Barton claiming "Madison said this...in other writings that don't exist."
Jon, the Reformers were right in their interpretation.
http://www.bible.ca/cath-apostolic-succession.htm
Qualifications for New Testament bishops are clearly disclosed in 1 Tim. 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9. New Testament bishops, first of all, had to be married men. 1 Tim. 3:2 says, "It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behavior, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher..." (Catholic Rheims Translation). "Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife..." (1 Tim. 3:2; Catholic Revised Standard Version). Also, a bishop had to rule his own house well, having his children in subjection (1 Tim. 3:4-5).
Secondly, the New Testament reveals that bishops are overseers of the local congregations. They were to be selected by each local church. They were to be "proved" or "tried" in view of the qualifications as were the deacons (1 Tim. 3:10). Deacons had no authority but were to "serve" in the local churches (1 Tim. 3:8-13). Once the bishops were selected, they were to oversee the local congregations wherein they had been chosen and ordained. Peter said to the bishops, "Tend the flock of God which is among you..." (1 Pet. 5:2). This was the extent of their oversight--overseeing only one church.
"The Book of Acts says an Apostle had to personally see Jesus Christ and be filled with the Holy Spirit to carry on the miracles of the ministry."
"Am I am not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?"
This is the problem with you: You read a text in the Bible and then you ADD to it things that aren't there. The text YOU cited doesn't say "an Apostle had to personally see Jesus Christ and be filled with the Holy Spirit to carry on the miracles of the ministry."
IF I had to answer everything you said, the process would perhaps make me into a Roman Catholic! But I'll repeat, everything you have written has been answered by Roman Catholic apologists like Dr. Beckwith, Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Mitch Pacwa and others.
I don't mean to insult you. You get an "A" for effort. But YOU are no James White, John MacArthur, or Walter Martin (the evangelicals who argue, in Martin's case, "argued" since he's dead, the evangelical case against Roman Catholicism, for any lurkers who may not know).
And the best THEY can do in this ping pong match is argue Roman Catholics like Beckwith to a Mexican Standoff. (Google that term if you don't know what it means).
Jon, did you read the link? They cite many N.T. verses to destroy Apostolic Succession. There are many other verses for support of eyewitness Apostleship.
Paul says "Am I an Apostle?" Then he says "have I not seen Jesus Christ"
Surely, you can understand, they both must go together.
Jon, I like the way you are able to read what a text says and resist taking it too far and reading it a priori. Your ability to avoid the assumptions which lead to overreaching and making more of what is written is impressive and causes me to respond favorably to your comments. I will say that I think the essentials of salvation are more important than non essentials such as papacy versus non papacy. I like the tenets of scripture which may be found in every book without parables or metaphors. It would take a Greek scholar to break down tenses and meanings to determine what Paul most likely meant about Popes which it is debatable as to whether they existed yet when he wrote this commnet. It takes quite a few verses to get to what I think is Paul's point: "even as I also please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the [profit] of the many, that they may be saved. Be imitators of me as I imitate Christ." That is the sort of salvation/sanctification statement that may be found throughout the Bible declaratively, metaphorically, poetically, symbolically, prophetically, literally...you get the idea. I do not want to loose site of that point when I ponder the "finer?" points. But I am curious now to dig a bit deeper into the Greek.
Did some digging and I think I side with Jon. Paul is listing his bona fides. It revolves somewhat also around what apostoloi means and Paul asserts that he was definitely an apostoloi to the Corinthians he maintains. Apostoloi in this context is messenger and dedicated worker but can also be an office, I think. I agree that this verse does not necessarily link apostle to someone who has seen Jesus. I still need to check the concordance to see who that word is associated with besides the 11 original disciples and Paul. Stephen? The greek and jewish deacons? The replacement for Judas chosen by drawing lots?
It is impressive in Rev 21:14 that the names of the twelve apostles "of the Lamb" are in the twelve foundations of the heavenly city. Is Paul the 12th? I would think so. Or James, or Matthias? Possibly. But, there are twelve that are THE twelve. Others elsewhere in the NT are described with the same word "apostolos" but translated messenger so in a sense all Christians may carry the message which is a great honor. Having seen Jesus does not stand out but working miracles is clearly an important gift. I haven't heard any Pope working miracles stories but there probably are some.
For two thousand years the Church, through the entire Revelation of Christ has held an Apostle must have seen Jesus. This would include His Resurrected body, as Paul did not see Him during His earthly ministry.
Common sense dictates Roman Catholic Succession has to be a fraud, given the popes tortured and murdered millions of innnocent people.
OFT,
What you just wrote is the very opposite of the truth. Did you read the Beckwith article? Almost all of the early church fathers believed they were in apolostic succession with Christ.
The reformers have blood on their hands as well.
And, as noted in an earlier post, Luther and Calvin didn't believe in "born again" regeneration, but rather, like the Roman Catholics infant baptismal regeneration.
Jon,
I read the entire article. That popes murdered millions is enough to destroy the doctrine. Only a fool would believe it.
The link provides no Scriptures to support the doctrine because there are none. The Bible is what you need to go by because there were other church fathers who disagreed with the doctrine.
The author quotes catholics whose writings are not inspired, even if they did write them.
The article says the Lord gave them power to forgive sins. That is strictly for the Apostles.
The Bible tells us an Apostle had to see Jesus Christ and be personally choosen by Him to take part in that particular ministry:
Acts 1:21–26 (NKJV)
“Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.”
And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, “You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas.
Luke 6:13–16 (NKJV)
God. 13 And when it was day, He called His disciples to Himself; and from them He chose twelve whom He also named apostles: 14 Simon, whom He also named Peter, and Andrew his brother; James and John; Philip and Bartholomew; 15 Matthew and Thomas; James the son of Alphaeus, ...
When the bible talks about witnesses, it is talking about "eye-witnesses" of His ministry, resurrection and miracles.
Irenaeus; and Tertullian who says the same below in that link, talks about those bishops who are heretics, have a different view than the Catholics who came later. The Bible says there are Apostles and Prophets, which is what they believed, but it isn't the same Apostleship.
The Bible teaches that the same twelve apostles are still apostles today:
"Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (Matthew 19:27-28)
The twelve corresponds with the 12 tribes of Israel. It is consistent doctrine and can never be changed:
"After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time." (I Corinthians 15:7-8)
Just as the youngest child in a family may be born "unexpectedly" and several years after their older siblings, so the apostle Paul was like "one born out of due time". However, if many more apostles were appointed after Paul, then the image of this verse would be meaningless. He was referring to Apostleship because he continues the discussion of apostleship in the next verse ("least of the apostles").
Therefore, figuratively speaking, there were only twelve apostles (thirteen literally), who were appointed by Jesus and remain so even today.
"That popes murdered millions is enough to destroy the doctrine. Only a fool would believe it."
No OFT. Aquinas is not a fool. And Protestant evangelicals on a per capita basis killed just as many as Roman Catholics.
"The author quotes catholics whose writings are not inspired, even if they did write them."
No the author quotes early Church Fathers whom evangelical Protestants revere.
Bell article on FoxNews: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/24/whos-hell-michigan-pastors-book-sparks-debate-eternal-torment/
Bell article:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/24/whos-hell-michigan-pastors-book-sparks-debate-eternal-torment/
Post a Comment