My Death in Life

I have to preface that this post started as a casual conversation with my cousin who asked some good questions. I will update sources and add references and support as I am able to have more time to research.

I think my friend had an appropriate response. Good theology, good knowing of who God is, is a gift of God's revelation. Good interpretation of general and special revelation is a gift that God gave us insight to. And we shouldn't wield that gift of grace against those that are blind or led astray because then we're bordering on hate, and that's when it becomes a problem with us.

I don't think that it's wrong to ask these questions. And honestly, this is what I love about Rob Bell's preaching style and I think I've adopted a lot from it. He asks questions that pop into all of our heads and then he asks more questions to narrow down what we're really talking about and then offers some insight. But I just realized something- this is almost the logical fallacy of begging the question. All of his rhetorical questions almost lead the listener to the same sentiments, if not the same conclusion.

I agree with his point of "How do you know?". Dallas Willard, a Christian philosophy professor at USC, though some think that he borderlines the universalist line as well, said that we can't really know people's heart and that ultimately the salvation faith that we think of is a "circumcision of the heart" (Romans 2:29) that no one else can really know. Because I don't know if my roommate is putting on a good show or really believes what he claims to. Now I believe we have a good idea with what we can see in people's lives. (James' "works" [James 2:18-26], but Jesus multiple references of "good and bad fruit" [Matthew 3:10, Matthew 7:15-20, Matthew 12:33, John 15)

Here's the challenge-able points though that don't sit well with me.
1) In the video, he asks the questions about the Gospel out of the (wrong) teaching that at the heart of the Gospel is Jesus saving us from Hell. While that is true, it's the wrong emphasis that sets up the legitimacy of the basis for his next questions. The center of the Gospel is a God that loves something that he has every reason to dispose of. That for some odd reason a God that claims that he is a Just God, and the source of any sense of justice that we have as humans, wants to give us a way out of a grave that we so systematically and thoroughly dug ourselves. His last question "how is this good news?" all of a sudden sounds like not that good of a question.

2) In the blurb that the publisher put up here's what makes me uneasy- "Bell addresses one of the most controversial issues of faith—the afterlife—arguing that a loving God would never sentence human souls to eternal suffering. With searing insight, Bell puts hell on trial..." (qtd in Taylor's article, http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/02/26/rob-bell-universalist/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+between2worlds+%28Between+Two+Worlds%29). God would never sentence souls to eternal suffering. But if you look at sin, God doesn't make us sin. And if sin is death, and sin is our choice away from God, then didn't we sentence our self? Bell puts hell on trial- what do you do if there's no Hell or if hell doesn't serve any purpose other than to punish Satan and the angels that sinned (2 Pete 2:4). What do you about Sheol in the old testament (specifically in Isaiah 14:12-15, where we get 'Lucifer' and the belief he was cast down)?

I believe that Bonhoffer in "The Cost of Discipleship" can lend a hand. Read it and dwell on "cheap grace" and how that would apply to heaven/hell.

I don't know for sure if Rob Bell is bringing up good questions for an honest discussion or if he is setting up a universalist view for sure. I loved the end of the video because it gave me hope because I do believe that the Gospel is better than "good news" and I do believe love wins. But it doesn't seem to be the way that Bell is making it sound like he believes.

The reason this reaction comes up like this is because if you question this, you pull in a whole lot more that you have to answer for that the Church has held orthodox for so long. I've brought up a few of the questions that are brought in but you have to go farther. I'm not trying to make an appeal to authority or tradition, but I'm also saying that there is value of thinkers whose thoughts that have been around longer than a typical human life.

I don't know, this is really more of a start than a conclusion of anything. But let me know what you think! This is really good that you're wondering, and you're absolutely justified in thinking that the hammer came swift and hard. Sometimes it's hard to see what's an enemy and what's a misguided brother.