Blog

Business development and communications for growing businesses.

Supposed Conflicting Ideas In Rob Bell

Posted Feb 28 2011 by Jonathan Brink in , , , with 74 Comments

The dust up over Rob Bell’s new book is outstanding.  Lots of great dialog, even when it gets nasty.  We need these kinds of conversations.

To give you context, Jason Boyett gives a great summary of the conflict. I appreciate Jason’s comment when he says:

“There is no meaner, more hateful person on Earth than a Christian who suspects you have gotten your theology wrong.”

I have yet to receive my advanced review copy so I can’t really weigh in yet, but I will do so very quickly when it comes.

But after reading some of the comments, I was imagining an idea. Let’s assume Rob is a universalist.  He’s standing before God, ready to face the reality of what many call the final judgment. Yet he believes that God is big enough to restore all of reality and all of creation.  He’s not really a universalist in the traditional sense, that he believes God just ignores suffering and lets everyone off the hook.  He believes that the work of Jesus on the cross reveals the reality of grace for everyone, even when they don’t see it or accept it.  It’s true because God established grace before time.

In other words, he holds conflicting ideas that are not necessarily orthodox in today’s evangelical world.  He holds an emergent view of restoration but believes in the final judgment. He takes the risk to believe God will restore it all.

What will God do with him?  Is believing something that a specific community deems unorthodox or even heretical grounds for missing out on life?

What say you?

Tags: , Categories: , , ,

About the Author

Jonathan BrinkI am an business development and communications consultant. I am also the senior editor and publisher for Civitas Press. I recently published, Discovering The God Imagination: Reconstructing A Whole, New Christianity. (Civitas, 2011)View all posts by Jonathan Brink →

  • Frank Turlock

    nJust a question: if everyone is saved, why did the apostles travel all over the world and get killed for spreading the Christian gospel about salvation only through belief in Christ e.g. nnJohn 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 Godu2019s one and only Son.nnRom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. nn Rom 10:13, For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be savednnWhosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. — John 3:16nnHe that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life. — John 3:36nnVerily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. — John 6:47nnBelieve on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved. — Acts 16:31nnSo since this is obviously what they believed, itu2019s obviously what they were preaching, itu2019s obviously what they died for and itu2019s obviously what the Church has been teaching for centuries, so why would they do that if everyone was saved? Why not go out and preach love and good feelings. Nobody would have persecuted you if you were preaching feel good, love one another, all roads lead to God, be a Roman believe in all your Roman Gods thatu2019s fine. Just love one another. n

    • http://jonathanbrink.com Jonathan Brink

      Frank, you’ve drawn a conclusion that I did not. I didn’t say saved. My argument is for the restoration of all things, which is a very well documented idea in all of the prophets, the Gospels and every letter of Paul’s. nnBut I’ll answer your question anyway. Salvation is the awareness of God’s grace, which existed before time. Not everyone knows the reality of God’s grace, which then gives them meaning to go out and let the world know.

    • http://jonathanbrink.com Jonathan Brink

      I also failed to mention that it seems like you have a very low view of love, although you may not be meaning to say that. Jesus built his entire argument on it, so it must have some value.

      • http://nickruiz.blogspot.com Nick Ruiz

        I just wanted to highlight John 3:16 and some of its context to highlight some of the arguments on the “orthodox” side.nn”Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.u201dnn16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 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 Godu2019s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God. nnThere is an important story in Jesus’ discourse in John 3 – particularly about the scene of Numbers 21:4-8. God’s people were rebellious, so God sent poisonous snakes as an act of judgment. God tells Moses to make a bronze snake and put it up on the pole. Anyone who looked upon the snake (or remembered God) was saved from death. In John, a similar story is going on, which is why I think that John writes the word “perish” in John 3:16. I think the word for “perish” (I don’t know Greek, so I invite someone to explain the word in more detail) is intentionally used to warn the listeners of the importance of “belief”/”faith”/”trust” in Jesus.nnOne of the big questions that arises when people read scripture is related to God’s love. Is God loving if he sends snakes to kill people, or in each of the prophetic books (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc.) God says that he will bring nations to destroy Israel/Judah, send famine and plagues, and make men and women eat their children in despair? God is still loving, but man, can he pack a judgment.nnI think that salvation is more than a realization of God’s grace. It’s a reliance on God’s grace and an acceptance of life and allowing the grace to free us from a reality we deserve. I don’t like fire and brimstone messages (and my faith is not built solely on it), but when I read scripture, judgment is just as evident as grace.

        • http://jonathanbrink.com Jonathan Brink

          Nick, so are you saying you’re orthodox? ;-PnnAll kidding aside, when I use the term realization, it means essentially the same as how you state it. To realize is the construct a reality in the mind. It’s automatic that our bodies respond to it because that’s how our minds operate.nnAnd I would say that I deeply value God’s judgment. I wrote an entire book defending it. The problem is not that God makes a judgment. The problem is that we make a false judgment and get it wrong.

          • Frank Turlock

            Isn’t that a judgement on your part too? Surely the problem is not that you shouldn’t make judgments. But rather that the judgement should be based on sound scriptural exegesis in light of all the other scripture in the entire Bible. So what’s the proof, what’s the basis for your judgement?

        • http://paradigmshift-jmac.blogspot.com Jmachuta2

          Nick,nThanks for mentioning Numbers 21:4-8. I think that it is interesting that all they had to do was look at the pole… it was the obedience and faith of Moses believing God to make the pole that was the act. The people benefited from Moses obedience.nnI personally think that salvation is far more eschatological for the first century than we acknowledge. God was in Christ according to Paul, reconciling the world to himself not counting their sin against them. Paul’s plea in 2 Cor 5 was to be reconciled to God. I am a believer in ultimate reconciliation… God has reconciled the entire world to himself in Christ and it is an accomplished thing.nnOur faith, apprehends the reconciliation and that has benefits that those who do not apprehend it do not received… Over the long haul however, all will be reconciled in my view. Salvation was for the impending judgment in the first century.

      • Frank Turlock

        Jon, surely we can agree that this is not about MY view of love. Surely it’s about John, Peter, Paul and Jesus’s views. How do we deal with John 3:16-18? Is that just hyperbole on John’s part? nnYou didn’t say saved. You said restoration. But the passage in John 3:16-18 doesn’t use restoration. It says saved and damned as opposed to eternal life (which it also uses). Other verses say “not perish”, Is a restored person in heaven along with a saved person? Does a restored person not believe in Jesus, but a saved person does? In which case what’s the difference? What’s your proof texts? Or are you and Bell just suggesting what you “wish” were to be the case. nAre you saying all the missionaries in the last 20 centuries were wasting their time? That those churches in Africa and China started by missionaries was not something that you’d have done?

        • http://jonathanbrink.com Jonathan Brink

          Frank, personally I’d take Jesus’ view over John, Peter an Paul’s, but that’s just my opinion. ;-PnnAnd I said restoration because that was the focus of my post, not salvation. The point was to talk about God’s perspective of someone who holds a supposed heretical view. You brought out John 3:16, not me.nnUnfortunately we’ve spent (and I’m including myself in this process) so much time focusing on a single passage (John 3:16) to frame our understanding that we limit our understanding of what God is doing. For example, Jesus doens’t use the word saved in the temple.nnhttp://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+4:17-19&version=NIVnnHis mission, if you will is restoration. He spent the majority of his time working with 12 individuals and healing people. Yet we frame his mission as getting people into heaven, and we miss out on what is happening right here and now.nnBut I will also say this. I do understand your tension with this idea. It comes from a well crafted perspective, with very specific assumptions, ones that I no longer share. If you are interested in why, then read my book. If not, no worries. I assume that your perspective works for you, and if so, great. It just didn’t work for me anymore.

          • Frank Turlock

            nIt wasn’t just John 3:15. That is the problem isn’t it. To get to your view Jon, it seems you’ve had to abandon the plain meaning of not just John 3:16 but of numerous passages that are there (and the ones I wrote are just the tip of the iceberg). nnJon it’s not just one passage, it’s literally the entire Bible and the thread of repentance and redemption throughout it. It’s the thread that the ancient apostles taught and died for. You are free to believe what you want, but please do not blind yourself into thinking that you are getting this from the Bible without doing serious violence to it’s literal message that is there in no uncertain terms. nnYOu said you’d take Jesus’ veiw over Johns. But I quoted Jesus HIMSELF in John 3:16. Did you miss that? Do you think John was lying about what Jesus said in John 3:16-18. Why trust John anywhere else.nnFurther if anyone says that Paul and Jesus disagree on this it shows that they do not hold to the innerrancy of the entire Bible. In which case why not pick and choose what you like and what you don’t like. This is no different from New Age religions who pick and choose what they wish. And if that is true, why even read the Bible, write your own. nnFrom your own mouth you’ve admitted you do not Trust John, or Peter or Paul. Then from whence does your Gospel come from Jon? What you are teaching is not the Bible. You’ve admitted it yourself. Is this your intention. I don’t mean to be contentious, I just wish to point light at your own sayings. Take it in the spirit it is intended. A spirit of love. May the stripes of someone who cares help guide you back.nnSadly if you are wrong Jon then you are one who is leading those of whom who listen to your message astray. Paul and Peter had strong words for this. So I will not say anything just quote Paul followed by Peter. I do not know you, but please do consider seriously this warning. If not for yourself, but then for those you love that may follow this foreign teaching that is not the Gospel and find themselves as Jesus said: Perishing and condemned.nnGalatians 1n 3 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4 who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5 to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.nn 6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospelu2014 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. nn***8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under Godu2019s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under Godu2019s CURSE!***nn2 Peter 2nnFalse Teachers and Their Destructionnn 1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought themu2014bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2 Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3 In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.n 4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell,[a] putting them in chains of darkness[b] to be held for judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; 6 if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7 and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless 8 (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)u2014 9 if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment. 10 This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the flesh[c] and despise authority.nn Bold and arrogant, they are not afraid to heap abuse on celestial beings; 11 yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not heap abuse on such beings when bringing judgment on them from[d] the Lord. 12 But these people blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like unreasoning animals, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like animals they too will perish.nn 13 They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.[e] 14 With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greedu2014an accursed brood! 15 They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Bezer,[f] who loved the wages of wickedness. 16 But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkeyu2014an animal without speechu2014who spoke with a human voice and restrained the prophetu2019s madness.nn 17 These people are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. 18 For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of the flesh, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. 19 They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravityu2014for u201cpeople are slaves to whatever has mastered them.u201d 20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. 22 Of them the proverbs are true: u201cA dog returns to its vomit,u201d[g] and, u201cA sow that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mud.u201d

          • http://jonathanbrink.com Jonathan Brink

            Much love Frank. nnYou’ve misunderstood and misquoted me when you say, “From your own mouth you’ve admitted you do not Trust John, or Peter or Paul.” I didn’t say that. You did. nnTo quote me, I said, “personally I’d take Jesus’ view over John, Peter an Paul’s.”

          • Frank Turlock

            Sorry I do not mean to misquote you. But when you say you’d “personally take Jesus’ view over John, Peter and Paul’s” you must imply that they disagree with them. Otherwise why raise the issue? Surely it would be disingenuous to make that statement while maintaining that they all agree with Jesus. nnSo let me ask this how is John, Peter and Paul’s view of salvation through belief in Christ and perishing if you do not believe any different from Jesus’s view? Did Jesus say: Anyone who does not believe is already condemned?

    • http://paradigmshift-jmac.blogspot.com Jmachuta2

      Frank,nI think you make it a lot more simplistic than it really is. First of all, the verses you quote above have first century eschatological significance. There is a lot of benefit to realizing that one has been reconciled to God so, evangelism makes a lot of sense even if there is ultimate reconciliation. My life is much better having known Christ and believing in Him. We often miss the imminent echatological significance of much of the New Testament and it really colors our theology.nnBlessings,nJoe

      • Frank Turlock

        Interesting, but perhaps you can explained what changed in the 1st century? nnI just don’t see how “unless you believe in him you will perish” changes in the 1st or 20th century? I’d be very interested in seeing how you justify this “change”.nnNaturally the next question is: Why didn’t the church in the 2nd century (Polycarp and the first hand disciples of Peter and John) realize that the 2nd Century was different from the first. nnWas the 3rd different when they were being called Atheists for preaching that ONLY 1 God existed and you had to believe in him and were being tortured and killed for that belief? Was the 4th different from the 1st when they came up with Nicene creed?nnUniversalism is not new. It was dealt with even in the 2nd century and the 3rd and the 4th and so on.nWhy does it take a Rob Bell and Jonathan Brink to suddenly realize that what the church has been saying is a false teaching for 2000 years is suddenly what Jesus really meant to teach but everyone was stuck in a 1st century rut.

        • http://paradigmshift-jmac.blogspot.com Jmachuta2

          Frank,nWhat you must understand is that exegesis depends on hermeneutic and presuppositions. I don’t know that this blog is the place for it but there are other hermeneutics that look at the biblical data and conclude very different conclusions. Paul warned that at some point there would be a great falling away and a strong delusion and that people would actually end up believing a lie. I think that happened in the first century and the second forward are colored by it.

          • http://jonathanbrink.com Jonathan Brink

            I don’t know if I can say it any simpler than what Joe is suggesting. One of the big assumptions you are making is that most theologians hold your view, and have since the cross. I won’t even try to talk you out of that one. nnWhat I am suggesting in my book is different. I don’t believe it’s new or original because when you see it, it becomes simple. But the very nature of the problem (sin) is to blind us to the problem.

          • Frank Turlock

            Sadly that presumes that you are superior to me without ever providing evidence. It’s one thing to think someone is wrong, but surely it seems like it’s arrogance to think that you can make that claim by not providing any proof. If you would seem that what you need to do is show how all those verses I listed and probably a few hundred more were wrong. nnPlus if you think things went wrong in the 2nd century why did all the Apostles die for their claim that Christ was the only way. I think most theologians who call themselves Christians do hold my view including Aquinas, Augustine, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Clement, Justin Martyr and many others who came later like Luther and Calvin and . But we all know that numbers is not what I’m referring too. I’m arguing for authority and proof. As of yet neither has provided any proof.nnHow does anyone refute those verses that I listed? They’d have to deal with those specific verses. You can’t ignore them and assume the rest of the Bible contradicts those. I don’t mean to be mean spirited or sound sarcastic. My intentions are purely to see how you arrived where you are. I realize I could read your book, but unless there’s solid hermanuetical exegesis in it it would not be something I’d want to spend money on. Thus I’d like to see some inclining of that justification. nnPerhaps some direct answers would help. I’ll ask a few questions. If you are genuine in your conviction that you have biblically arrived at truth I hope you’ll answer them without evasion:n1. Do you think the Bible as written by the Apostles is the inerrant infalliable word of God?n2. Do you think the verses that say Jesus is the ONLY way to salvation are na. Mistranslatednb. Taken out of contextnc. Incorrect by virtue of the fact that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter got their theology wrong i.e. they misunderstood Jesus. But you understand him better than they did.nnAgain I ask in all sincerity. I want to know how you got here using the same Bible we all read.

          • http://jonathanbrink.com Jonathan Brink

            Frank, once again your questions presume an assumption of an argument established by Augustine and perfected over time by many great theologians, many of who I respect and hold dear. nnI also grant you all right to dismiss my work. I have no problem with that. But to say that I won’t answer your questions is to presume that you get to dictate the argument. If you want to know the answers, read my blog. I’ve written several posts answering all of your questions. I already know the answers.nnOne, I have no desire to argue. I have made my points loud, clear, and very public on this blog. You make a request of me to do my homework in answering your questions, yet you deny my answers by stating my book is not potentially worth reading. I can accept that. I don’t need you to read it.

          • Frank Turlock

            I’m not sure why you are afraid to answer those questions. I’d answer them 100 times if I were asked them.

          • http://jonathanbrink.com Jonathan Brink

            Frank, first I have answer them in probably twenty posts on this blog. And I deal with it extensively in my book. You begin with presuppositions that frame your argument. I get that. I lived there for a long time and do understand them. I just don’t share them anymore. But until you are willing to engage a different possibility, then it’s hard to be in conversation.nnBut I don’t really think you are looking for my answer. You’re looking for your answer, which I won’t give you. And so this is not really a conversation. You’ll find that dismissive, but you’ll just have to live with that.nnI have had many people who begin with your framework, and once they see it differently have a very different opinion about it. nnn

          • Frank Turlock

            You said: But the very nature of the problem (sin) is to blind us to the problem.nnBut don’t you see the arrogance of this statement. This means that while sin blinds us all to the problem, it has not blinded you. You see clearly despite all the contrary in the Bible. Surely you see how this could sound vain and pompous. It even seems like you know better than the apostles themselves.

          • http://jonathanbrink.com Jonathan Brink

            Frank, I don’t think it’s arrogrant to state that I wrote a 300 page treatise on the idea. I did my homework. I’ve made many of the arguments in the book in this blog, so feel free to look through it.

          • Frank Turlock

            I think you missed the point. This is a fundamental flaw in your statement. If sin makes us all blind to the problem as you claimed then writing an encyclopedia won’t unblind us to the problem. Does writing a 300 page treatise stop sin from making you blind to the problem. I’m only using your words. I’m not playing with words. Words mean things. Does sin make us blind to the problem or not? If sin does make us blind, does it not make you blind to the problem as well. nnI’m really not trying to be difficult. Just hoping to shed some light on your premise which I think is faulty (pun intended). nnSin can indeed blind us to various problems. But I don’t think sin is blinding us in this issue that Jesus said: Whomever believes in me will not perish.nIf anything, it is blinding those who can’t see the blindingly obvious statement there. (boy the puns are coming fast and furious here).nnHow does one take Christ’s own words and twist them to say something else even if you take it to another culture another context another dimension, it still says: Christ, perish, believe in me etc.nnDo you see the dilemma you have. nLook I agree that you may be right. But at least throw us a bone. Give us a hint, what sort of things could turn what Christ is saying there to mean just the opposite? I.e. We have to go from:nWhomever believes in me shall not perish but have eternal life to:nEveryone will have eternal life.nIf the latter, why even mention it?

          • http://jonathanbrink.com Jonathan Brink

            Frank, you are trying to have a conversation about my book, which provides my frame of view, without reading it. I don’t have a dilemma. You do. You came here and challenged me. You think I’m twisting Christ’s words, when all I’ve done is speak a possibility and present questions.

          • http://jonathanbrink.com Jonathan Brink

            I’m going to assume that what you are saying is true, and throw you a bone. The basis of what Jesus is saying is talking about time. But from his audience’s perspective, he’s trying to change their understanding about it to beyond time, that death is not the end. nnBut the real kicker is vs 18, which says, “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of Godu2019s one and only Son.”nnNotice how it DOESN’T say, God condemns them. It says “stands condemned already”. The judgment is within the self, not in God. nnThe basic premise of my book is that the problem of sin is the capacity to construct a fasle reality (a lie) that sees the self as “evil” or bad. This judgement is directly counter to God’s original judgment of reality regarding the self, which is that all of creation is good, and with humanity, “very good”. This judgment creates a basis for reality, or truth. To deny it produces death.nnThe story presents this idea in the Tree of Knowledge, which asks a single question, Are we good or evil? To understand the three requires listening to the setup. So much of Chapters 2-4 break down this setup. It explores how grace is already present in the Garden. The problem God is solving is not one of Augustine’s original sin, but of humanity constructing a false reality that captivates and blind the self. We call it pride.nnThere’s your bone…if you are being honest.nn

          • Frank Turlock

            I like to think I am honest. But you take the Bible out of context there I think. Whoever does not believe stands condemned already: Does not mean they condemn themselves. Rather that God condemns them. Throughout the Bible it is God who is doing the judging and condemning. Not man. In fact man has trouble condemning himself. The one thing we notice about most criminals even men like Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and Stalin who between them have killed over 120M people in just the middle 40 years of the 20th Century is that NONE of them thought they were guilty. They ALL thought they were doing the right thing at the right time. If you asked Hitler if he felt that God condemned him, he’d have said NO. God has commanded me to do this. The rest were atheists and didn’t believe in sin or condemnation at all. Talk to the racists in the South before the civil war? Question: Do you think God approves of your racism and slavery? Answer: Yes God commands a separation of the races. nnEven after the war, talk to a KKK member. He thinks he’s doing God’s will. nnYou see the idea that humans think they are separated from God at that is the problem is fallacious in any survey. nnAtheists don’t care about God to think they are separated from him so this does not work there. They think they are good. Ask any atheist.nMost average Americans will say: Of course I’m good. God will let me into heaven because I’m a good person. I don’t kill or steal. They have no condemnation in themselves.nnIf you’ve spent time witnessing to people you’ll realize that the biggest problem is to make them understand that they have sinned against the Holy and Just God. In fact once I find someone who accepts that, usually their becoming a Christ follower comes in days.nnSo I’m not sure why you think man’s biggest problem is thinking that God requires us to do something. I think the reality is that man’s biggest problem is that they think God is just fine with them the way they are.

          • http://jonathanbrink.com Jonathan Brink

            Frank, your reply doesn’t surprise me. The perspective you present is largely orthodoxy, and I respect that. God condemning is the historical perspective. And if that works for you Frank, then much love. I don’t hold it but I have no interest in talking you out of it.

  • David

    Jonathan, I think God would love him and welcome him in ! Just as God Loves us all ! What ever a particular community believe is orthodox is up to them. God may not be in it at all…nnI saw a comment on another blog which commented on Bells video promoting his new book. They said….”never saw a group of sheep attacking another sheep.” Kinda puts John 13:33 & 34 in perspective I think.nnLooking forward to reading Bells new book when it comes out. Some of these questions reminds me of yours !

    • http://jonathanbrink.com Jonathan Brink

      Then the guy making the quote never watched sheep very closely. I raised sheep and they can be brutal. Their heads are made of stone and they will butt each other pretty harshly if they need to. They don’t very often but when they do, watch out.

      • David

        Didn’t know you were a farmer at one point….By the way, the way sheep act as you explained helps me somewhat understand how we as sheep act so much of the time. We butt heads so much about what God had to say about who is in and who is out that we loose site of the fact of how to live Loving God and others presently and understand that God has demonistrated His love to us in such a way as to help us see that when we trust in Him we do have a life eternal now !

  • http://paradigmshift-jmac.blogspot.com Jmachuta2

    I really enjoyed Jason Boyett’s article thank you for sharing. First of all, since I am an unapologetic universalist myself, I am confident that God will welcome Jason.:) Further to the point, it seems that historically, sometimes heretics can become orthodox over time. I suspect that the ranks of the orthodox/evangelical/fundamental/reformed and various other adjectives will continue to dwindle and, alternatives such as Rob Bell, Brian McLaren and, Jonathan Brink will continue to acquire advocates. I certainly hope so!

    • http://jonathanbrink.com Jonathan Brink

      You flatter me Joe, but I have a long way to go to be in the same company as those two.

      • http://paradigmshift-jmac.blogspot.com Jmachuta2

        Actually, based upon my read of Discovering the God Imagination I flatter them!

  • Annie

    I think I’d rather work out my own salvation and seek the healing of my own soul than try to discern God’s ways on this. I really and truly don’t know who will be saved. I don’t see how anyone else’s soul is my problem. And I don’t see how I can even make it my problem unless I determine that I’m already okay. So I think the answer here is not to accept or reject universalism but rather to recenter my energy around my own salvation as a process of healing in which I am still participating with the Holy Spirit. Whatever takes my focus away from that is harmful.

    • Frank Turlock

      Yes but what about witnessing to those in other parts of the world. Is this just about your salvation? What about my Eastern European cousins who are Muslim?

  • Johnferrer

    Regardless of what “certain communities” or an orthodox tradition says, what do the bible verses on hell have to say about this line of teaching?

    • http://jonathanbrink.com Jonathan Brink

      John, I’m not sure I’m understanding your question. Can you restate it?

  • Av8torbob

    Actually, I have seen many examples of the mean, hateful you mention (quote by Boyett) but some of the most mean, hateful people I have ever seen is the Christian who thinks you can’t get your theology wrong.nnI also haven’t seen a clear response to Frank’s point — that you (by “you” I mean those who hold your view) seem to have somehow escaped being “blinded by sin” like the rest of us (who do not hold your view). Can you address that?

    • http://jonathanbrink.com Jonathan Brink

      Av8torbob, I state in the front of my book that some of what I write is potentially and likely wrong. I’ve stated that same idea many times in this very blog.

  • CharlesM

    Is there any practical difference between universalism and pluralism – of what consequence is the indwellling work of the Holy Spirit, of sanctification? If there is no need to preach Christ’s death and resurrection, I don’t see a need to teach people to be disciples of Christ.

    • http://paradigmshift-jmac.blogspot.com Jmachuta2

      Charles,nThis is a great question and in my mind there is. The biblical narrative has been used for all kinds of purposes with exclusivism being the main one. Still, if one reads the text from what I would call Jesus’ perspective (the perspective of Jesus and his followers that penned the New Testament writings) it becomes clear that he/they developed a redemptive hermeneutic that would be very beneficial to humans even if universalism is an undisputed fact. nnThe story of the alienation and reconciliation of humanity provides a view, that when believed, makes ones relationship with Father God better. The resurrection provides the proof of God’s love and our eternal nature. That get’s sidetracked when one sees the doctrine of heaven and hell and eternal torturous punishment. nn

      • CharlesM

        “The story of the alienation and reconciliation of humanity provides a view, that when believed, makes ones relationship with Father God better.”nnIsn’t that the crux of this debate, friend? That Universalism says that our relationship with God can never be better than it is now for anyone – there are no favored sons in the Universalist universe. If there are favored sons, then the debate over hell is just over a matter of degrees. If my relationship with Father God is better than the one that the Muslim has, should I not tell him about it? Or should I keep the secret to myself?nnUnderstand I am not throwing digs at you – these are practical questions that I cannot get around.

        • http://paradigmshift-jmac.blogspot.com Jmachuta2

          I personally believe that the Holy Spirit does indwell in a special way those who are trusting in God. I may be wrong but the redemption story as I understand it provides the proof of God’s love in a way that no other story does. Those who do not have a faith in Christ are less sure in my view of the love of God…. Those who see Christ as primarily a fire escape who is rescuing them from a vengeful God are not really made better except for that small still voice of the indwelling Spirit.nnGiven the stronghold exclusivism has on Christianity it seems that perhaps there is not a real benefit and yet, for me…. I see there is. I do not think that you are trying to dig me… I am struggling to articulate what redemption means from my view.

          • CharlesM

            Would a common ground then be that we who trust in Jesus have the indwelling Holy Spirit and have a more sure understanding of God’s love, and that this is exclusive? The redemptive and sanctifying work is exclusively of the indwelling Holy Spirit?nnIs that redemption from your point of view?

          • http://jonathanbrink.com Jonathan Brink

            Charles I really appreciate you seeking common ground.

          • CharlesM

            Well, honestly, you aren’t the first I have come across with a Christian-Evangelical Universalist view point; for whom Jesus has a special place but not in the classical personal Savior place that more conservative folk hold.nWhile this neatly takes away the issue of why the Son of God had to die, it opens up several others. The first is how to make universal that which you have found in Jesus personally. The next is defining how sanctifying can begin in non-Christians; an obviously critical part of the Kingdom of God here, to be able to enjoy life here.nBut the issue that is most difficult to grapple with is to figure out the audience of this gospel; surely not the Universalist Christians since they have the truth, unless they want to placate their own worries about a vengeful God. And definitely not the practicing Muslim or Buddhist; to tell them that they need Jesus for sanctification would be to preach another form of hateful exclusivism. Should the Hindu be told that the practice of bride burning is wrong? Exclusivism has just been moved from the arena of salvation to sanctification, not done away with.n

          • http://paradigmshift-jmac.blogspot.com Jmachuta2

            I don’t necessarily see the problem as you have stated it above. There is room in my view for a type of purgatory or re-incarnation. I find it interesting that the disciples ask the following question of Jesus…. Joh 9:1-2 As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. (2) And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” If a man was blind from birth how could it have been his sin? to even ask the questions points toward cycling of souls/spirits.n

          • CharlesM

            This sounds like a variant of karma, of working off your sins, a whole other ball game. nnSo there is a hell or purgatory – your issue is not so much that God punishes the sinners but the eternal aspect of it. And it sounds like Christ is the only way out of the purgatory. And you would talk to the Muslim or Hindu about salvation.

          • http://paradigmshift-jmac.blogspot.com Jmachuta2

            Yes, I would say that we have common ground on this issue. I see that as the benefit of evangelism. Where I change my view is in the eternal realm. I do not totally accept the fact that there is but one life to live and, that there is but one chance to put faith in Christ. I am a universalist in what I would call the eternal.

  • philwynk

    “Some of what I say is likely wrong” is an excuse and an avoidance tactic. The truth is, you’re saying what you’re saying because you think it’s correct. You’ll leave yourself room to change some part or other of the position later, which is all fine enough — but you really are saying that most of Church history consists of a Great Falling Away, and that you and your friends are the restoration of the One Truth. No amount of saying “Hey, I’m willing to adjust” will solve that for you. “Hubris” is the correct name for it.nnThat does not mean it is wrong. But it DOES mean that it is very, very unlikely.

    • http://jonathanbrink.com Jonathan Brink

      I’m okay with that.

      • philwynk

        Jon writes: “I’m ok with that.”nnThat’s a big, red flag. You shouldn’t be, even if you’re right.nnI found myself in that place, perhaps 20 years ago. In my case, it turned out that the “new” positions into which I had reasoned myself were not new at all, they were simply reprisals of the majority position from some corner of Christendom other than my own. For example, my “new” bibliology turned out to be virtually identical to the bibliology of the Greek Orthodox church. I found that to be an immense relief. I was never happy with a position so long as it appeared to me that I was the first to have arrived there. I prayed constantly to be delivered from error. I’m smart, but I’m not THAT smart.nnI think we have reason to distrust anybody who really thinks they’re that smart. The correct functioning of the intellect relies on the grace of God, just as all aspects of life rely on the grace of God. If God doesn’t help us, we err. To imagine that God has permitted the Church throughout history to err, but that you the first to recognize the error, is to imagine that you have received grace that others have not. Which is more likely: that you are a unique channel of grace, or that you are a common sufferer of error?nnThe latter is far more likely, and if you can claim you are the former without significant fear that you might be the latter, there’s something vital and important missing from your character.nnI’ll take a position here, because your “new” position is not so new. Universalism is an old error, and like all such errors, reappears afresh in every new generation of the Church’s history. So I repeat the question: unique grace, or common error?nnThere’s no hate in me for those who fall into error. I’ve been where you are and grew from it. I am hoping for the same for you.

        • http://jonathanbrink.com Jonathan Brink

          Phil you’re drawing an assumption about me that is making me laugh. Once…again…I’ve said it many times on this blog. My faith is not in my understanding of what I believe but in the person of Jesus. I don’t trust myself to get it all right, when has given me great peace to explore where I was once afraid. If my salvation is a construction of my believe system, them I’m doomed because I’ve seen what I am capable of.

          • philwynk

            I’ve assumed nothing of which I’m aware. I’m drawing an inference based on your claim that you’re comfortable with taking a position that requires hubris to take. My observation is simply that it would be normal to feel fear while taking that position.nnBy analogy, it would be normal to feel fear while standing on a 10 meter springboard contemplating your first jump. I don’t know if you’ve ever climbed a 10 meter springboard, but from up there it looks like you’re about to fall a thousand feet into a thimble. People make that jump all the time — you watch them at the Olympics — but the first time, you feel fear. If you don’t feel fear, something’s wrong.nnThat’s all I’m saying. If you really don’t feel uncomfortable taking a position that requires such hubris, there’s something wrong.

          • http://jonathanbrink.com Jonathan Brink

            Phil, the assumption you are making is that I didn’t feel fear and that I began in hubris. I absolutely felt fear, terror at times. I have spent literally hundreds of hours in prayer and conversation with people contemplating the cost of my decision to publish my thesis. I cried the day I published my book because it represented a huge risk to me, my family, and how people would see me. I knew from very early on it would seem like hubris to suggest a different idea. It’s why I specifically stated in my introduction of the book that I could be wrong. But the same could and was lodged against the Reformers.nnBut the terror was not with God in my discovery. It was in the backlash that would come from squaring myself against my traditional evangelical background. It was recognizing that I had reached a point in my life where what I had been taught was creating significant conflict. To see an alternative that was compelling and logical was deeply liberating yet produced a new conflict. nnI was exploring this idea of working it out with fear and trembling with a friend this morning. It seems to me that Neo-Reformists like Piper, Mohler, DeYoung, et al are afraid of the very thing that made the Reformation: Questions. All I did was take the risk to search for answers to those questions, and come out with an answer that reconciled for me. I do not presuppose it reconciles for everyone.n

          • Frank Turlock

            Yes, Jon but what about those who would listen to your “wisdom” and fall into what could be heresy. If we are right those who follow Bell and your theology could be damned to hell. Is that a concern to you in anyway? When you teach it, you teach it as though it’s true. The Bible says in Matthew 18:6 But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

          • http://jonathanbrink.com Jonathan Brink

            I would also suggest that those same words apply to you. So we both run the risk of holding to an idea. But I will say this. I chose to challenge the historical orthodoxy because I found it wanting. If you are comfortable with the historical tensions, of which there are many, then I leave you to your risk.

    • http://paradigmshift-jmac.blogspot.com Jmachuta2

      Actually the reverse is true… it is very unlikely that the progression of church history has developed a correct doctrine. Like the parlor game where one whispers a sentence in the next ones ear and on and on it gets changed from person to person. Much of our theological musings over the 2000 year period have paid little attention to what the first century hearers would have thought. It seems that it is being done more and more now and the conclusions that has been passed down are almost certainly wrong in many respects. This is especially true when you see the varieties of second century forward beliefs and the strict way in which heresy was treated. Thanks for the language lesson I had to look up hubris but your accusation is poppycock.

      • Frank Turlock

        But it’s not a parlor game. We have the New Testament documents which can be proven to be 99.8% acurate as to what was originally written by the apostles. the 0.2% consists of 400 words that have nothing to with salvation, divinity or any major theological issue. And of those 400 words we know both possible variants.nnMethinks you have too low a view of the Bible.

        • Anonymous

          The problem is not in what is written, but the hermeneutical lens that is brought to the scripture. Presuppositions play a much bigger part than most will admit and it is the presuppositions and hermeneutical structures that are similar to a parlor game. Jesus taught one hermeneutic and the early church fathers adopted the lens of the Pharisees. Jesus defined the word of God as the gospel and the early church fathers defined it as the scripture. I do not have a low view of the bible at all. I have a low view of orthodox theology.

  • philwynk

    Let’s suppose that the very purpose of our existence here on this planet is that we learn to interact with God. That’s not only consistent with a lot of biblical analysis and historical theology, it’s consistent with the character of our world. Our world is progressive resistance training, like a weight-lifter’s gym, but for faith instead of muscles. It’s difficult to encounter God, but His work is evident everywhere; we constantly have to exercise our faith to enjoy Him. Whether we enjoy Him here or not depends entirely whether we choose to work out. In this view, our world IS the restoration promised by Christ; He’s present NOW to restore what has been lost. But it takes our cooperation.nnLet’s suppose further that some in our world spend their entire lives perfecting the art of IGNORING God. They see His handiwork and exercise themselves to call it something other than the work of God. They apply themselves to the task of actually believing — as though it were actually possible! — that all our hopes, endeavors, striving toward meaning, loves, compassion, truth, and so forth are just the determined interaction of particles, and it all really means nothing. They work HARD at this. They come genuinely to hate the very mention of God, and they apply themselves to convincing others not to seek out His restoration.nnWhen the restoration is complete and all creation is abundantly in the presence of God, won’t that seem like RAPE to them? They’ll encounter God more closely than a bride encounters her husband in the marriage bed, and there will be no escaping — after they’ve spent their entire life and energy on becoming God-haters and God-ignorers. It’s not just that they’ve wasted their time, it’s that they’ve actually become what they set out to become. How can a being like that enjoy eternity with God? Would it not be more compassionate, and more in keeping with the character of God, to place those poor souls in a place where they experience eternity as they’ve prepared themselves to experience it — without God?nnThe error of Universalism is not just that ignores a great deal of very explicit teaching in the Bible, but that it ignores free will. Hell is for those who have chosen it. Nobody will arrive there who has not deliberately chosen to be there. The rest of creation must respond to God’s restorative acts, but we have been given the immense gift of free will, and like all great gifts, that gift is powerful and dangerous; we can choose not to be restored.nnMost of those who reject the theology of hell imagine that the biblical view of hell is a torture chamber created by God out of anger for His enemies. It may be that in Dante, but it’s not that in the Bible. It is most likely that the fire and brimstone of the symbolism in Revelation (Revelation IS mostly symbolic, you know) is the intact sin that the damned bring with them; they will torture each other and themselves in the absence of God, because their sins remain intact. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth because they’ll understand what they’ve missed.nnUltimately, Universalism is wrong because it does not grant enough dignity to God’s highest creation, Man. Man has been given the power to choose. God will honor our choices. He offers restoration on the one condition that we choose it. Those who choose to become godless creatures will spend eternity as what they have chosen to be, because God honors their choice. The Bible uses dismissive language of the damned, comparing hell to a trash heap and describing what is done to them as the same thing that’s done to offal; what more appropriate way to speak of those who were offered so dear a restoration, but chose to avoid it at all cost simply to preserve their independence?

    • http://paradigmshift-jmac.blogspot.com Jmachuta2

      Using your logic… If most individuals choose to not be restored… which is the view of most of evangelicalsim and God, is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent and if then he chose to create such beings where most would not be restored…. those who didn’t hear the clarion call of the gospel, could not be restored and all of the rest of creation was restored…. my, my, my, what a mordant and sardonic God that would create the world in the first place. You are missing something. In much of history life was so tough that most energy was spent on merely staying alive and not contemplating restoration.

      • Frank Turlock

        Funny that’s what I hear Atheists say all the time. But why do you get to define the God you want to be? Why should God fit your mold and not his own. Actually I think it’s better if God gives each their freewill to accept or reject. Heaven would be hell for one who hated God and hell would be more tolerable for that person. God created the universe so that he could have those who freely loved him love him. And in doing so he had to allow those who freely hate him to hate him. Your question is invalid because you could ask the same question: What a mordant sardonic God that would create a universe with so much pain and suffering. Why doesn’t he stop it and force everyone to be good. nAnd that’s what atheists ask all the time.

    • http://jonathanbrink.com Jonathan Brink

      Phil, I’ve stated many, many times on this blog that I believe in hell, but not as a location. It’s a state we experience based on our construction or interpretation of reality. When we get it wrong, that reality becomes true for us, even when it is false. At the very foundation of reality is the judgment we make of the self (are we good or bad as expressed in the Tree of Knowledge). God begins with very good, and that judgment creates a basis for reality. But when we come to a different conclusion, we becomes captivated by a lie, or a false reality.nnSo hell can be experienced presently. We don’t need to die to “get there”. Rwanda is an easy example of a group of people ignoring the sacredness of human life, of rejecting the God image in their midst. I used to work in a drug rehab home and I met guys who were living in hell everyday.nnAnd I don’t disagree with your assumption that God allows us to choose. It’s one of the central arguments of my book.

      • philwynk

        I’m new to your blog, and have not read your book, nor did I claim to. I don’t think it’s fair for you to hold me to knowing your history.nnI agree that “location” is at best a physical metaphor for something we can’t really imagine, and I agree that we can experience hell as well as heaven while we’re here — in part. But what we experience here of hell is partial, just as what we experience here of heaven is just a foretaste. Something different, and more complete, happens next.nnThe one thing you say in the above that concerns me is this:nn

        At the very foundation of reality is the judgment we make of the self…

        nnNo. At the very foundation of reality is the judgment we make of God and His character. Our view of self is derived from that. We’re not the center, and most of life is about learning that we’re not the center. Your notion that the fundamental reality is our view of self, constitutes the very definition of “self-centered.”nnHere’s my question: in your view, can hell become a permanent state? Or, are all beings destined for recovery? That would be very nice, but it does not comport with my experience of life, nor with my reading of scripture. If it’s true, it is difficult to reconcile with fee will, as I explained, above.

        • http://jonathanbrink.com Jonathan Brink

          You may be new but you also have a responsibility to do a little work on your own before making assumptions about me. I don’t have any problem with engaging dialogue, even when it produces adamant disagreement. nnThea possibility that I am offering is based on the narrative of Scripture, that the only question humanity is actually wrestling with is one of the value of the self, which is found in the Tree of Knowledge. When we get it wrong, it is self-centered. I agree with that. But it is the question. To get over that problem, means embracing God’s reality, which I call the God imagination.nnThe idea of permanent state is an unknown for me. Is it possible that someone gets trapped in a state of hell for all of eternity…yes. Is it likely given the mission of God to restore all of reality…no. I have a very big belief in God’s capacity to transcend our false reality with love. nnFrom my perspective, time is an illusion that we experience when we construct a false reality. It makes us worry about the past and the future, which tears us from the present. God exists outside of time. There is only what is true. And at the basis of that true is the judgment God makes at the beginning of creation, which is that all of creation is good. So for God to abandon any part of creation is to go against what God has established as true.nn

          • philwynk

            I don’t mind doing homework — I do it all the time — but at this very moment, my homework is the entire universe, and you need to narrow it a bit for me.nnI don’t think we disagree on much of anything that I’ve seen so far, but I’m wondering where you got this notion that “the only question humanity is actually wrestling with is one of the value of the self.” Do you develop this idea concisely somewhere where I can view it? nnThanks.

          • http://jonathanbrink.com Jonathan Brink

            It’s the basis of the third chapter in my book.

        • http://jonathanbrink.com Jonathan Brink

          You may be new but you also have a responsibility to do a little work on your own before making assumptions about me. I don’t have any problem with engaging dialogue, even when it produces adamant disagreement. nnThea possibility that I am offering is based on the narrative of Scripture, that the only question humanity is actually wrestling with is one of the value of the self, which is found in the Tree of Knowledge. When we get it wrong, it is self-centered. I agree with that. But it is the question. To get over that problem, means embracing God’s reality, which I call the God imagination.nnThe idea of permanent state is an unknown for me. Is it possible that someone gets trapped in a state of hell for all of eternity…yes. Is it likely given the mission of God to restore all of reality…no. I have a very big belief in God’s capacity to transcend our false reality with love. nnFrom my perspective, time is an illusion that we experience when we construct a false reality. It makes us worry about the past and the future, which tears us from the present. God exists outside of time. There is only what is true. And at the basis of that true is the judgment God makes at the beginning of creation, which is that all of creation is good. So for God to abandon any part of creation is to go against what God has established as true.nn

  • http://www.barefootbohemian.blogspot.com Kimberly

    Just in case you’re curious, if someone wanted to print this article and the related comments to read in a more convenient setting (say, a bubble bath, for instance), that person would be holding 23 pages. Not too shabby…

    • http://jonathanbrink.com Jonathan Brink

      Wow. Thanks Kimberly. And enjoy the bubble bath.

  • Frank Turlock

    Everyone should watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg-qgmJ7nzA

    • http://jonathanbrink.com Jonathan Brink

      I like Bashir and think he’s a great journalist. I like that he goes after Rob Bell. But I would suggest the title is assumptive based upon the view we want to see. I didn’t see him squirm. And I would also say that Bashir didn’t listen to him answer the question.nnWhen he says, “That’s true, isn’t it.” He’s closed the argument and dialog before he begins it.

  • http://theeternaldance.blogspot.com/ Lynelle

    Your final question is so right on.  I’ve decided I no longer believe in the hell of eternal torture.  a friend of mine became very upset at this news and said she was afraid for me.
    So, I asked, ” if there is eternal torment, does that mean I’ll get thrown into it because I don’t believe in it?  How does my belief change anything?  If I trust and follow God, does my love for God become moot, because I believe a wrong doctrine?”
    Illogical.

Business development and communications for growing businesses.