Amyraldism and Rob Bell.

[Benjamin Burch]

First off, congratulations for being disinterested. It's interesting that the few times I come here - you're always here.

You must not be around much; I sure haven't been.

And you almost always respond to my posts. I would love to see a stat on that. Of the 826 lifetime posts of mine, I would estimate that you've responded to, roughly, 80-90% of them.

Please do go look. I haven't initiated conversation with you in ages. I will respond, but you are the only one who has initiated for quite some time now.

When it comes teachings on final judgement, Bell and historical Christianity, prior to the 1800s, have virtually nothing in common. It's a farce to say, as you have, that the earliest Christian/theologians are in agreement with him. Its unfounded and I called you out on it. Its nothing personal.

You didn't call me on what I said, and I already said that. Jim even pointed it out, and you've toed the same line instead of changing course. It is, in fact, personal, because you want to believe I'm saying something I'm not saying.

I am not saying Bell's view of hell or judgment are similar to historical Christianity. I said nothing of the sort. I responded to the use of the "wide/narrow path(s)" in a determinative way by saying that this was not the attitude of the earliest Christians and still isn't among Orthodox Christians.

The focus on God's desire for all humans to be saved and, therefore, the hope that as many as possible will be saved in the end is a central tenant of Orthodox Christianity, which has not changed any of its theology in a very, very, very long time, if ever.

The use of the "narrow/wide path(s)" as a central part of the discussion of final judgment to the point that it is simply accepted as a given that most will be in hell has, to my knowledge, little support in Early Christianity, and is a medieval development.

[Jim Chabot]

I am not saying Bell's view of hell or judgment are similar to historical Christianity. I said nothing of the sort. I responded to the use of the "wide/narrow path(s)" in a determinative way by saying that this was not the attitude of the earliest Christians and still isn't among Orthodox Christians.

The focus on God's desire for all humans to be saved and, therefore, the hope that as many as possible will be saved in the end is a central tenant of Orthodox Christianity, which has not changed any of its theology in a very, very, very long time, if ever.

The use of the "narrow/wide path(s)" as a central part of the discussion of final judgment to the point that it is simply accepted as a given that most will be in hell has, to my knowledge, little support in Early Christianity, and is a medieval development.

Thanks Ben, hopefully this clears things up a bit. Your original statement didn't really contain enough to respond to, but you have said a bit more this time. So I'm curious; You say that "the hope that as many as possible will be saved in the end is a central tenant of Orthodox Christianity" to which I would have no issue with whatsoever, I would hope this to be the case as it's clear to me as well. However, I'm not seeing a connection between God's desire and the end result, which is what I believe Jesus spoke to. Of course God could simply will it to be so, but I'm thinking that we are in agreement that He will not "will it to be so." Rather I'm thinking that His desire that all may be saved, may in fact not come to pass, thus Jesus statement that there will be few is not contradictory.

Is there more?

[Benjamin Burch]

Thanks Ben, hopefully this clears things up a bit. Your original statement didn't really contain enough to respond to, but you have said a bit more this time. So I'm curious; You say that "the hope that as many as possible will be saved in the end is a central tenant of Orthodox Christianity" to which I would have no issue with whatsoever, I would hope this to be the case as it's clear to me as well. However, I'm not seeing a connection between God's desire and the end result, which is what I believe Jesus spoke to. Of course God could simply will it to be so, but I'm thinking that we are in agreement that He will not "will it to be so." Rather I'm thinking that His desire that all may be saved, may in fact not come to pass, thus Jesus statement that there will be few is not contradictory.

Is there more?

The difference is speaking about the end in a way so as to just assume that it will come to pass in the end. That is, even though God wills it, and we hope for it, we already know it won't happen, and only a few will actually make it.

I simply don't see that attitude in much of Christianity before the Western Middle Ages.

[Dale Cozby]

The use of the "narrow/wide path(s)" as a central part of the discussion of final judgment to the point that it is simply accepted as a given that most will be in hell has, to my knowledge, little support in Early Christianity, and is a medieval development.

I wonder if teh use of the "wide/narrow" has more to do with how we live here rather than a bottleneck at the the gates of heaven.

Ben if you had some quotes from ante-Nicene or post-Nicene fathers supporting your posts I would like that. It would direct my reading to further texts to support Bell's "heterodoxy" as not something just post-modern in conversations. I seem to recall Origen somewhere in my distant past readings....but that was back when you were a small child and I had all my brain cells...

[Benjamin Burch]

I wonder if teh use of the "wide/narrow" has more to do with how we live here rather than a bottleneck at the the gates of heaven.

Ben if you had some quotes from ante-Nicene or post-Nicene fathers supporting your posts I would like that. It would direct my reading to further texts to support Bell's "heterodoxy" as not something just post-modern in conversations. I seem to recall Origen somewhere in my distant past readings....but that was back when you were a small child and I had all my brain cells...

Well, again, I'm speaking mostly of a lack of something, not necessarily the presence of something. There is a lack of texts -- to my knowledge -- which display the idea that very few are going to make it to heaven in the end, and that's just how it is.

That is, Rob Bell puts his finger on something very important, even if we don't like what else he says/thinks, etc. We tend to say we believe things like "God desires all to be saved", and then we say that "most won't be saved" and that this is already set in stone. So, in essence, we say that God foolishly desires something -- and so should we -- that we already know isn't going to happen.

This just doesn't appear -- to my knowledge -- to be the attitude among Early Eastern Fathers.

[Jim Chabot]

The difference is speaking about the end in a way so as to just assume that it will come to pass in the end. That is, even though God wills it, and we hope for it, we already know it won't happen, and only a few will actually make it.

I simply don't see that attitude in much of Christianity before the Western Middle Ages.

This does help some, I hadn't thought along these lines. As you may be aware your thinking and mine come from entirely different places. My thought processes would never make a connection. Knowing that only a few will make it, doesn't bring any sense of apathy or bring on the whats the use mentality. God's desire is there, the stakes are high and knowing that few will make it helps me to continue on in my efforts without limitation of expectations not met.

It sounds like you are describing the attitude of the wicked servant who was given one talent. I would hope that his attitude would be scarce among those writing for the church in any age.

As to my disagreement with Bell about this. I'm thinking that he is going to be surprised at how many are cast into the lake of fire. My hope is that I'll be the one surprised as to how few, of course none would be really neat. But I would rather be pleasantly surprised, than deluded by false hope.

[Benjamin Burch]

This does help some, I hadn't thought along these lines. As you may be aware your thinking and mine come from entirely different places. My thought processes would never make a connection. Knowing that only a few will make it, doesn't bring any sense of apathy or bring on the whats the use mentality. God's desire is there, the stakes are high and knowing that few will make it helps me to continue on in my efforts without limitation of expectations not met.

It sounds like you are describing the attitude of the wicked servant who was given one talent. I would hope that his attitude would be scarce among those writing for the church in any age.

As to my disagreement with Bell about this. I'm thinking that he is going to be surprised at how many are cast into the lake of fire. My hope is that I'll be the one surprised as to how few, of course none would be really neat. But I would rather be pleasantly surprised, than deluded by false hope.

I don't mean anything about apathy. I just mean that we don't know that few will make it. And, again, I don't see Christians writing as though few will make it in Early Christianity. In fact, I would go so far as to say I have read more either suggesting or flat asserting that all will make it than that few will make it in Early Christianity.

[John Kennedy]

My Dad used to say that there would be some real surprises in heaven: the ones there that you didn't expect to see, the ones absent that you had expected to see. But the biggesst surprise might be the looks on the faces of some others when they saw you there.

[Jim Chabot]

I don't mean anything about apathy. I just mean that we don't know that few will make it. And, again, I don't see Christians writing as though few will make it in Early Christianity. In fact, I would go so far as to say I have read more either suggesting or flat asserting that all will make it than that few will make it in Early Christianity.

Oops, looks like I misread you then, sorry about that. In that case I'm going for door number three. Scripture, and Jesus in particular, says that few will make it, Tradition seems to be absent this sentiment, and on to door number three, I'm thinking that this isn't reasonable so tradition or apparent lack thereof gets the boot. I'll wait on experience to verify, but so far so good.

[Hans Deventer]

I guess I don't get this. Amyraldism clearly posits irresistible grace. How is that not coercive? And Amyrault was opposed to Aminianist idea of choice.

Jerry Walls explains this in his first video: http://www.naznet.com/community/show...l=1#post156829

The idea is that when God puts desires in our heart, we actually want those and hence, are not coerced, since coercion is having to do something against our will.

[Marcus Kibbe]

You must not be around much; I sure haven't been.



Please do go look. I haven't initiated conversation with you in ages. I will respond, but you are the only one who has initiated for quite some time now.



You didn't call me on what I said, and I already said that. Jim even pointed it out, and you've toed the same line instead of changing course. It is, in fact, personal, because you want to believe I'm saying something I'm not saying.

I am not saying Bell's view of hell or judgment are similar to historical Christianity. I said nothing of the sort. I responded to the use of the "wide/narrow path(s)" in a determinative way by saying that this was not the attitude of the earliest Christians and still isn't among Orthodox Christians.

The focus on God's desire for all humans to be saved and, therefore, the hope that as many as possible will be saved in the end is a central tenant of Orthodox Christianity, which has not changed any of its theology in a very, very, very long time, if ever.

The use of the "narrow/wide path(s)" as a central part of the discussion of final judgment to the point that it is simply accepted as a given that most will be in hell has, to my knowledge, little support in Early Christianity, and is a medieval development.

Got it. I agree that the "narrow" door verses have nothing to do with quantifying the # of people in heaven and hell. I don't know of anyone arguing that the majority of early Christians and Orthodox Christians today believe(d) otherwise.

I also agree that the hope that as many as possible will be saved has been historically central within Christianity. Though thats not what Bell has said. Hoping that many will be saved is much different than implying most, if not all, will be saved. In Love Wins, he takes 1 Tim. 2:4 (God desires all to be saved), avoids any contextual work on the passage and fails to bring any other relevant passages to bear on it, resulting with his conclusion: God wants all people to be saved. God gets what he wants. Therefore, all people will eventually be saved. Love Wins.

I see what you're saying though and don't disagree.

[Todd Erickson]

Jerry Walls explains this in his first video: http://www.naznet.com/community/show...l=1#post156829

The idea is that when God puts desires in our heart, we actually want those and hence, are not coerced, since coercion is having to do something against our will.

So, if God forces us to want to do something, then he's not forcing us to do it? what kind of mental gymnastics is that?

[James Diggs]

Got it. I agree that the "narrow" door verses have nothing to do with quantifying the # of people in heaven and hell. I don't know of anyone arguing that the majority of early Christians and Orthodox Christians today believe(d) otherwise.

I also agree that the hope that as many as possible will be saved has been historically central within Christianity. Though thats not what Bell has said. Hoping that many will be saved is much different than implying most, if not all, will be saved. In Love Wins, he takes 1 Tim. 2:4 (God desires all to be saved), avoids any contextual work on the passage and fails to bring any other relevant passages to bear on it, resulting with his conclusion: God wants all people to be saved. God gets what he wants. Therefore, all people will eventually be saved. Love Wins.

Bell did not say that "most, if not all, will be saved". That would be arguing for a wide gate. His argument still is one of a narrow gate, yet one that remains open for as long as possible- perhaps (he wonders) forever. But an open gate forever does not mean most, if not all will ever walk through it. Not only that, he makes it a big point to emphasis that the time is now to decide.

So, Bell does not conclude "Therefore, all people will eventually be saved". That is not why love wins, love wins because the narrow gate is open and God means to keep it open for as long as possible. Well when questioning about who can be saved in such a narrow way, Jesus replied “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” That's the only way love can win, by God reaching out and presenting a flood of opportunity greater the flood of things we as human beings but in our own way. Where sin increases grace abounds all the more. Love wins because of God's unfathomable generosity.

Bell's book is about God's posture toward us- a posture of love that is our only chance for us to be won back to him and be restored as all we are intended to be. It is about a love that wins.

You can't draw conclusions from Bells book outside of what he is talking about, he is not connecting dots they way his critics say he is. He makes no assertion at all that "Therefore, all people will eventually be saved". Not only is that not his point, but it actually works against his point that love wins in only in the way that actually restores us from the wide path of destruction are consumed by without God.

[Todd Erickson]

I think that Bell would argue that if we aren't pursuing being the sort of people who would want to live in heaven now (by embodying heaven here) then we're going to be hard pressed to like heaven when we get there.

The general model/stereotype for older "entirely sanctified" church members, so far as I understand it, is that they're crotchety and bitter, and they refuse to deal with other people so as to avoid sin. How could heaven not be hell for somebody like that, when we will all be in enternal growing relationship with God and one another? If ES does not embody a growth of grace, compassion, and humility, then it is certainly not building heaven...

[Hans Deventer]

So, if God forces us to want to do something, then he's not forcing us to do it? what kind of mental gymnastics is that?

Calvinism

[George Wallace]

Calvinism

No actually, in this case it would be Amyraldianism.

[Hans Deventer]

No actually, in this case it would be Amyraldianism.

Which is a form of...............

Already wondered where you had been.

[George Wallace]

Which is a form of...............

Already wondered where you had been.

It is a form of.... Christianity of Christian understanding, that has its own set of assumptions and presuppositions.

Now, I'll give you, "Is similar to..." But if we go with "Is a form of..." then to be consistent you also have to say Arminianism is a "form of" Calvinism. I don't think that to be as accurate, don't think folks would like that phrasing, so I'd opt for the more accurate "Is similar to.."

Been busy,job hunting, I still have 14 quarter hours left to finish my Masters and I am out of $$$. So I need to go back to work and earn some $$$ so I can finish. Besides I commented here to the extent that I thought meet and right. I've not read Bell and I'm not an Amyraut, so it's not really that interesting.

If I had read Bell I might comment more, but with School I really haven't had time for unassigned reading. Maybe now that I am taking a break to regroup I might have time to read other things. I wouldn't mind reading Bell, but there are a number of authors/works that are higher up on my "round tuit" list.

[Dale Cozby]

Maybe God changing our desire is like the two mothers talking about thier kids eating habits.
Mom #1: "Little Johnny won't eat anything except Chicken nuggets and french fries. I tried to give him other stuff but he just snubs it. What do you have to feed your child?"
Mom#2: "I feed my kid boiled cabbage and beets."
Mom#1 " Wow! how did you ever get your child to like boiled cabbage and beets? Mine won't even look at them."
Mom#2 "Well mine didn't like them either for the first three weeks, especially for breakfast and afternoon snack, but after that he took right to them and I haven't had any problem since."

Boiled cabbage and beets looks pretty good next to starving...He never took away our freewill to choose, just what was left for us to choose.

[Jim Chabot]

The general model/stereotype for older "entirely sanctified" church members, so far as I understand it, is that they're crotchety and bitter, and they refuse to deal with other people so as to avoid sin.

Dude, seriously? You need to change churches or move or something. I've been hanging around with a whole bunch of older "entirely sanctified" from a whole bunch of churches for a month now at a few camps. I can't think of any who would meet your description, the ones I know are kind and loving people. I'm going to be real happy sharing eternity with them!

[Jim Chabot]

Bell did not say that "most, if not all, will be saved". That would be arguing for a wide gate. His argument still is one of a narrow gate, yet one that remains open for as long as possible- perhaps (he wonders) forever. But an open gate forever does not mean most, if not all will ever walk through it. Not only that, he makes it a big point to emphasis that the time is now to decide.

Correct, this is a pretty accurate description of what Bell is saying in question form in "Love Wins"

Remember that Marcus is focusing more on the uncharitable things that Bell says of evangelicals in the earlier parts of the book. Specifically, I think, to the comment that billions and billions will not go to Hell, the good news is, in Bell's opinion, better than that.

Marcus isn't drawing a conclusion from the book here.

[Todd Erickson]

Maybe God changing our desire is like the two mothers talking about thier kids eating habits.
Mom #1: "Little Johnny won't eat anything except Chicken nuggets and french fries. I tried to give him other stuff but he just snubs it. What do you have to feed your child?"
Mom#2: "I feed my kid boiled cabbage and beets."
Mom#1 " Wow! how did you ever get your child to like boiled cabbage and beets? Mine won't even look at them."
Mom#2 "Well mine didn't like them either for the first three weeks, especially for breakfast and afternoon snack, but after that he took right to them and I haven't had any problem since."

Boiled cabbage and beets looks pretty good next to starving...He never took away our freewill to choose, just what was left for us to choose.

"My wife and kids used to fear the nighly beatings i delivered to them, but when they realized it was the only love they would ever receive, they came to yearn for it" Yeah, that's the love I know.

Descriptive /= prescriptive.

[James Diggs]

Got it. I agree that the "narrow" door verses have nothing to do with quantifying the # of people in heaven and hell. I don't know of anyone arguing that the majority of early Christians and Orthodox Christians today believe(d) otherwise.

I also agree that the hope that as many as possible will be saved has been historically central within Christianity. Though thats not what Bell has said. Hoping that many will be saved is much different than implying most, if not all, will be saved. In Love Wins, he takes 1 Tim. 2:4 (God desires all to be saved), avoids any contextual work on the passage and fails to bring any other relevant passages to bear on it, resulting with his conclusion: God wants all people to be saved. God gets what he wants. Therefore, all people will eventually be saved. Love Wins.

Bell did not say that "most, if not all, will be saved". That would be arguing for a wide gate. His argument still is one of a narrow gate, yet one that remains open for as long as possible- perhaps (he wonders) forever. But an open gate forever does not mean most, if not all will ever walk through it. Not only that, he makes it a big point to emphasis that the time is now to decide. Click to read more

Correct, this is a pretty accurate description of what Bell is saying in question form in "Love Wins"

Remember that Marcus is focusing more on the uncharitable things that Bell says of evangelicals in the earlier parts of the book. Specifically, I think, to the comment that billions and billions will not go to Hell, the good news is, in Bell's opinion, better than that.

Marcus isn't drawing a conclusion from the book here.

Thanks Jim, I am glad you think my description of Bell's book is accurate, but my description was responding to a wrong conclusion Marcus had made about the book as he said that Bell implied that "most, if not all, will be saved" and that Bell concluded "therefore, all people will eventually be saved". I put these quotes in bold above in Marcus comments.

As for Marcus concern about the "generosity" of the book I find the example of "billions of billions going to hell" as an example of what "evangelicals" say shows the same lack of "generosity" that saying Bell claims "most, if not all, will be saved" does.

But did Bell say "evangelicals" say this, this is THE evangelical gospel?

No, he never says this is the "evangelical" position.

My next question is, does anyone say "billion and billions of people are going to hell"?

I think the answer is yes. I have heard them. Some of them might happen to be "evangelical" but heck they could be Roman Catholic (especially if they believe only Roman Catholics are going to heaven as the "true church").

Here is "fun" link I just found with someone doing "the math" to "proves" that "billions of people are going to hell". People do say these kind of things, and people think thats the point of Christianity because of it. Bell addressing it in his book is a good thing.

The point is if saying that "billions and billions of people are going to hell" is a bad way to communicate the gospel why do we need to be "generous" toward such a point of view?

I asked Marcus a similar question in post 41 about other ways Marcus thought Bell is being less than charitable and he never responded.

So if Marcus wants to talk about this more I am more than willing to listen.

[Jim Chabot]

Thanks Jim, I am glad you think my description of Bell's book is accurate, but my description was responding to a wrong conclusion Marcus had made about the book as he said that Bell implied that "most, if not all, will be saved" and that Bell concluded "therefore, all people will eventually be saved". I put these quotes in bold above in Marcus comments.

As for Marcus concern about the "generosity" of the book I find the example of "billions of billions going to hell" as an example of what "evangelicals" say shows the same lack of "generosity" that saying Bell claims "most, if not all, will be saved" does.

But did Bell say "evangelicals" say this, this is THE evangelical gospel?

No, he never says this is the "evangelical" position.

My next question is, does anyone say "billion and billions of people are going to hell"?

I think the answer is yes. I have heard them. Some of them might happen to be "evangelical" but heck they could be Roman Catholic (especially if they believe only Roman Catholics are going to heaven as the "true church").

Here is "fun" link I just found with someone doing "the math" to "proves" that "billions of people are going to hell". People do say these kind of things, and people think thats the point of Christianity because of it. Bell addressing it in his book is a good thing.

The point is if saying that "billions and billions of people are going to hell" is a bad way to communicate the gospel why do we need to be "generous" toward such a point of view?

I asked Marcus a similar question in post 41 about other ways Marcus thought Bell is being less than charitable and he never responded.

So if Marcus wants to talk about this more I am more than willing to listen.

Ok, this makes sense.

Just wondering then, who does Bell attribute the billions and billions comments to, along with his other negative descriptors. Is he speaking to the air?

As to who has said this, yep I've heard it as well, and I'm guessing that you are aware by now that I agree with this. I believe that it's accurate to say that billions and billions will be going to hell. It's an incredibly sobering thought. Yes I believe that it is generous to say so, because it is true, I believe it would be uncharitable to offer false hope. You and I seem to have differing views on generosity and charity.

One of the songs I grew up with captures the thought succinctly. Yes we still sing this a couple of times a year, it's a good reminder toward missions.

A hundred thousand souls a day, Are passing one by one away
In Christless guilt and gloom;
Without one ray of hope or light, With future dark as endless night,
They’re passing to their doom, They’re passing to their doom.

Refrain

They’re passing, passing fast away
In thousands day by day;
They’re passing to their doom,
They’re passing to their doom.

O Holy Ghost, Thy people move, Baptize their hearts with faith and love
And consecrate their gold.
At Jesus’ feet their millions pour, And all their ranks unite once more,
As in the days of old, As in the days of old.

Refrain

The Master’s coming draweth near; The Son of Man will soon appear;
His kingdom is at hand.
But ere that glorious day can be, This gospel of the kingdom we
Must preach in every land, Must preach in every land.

Refrain

Oh, let us then His coming haste, Oh, let us end this awful waste
Of souls that never die.
A thousand millions still are lost; A Savior’s blood has paid the cost,
Oh, hear their dying cry, Oh, hear their dying cry.

Refrain

They’re passing, passing, fast away, A hundred thousand souls a day
In Christless guilt and gloom.
O Church of Christ, what wilt thou say When, in the awful judgment day,
They charge thee with their doom, They charge thee with their doom?

[Dale Cozby]

"My wife and kids used to fear the nighly beatings i delivered to them, but when they realized it was the only love they would ever receive, they came to yearn for it" Yeah, that's the love I know.

Descriptive /= prescriptive.

But honestly, what if God doesn't take away our freewill(imparting desires) but rather just keeps narrowing the field of choices? Eternal life, bliss and joy on His terms OR annihilation(simply ceasing to exist)?

Would some still choose eternal annihilation to God as Master, savior and friend? Athiests I know speak to me about there not being anything else but ceasing to exist. This is the future they hope for and expect at the end of this life. Why wouldn't thier hope by fulfilled in annhilation, even if another choice existed...?

[Benjamin Burch]

Got it. I agree that the "narrow" door verses have nothing to do with quantifying the # of people in heaven and hell. I don't know of anyone arguing that the majority of early Christians and Orthodox Christians today believe(d) otherwise.

And I'm not saying they are. However, in Western Christianity, at least Evangelicalism, it is almost unanimously read as "quantifying the # of people in heaven and hell", and Jim's post made exactly that point. Thus, I was making my original point that, while this seems to be the go-to thought process today, it has little precedent among the earliest Christians and saints of the Church.

[Hans Deventer]

Jim, since you believe what Marcus finds so objectionable when stated by Bell, perhap you, having a good understanding with Marcus, can explain to him that there is nothing wrong whatsoever with Bell's statement since, at least in your view, he's merely stating a fact. That would be most helpful in this discussion.

[James Diggs]

Ok, this makes sense.

Just wondering then, who does Bell attribute the billions and billions comments to, along with his other negative descriptors. Is he speaking to the air?

Why does he need to attribute them to anyone in particular if no one is denying that such things are really out there? Perhaps he doesn't do it to be generous as he does not want to assume that bull horn guy with signs about how people are going to hell represents what "evangelical" Christianity is even if they bull horn guy claims to be an "evangelical".

Plus, he is not speaking to the ones who said it, he is speaking to the ones the have heard it.

As to who has said this, yep I've heard it as well, and I'm guessing that you are aware by now that I agree with this. I believe that it's accurate to say that billions and billions will be going to hell.

So, if you agree than how is not "generous" for him to say it as it accurately describes what you think? Sounds more like you just simply disagree with Bell when he doesn't affirm this as the hope of the gospel.

It's an incredibly sobering thought. Yes I believe that it is generous to say so, because it is true, I believe it would be uncharitable to offer false hope.

Where is the false hope that Bell is preaching? He is pointing to Jesus as the only narrow way that delivers us from the wide path of destruction. He speaks of hell as a reality for both now and tomorrow. But the reality of hell isn't the "hope" part, but rather Jesus Christ is the hope as he embodies the kind of love of God that can win out over our otherwise inevitable destruction. Finally Bell is clear that our participation is required in receiving this unconditional, unfathomably generous love of God and urges us to embrace it today.

[Todd Erickson]

But honestly, what if God doesn't take away our freewill(imparting desires) but rather just keeps narrowing the field of choices? Eternal life, bliss and joy on His terms OR annihilation(simply ceasing to exist)?

Would some still choose eternal annihilation to God as Master, savior and friend? Athiests I know speak to me about there not being anything else but ceasing to exist. This is the future they hope for and expect at the end of this life. Why wouldn't thier hope by fulfilled in annhilation, even if another choice existed...?

This is not a view reflective of what scriptures actually say, however, nor is it reflective of Prevenient Grace, or recapitulation.

[Jim Chabot]

Why does he need to attribute them to anyone in particular if no one is denying that such things are really out there? Perhaps he doesn't do it to be generous as he does not want to assume that bull horn guy with signs about how people are going to hell represents what "evangelical" Christianity is even if they bull horn guy claims to be an "evangelical".

Plus, he is not speaking to the ones who said it, he is speaking to the ones the have heard it.

So, if you agree than how is not "generous" for him to say it as it accurately describes what you think? Sounds more like you just simply disagree with Bell when he doesn't affirm this as the hope of the gospel.

I've kind of lost track here a bit. I believe that what Marcus was commenting on was the manner of treatment Bell gives to "the bullhorn guy."

You may have something because I do disagree with Bell, regarding his appraisal visa vi the billions going to hell etc. I'm thinking that his condescending tone would bother me more than someone who agrees with him. I'll admit that his comment about "no amount of good coffee can fix this" or something like that was a big turn off.

Where is the false hope that Bell is preaching? He is pointing to Jesus as the only narrow way that delivers us from the wide path of destruction. He speaks of hell as a reality for both now and tomorrow. But the reality of hell isn't the "hope" part, but rather Jesus Christ is the hope as he embodies the kind of love of God that can win out over our otherwise inevitable destruction. Finally Bell is clear that our participation is required in receiving this unconditional, unfathomably generous love of God and urges us to embrace it today.

We are talking about the statement whereby Bell talks about a God who will allow billions to go to hell and then says no the good news is better than that. I disagree with Bell, I don't believe that it is better than this.

[Dale Cozby]

We are talking about the statement whereby Bell talks about a God who will allow billions to go to hell and then says no the good news is better than that. I disagree with Bell, I don't believe that it is better than this.

Jim, I believe that if God gave us only a choice between existing in paradise with Him and non-existence some would in fact choose non-existence. Some would find fault with paradise with God.

[Todd Erickson]

I think that there's an essential issue with the "what if the choice God is giving you is heaven or annihilation" is that it's a false question.

Jesus never says "choose heaven or hell".

Jesus does try to get people to follow Him, with the assurance that by following Him, by becoming like Him, they will become who they were always meant to be, and they will take part in the kingdom of heaven, where things are as God desires them to be, and they will find their hearts desire.

So when we become who we were meant to be, when we partake in the Kingdom here and now, we become people who will live with God in eternity, in a new, resurrected way, and will find pleasure and peace and joy there.

Who we choose to be now directly leads to who we will be or what we will choose in the next life.

Which is what Bell is arguing.

[Jim Chabot]

Jim, I believe that if God gave us only a choice between existing in paradise with Him and non-existence some would in fact choose non-existence. Some would find fault with paradise with God.

Sorry to have engaged in a sidetrack of your thread Dale, I was affirming Marcus mention that Bell starts out with a heaping portion of condescension on his way to make his point. Errrrr................I mean..........ask his questions.

As to your statement, yep agreed and no doubt in my mind. My dad was one of the folks you describe for most of his life. He contracted polio at age 7, spent 18 months in a hospital alone as my grandparents didn't own a car. Then at the age of 9, my grandmother died. By the age of 12 my grandfather had delivered him and my uncle to an orphanage in Quebec, although they foiled his plot by hitchhiking home. My dad asked my the same question for many, many years. Why would a supposedly benevolent God visit this sort of a life on an innocent little boy, what kind of sick and twisted God would do this. "Go to heaven and be with Him forever? Hell no, I'll not give Him the satisfaction!" I would do my best to explain that God was/is not responsible for his misfortune, that I didn't have the answers as to why things happen, but that I was trusting that God truly loves us, He did send His Son to die on our behalf. Perhaps there are many things that we don't know, but we can be sure that He loves us because He has proved it. I'm glad to say that my dad's tough talk ended when he was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. Actually facing death will change a person in many cases and my dad had the time he needed to really think things through. A few years later he suffered a series of strokes and has been paralyzed and without the ability to speak for the last 3 1/2 years. Some people get lucky and some don't I guess.

But your right, I believe that many will choose non-existence. I've seen it more than once, not everyone gets the time and circumstances needed to change their hearts and minds.

[Jim Chabot]

I think that there's an essential issue with the "what if the choice God is giving you is heaven or annihilation" is that it's a false question.

Jesus never says "choose heaven or hell".

Jesus does try to get people to follow Him, with the assurance that by following Him, by becoming like Him, they will become who they were always meant to be, and they will take part in the kingdom of heaven, where things are as God desires them to be, and they will find their hearts desire.

So when we become who we were meant to be, when we partake in the Kingdom here and now, we become people who will live with God in eternity, in a new, resurrected way, and will find pleasure and peace and joy there.

Who we choose to be now directly leads to who we will be or what we will choose in the next life.

Which is what Bell is arguing.

Where do you get this stuff from Todd? Jesus is pretty clear, Hell awaits! He doesn't mince words, He speaks plainly of a judgement that will surely come, He warns that some will arrive to the words "depart from me, I never knew you." We are told that there will be a lake of fire created for the devil and his angels, and we are told that upon the day of judgement that all will be judged, only those who's names are written in the Lambs book of life will escape the lake of fire. There is no ambiguity, broad is the way that leadeth to destruction and many will go therein.

Heaven or Hell is most assuredly the choice. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

[Todd Erickson]

Where do you get this stuff from Todd? Jesus is pretty clear, Hell awaits! He doesn't mince words, He speaks plainly of a judgement that will surely come, He warns that some will arrive to the words "depart from me, I never knew you." We are told that there will be a lake of fire created for the devil and his angels, and we are told that upon the day of judgement that all will be judged, only those who's names are written in the Lambs book of life will escape the lake of fire. There is no ambiguity, broad is the way that leadeth to destruction and many will go therein.

Heaven or Hell is most assuredly the choice. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

Half of this theology appears to depend on your ability to take most of Revelation literally. Since the book wasn't written for that, I find this to be a questionable approach at best. But we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Benjamin Burch]

I think that there's an essential issue with the "what if the choice God is giving you is heaven or annihilation" is that it's a false question.

Jesus never says "choose heaven or hell".

Jesus does try to get people to follow Him, with the assurance that by following Him, by becoming like Him, they will become who they were always meant to be, and they will take part in the kingdom of heaven, where things are as God desires them to be, and they will find their hearts desire.

So when we become who we were meant to be, when we partake in the Kingdom here and now, we become people who will live with God in eternity, in a new, resurrected way, and will find pleasure and peace and joy there.

Who we choose to be now directly leads to who we will be or what we will choose in the next life.

Which is what Bell is arguing.

I don't think you can leave out the flip side of this, all throughout Scripture, and be speaking of it accurately. While Jesus may not say "choose heaven or hell", there is certainly a flip side to what you are saying and you can't really leave that out.

I also think it's more than a simple "try to get people to follow him." Jesus calls humanity into participation with/in the divine life. This life is eternal in that it starts now and goes on forever. This calling into is likewise a calling out of. Jesus calls humanity out of participation with/in the world/darkness which, while existing now, also leads on past death into eternity.

Jesus calls humanity out of death and into life. Out of bondage and into freedom. That bondage, that death, must be spoken of, and it is certainly a part of Jesus' warning for those who do not choose "heaven" and, instead, choose to remain in bondage which leads to death. I don't know of any scriptural author who doesn't agree.

Likewise, while it may not say the exact words, "Choose heaven or hell", Deuteronomy pretty much says exactly that:

See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, death and adversity. If you obey the commandments of the Lord your God that I am commanding you today, by loving the Lord your God, walking in his ways, and observing his commandments, decrees, and ordinances, then you shall live and become numerous, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to possess. But if your heart turns away and you do not hear, but are led astray to bow down to other gods and serve them, I declare to you today that you shall perish; you shall not live long in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess. I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life so that you and your descendants may live, loving the Lord your God, obeying him, and holding fast to him; for that means life to you and length of days, so that you may live in the land that the Lord swore to give to your ancestors, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.

Paul clearly interprets this passage in exactly this way:

Moses writes concerning the righteousness that comes from the law, that ‘the person who does these things will live by them.’ But the righteousness that comes from faith says, ‘Do not say in your heart, “Who will ascend into heaven?” ’ (that is, to bring Christ down) ‘or “Who will descend into the abyss?” ’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say?
‘The word is near you,
on your lips and in your heart’
(that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For one believes with the heart and so is justified, and one confesses with the mouth and so is saved. The scripture says, ‘No one who believes in him will be put to shame.’ For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and is generous to all who call on him. For, ‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.’

The better question is -- as Bell has borrowed from many before him -- is this death and destruction final?

[Benjamin Burch]

Half of this theology appears to depend on your ability to take most of Revelation literally. Since the book wasn't written for that, I find this to be a questionable approach at best. But we'll have to agree to disagree.

While Revelation may not use literal language and relies on figurative language instead, it can't be denied that John saw a future where the wicked would be judged and the righteous vindicated. The question is not whether Revelation actually says these things; the question is whether Revelation displays an attitude towards these things that is fitting of Christian holiness, and how much stock we should put into it as opposed to other, more gracious attitudes in Scriptures. In fact, all of Christian Tradition is full of people questioning whether Revelation belongs in the canon or not.

I personally find Revelation to be a book much more interested in vengeance than justice.

[Dale Cozby]

I think that there's an essential issue with the "what if the choice God is giving you is heaven or annihilation" is that it's a false question.

Jesus never says "choose heaven or hell".

Jesus does try to get people to follow Him, with the assurance that by following Him, by becoming like Him, they will become who they were always meant to be, and they will take part in the kingdom of heaven, where things are as God desires them to be, and they will find their hearts desire.

So when we become who we were meant to be, when we partake in the Kingdom here and now, we become people who will live with God in eternity, in a new, resurrected way, and will find pleasure and peace and joy there.

Who we choose to be now directly leads to who we will be or what we will choose in the next life.

Which is what Bell is arguing.

Right, but is there a time condition to choose the right and shun the wrong path for us? Is there a Resurrestion to Crisis for those who have not made that decision prior to death? a Day of judgment(Crisis) in which one must make that final and last decision. Is it a choice we get to make after death and hell or is it made for us by God? These are serious questions that if left unanswered leave us doubting is there ever a last day for us?

[Jim Chabot]

I personally find Revelation to be a book much more interested in vengeance than justice.

Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord, I will repay.

Of course my view of Revelation is that most if not all of it has come to pass. I'm thinking that He kicked the Jews around with vengeance back in 70 AD.

Kinda like that flood thing, and the sons of Korah yada, yada, yada...................

Being the Son of the Father, Jesus said "Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city."

And on and on this could go for sure.

[Benjamin Burch]

Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord, I will repay.

Of course my view of Revelation is that most if not all of it has come to pass. I'm thinking that He kicked the Jews around with vengeance back in 70 AD.

Kinda like that flood thing, and the sons of Korah yada, yada, yada...................

Being the Son of the Father, Jesus said "Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city."

And on and on this could go for sure.

I mean on people getting vengeance on folks they didn't like but passing the buck onto God.