Amyraldism and Rob Bell.

[Dale Cozby]

Ok fellas, remember this is NOT post-traditional just general theology.

Question: How much like Amyraldism is Rob Bells, Love Wins? and Where does it differ?

I await your thoughts and opinions.

It might help if you have read some of Love wins, or at least some of the plethora of reviews related to his book.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I have never heard of Amyraldism before so I checked Wiki. I do not see a connection between Bell's book and what the wiki article has to say about Amyraldism.

[Bob Hunter]

Ok fellas, remember this is NOT post-traditional just general theology.

Question: How much like Amyraldism is Rob Bells, Love Wins? and Where does it differ?

I await your thoughts and opinions.

It might help if you have read some of Love wins, or at least some of the plethora of reviews related to his book.

I don't know for sure if I would go that direction. Bell has a different objective. He is trying to move people away from thinking about heaven purely in terms of who gets in and who stays out. He deliberately moves his readers away from the "out there" concept of heaven exclusively. As I recall, he devotes a whole chapter to the idea of "Here is the new there." So he works with the idea that heaven and earth come together in the present, eternity starts now. So I'm not sure Bell is concerned with being universalist or not, he tries to frame eternity in light of our present day experiences. In his words, "we can experience heaven now." I've heard N.T. Wright say a lot of the same things. So Universalism or Amyraldism is a secondary concern if it a concern of his at all.

[Craig Laughlin]

I have never heard of Amyraldism before so I checked Wiki. I do not see a connection between Bell's book and what the wiki article has to say about Amyraldism.

Me as well. It appears to be a variant on Calvinist atonement theory. I've read Love Wins but I'm not sure there is enough connection to even make a comparison. I would say they are using completely different paradigms.

[Craig Laughlin]

It might help if you have read some of Love wins, or at least some of the plethora of reviews related to his book.

Maybe it would be better to say, if you haven't actually read the book you really don't know enough to have an informed opinion. Negative comparisons based on what others say is really e-gossip bordering on slander.

[Hans Deventer]

Read Love Wins, don't see the connection. Can you explain why you posed the question, Dale? Are we missing something?

[George Wallace]

Me as well. It appears to be a variant on Calvinist atonement theory. I've read Love Wins but I'm not sure there is enough connection to even make a comparison. I would say they are using completely different paradigms.

I've not read Bell's work, so not commenting substantively... Commenting in regards to those who are unfamiliar with Amyraut. To be one is to be, what you all would call a 4 point Calvinist. They reject the "Limited" idea of the atonement within the TULIP of Soteriology. It is, always, never, (how about that string of +/-) quite that simple, but all nuances aside, they are 4 Point -No "L"- in their beleifs.

Now back to your regularly Scheduled Programing...

EDITED TO ADD:

Oh, if anyone wants to study the fine points where the Amyraut; Arminian: and a small number of "Moderate" Calvinists have points of contact, Google: -- Hypothetical Universalism, for that is the Doctrine where these particular differences and similarities interact.

[Jim Chabot]

I've not read Bell's work, so not commenting substantively... Commenting in regards to those who are unfamiliar with Amyraut. To be one is to be, what you all would call a 4 point Calvinist. They reject the "Limited" idea of the atonement within the TULIP of Soteriology. It is, always, never, (how about that string of +/-) quite that simple, but all nuances aside, they are 4 Point -No "L"- in their beleifs.

Now back to your regularly Scheduled Programin...

If this is the crux of it, then I would say that he and Bell have something in common. I've read love wins a couple of times, Bell's theory apparent is that humankind has all of eternity to repent. While he allows that it is possible that some will not, he paints this as infintessimally small enough to be theoretical. In the end love wins. Of course Bell speaks frequently in question form, so it may be said that he actually says nothing.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Read Love Wins, don't see the connection. Can you explain why you posed the question, Dale? Are we missing something?

I've not read Bell's work, so not commenting substantively... Commenting in regards to those who are unfamiliar with Amyraut. To be one is to be, what you all would call a 4 point Calvinist. They reject the "Limited" idea of the atonement within the TULIP of Soteriology. It is, always, never, (how about that string of +/-) quite that simple, but all nuances aside, they are 4 Point -No "L"- in their beleifs.

Now back to your regularly Scheduled Programin...

I think we can find the answer here in George's description of Amyraldism. Correct me if my logic fails or am missing something. But if we take limited atonement yet leave irresistible grace we head toward universalism. Yet, as I read the history Amyraut only seems to do away with limited atonement by dividing grace into objective and subjective grace. All are offered grace, but grace only manifests in the hearts of the elect. Which nunlifies the offer. There is no offer if one cannot accept or reject it.

[Hans Deventer]

Of course Bell speaks frequently in question form, so it may be said that he actually says nothing.

Let's keep it at that.

[Dale Cozby]

from the Wiki article on Amyraldism : "The friends of Amyraut urged the love, benevolence, and impartial justice of God as well as the numerous passages in Scripture which teach that God loves 'the whole world', that he will have 'all men to be saved', that Christ died 'not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world'"

Just wondered if anyone else sees a similarity between the two.

also from the same article: "Amyraldism has come under fire in recent years by contemporary Calvinist theologians who argue that one simply cannot accept that Christ died for all people in the world if not all are saved. That belief either requires a second payment for sin at the judgment, the adoption of a form of universal reconciliation, or abandonment of the penal substitution theory of the atonement."
Bell does seem to rub some Reformed guys the wrong way like Amyraldism.

[James Diggs]

from the Wiki article on Amyraldism : "The friends of Amyraut urged the love, benevolence, and impartial justice of God as well as the numerous passages in Scripture which teach that God loves 'the whole world', that he will have 'all men to be saved', that Christ died 'not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world'"

Just wondered if anyone else sees a similarity between the two.

also from the same article: "Amyraldism has come under fire in recent years by contemporary Calvinist theologians who argue that one simply cannot accept that Christ died for all people in the world if not all are saved. That belief either requires a second payment for sin at the judgment, the adoption of a form of universal reconciliation, or abandonment of the penal substitution theory of the atonement."
Bell does seem to rub some Reformed guys the wrong way like Amyraldism.

I think Wesleyan Arminianism does the same exact thing to some Reformed guys for the exact same reasons. We believe Jesus died for the sins of the whole world too.

[Benjamin Burch]

The similarity only seems to rest in the implicit possibility that all might be saved in both systems. Other than that, there isn't the faintest similarity, as both are based upon completely different premises and foundational thought.

Bell is functioning from a Purgative View of Hell and assuming completely free agency and resistible grace.

Arymult functions from a Medieval (or as some call it "Classical", even though that is a misnomer) View of Hell, and assuming Total Depravity and irresistible grace.

For Bell, the possibility that all will be saved exists because all will have eternity to use their free volition to choose to accept God's resistible grace.
For Arymult, the possibility that all will be saved exists because God died for all and may end up electing all to salvation via God's irresistible grace.

Those are very, very different things, functioning from almost completely opposite forms of theology.

[Dale Cozby]

For Bell, the possibility that all will be saved exists because all will have eternity to use their free volition to choose to accept God's resistible grace.
For Arymult, the possibility that all will be saved exists because God died for all and may end up electing all to salvation via God's irresistible grace.

Those are very, very different things, functioning from almost completely opposite forms of theology.

“God’s love will eventually melt even the hardest hearts” (108). and “while we may get other opportunities, we won’t get the one right in front of us again” (197)
Bell does seem to indicate freewill, and the kingdom now belief(pg 197), but it seems that in the end God's love will win, which brings me back to irresistible grace.

Having studied a bit myself, I can agree with a temporal punishment and then annihilation for the finally impenitent. Both punishment and annihilation can rightly be called condemnation and eternal in nature.
Using Bell's metaphore of melting hard hearts....seems appropriate if those hearts are in hellfire. But how can this not been seen as the final coercion. How can we not see it as irresistable?

"Will everybody be saved, or will some perish apart from God forever because of their choices? Those are questions, or more accurately, those are tensions we are free to leave fully intact. We don’t need to resolve them or answer them because we can’t, and so we simply respect them, creating space for the freedom that love requires." (115)

on a side note: I am struggling with the idea of salvation taking place after death, and after punishment but before annihilation and leaving that in an agnostic state of tension without perceiving it as coercion rather than love.

[Bill Morrison]

The similarity only seems to rest in the implicit possibility that all might be saved in both systems. Other than that, there isn't the faintest similarity, as both are based upon completely different premises and foundational thought.

Bell is functioning from a Purgative View of Hell and assuming completely free agency and resistible grace.

Arymult functions from a Medieval (or as some call it "Classical", even though that is a misnomer) View of Hell, and assuming Total Depravity and irresistible grace.

For Bell, the possibility that all will be saved exists because all will have eternity to use their free volition to choose to accept God's resistible grace.
For Arymult, the possibility that all will be saved exists because God died for all and may end up electing all to salvation via God's irresistible grace.

Those are very, very different things, functioning from almost completely opposite forms of theology.

Thank you, Ben. This really helps. I have not read Rob Bell's book, but from the extensive discussion I have heard about the book I would have thought (mistakenly) that he was proposing something akin to the Arymult idea.
You have a wonderful way of concisely and clearly explaining theological concepts. You need to keep pursuing an academic career goal.

BILL

[Ryan Scott]

Rob Bell is a recovering Calvinist for the most part, so it wouldn't surprise me if he walked through these ideas on his journey, but I don't really see any connection to the book.

Love Wins is a pretty bare-boned summation of standard, traditional, biblical theology that has been lost in recent years primarily through the evangelical emphasis on conversion. You can get a more full treatment of such in NT Wright's "Surprised by Hope," along with a more thorough theological study.

[Hans Deventer]

“God’s love will eventually melt even the hardest hearts” (108). and “while we may get other opportunities, we won’t get the one right in front of us again” (197)
Bell does seem to indicate freewill, and the kingdom now belief(pg 197), but it seems that in the end God's love will win, which brings me back to irresistible grace.

Dale, one remark: With Bell, merely to quote "Love Wins" is not enough. In the book, he EXPLAINS universalism. Some people (Like Chan) quote him there as if he supports it. But the basic point of "Love Wins" is that love will allow the other freedom, even if that is a choice against God. Even then, love wins.

[Lucas Finch]

Bell has a different objective. He is trying to move people away from thinking about heaven purely in terms of who gets in and who stays out. He deliberately moves his readers away from the "out there" concept of heaven exclusively. As I recall, he devotes a whole chapter to the idea of "Here is the new there." So he works with the idea that heaven and earth come together in the present, eternity starts now. So I'm not sure Bell is concerned with being universalist or not, he tries to frame eternity in light of our present day experiences. In his words, "we can experience heaven now." I've heard N.T. Wright say a lot of the same things. So Universalism or Amyraldism is a secondary concern if it a concern of his at all.

I've said it before, and I'll undoubtedly say it again, but though Bell references the afterlife, the concern of his book is not so much what happens after death but rather seeing people set free from hell here and now. Or at least that is what I got out of it.

[Jim Chabot]

The similarity only seems to rest in the implicit possibility that all might be saved in both systems. Other than that, there isn't the faintest similarity, as both are based upon completely different premises and foundational thought.

Bell is functioning from a Purgative View of Hell and assuming completely free agency and resistible grace.

Arymult functions from a Medieval (or as some call it "Classical", even though that is a misnomer) View of Hell, and assuming Total Depravity and irresistible grace.

For Bell, the possibility that all will be saved exists because all will have eternity to use their free volition to choose to accept God's resistible grace.
For Arymult, the possibility that all will be saved exists because God died for all and may end up electing all to salvation via God's irresistible grace.

Those are very, very different things, functioning from almost completely opposite forms of theology.

Good stuff Ben! I think that it may also be said that while the similarity is that both dance with universalism while stopping short before getting there. They have a different outlook as to how they avoid universalism. Arymult realizes the danger and he is determined not to get there, he purposefully introduces faith into the equation as a third variable used to steer clear of universalism. This "fixes" his modification to limited atonement, yet throws things somewhat out of balance, his theology seems unstable. Almost like one mismatched tire on a car, it holds air, the car goes down the road, et something is obviously wrong. Bell, takes a different approach, while he takes no concrete steps to avoid universalism, he is careful to never make a statement supporting it. In the end Bell can say that all he is doing is asking questions, he hasn't really posited anything.

[Hans Deventer]

In the end Bell can say that all he is doing is asking questions, he hasn't really posited anything.

And isn't it sad that even merely asking questions gets you virtually crucified? What kind of faith does one have if it cannot stand questions?

[Benjamin Burch]

“God’s love will eventually melt even the hardest hearts” (108). and “while we may get other opportunities, we won’t get the one right in front of us again” (197)
Bell does seem to indicate freewill, and the kingdom now belief(pg 197), but it seems that in the end God's love will win, which brings me back to irresistible grace.

Having studied a bit myself, I can agree with a temporal punishment and then annihilation for the finally impenitent. Both punishment and annihilation can rightly be called condemnation and eternal in nature.
Using Bell's metaphore of melting hard hearts....seems appropriate if those hearts are in hellfire. But how can this not been seen as the final coercion. How can we not see it as irresistable?

"Will everybody be saved, or will some perish apart from God forever because of their choices? Those are questions, or more accurately, those are tensions we are free to leave fully intact. We don’t need to resolve them or answer them because we can’t, and so we simply respect them, creating space for the freedom that love requires." (115)

Those who have read the whole book can address this better than myself. However, from everything I've read, the quotes, listening to Bell, etc, it would seem to me that Bell says to conflicting things, and chooses to leave them in tension.

He seems to say on the one hand that God's love will win out in the end and God will get what God desires (all to be saved).
He also seems to say on the other hand that love requires freedom and love must leave open the possibility that some will forever say "no" to God's offer of salvation.

Thus, it certainly seems Bell tries to avoid any coercive ideas. Again, those who have read the book closely may be able to answer better, or even correct me if/where I am wrong.

on a side note: I am struggling with the idea of salvation taking place after death, and after punishment but before annihilation and leaving that in an agnostic state of tension without perceiving it as coercion rather than love.

Well, I don't know of anyone who would posit both "salvation after death" as well as "annihilation". Usually it is one or the other. Unless, of course, someone knows of one such thinker, in which case I'd be thrilled to learn something new.

I'm interested, however, in how this seems like coercion to you. I don't see it that way, so I'm curious as to how you do.

[Jim Chabot]

Those who have read the whole book can address this better than myself. However, from everything I've read, the quotes, listening to Bell, etc, it would seem to me that Bell says to conflicting things, and chooses to leave them in tension.

He seems to say on the one hand that God's love will win out in the end and God will get what God desires (all to be saved).
He also seems to say on the other hand that love requires freedom and love must leave open the possibility that some will forever say "no" to God's offer of salvation.

Thus, it certainly seems Bell tries to avoid any coercive ideas. Again, those who have read the book closely may be able to answer better, or even correct me if/where I am wrong.

Sounds pretty accurate to me Ben.

Well, I don't know of anyone who would posit both "salvation after death" as well as "annihilation". Usually it is one or the other. Unless, of course, someone knows of one such thinker, in which case I'd be thrilled to learn something new.

I'm interested, however, in how this seems like coercion to you. I don't see it that way, so I'm curious as to how you do.

"Don't want to come around? No problem, no pressure. I'll just wait you out!"

I don't see this as coercive in and of itself. I have watched folks use this method as such however, the waiting allows for subliminal pressure. If one is capable and willing to wait "forever" then the subliminal pressure and coercion of love will eventually prevail.

[Marcus Kibbe]

And isn't it sad that even merely asking questions gets you virtually crucified? What kind of faith does one have if it cannot stand questions?

Good one, Hans! Of course, it's clear that he wasn't merely "asking questions". Never mind his theology, its amazing to me that anyone can take this book seriously considering his tone. He openly mocks the traditional, evangelical story about God and salvation, caricaturing evangelicals and making snide remarks about those who hold to such belief. He was anything but evenhanded, charitable, or 'loving'.

[James Diggs]

Good one, Hans! Of course, it's clear that he wasn't merely "asking questions". Never mind his theology, its amazing to me that anyone can take this book seriously considering his tone. He openly mocks the traditional, evangelical story about God and salvation, caricaturing evangelicals and making snide remarks about those who hold to such belief. He was anything but evenhanded, charitable, or 'loving'.

What book where you reading?

Could you please include a quote (with some context) where he "openly mocks".

[Hans Deventer]

Good one, Hans! Of course, it's clear that he wasn't merely "asking questions". Never mind his theology, its amazing to me that anyone can take this book seriously considering his tone. He openly mocks the traditional, evangelical story about God and salvation, caricaturing evangelicals and making snide remarks about those who hold to such belief. He was anything but evenhanded, charitable, or 'loving'.

Still trying, Marcus? No sale.

[Marcus Kibbe]

What book where you reading?

Could you please include a quote (with some context) where he "openly mocks".

It's been over a year since i read the book (i think). I just pulled it off the shelf. Without opening it up, we could start with the back cover: "God loves us. God offers us everlasting life by grace, freely, through no merit on our part. Unless you do not respond the right way. Then God will torture you forever in hell. Huh?" Sounds like a mocking, caricaturing, snide, uncharitable, unloving, and partial tone to me and I haven't even opened the book.

[Bob Hunter]

Good one, Hans! Of course, it's clear that he wasn't merely "asking questions". Never mind his theology, its amazing to me that anyone can take this book seriously considering his tone. He openly mocks the traditional, evangelical story about God and salvation, caricaturing evangelicals and making snide remarks about those who hold to such belief. He was anything but evenhanded, charitable, or 'loving'.

I think you are taking it wrong. There is nothing wrong with challenging the status quo. I found this awesome quote that pretty much sums up what happens when we turn a guy loose like Rob Bell.

Probably the most violent and aggressive act that any person can do to other persons is to invade their minds with ideas and twists of meaning which disturb the comforting security of things known and faith kept. Yet this is what I, as a teacher, am required to do."
— R. W. Packer, "Breaking the Sound Barrier: A Dramatic Presentation" in Teaching in the Universities: No One Way, McGill-Queens University Press, 1974.

The fact is, sometimes learners resist, reject and fight against emerging truth. I personally don't want to be one of those persons. And Bell doesn't really assert anything new, a lot of his ideas are really old ones that need to be rediscovered and reapplied in a new way.

But there is no doubt Bell created gale force winds that blew violently against the traditional walls of evangelicalism in America. And I'm not so sure that is a bad thing.

[Lucas Finch]

What book where you reading?

I almost asked the same thing.

Going off of Marcus' original assertion that Bell is not "merely 'asking questions'" . . .

This is where I have discovered that a lot of people set in modernism have completely misunderstood Bell's book, beginning with John Piper's condescending tweet after the trailer was released. Modernists believe that all questions (at least in this format) are rhetorical questions and must therefore not really be questions but points. However, this is not what Bell is doing at all. He is encouraging people to seriously consider the questions and the implications of the answers, no matter what answers those considering the questions might come up with. Bell is less concerned with the actual answers than he is the process of searching for the answers.

To use one of his early examples, I find it too simple to quickly say, "Gandhi must be roasting in the eternal flames because he never accepted Christ." Maybe he is, and if he is, it is a sad thing that this man who did so much good was never able to find the One way to the Father. However, maybe there is more than one way to accept Christ? Maybe, and I'm not making a definitive answer but just throwing out ideas, maybe when a person lives the life that Christ has called us to live, that person has, in fact, truly accepted Christ, even if he or she did not even know it him- or her- self. Or maybe access to Christ's love does not end at the grave. Maybe when He ministered to the souls in prison while in the grave Himself it was not just to those who died prior to His own death but those who died from all of the span of time.

So it would be easy for me to just say, "Burn, Gandhi, burn, you wretched heathen!" But when I take time to consider things, maybe the answer is not quite that easy. So in a very real sense, Bell really isn't saying anything in his book. He's leaving it up to the reader to decide, or even if the reader should decide. (I know that I personally am undecided on the nature of the afterlife.)

At the same time, though, I found Bell's book to be an extremely helpful reminder that so much of Western/modernist/individualistic Christianity has got the message wrong. Christianity is not about getting into heaven or staying out of hell, at least in an eternal reality. Christianity is about relationship with Christ and His church and then going about the mission that entering into relationship with Him compels us to do. When we enter into that relationship and begin that mission, we have stepped out of hell, and part of our mission involves helping liberate others from the hells that they are currently suffering. This heaven that we step into when we step out of hell is an eternal thing, so it certainly has implications for our afterlifes. But it should never be the goal that I have perceived modernism to make it.

[Jim Chabot]

I think you are taking it wrong. There is nothing wrong with challenging the status quo. I found this awesome quote that pretty much sums up what happens when we turn a guy loose like Rob Bell.

Probably the most violent and aggressive act that any person can do to other persons is to invade their minds with ideas and twists of meaning which disturb the comforting security of things known and faith kept. Yet this is what I, as a teacher, am required to do."
— R. W. Packer, "Breaking the Sound Barrier: A Dramatic Presentation" in Teaching in the Universities: No One Way, McGill-Queens University Press, 1974.

The fact is, sometimes learners resist, reject and fight against emerging truth. I personally don't want to be one of those persons. And Bell doesn't really assert anything new, a lot of his ideas are really old ones that need to be rediscovered and reapplied in a new way.

But there is no doubt Bell created gale force winds that blew violently against the traditional walls of evangelicalism in America. And I'm not so sure that is a bad thing.

I agree with you Bob, I found Bell to be very thought provoking, and I mean this in a good way. Velvet Elvis was even better in this regard IMHO.

However Marcus does have a point, Bell's treats evangelicals pretty roughly on the way. He isn't kind in any manner toward them, I had to forgive him for that before I could take notice of the questions he raises. Evangelicals aren't nearly as wrong as Bell or some right here suggest. It's one of those mote vs. the speck thisgs I suppose.

[Jim Chabot]

It's been over a year since i read the book (i think). I just pulled it off the shelf. Without opening it up, we could start with the back cover: "God loves us. God offers us everlasting life by grace, freely, through no merit on our part. Unless you do not respond the right way. Then God will torture you forever in hell. Huh?" Sounds like a mocking, caricaturing, snide, uncharitable, unloving, and partial tone to me and I haven't even opened the book.

Your right, It's been a while since I read it, but he is for sure no gentleman. I'm remembering places where he says that no amount of good coffee will remove the stench from evangelicalism or something to that effect. And the good news must be better than this. He has a difficult time believing that billions will find themselves in Hell for eternity and he isn't happy with those who say otherwise. Only problem Mr. Bell is that the good news is the good news, it isn't any better than it is, nor does it need lipstick, and Jesus made it clear when He said that narrow is the way and straight is the path and few thereof who will find it.

But this is beside the point of similarities and differences with Amyrald, no?

[James Diggs]

It's been over a year since i read the book (i think). I just pulled it off the shelf. Without opening it up, we could start with the back cover: "God loves us. God offers us everlasting life by grace, freely, through no merit on our part. Unless you do not respond the right way. Then God will torture you forever in hell. Huh?" Sounds like a mocking, caricaturing, snide, uncharitable, unloving, and partial tone to me and I haven't even opened the book.

So are you saying that people never heard the "gospel" taught like that? That you never heard anyone talk about how God was going to get you if you didn't believe the right stuff?

Yea, it sounds bad because it is - but unfortunately enough people have "preached the gospel" that way that many people think that's what it is and they need to hear that it isn't really the good news.

I don't get it, why is this offensive? He isn't saying Christianity is this way- he is saying it isn't.

[James Diggs]

Only problem Mr. Bell is that the good news is the good news, it isn't any better than it is, nor does it need lipstick, and Jesus made it clear when He said that narrow is the way and straight is the path and few thereof who will find it.

I actually think what Bell says calls us to something more narrow than just thw wider road some interpret "justification by faith" as if it is just mental assent to a few beliefs in exchange for a ticket to out of hell. He talks about the consequences of heaven and hell right now and does not shy away from saying that how we engage in the world now will carry over into eternity- he never denies this. The whole time though he points us to the love of God and the promise of something better and how to enter into the WAY of life in that love.

Saying you will go to hell tomorrow if you don't mentally agree with the right set of beliefs is a very wide path indeed- one that leads right into hell both for today and tomorrow. That's not the gospel.

[Benjamin Burch]

Good one, Hans! Of course, it's clear that he wasn't merely "asking questions". Never mind his theology, its amazing to me that anyone can take this book seriously considering his tone. He openly mocks the traditional, evangelical story about God and salvation, caricaturing evangelicals and making snide remarks about those who hold to such belief. He was anything but evenhanded, charitable, or 'loving'.

Well, as long as someone is reminding people that "traditional evangelical" isn't "traditional Christianity", I'm happy to have them around.

[Benjamin Burch]

He has a difficult time believing that billions will find themselves in Hell for eternity and he isn't happy with those who say otherwise. Only problem Mr. Bell is that the good news is the good news, it isn't any better than it is, nor does it need lipstick, and Jesus made it clear when He said that narrow is the way and straight is the path and few thereof who will find it.

The earliest Christian theologians/saints all seemed to be in agreement with Bell on this one, and didn't take much stock n that single verse. Whether Bell is right overall or not, for me, he has some of the best Christian thinkers on his side in regards to this. In fact, most Catholics and Orthodox that I know of do a very good job in their theology of focusing on God's mercy and the eternal hope and desire that all will be saved, and they pray for it often in their scripted prayers.

The side that reads that verse, undersatnds most aren't going to make it, and then treat it as "well, that's what Scripture says", are the very untraditional ones in terms of historical Christianity.

[Marcus Kibbe]

I almost asked the same thing.

Going off of Marcus' original assertion that Bell is not "merely 'asking questions'" . . .

This is where I have discovered that a lot of people set in modernism have completely misunderstood Bell's book, beginning with John Piper's condescending tweet after the trailer was released. Modernists believe that all questions (at least in this format) are rhetorical questions and must therefore not really be questions but points. However, this is not what Bell is doing at all. He is encouraging people to seriously consider the questions and the implications of the answers, no matter what answers those considering the questions might come up with. Bell is less concerned with the actual answers than he is the process of searching for the answers.

At the same time, though, I found Bell's book to be an extremely helpful reminder that so much of Western/modernist/individualistic Christianity has got the message wrong.

Ah, yes, stuck in modernity! Aren't your two statements above contradictory? So you're saying that Bell is asking questions without the intention of imposing ideas? Kind of like asking a woman if she has gained weight is not imposing an idea?

(Just asking questions here. Don't assume I'm imposing any ideas.)

[Marcus Kibbe]

So are you saying that people never heard the "gospel" taught like that? That you never heard anyone talk about how God was going to get you if you didn't believe the right stuff?

Yea, it sounds bad because it is - but unfortunately enough people have "preached the gospel" that way that many people think that's what it is and they need to hear that it isn't really the good news.

I don't get it, why is this offensive? He isn't saying Christianity is this way- he is saying it isn't.

I never said I was offended. I just don't think the tone of the book is charitable, and therefore not deserving of the high-praise I hear many Christians give it.

[Marcus Kibbe]

Still trying, Marcus? No sale.

No thanks, Hans. Not interested.

[Jim Chabot]

I actually think what Bell says calls us to something more narrow than just thw wider road some interpret "justification by faith" as if it is just mental assent to a few beliefs in exchange for a ticket to out of hell. He talks about the consequences of heaven and hell right now and does not shy away from saying that how we engage in the world now will carry over into eternity- he never denies this. The whole time though he points us to the love of God and the promise of something better and how to enter into the WAY of life in that love.

Saying you will go to hell tomorrow if you don't mentally agree with the right set of beliefs is a very wide path indeed- one that leads right into hell both for today and tomorrow. That's not the gospel.

Your free to have faith in Bell if you would like, I'll stick with what Jesus said. Evangelicals say all of the things Bell says as well, in regard to consequences here and now.

But regardless, Marcus made the point that Bell is not charitable toward evangelicals, I'm affirming that this is true.

And regardless of that, the thread is about similarities and differences between Bell and Amyralt. I'm not interested in a conversation about how evangelicals have it all wrong James, really I'm not. I'm not appreciative of those who bash evangelicals.

[Lucas Finch]

Ah, yes, stuck in modernity! Aren't your two statements above contradictory? So you're saying that Bell is asking questions without the intention of imposing ideas? Kind of like asking a woman if she has gained weight is not imposing an idea?

(Just asking questions here. Don't assume I'm imposing any ideas.)

Nope. Not contradictory at all. But you are certainly free to see them as such if you choose.

[James Diggs]

Marcus made the point that Bell is not charitable toward evangelicals, I'm affirming that this is true.

I guess he doesn't know charity like you do Jim as you define what I what I believe this way:

Your free to have faith in Bell if you would like, I'll stick with what Jesus said.

Yea, that's charity because Rob Bell is really who I put my faith in rather than Jesus. Thanks for showing me what charity looks like.

Evangelicals say all of the things Bell says as well, in regard to consequences here and now.

Of course they do, but that doesn't mean that there haven't been enough evangelicals who haven't that there aren't people out there who have only ever heard a gospel in terms of assent in exchange for a ticket out of hell when they die. Besides, Bell is part of the evangelical tradition himself, as are we. it's not about throwing out the baby with the bathwater of evangelicalism; much of what he said still has plenty of roots there.