Who Goes to Hell is Not the Most Important Question

It seems to me, perhaps ungenerously, that much of the opposition to Bell is based on a desire to establish the least possible effort in response to God's call. How much easier it is to claim that baptism or confession or saying the magic words (whatever they are) gets us into heaven than proclaiming that we must live our lives not for ourselves but for God. This baptism-or-Hell theology seems like a classic example of trying to get a splinter out of someone else's eye with a giant plank in your own.
C.S. Lewis, hardly a universalist, could imagine a heaven open to all who repent and follow God AFTER death (Great Divorce, Last Battle). Grace is a free gift, but like all free gifts, we start looking for the strings attached. They aren't there. We follow God as we see fit and trust that grace will lead us to God.

sorry to post this for a 2nd time, but it seems that the best response to "Love Wins" was written by Geerhardus Vos, circa 1902:

Whatever may be charged against the intellectualism of the period when orthodoxy reigned supreme, it can claim credit at least for having been broad minded and well balanced in its appreciation of the infinite complexity and richness of the life of God. The music of that theology may not always please modern ears, because it seems lacking in sweetness; but it ranged over a wider scale and made better harmonies than the popular strains of today.

On the other hand, it is plain that where the religious interest is exclusively concentrated upon the will and entirely exhausts itself in attempts at solving the concrete, practical problems of life, no strong incentive will exist for reflecting upon any other aspect of the nature of God than His love, because all that is required of God is that He shall serve as the norm and warrant for Christian philanthropic effort.

It is a well-known fact that all heresy begins with a partial truth. So it is in the present case.

No one will deny that in the Scriptural disclosure of truth the divine love is set forth as a most fundamental principle, nor that the embodiment of this principle in our human will and action forms a prime ingredient of that subjective religion which the Word of God requires of us.

But it is quite possible to overemphasize this one side of truth and duty as to bring into neglect other exceedingly important principles and demands of Christianity. The result will be that, while no positive error is taught, yet the equilibrium both in consciousness and life is disturbed and a condition created in which the power of resistance to the inroads of spiritual disease is greatly reduced. There can be little doubt that in this manner the one-sidedness and exclusiveness with which the love of God has been preached to the present generation is largely responsible for that universal weakening of the sense of sin, and the consequent decline of interest in the doctrines of atonement and justification, which even in orthodox and evangelical circles we all see and deplore.

But this by no means reveals the full extent of the danger to which the tendency we are speaking of has exposed us. It is impossible for any practical displacement of the balance of truth to continue for a long time without endeavoring to perpetuate and justify itself by means of a corresponding reconstruction of the entire doctrinal system. Thus what may have been at first no more than a matter of relative emphasis inevitably tends to become a question of positive theoretical error, such as makes the return to normal conditions in practical religious life more difficult than before.

http://www.biblicaltheology.org/sdlg.pdf

This doesn't really say anything, especially related to the present discussion. Perhaps "evangelicalism" has some syncretism in its own right and Bell is challenging that to the chagrin of those challenging the status quo.

i would say its entirely related and relevant. The crux of his comments came at the end:

It is impossible for any practical displacement of the balance of truth to continue for a long time without endeavoring to perpetuate and justify itself by means of a corresponding reconstruction of the entire doctrinal system.

This is why redefining the biblical and orthodox views of hell is so important. When we take God's attribute of love out of balance with the rest of his attributes (his holiness, justice, etc), "all that is required of God is that He shall serve as the norm and warrant for Christian philanthropic effort." We see in Bell's book that his leap into heterodoxy on the matter of hell does NOT hold the rest of his theology to a constant. Rather, we see that it is accompanied by Bell's "weakening of the sense of sin, and the consequent decline of interest in the doctrines of atonement and justification", among other things.

The trouble is that the "biblical and orthodox views of hell" may not be the traditional ones we've been conditioned to believe. Going further, "justification" and "sanctification" are seen as completely separate when they're actually very much related, which is why James said that "faith without works is dead." There are a lot of people who have made some "profession of faith" who are going to get a big, unpleasant surprise when they get to the Judgment.

Besides -- and I know this from personal experience -- the Christian life down here has nothing to do with avoiding punishment, which is part of the issue we're addressing. My life at the time I received Christ was the kind of "living hell" that Bell talks about, simply not working the way He meant it to be. It seems as if people are actually happy that some folks are "in" and others "out"; today, I prefer to say "reconciled/not reconciled to God through Jesus Christ."

My suspicion is that the liberal/emergent christian's questioning of hell is not so much prompted by passages in scripture or by historical creeds or theologies of the church, but rather a simple distaste for that aspect of christian theology. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've yet to see a compelling case otherwise.

All this talk about Christianity not being about "Who goes to hell" or "whose in or out".... is this not just a clever way stripping down a position to a distasteful mantra that can be easily defeated? No one revels in the fact that some go to hell, just as no one delights in prisons being full. The point is that since Adam all of us have been born in sin and have been in rebellion against God. The whole biblical narrative shows our need for atonement to satisfy God's justice, from the sacrificial offerings in the law of Moses to the suffering savior on the cross. Jesus didn't die to save us from the hell we create on earth - to the contrary, a quick reading of 1 Peter will show that the narrow path to life is full of sufferings. We praise God that Jesus has saved us from our due, that we are being made anew for His kingdom that is coming but not yet, and in compassion we tell the world that they can also receive this inheritance through repentance and faith.

Is it compassion to proclaim "peace" where there is no peace?? No, what could be worse that leading people to believe that they are reconciled with God when they are not, that they are at peace with God when they are not, that they are delivered from hell when they are not? There is every reason to react with alarm at such a message.

The quote from Geerhardus Vos states "...the divine love is set forth as a most fundamental principle", but then goes on (in the rest of the quoted fragment, at least) to ignore that fundamental and focus on other things. One gets the feeling that Vos paid lip service to "love" but is interested in other things. Thus he falls into the same error that he warn against: "heresy begins with a partial truth".

Vos is worried that an overemphasis on God's love will lead to neglect of other spiritual truths -- however given the past tendencies of the Church it doesn't really seem like there is a particular danger to overemphasizing God's love. When we really 'get it' and have truly overemphasized it for 10 years or so, then we can apply correction. So far that's never happened.

Well, Sam, I think you're ASSUMING what you "see" Bell saying and what Bell is actually saying are one and the same...Perhaps YOU could be mistaken?

"No one will deny that in the Scriptural disclosure of truth the divine love is set forth as a most fundamental principle ... But it is quite possible to overemphasize this one side of truth and duty as to bring into neglect other exceedingly important principles and demands of Christianity. The result will be that, while no positive error is taught, yet the equilibrium both in consciousness and life is disturbed" and so on....

I don't see a contradiction here. Yes love is "a most fundamental principle", but can certainly be overemphasized in an imbalance of his other attributes so "as to bring into neglect other exceedingly important principles and demands of Christianity". Yes, God is love. It is also true that in the throneroom of God the angels sing to God "Holy, Holy, Holy".

You say "So far that has never happened". Yet, Vos' prediction of the results of the overemphasis of God's love to the neglect of his other attributes (weakened sense of sin, diminishing role of justification/atonement, "reconstruction of the entire doctrinal system", etc) seem to be entirely demonstrated, if not elsewhere in the liberal/emergent church, here for all to see in Bell's book.

My suspicion is that the liberal/emergent christian's questioning of hell is not so much prompted by passages in scripture or by historical creeds or theologies of the church, but rather a simple distaste for that aspect of christian theology. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've yet to see a compelling case otherwise.

Or it could be prompted by a strong dose of humility from the emergents. Keep in mind that much of the "emerging church" is a reaction to navel-gazing boomer culture that tends to draw lines in the sand and puts everything in neat little categories so that it doesn't have to deal with the deeper questions of faith and its ramifications.

We praise God that Jesus has saved us from our due, that we are being made anew for His kingdom that is coming but not yet, and in compassion we tell the world that they can also receive this inheritance through repentance and faith.

We can talk until we're blue in the face about what Jesus has saved us from; I submit, however, that the real issue is: What has Jesus saved us for? This is why the issue of "heaven and hell" doesn't really do the Scriptures justice -- we have work to do down here which ultimately should glorify Him. In His humanity He has said, "The Kingdom of God is among you [plural]," which means far, far more than pie-in-the-sky, and perhaps the emergents have a better handle on that than we like to admit. When He told Nicodemus, "You must be born again" (a better translation would be "born from above"), He was NOT talking about "salvation" as we understand it.

BlueDeacon, you have referred to a earthly-works vs eternal-perspective dichotomy as if this is something I have alluded to. I have not, and I see no reason why such a dichotomy would exist. Turning from our sins, putting our faith in Christ for the propitiation of our sins, and receiving the holy spirit to renew our bodies and minds is the only way we are free to glorify God now and for all eternity. Jesus's final instructions were "go and make disciples", not just to go and do good stuff. Paul was commissioned to "to bring about the obedience of faith" (Rom1:5), not just to tell people that God likes them.

Again, the problem is not just a rejection of the existence of an eternal hell, but its resulting "reconstruction of the entire doctrinal system". You refer to a "pie-in-the-sky"; the bible never once diminishes eternity as such. Conversely, it insists that this life is but a mist, a vapor (Jam4:14). We are to spend this "mist" living a life of service and disciple-making, all the while setting our hope to the age to come, when God will redeem and restore his creation, "make all things new". This is the only gospel we were given.

Just 12 years after Vos warned about the dangers of overemphasizing the love of God, millions of Christians were attempting to kill each other at the behest of their respective governments. Given the history of Christian behavior over the past 2000 years, I don't think you can support the conclusion that the church has somehow overemphasized the love of God. We can easily cite many examples of errors in exaggerating the judgment of God; I don't think we can cite many examples of exaggerating the love of God. The one fallacy has proven itself to be a clear and persistent danger; the other, not so much.

I never concluded that "the church" has overemphasized the love of God. I'm only suggesting that Vos' prediction - that the overemphasis of God's love to the neglect of God's other attributes will ultimately lead to "a corresponding reconstruction of the entire doctrinal system" - has been clearly demonstrated in liberal protestant theology, and in "Love Wins" specifically.

The liberal reconstruction of the Christian gospel is the proof. "Love Wins" is Vos' vindication (sadly), here and now, for all to see.

There are a lot of people who have made some "profession of faith" who are going to get a big, unpleasant surprise when they get to the Judgment.

In Bell's world is that true? I thought love wins.

I guess we're at an impasse, then.

For my part, I'll continue to assert that the most common error, even today among Evangelicals, is an under emphasis, or under recognition of the love of God. From what I hear about Bell's book, it is something that many people need to read and absorb.

BlueDeacon, you have referred to a earthly-works vs eternal-perspective dichotomy as if this is something I have alluded to. I have not, and I see no reason why such a dichotomy would exist.

Inadvertently, you did and continue to do so, something that would have been foreign to the Eastern mind (remember that the Bible was written in an Eastern, not Western, culture where everything fits together). And here, the problem is that "theology" is so divorced from the reality of this world that you either have to change the world (in "fleshly" ways) or escape it. Neither represents God's intent.

We are to spend this "mist" living a life of service and disciple-making, all the while setting our hope to the age to come, when God will redeem and restore his creation, "make all things new". This is the only gospel we were given.

Agreed, but that's not the Gospel you often hear in Christian media in that, from that perspective, the ramifications of such are limited only to certain external behaviors and, possibly, cultural change. Part of the rap on Bell is that he's not engaged in the "culture war."

I was specifically referring to his critics.

Besides, I'll go with Gamaliel on this one: Let it ride, because if it's not of God it will fall apart; if it is, no one will stop it anyway.

A lot of wisdom in Gamaliel's words. There is a grace there that is sorely missing in some of our theological sparing.

I don't think loving too much can ever be too much. Like the old saying, "To much of a good thing can be wonderful." Love wins!

There is a lot of wisdom and grace in Gamaliel's words. A breath of fresh air in the sometimes tumultuous theological skies.

When it comes to love, I'm not sure that one can ever love too much. If loving too much risks a lack of proper balance, I'm ready to wonderfully wobble away. Why would one risk that? Because Love wins!

Inadvertently, you did and continue to do so, something that would have been foreign to the Eastern mind (remember that the Bible was written in an Eastern, not Western, culture where everything fits together). And here, the problem is that "theology" is so divorced from the reality of this world that you either have to change the world (in "fleshly" ways) or escape it. Neither represents God's intent.

I'm really not sure what you're referring to here. I never said anything about escaping the world. Quite the opposite, I live by the hope of the coming of a new heaven and new earth (Rev21). I cling to the idea that Jesus ushered in a kingdom that is already but not yet, that we who have been given Christ's spirit are His ambassadors here until he brings consummation to his redemptive work upon his return.

Glorifying God is the only motivation for good works that is powerful enough to stretch from this life throughout eternity. This notion -that focusing on our eternal life in Christ restrains us from good works here on earth - is not made true simply because its repeated enough. Its false, and history shows it to be false. C.S. Lewis was right when he said, "Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you get neither."

It would seem that it would be impossible to over-emphasize the infinite. Since God is infinite, I'd say that we mortals and our pitiful need to put things in boxes are the actual problem.

Maybe the surprise will be when they see who else got to Heaven. It is possible that in their miserliness, they will behave like the Prodigal son's brother, Jonah, or (to a lesser extent) the laborers in the vineyard. Whimper, whine, and pout that God dares let "those people" in. And alienation from God is basis of Sheol, the original biblical Hell.

I agree with what you're saying, but I think our common life experience would show us that saying that "one can never love too much" or "love always wins" is a simplistic way of looking at things, depending on what you mean by it. I love my child, so i discipline them. Love of one's community has required that we have courts and jails to carry out justice. It is of no value to say, love wins, so my child always gets what she wants. Or love prevails, so we never lock anyone up.

Another thing we need to be careful of is not having a human-centric theology. God's ultimate concern, as repeated countless times throughout scripture, is his glory. His love for humans is an extension of his glory. Ultimately, when we are before God, we cry "Holy", not "loving".

Holiness isn't about being perfect. It's about loving the imperfect. Jesus didn't say there wouldn't be prisons. He said that evidence of one sharing in the life of God is to have a compassionate heart for those in prison -- to visit the imprisoned! Every branch that bears fruit is attached to the vine. Gandhi bore tremendous fruit because he was doing God's will (go forth and teach all that I command -- to stand for justice with humility, non-violence, and mercy). Jesus made it clear in the Good Samaritan parable that it isn't one's cognitive beliefs, it's one's compassion for those in need that separates those who do God's will from those who willfully or ignorantly don't. To do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God is all that is required to share in the life of God.