Transcendental Meditation Technique: rob bell love wins emergent emerging heresy universalism universal reconciliation wider mercy doctrine book review

This whole Rob Bell thing has been a brain puzzler. That guy, he's a slippery one, for sure. But for those of you who have maybe been out of the country or perhaps fasting from social media over the last few weeks, this is what has been going on inside of evangelicalism...

Rob Bell, a leader in the postmodern emergent church movement and "a rock star in the church world," recently released a video discussing his upcoming new book "Love Wins." This video has gotten everybody all a-lather (and a-twitter), over what appears to be an apologetics defense for Universalism. So Christian bloggers, pastors and leaders immediately started getting out there, calling this out, and naming by name what they think this is: Universalism.

But here's the deal: yes, Rob Bell IS a Universalist - only not in the classic sense. What I mean by that is I think Bell believes - à la The Shack - in Universal Reconciliation. The difference is subtle, but, once this book is actually released, the difference is going to be enough for Bell (and all of his supporters) to slam those who are calling him out on Universalism for being alarmists and haters. And why? Because Universal Reconciliationists often use Christian terminology and claim to hold to certain Christian concepts. Like I said, the difference is subtle.

So what I suspect is that, in this new book, Bell will affirm that.....

- Absolutely, Jesus had to suffer and die on the cross. (When what he really believes about the cross, if he is a Universal Reconciliationist, is that for us to think that this implies exclusiveness is narrow-minded because everybody gets there in the end anyway.)

- Absolutely, there is a hell. (When what he really believes about hell - again, if he is a Universal Reconciliationst - is that there is some kind of purgatorial, burning-off-of-sins form of hell, but after that - of course - everybody gets to heaven).

So I have a suggestion about how to approach the Rob Bell thing so that maybe - just maybe - we evangelicals have at least a shot at being heard on this. We need to call this what it is - Universal Reconciliation - and we need to know the difference between this and Universalism, so that when the verbal body slams start coming as soon as the book is released (March 15), we won't have egg on our faces and look foolish when Bell and his peeps start mocking us for saying he's denying hell and Jesus and the cross.

So let's look at Universalism, that is to say, the straight up, New Age, Oprah kind of Universalism that most people have at least some understanding of:

UNIVERSALISM: ALL paths leads to God. You can be a Muslim, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jew, whatever, and you get to God through your own path, whatever that looks like according to your faith tradition. Absolutely no Jesus necessary. (Please note that this is the main point that distinguishes Universalism from Universal Reconciliation)

In the strictest sense of Universalism, neither the cross nor any form of hell are affirmed.

And now Universal Reconciliation:

UNIVERSAL RECONCILIATION (also called CHRISTIAN UNIVERSALISM): ALL people are ultimately saved through Christ. They may not have a complete understanding of who Christ is, but in some way, the suffering and crucifixion of Jesus Christ constitutes the mechanism that provides redemption for all humanity and makes atonement for all sins. A limited form of hell is sometimes held to, but not always.

As Todd Friel of Wretched Radio/TV recently pointed out on a great video clip, Rob Bell should have never become a problem, not if our pastors and leaders had been willing to do the hard thing, and step up and name names and call out false teachers before they - and their heresies - became full-blown. But most of them didn't, sad to say, and the result of this has been that false teachers like Rob Bell, a postmodern hipster who has always made it his goal to be culturally relevant and thus appeal to the youth, has captured an entire generation of young people with his damnable heresies. Brothers and sisters, and especially, Christian parents: Let's please try to get ahead of this one so that we will be equipped and ready to answer back to Bell's lies.

"And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." Rev. 20:15

Additional Resources

Jesus Gave Us Almost All We Know About The Doctrine of Hell

What Is A "Christian Universalist" (Besides an Oxymoron)?

What Is the "Wider Mercy" Doctrine?

Heads Up, Christian Parents: Rob Bell Is Teaching Your Kids Universalism

Two Thoughts on the Rob Bell Brouhaha

Rob Bell Praises New Age Author Huston Smith

Rob Bell and Shane Hipps: Blood on Their Hands

Quantum Science Proves 'Everything Is Spiritual?' Not So Fast, Says Quantum Physicist Dr. Frank Stootman

Review of "Love Wins" - Rob Bell's New Book - Part 1

Review of "Love Wins" - Rob Bell's New Book - Part 2

Review of "Love Wins" - Rob Bell's New Book - Part 3

Posted on 10:42 AM / 0 comments / Read More

from The Tenth Leper blog

A Review of "Love Wins"

Alright I’ll be honest: this is very much a transition entry. There’s some theological groundwork I want to lay before delving into other areas of the book. This entry will be followed up by one that deals with the Robbellian view of man (pretty proud of that term). The one after that will be the fun one about Hell and what Rob Bell believes about it.

[Witty transition]

I once heard a seminary professor say that a church’s doctrine of anthropology is more important than its doctrine of justification (being declared righteous before God), because anthropology informs it. In other words, our view of man determines our understanding of what man’s need is, and our understanding of what man’s need is determines our understanding of what Jesus came to do. There’s been a lot of different views of salvation over the centuries, and they usually flow out of differing views on anthropology. Take Calvinism and Arminianism for example. The Calvinist believes that ultimately God chooses who is saved because man in his natural state is so corrupt that even his will is consistently bent toward evil. So for him to ever choose God, God must first give him a new heart with new, God-bent desires. The Arminian believes that the corruption, while extensive, is not quite that deep. God woos us and beckons us, but ultimately we must exercise our will, choose God, and thus be saved. Ultimately, the difference between the two isn’t about whether man must choose God or not. It’s about the grounds on which man is able to choose God, which is an issue of anthropology. The question is: are we controlled by, or in control of, our wills? The goal here isn’t to debate Calvinism and Arminianism. The goal is to illustrate the fact that there are different anthropologies behind each belief system, and that this anthropology informs soteriology (the doctrine of salvation).

Why do I say all this? Because Rob Bell’s view of man (like any of ours) determines what salvation looks like to him. To determine whether his view is biblical, it’s worth taking a brief look at what Scripture’s view of man is.

God created man in his image and declared him good (Genesis 1:27, 31). To be an image-bearer meant that man is like God, represents him, and reflects his glory. In man, God would make himself visible in the earth. Adam, the first man, was called “the son of God.” (Luke 3:38) Man then rebelled and sinned against God, and when sin entered the picture, God’s image in man was severely tarnished. The creature meant to reflect God’s glory became dim in his reflection. Theologians have debated for a long time the extent to which man still possesses the image of God in himself. It seems clear from Scripture though (particularly in Genesis 9:6 and James 3:9) that although he is a fallen creature, man still in some sense bears the image of God. But he is not what he should be.

Whereas Adam before the Fall was called the son of God, post-Fall is a very different picture. Humans are now referred to as children of the flesh (Romans 9:8), sons of disobedience (Ephesians 2:2), children of wrath (the very next verse), children of hell (Matthew 23:15), and the one that stings a little: sons of the devil (John 8:44). All of humanity (you, me, Carrot Top) are dead in our trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1). The core of our being is desperately wicked (Jeremiah 17:9), and none of us seek God (Romans 3:11, 8:7-8). We have fallen short of God’s glory (which we were made to reflect) and our sins deserve death (Romans 3:23, 6:23)- a.k.a. the wrath of God.

Based on the above assessment, our need as humans becomes clear. We as children of wrath need a new Father. As those dead in our sins, we need to be resurrected. The core of our being (our heart) needs to be taken out and replaced so that we would seek God. The image of God in us needs to be restored, and our sins which condemn us need to be forgiven.

In comes Jesus, the true Son of God, and the ultimate image of God (2 Corinthians 4:4, Colossians 1:15, Hebrews 1:3, John 1:14). He is both fully God and fully man. He lives the perfect life that we can’t. God’s justice demands that he punish us for our sin, but being merciful he sent Jesus to be our Passover Lamb (1 Corinthians 5:7). He died the death we deserved and was raised. We are justified by putting our faith in him (Romans 5:1). As a result, God adopts us to be his sons and daughters (Romans 8:14-17, 1 John 2:28-3:10) and begins the process of remaking us into the image of God by remaking us into the image of the true image of God, Jesus (Romans 8:28-30, Ephesians 5:1-2, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Ephesians 4:24, 1 Corinthians 15:49, Colossians 3:9-10). When your Father looks on you now, he sees the perfect life of Christ. Your record is now as spotless as Jesus is spotless, and because of that, there’s nothing to condemn in you (Romans 8:1, 33).

Okay, I’m done bombarding you with Scripture (though I make no apology for it). Here’s what’s relevant in all that to the discussion at hand:

◆ Man in his natural, fallen state is an enemy of God. He does not desire God.

◆ As an enemy, man deserves God’s wrath. God, being holy and just, must punish sinners.

◆ God is also merciful though. He desired to save sinners, so he sent his only Son to die in their place. In this way, his justice is not compromised nor his mercy thwarted.