The hub-bub over the weekend about Rob Bell's trailer video for his new book made me wonder if we need to learn some vocabulary. (Nevermind the fact that we should wait to read Rob's book before making a judgment of it!) I'm no scholar, but as C. S. Lewis often wrote, sometimes a fellow student can be helpful in ways a teacher cannot be. Here is my rough sketch of the terms and the issues being discussed. My hope is that you join me in a journey of rigorous study and thoughtful discussion rather than adopting a blind fervor that may lead to the unkind labeling of others.
To begin, it may be helpful to differentiate between the discussion of "who gets in" and the discussion of "what happens to those who don't." I have made two lists accordingly.
LIST A: Who Makes It "In":
1. Universalism
The belief that everyone, regardless of faith or behavior, will be counted as God's people in the end. All roads lead to Him. All religions are just different expressions of the same Truth.
This view, in my opinion, is impossible to defend from Scripture.
2. Ultimate Reconciliationism
The belief that those who know about Jesus but chose to reject Him while they were on earth will suffer judgment and punishment, but that punishment will not be forever. It will be a refining "fire" that will ultimately lead "every knee to bow."
This view is defended only by some serious redefining of key words, phrase, verses in Scripture.
3. Inclusivism
The belief that everyone is accountable for how they lived in response to the revelation that they had. For the ones that never heard the name of Jesus, there is Creation as their witness. For those that only knew the religion they grew up with, their devotion to that god may count as faith toward God.
This view is often defended from passages like Romans 1-2, the story of Cornelius in Acts 10, Paul's sermon in Acts 17 and Jesus' words about being faithful with the "little" revelation you had in order to be given the "much" revelation of Christ. C. S. Lewis appears to have leaned toward this view in a few of his writings. Even for those who won't use the label "inclusivist", this line of reasoning is enough to cause humility and make one refrain from certain judgment about a person's eternal status. Billy Graham, in his later years, is said to have softened in his view, allowing for a just and holy God to make provision for people based on the "light" they had available to them.
4. Modern Western Exclusivism
(I'm not sure what to call this view: "Traditional" implies that this is what Christians have always believed, and I'm not sure it is; "Fundamentalist" sounds pejorative.)
The belief that only those who choose to believe in Jesus in this lifetime get to be God's people for all eternity.
This view is defended by the clear teaching of Scripture that there is only one sure way of salvation: Jesus Christ. Whether or not this teaching goes beyond what Scripture says by taking a statement in the affirmative ("Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved") to also mean several statements a few degrees beyond it in the negative ("Anyone who doesn't do this in this lifetime won't be saved") is for each one to wrestle out with the texts. It is clear that Jesus is the only way. All who are saved go through Jesus. But that need not be the same as saying that we know what happens to those who don't believe in Jesus in this lifetime. (See the above section on a humility about someone else's eternal status.)
____________________________________________________________________
LIST B: What Happens To Those Who Don't Make It "In":
1. Annihilationism
The belief that God's judgment of those who reject Him will be the destruction of their souls so that they cease to exist. (Clark Pinnock, whose views seem closest to this, explains it HERE.)
2. Condition Immortality
The belief that only God is immortal (1 Timothy 6:16). Jesus, as fully God and fully human, shares that immortality with all who are in Him (2 Tim. 1:10). Those who are not in Christ will be judged with an eternal death: a death that is final and irreversible. It is the Greek philosophers like Plato, not the ancient Jews and early Christians, who believed in the immortality of the soul. (Edward Fudge's book, "A Fire That Consumes" may be a helpful reference. For a fascinating web resource that goes verse by verse in its argument for "Conditional Immortality", claiming a "Jewish" and not "Greek" reading of the Scriptures, click HERE.)
3. Self-Destruction of the Imago Dei
The belief that those who insist on living apart from God will have it "their way" for all eternity. But the result of living apart from God will be self-destruction of the image of God in them to the point where they cease to be "human". They continue on in an existence that is sub-human, a shell of their created selves. (Timothy Keller seems to articulate this view in his book, "The Reason for God." For a short 3-minute video of Anglican New Testament scholar N. T. Wright articulating a view similar to this, click HERE.)
4. Eternal Conscious Torture
The belief that those who reject God will be tormented for all eternity. They will always feel the pain of it and scream for relief but receive none. God will punish them without end for failure to choose Him while they were alive on earth.
____________________________________________________________________
SOME THINGS TO CONSIDER:
1. Final Judgment is Future
The Bible is clear that judgment is coming. Christ will judge the world. That means all who have ever lived are waiting: the saints (those who died in Christ) seem to be waiting in Heaven (with Jesus but in a temporary place nonetheless) for their resurrection bodies (1 Cor. 15), while others may be in a different "domain of the dead." A close reading of Scripture shows no one in hell at the moment. (See the follow-up post I wrote on the difference between "Gehenna" and Hades".) Final Judgment is future.
2. "Eternal Judgment" is not the same as "Eternal Torture."
A judgment that is eternal is a verdict that is final and irreversible. It is a punishment for the wicked. But it is not the same as saying that it is a torture that is eternal, a punishing that will go on without end.
3. "Conditional Immortality" and "Annihilationism" is an accepted Evangelical Belief.
At the Lausanne Commission in 1992, a new statement of faith was accepted that now allows for "conditional immortality" and "annihiliationism" as accepted "Evangelical" views. John Stott is among the advocates of "conditional immortality."
4. "Eternal Conscious Torture" has been rejected by respected Evangelical scholars.
The noted New Testament scholar, F. F. Bruce, has called this view inconsistent with the Bible's picture of God. Furthermore, the Eastern Orthodox Church has never held this view of God eternally tormenting those who reject Him. Many Messianic Jewish believers seem to reject this view as well. It is my understanding that this view surfaced in the Medieval period and was spread thanks in part to the vivid-- and warped-- imagination of Dante. The Bible's words for the judgment and fate that await those who reject Christ are "death", "perish", "destruction", not "torment", "torture", etc.
5. Holding a view from LIST B does not imply holding a particular view from LIST A.
To be plain: If Rob Bell argues for "conditional immortality", as some who have read the book say he is, then that is not the same as being a "universalist."
For those with "yeah, but what about this verse" questions, I'm not your guy. I'm not that learned or studied to "answer" those questions. Again, my hope is that you join me in a thoughtful and rigorous study and put aside careless name-calling. I encourage a thorough and close reading of all the relevant verses taken in context of the whole narrative of Scripture. John Stott, F. F. Bruce, and N. T. Wright are a few trustworthy "Evangelical-friendly" scholars who may be good guides for your journey. Along the way, hold the Nicene Creed closely. It is the carefully formulated earliest Christian statement of belief that spans across Eastern and Western streams of the Church. It says these two statements relevant to this conversation:
"...for us and for our salvation He [Jesus] came down from heaven..."
"...He [Jesus] will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and His Kingdom will have no end..."
[I wrote a follow-up post of the difference between "Gehenna" and "Hades" and how that difference matters in our thinking about Hell. Click HERE to read it.]
Very challenging blog...will be taking a deeper look into scriptures and other works looking at this. Thanks for the challenge to change Glenn!
Posted by: crosenhahn | February 28, 2011 at 10:35 AM
I appreciate your optimism concerning Rob Bell. Having seen his other works and the continued bending of scripture and sound biblical doctrine through each of them. Departing farther and farther away from truth. I am far less optimistic. I am torn by giving any more of my money to make any further decision on Rob Bell. I had already made my decision sometime ago. Bottom line his sensationalism is designed to benefit him, it sells books and media material but none of it truly is lifting up Christ. He has a tremendous following of people that I have heard defend nearly all of his actions and views. His is still operating under the initial analogy that he gave in Velvet Elvis. The trampoline and if you remove springs you can not bounce as high. What if..... he asks a lot, problem is the what if's he asks have nearly all been answered for decades and in some cases millennia. I will probably give my money again to the machine that continues to drive the Rob Bell fame and again there will be arguable points but in this day and age there is more than enough understanding to discount most of what he continues to question and lead people to. Nearly everyone can be wrong about something, but Rob challenges and negates CORE gospel teaching over and over again.
Posted by: Matt Church | February 28, 2011 at 11:02 AM
Very interesting, Glenn. This merits more study.
Posted by: Rob Ely | February 28, 2011 at 11:31 AM
Thanks for this post Glenn! It helps to understand where everyone is coming from and not be caught up in the who-ha...
Posted by: LSaik | February 28, 2011 at 04:41 PM
I think we ought to wait until the book comes out. The publisher that issued the pre-release PR piece is likely not a believer and thus undiscerning about the real content or Rob's intent. Having said that, I would be disappointed if Rob permitted that PR piece to be published only in the interest of selling books.
Posted by: Bill Regehr | February 28, 2011 at 05:41 PM
Appreciate your insight and knowledge...looking forward to the read.
Posted by: Thea | February 28, 2011 at 06:47 PM
Thanks for your post - I really appreciate your call to rigorous study rather than name calling, Glenn.
Posted by: Aaron Armstrong | February 28, 2011 at 07:01 PM
Thanks for this, Glenn. I was bummed to see John Piper's flippant "Farewell, Rob Bell" tweet in response to this. A lot of criticism for something that isn't even released yet...
Posted by: Chris Hoffman | February 28, 2011 at 10:30 PM
'If Rob Bell argues for "conditional immortality", as some who have read the book say he is, then that is not the same as being a "universalist.""
It seems pretty impossible to me to be an universalist and still believe in any kind of hell, since annihilation/conditional mortality and destruction of the imago dei are as incompatible with universalism and universal reconciliation as eternal torment is. If all are saved there is no destruction of the soul, the only possibility is termporal hell or purgatory...
Posted by: brambonius | March 01, 2011 at 07:12 AM
Thanks for this post, Glenn. I appreciate the calm perspective you bring to such lightening rod issues. Blessings.
Posted by: Sarah@EmergingMummy | March 01, 2011 at 08:55 AM
Rob Bell lost me at "bricks" and "springs". However, I do believe the little frenzy that his new book, which hasn't even come out yet, has created is in large part due to Bell kicking the legs out from under some Protestant sacred cows.
His promo video is totally lacking anything that would contradict or offend orthodoxy, at least from what I heard.
Excellent and well presented post, Glenn. You're truly a teacher bent on truth and not agenda.
Cheers.
Posted by: Ehyde.wordpress.com | March 01, 2011 at 11:06 AM
It's better to use the terms "Unitarian Universalism" vs. "Christian Universalism" or even, "Evangelical Universalism."
Clark Pinnock is also a good writer on Biblical inclusivism, but the better (than Pinnock) work on annihilationism and conditional immortality (which go hand in hand) is Edward Fudge's "Fire that Consumes."
"Self-destruction of the Imago Dei" is something CS Lewis said and something I heard NT Wright say at Harvard, but I think there is very LITTLE, IF ANY, evidence to support this view of 'de-humanization.'
"Eternal judgment is not the same as eternal torment" GREAT point... this is often overlooked. "Eternal" may denote FINALITY without connoting perpetuation. The Greek aionios, often translated "eternal" can also basically mean "pertaining to the age to come"
Bell's book is going to launch hell onto the front burner in 2011.
Posted by: Kurt | March 01, 2011 at 03:11 PM
This is a great intro to the inevitable internet flame wars that Rob Bell is about to start.
:-)
I should probably reference this on my own blog.
Posted by: Joel Gonzaga | March 08, 2011 at 10:38 PM
I can't say that I've ever heard or read anything from Rob Bell that's heretical or in any way contradictory to theology held by orthodox mystics for centuries. His ideas aren't new, and from what I can tell of Rob's posturing, they negate nothing that's core to the Christian faith.
In fact, being the scholar that he is, Rob often formulates ideas in the form of a question. He rarely states them as "absolute truth" or "fact".
Are we threatened by this store of questioning? I don't think Jesus is.
The beauty of people like Rob Bell, Glen, and even our friend John Piper is that they are actually bringing to light classical theology that's been buried under decades of evangelical rhetoric. I feel like I'm rediscovering my faith through men and women like this, yourself included, Glen.
PS - I actually enjoy the first part of the video where he questions the hubris it takes to state definitively whether a person is in heaven or hell.
Posted by: Dan | March 14, 2011 at 11:34 AM
Thanks Glen for posting this. Good categories to consider in this discussion. What has wrecked my thinking lately is when Christ says in John's gospel (John 14:6) " I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." I have been understanding this lately to mean that Christ is the judge of who is saved and who is not. Not sure that being a "born again" Christian is the only way to know Christ. After all, Jesus says in Matthew that those who professed to know Christ and did "good works" in his name will, that Christ will deny ever knowing them. Christ is most concerned with those who do the will of the Father.
Posted by: [email protected] | March 22, 2011 at 03:15 PM
"A close reading of Scripture shows no one in hell at the moment. Final Judgment is future."
This statement doesn't seem right to me. Revelation 20:13-14 seem to indicate people are in Hell prior awaiting final judgment, and hell itself is put into the lake of fire. I'm not sure why many people believe hell is the final judgment.
Also, when Jesus spoke of Lazarus and the rich man, the rich man was clearly in torment and the people in Abraham's Bosom were awaiting the Messiah to take them to Heaven.
Posted by: rob baer | March 22, 2011 at 07:25 PM
I have to agree a lot with your comments, Matt. Personally, I could not get through Velvet Elvis. I just had better things to do. I don't need so many scholars trying to reinvent what is clearly stated in the Bible. I think many people spend too much time on what "scholars" have to say about the Bible than reading it and asking the author, God, to reveal his will and purpose to them. Don't get me wrong. Having questions and discussion about doubt is where faith is born. But Christ called us to action.
Posted by: Stan Cundiff | March 23, 2011 at 08:24 AM
Good scripture to back up your point! Very insightful reasoning into God's word.
Posted by: Shawn | March 25, 2011 at 03:38 PM
Interesting and I love the 'spirit' behind your post.
Quick question, I thought Stott was an Annihilationist not Conditional Immortality. But then I realized I don't know why I thought that and I'm not sure why you think what you do. I found he expressed concern on page 314 of Essentials but that's it. This doesn't seem definitive and so I realize I'm not sure.
Do you have a source for your comments on Stott?
Posted by: Rick | March 29, 2011 at 07:03 AM
With all due respect, Matt, I question where you attained such a holistic view on Truth. For myself, it seems the more I learn, the more I see that I can never in this life have a monopoly on Truth.
I disagree with Rob Bell on several issues, but I feel that his message *is* encouraging and lifegiving. With my feeble, narrow-minded human mind, I'm not sure if I would ever consider myself or any other human worthy to dole out judgements of who is right and who is wrong.
Posted by: Bob the Baptist | June 05, 2011 at 09:33 PM
So....Brother Glenn,
Now that you have had a chance to read Rob Bells new book, what do you think?
Posted by: Kelsey | August 23, 2011 at 05:56 PM