The thing about this review is that he makes a lot of use of ellipses that could easily take those quotes out of context.
Granted, it is difficult to quote large sections of a yet to be published book without running into potential problems with the publisher.
In all the years I've been reading Challies' blog, I've not found him to take things out of context or be incorrect in his assessment of books.
I agree with him theologically and as such, find him to be a very valid source of information on book reviews.
I'm finding multiple reviews now, from credible sources, that Bell is indeed trending toward universalism.
In that, I note that he is not alone.
The ever-so-staunch Puritans did likewise.
The same group that gave us very strident Calvinists also, after their drift through Arminianism into Pelagianism, gave us the unitarian-universalist "church" (which is not much of a church at all).
Sadly, I see the rudiments of a similar move within some here on the board, they not really knowing much about the history of the church think that they are on to some "enlightening" and "freeing" theology, but the end is almost always the same -- rebellion against God and an anthropological view of salvation.
The evidence is now overwhelmingly conclusive.
Rob Bell has turned a corner into heterodoxy.
He is no longer "orthodox" in his Christianity.
Sad day when a communicator of his level moves so far from the truth that he is called to proclaim.
My husband just watched a life talk/interview of Bell at the Ethical Culture Society of NY where there were live questions given to him.
He said that the questions were very direct and Bell danced around the questions so completely that he did not answer the question but sounded "smart".
Hubby just told me that there's no question in his mind now after seeing this that Bell had "jumped the tracks".
He's left orthodoxy.
Mojo—your post are very passionate—yet at times confusing.
Do you yourself support universalism (b/c honestly that’s the only way love will truly win as some see it) or are you simply defending a pastor/author that you feel is being unjustly accused? While there is certainly nothing wrong with desiring all to be saved—to reach the conclusion that anyone can be saved outside of faith in Jesus Christ is not only biblically problematic—but is pure heresy. Now I’m not accusing you of defending heretical teachings b/c I simply don’t know what your overall objective is---but I would like to know your motive behind these posts. God Bless!
Yes, it can be a biblical option, provided its not the JW's view of hell not existing at all.
But there are evangelcals that hold a view that the lost will indeed be consigned to hell, but not eternally. At some point in time they will be annhialated (ceasing to exist)
I believe the very highly respected John Stott held that view.
And those who hold this view dont just dream it up...they support it from the scriptures.
EDITOR'S NOTE: This story is intended to be a brief overview of Rob Bell's "Love Wins." For a more in-depth review, see the links at the end of the story.
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (BP)--Few events in recent memory have caused as much controversy and confusion among evangelicals as the latest book by well-known pastor Rob Bell, who in "Love Wins" denies hell and affirms universalism -- all the while claiming he has done neither.
Bell's Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids, Mich., is nondenominational, but his books, "Velvet Elvis" among them, are popular among young evangelicals of all denominations and his Nooma videos -- well-produced and thought-provoking -- are used in even the most conservative of churches.