Rob Bell is dead wrong with his redefinition of “hell.”  He redefines hell in an unbiblical fashion.  Following his discussion of his universalism in Velvet Elvis, he writes,

Heaven is full of forgiven people.  Hell is full of forgiven people.  Heaven is full of people God loves, whom Jesus died for.  Hell is full of forgiven people God loves, whom Jesus died for.  The difference is how we choose to live, which story we choose to live in, which version of reality we trust.  Ours or God’s (146).

On the next page Bell defines hell as a “way of living out of sync with how God created us to live” (147).  He defines hell one more time by asking the question about what people mean why they use the word “hell”; he claims that people mean “a place, an event, a situation absent of how God desires things to be” (148).  In contrast, using Bell’s preferred translation – the TNIV, the word for hell is used thirteen times; in every occurrence, it refers to an eschatological place of judgment. “Hell” is nowhere defined in the Bible as Bell defines it.  He cites absolutely no Scripture in support of his position in Velvet Elvis.  In light of the ample scriptural evidence against his redefinition this present writer wonders why Bell has provided such a definition.

In Love Wins he offers some scriptural support for his position (for a full critique of his position please see Kevin DeYoung’s full critique of Bell’s new book).  Yet he fails to take seriously the claims of Jesus in the verses cited below and also Bell fails to cite any actual source to support his redefinition of hell.  Thus, he is making up his own “hell” in this new book.  To be certain, though he may want to suppose hell is different from an actual place as Jesus explains, Bell is only fooling himself.  The Bible is clear – a literal, eternal place of judgment awaits those who do not come to Jesus for salvation.  Our task is still to preach the gospel to sinners on their way to an actual hell.  To my remarks Bell would probably claim that he believes in literal hell (Love Wins, Kindle edition).  Yet, when he writes “literal” he wants his readers to keep in mind Bell’s redefinition of hell.  To that I would simply examine the Scriptures below and also what is recorded in Revelation in order to reveal his errors.  Perhaps our readers could comment on this post as to how they would refute him if given the chance.

(1)Matt 5:22, 5:29, 5:30, 10:28, 18:9, 23:15,  23:33; Mark 9:43, 9:45, 9:47; Luke 12:5; James 3:6; 2 Peter 2:4.  The TNIV was searched via biblegateway.com.

Have you ever wondered why Martin Luther and the rest of the Protestant Reformers made such a fuss over the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church during the Reformation? The Reformers certainly disagreed with the Catholics over a number of doctrinal and practical issues, but nothing was more important than their differing views regarding the doctrine of justification. This post stands as the second entry in this five-part series. Last time, I introduced the matter, explained what is at stake, and gave some context to the issue (see this post here). In this post, my goal is to define and articulate the Roman Catholic teaching on justification—righteousness infused through the sacraments. In upcoming posts, I intend to do the same with the Protestant doctrine of justification—imputed grace. I will, furthermore, argue that the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification is mistaken and that the Protestant view of justification is most faithful to Scripture. In doing so, I will also provide a critique of the Roman Catholic position and respond to Roman Catholic objections against the Protestant doctrine of justification. For now, let us turn our attention to the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification.

[...]

In Velvet Elvis, Rob Bell suggests that doctrines are flexible.  He equates them with springs on a trampoline (22).  He thinks this view of doctrine is superior to thinking of doctrines as bricks–where one is removed the whole faith collapses (26-27).

However, when one reads Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, in 15:12-19, a different approach to doctrine is seen.  He writes that if the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead is false, then there are problems.  If the dead are not raised then Christ hasn’t been raised (v. 14), which results in faith in Christ being in vain (v. 14) and worthless (v. 17).  Furthermore, with this doctrine missing, Paul himself is to be considered a false witness of God because he would be testifying falsely of God (v. 15). [...]

The debates that led to the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century were not over minor details of theology. Of the debated issues, the doctrine of justification became the most divisive and controversial issue in the history of Christendom. R.C. Sproul is correct to point out that “both the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant Reformers understood that what was at stake in the controversy was nothing less than the Gospel itself.”[1] It was upon this conviction that Martin Luther, in his 1537 Schmalkaldic Articles, singled out the teaching of justification as “the article upon which the Church stands or falls.”[2] In similar fashion, John Calvin regarded justification sola fide as “the main hinge on which religion turns.”[3]

The Reformers of the Protestant Reformation were willing to face anathematization for their dissenting beliefs concerning justification.[4] Today, however, not everyone within Protestant circles are willing to take such a stand.[5] Some Evangelical leaders have referred to this doctrine as the “small print” of the Gospel, that it is “nothing more than a large misunderstanding,” and that the seemingly major issue of the sixteenth century is “no longer a matter of serious debate.”[6] In Evangelicals and Catholics Together, many scholars from both camps have agreed that there are “some differences within both the Evangelical and Catholic communities.” However, they have affirmed that, “All who truly believe in Jesus Christ are brothers and sisters in the Lord and must not allow their differences, however important, to undermine this great truth.”[7] [...]

Within the next few weeks I am planning to post an article on how believers should determine the will of God for their lives.  Before doing so, I would like to ask our readers a question: how do you determine the will of God for your life?  Feel free to write as much as you want in your response.  Also, you can focus your answer to particular issues like dating, marriage, college, jobs, friends, daily activities, etc.  Thanks!

Often at the beginning of a new year believers make a resolution to read the Bible more than they did the year before, perhaps by reading through the entire Bible once in a year.  This is certainly a good resolution to make!  What I want to address in this blog is why reading the Bible is indeed so important.  I addressed this topic partly in a previous blog called “Why the Bible Must Receive at Least the Same Interpretive Respect as Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.”  Nevertheless, given that it is the beginning of 2011, and the plethora of Bible reading plans mentioned in the blogosphere recently, it seems important to consider afresh precisely why Bible reading is important. [...]

Ezekiel 18: 4 “For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son – both alike belong to me. the soul who sins is the one who will die.”

Humanity has a peculiar propensity to deny responsibility for wrongs done against others and God. Adam and Eve both made attempts at the blame game. How often the inherent pride causes in us a deep and unrelenting recalcitrance when confronted with our sin.  As we know, our God impartially judges each man. God-given free-will graciously and justly permits us to answer to Him alone for our actions. We are not held responsible, nor are we  pardoned on another fallible human’s actions. [...]

“But now trouble comes to you, and you are discouraged; it strikes you, and you are dismayed. Should not your piety be your confidence and your blameless ways your hope? Consider now: who being innocent, has ever perished? Where were the upright ever destroyed? As I have observed, those who plow evil and those who sow trouble reap it. At the breath of God they are destroyed; at the blast of his anger they perish.” Job 4:5-8

The book of Job is one of the most vexing and profound works in scripture. One cannot help being troubled and yet amazed when reading the story. Job was a blameless, upright man. His righteousness was such that he actually offered sacrifices for sins his children had possibly committed. But logical deduction fails to vindicate Job. God took up Satan’s challenge that Job only loved God because of the good life he had been given. God tested Job through a series of unparalleled adverse situations. Among them: friends who, far from being sympathetic and consoling, continually condemned Job as a man who must have sinned to have received the terrible tribulation given him. [...]

In this article Ben Montoya discusses part 2 of his interactions with Rob Bell’s ‘Velvet Elvis.’  This heavy, but very important article on Rob Bell is something that all 20-somethings who care about the foundation and authority of Scripture should read and work through. [...]

Picture someone walking into their favorite local bookstore and going to their favorite section.  Perhaps he went into the fiction section of the store and picked up one of the Harry Potter books.  This person picks up the last book of the series, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, turns to p. 458, and reads the following:

“‘Well, Draco?’ said Lucius Malfoy.”   This is the first time this person has even glanced at the words within this book, ever.  Nevertheless, immediately after he finished reading these words he looks down the aisle at another person standing a few feet away examining some other fictional book and says, “I know what this line means.” [...]