click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
Why Do We Love C.S. Lewis and Hate Rob Bell?
by C Michael PattonNovember 17th, 2011
130 Comments
Here at the Credo House in Edmond Oklahoma, Tim Kimberley (@pastortimk) and I are teaching a series on the top theologians of church history on Tuesday nights. I have insisted that C.S. Lewis be part of the mix due to his abiding theological influence on so many people today. Though he is called a “lay” theologian by many, in my mind, he is nothing less than a theological giant due to his contributions to apologetics at the academic and popular levels. (After all, apologetics is a subset of theology and C.S. Lewis, though a professor of literature, did teach philosophy for two years at Oxford!) We taught to a packed house with people sitting on the floor. Why? Because they all love C.S. Lewis. When asked how many had read C.S. Lewis, just about every hand in Credo went up. He is an evangelical hero who, theologically speaking, may not make the cut of evangelicalism today. Truthfully, I don’t think he ever liked the label himself. But he is loved by evangelicals nonetheless. In fact, he is loved across denominational and traditional lines. Christianity Today named Lewis’ Mere Christianity as the most influential book of the 20th century. Another evangelical magazine, Christian History, named him among the top ten most influential Christians of the 20th century. Whether you are an emerger or an evangelical, Baptist or Presbyterian, a cessationist or continuationist, a Calvinist or an Arminian (not that all of these are mutually exclusive), C.S. Lewis is not only kosher, but staple. In fact, even Pope John Paul II said that Lewis’ The Four Loves was one of his favorite books!
However, C.S. Lewis was not without “issues” that cause many to scratch their heads. Practically, he liked to smoke a pipe and cigarettes, and frequently enjoyed a beer at his bi-weekly “Inklings” meetings (and you know how bent out of shape people can get over those things!). Theologically, there is some stuff people try to sweep under the rug as well. In fact, though I say C.S. Lewis is loved by all, I do remember walking into church one day years ago. They were giving away a bunch of the “overstock” books from the library. I saw a church elder throwing away a lot of books as well. They were all C.S. Lewis! When I inquired about his odd blasphemous actions, he said that C.S. Lewis was a heretic because he did not believe in inerrancy. While this is something of an extreme example, I think it is important to realize that not everyone likes C.S. Lewis. Almost everyone, but not all. Why? Because he had some “non-evangelical” leanings. Besides not believing in inerrancy, he also believed in the theory of evolution, denied substitutionary atonement in favor of a “ransom to Satan,” bordered on a Pelagian idea of human freedom, seemed to advocate baptismal regeneration, and regularly prayed for the dead. To top it all off, he held out hope for the destiny of the unevangelized, believing that Christ might save them outside of direct knowledge of him (inclusivism). With all of these foibles, I seriously doubt any evangelical church would take a second look at his resume were he to apply for a pastorate at their church today. In fact, this list alone would be enough for many to call him a heretic. However, we still love him. We still read him. We still defend him. We still hand out his books by the dozens to friends and family who are struggling with their faith. This man who had his Christianity affirmed by Dr. Bob Jones but questioned by Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones is beloved by just about everyone, making him off-limits for serious criticism. Why?
Consider another man: Rob Bell. From what I have read and seen, he seems to have far fewer theological problems than C.S. Lewis. In fact, on paper, he is probably more evangelical than C.S. Lewis. He might even make it through the interview process at most evangelical churches. He, like Lewis, has written many works about the Christian faith. His latest book, Love Wins, is a runaway bestseller. However, evangelicals don’t like Rob Bell. He is not beloved. His writings are not handed out like tracts, except for in niche groups. He does not have broad Christian appeal. In fact, he may be the most hated Christian author alive (at least in some circles). Why? Well, on the tip of your tongue is this: because he believes in universalism (the idea that all will be saved). Well, maybe not “believes,” but he does hold out hope for such. Rob Bell supporters often appeal to C.S. Lewis, stating that he believed similar stuff as Rob Bell (in as far as holding out hope for unbelievers relates to inclusivism). In fact, Rob Bell seems to love and be inspired by C.S. Lewis in his thoughts and ideas.
Here comes the question I got Tuesday night a the Credo House “Coffee and Theology” study: “So why do we love C.S. Lewis but hate Rob Bell?”
This is the great question I hope to answer briefly.
First of all, no one hates Rob Bell (or at least, no one should). But, speaking for myself, I am very comfortable handing out C.S. Lewis books by the dozens, while I don’t keep a stock of Bell’s books on hand. There is not a book that Lewis wrote that I don’t encourage people to read and grow from. Even A Grief Observed, where Lewis attempts to retain his faith in God while questioning everything in the middle of a crucible of doubt and pain, is one of my favorite books to give to people who are hurting. But I doubt I would ever recommend one of Bell’s works to establish someone in the faith. In fact, I might only recommend them for people to see “the other side.” Let me put it this way (and I must be very careful here): While I fully embrace and endorse the ministry of C.S. Lewis, I do not endorse or embrace the ministry of Rob Bell.
You see, while C.S. Lewis has a great deal of theological foibles, his ministry is defined by a defense of the essence of the Gospel. The essence of who Christ is and what he did are ardently upheld by Lewis, saturating every page of his books. His purpose was clear: to make a compelling case the reality of God and the Lordship of Jesus Christ. All other things set aside, this is what you leave with every time you read Lewis. The problematic areas are peripheral, not central. One has to look hard to find the departures from traditional Protestant Christianity. They are not the subjects of his works and do not form the titles of his books.
However, with Rob Bell, the essence of who Christ is and what he did seems to be secondary. One has to look for those things as they weed through his defenses of non-traditional Christianity. Whereas Lewis’ ultimate purpose is to define and defend “mere” Christianity, Bell’s “mere” Christianity is but a footnote to a redefined Christianity. Bell’s focus is to challenge, question, change, reform, and emerge from traditions that bind us. Traditional apologetics, orthodoxy, and foundations are brought into question from beginning to end. Christ’s reality, deity, exclusivity, and the hope of the Gospel proclaimed receive an occasional footnote (if at all) from Bell.
Another way to put this is to say that in the ministry of C.S. Lewis, the central truths of the Christian faith are the chorus of his songs, with the occasional problem in the stanzas. However, with Bell, the chorus of his song is filled with challenges to traditional Christianity and if you listen really closely to the stanza, you might get an occasional line of orthodoxy.
Now, let me be straight. I have no problem with challenging traditions. I have no problem with questions, doubts, and reforms. I think we all need this. It is the essence of what we call semper reformanda (at least in a modified form). However, when your ministry is characterized and defined by this type of emerging reform and unsettled skepticism of traditional Christianity, you have stepped over the line and lost yourself and your right to have godly influence. As the old saying goes, “think out loud, but don’t think out loud from a platform.” Just because you are unsettled and questioning your faith does not mean you need to unsettle others.
And it is not just Rob Bell that is at issue. There are dozens of popular writers, pastors, bloggers, and authors who are singing the same chorus. They give lip service to the essence of Christianity, but from their platform it is only peppered in here and there. I think this is the core problem with what is/was known as the “emerging church.” It is not that we are against rethinking, reimagining, reforming, or any other “re,” it is that this became the central focus of the movement. Christ, the cross, sin, righteousness, and all other elements that create the essence of who we are became the subjects of challenges – mere lines in the song. This is why I distinguish between, say, Brian Mclaren and Dan Kimball. Both men, early on, were considered part of the “emerging church.” However, though he challenges some ideas here and there, Dan Kimball (like C.S. Lewis) is committed to the essence of the historic Christian faith. Truth, doctrine, love, and righteousness are found in everything he writes and says. They are the chorus. With Mclaren, on the other hand, traditional Christian beliefs and practices form more of (what seems to be) an embarrassing afterthought that he proclaims only under duress.
This is why I don’t like comparing C.S. Lewis to Rob Bell. There is no comparison. Neither is it fair to team Rob Bell up with many of the great saints of the past, such as the Cappidocians or Origen (as is often done). Yes, they all have problems, but the question is, Do these problems define the essence of their ministry and passion? With Rob Bell (and many like him), they do. With most of the other historic figures that some try to put on Bell’s team, they don’t.
What can Bell do about this? I seriously doubt he is looking for advice from me, but here is what I would do if I were his campaign manager. I would tell him to take his cue from Lewis. Focus most of your works on defending the foundational issues of historic Christian truth. Those things that have been believed “always, everywhere, and by all.” Whether it is the existence of God, the exclusivity of Christ, the inspiration of Scripture, or the sinfulness of man, these are all good points that give street cred. If you are going to claim the legacy of Origen, the Cappidocians, or Lewis, embrace the essence of their ministry, not the periphery of their thought. And, just to be fair, if Lewis would have moved his foibles from his back pocket to his front pocket, he would not be accepted much either.
Similar Posts:
- Ben Witherington, Justin Taylor, John Piper, and the Rob Bell Circus
- Evangelical Manifesto – Part 2
- Top Fifteen Must Have Books on Apologetics
- Loopholes for Hell: A Response to Jeff Cook’s Response to Francis Chan
- Calling someone a heretic—thoughtfully!
130 Comments
Like or Dislike:
2
Slightly OT, but the problem with the emerging crowd is that they seem to reject the core narrative found in Scripture because of it’s out of step with modernist sensibilities and would like to replace it with something else; however, instead of stating this openly they choose to deconstruct the traditional Christian narrative through a series of pointed questions. Of course, if you try to replace the core narrative of Christianity with something else then you have, in effect, left Christianity even if you still carry around its sacred writings out of habit. I would say that Bell should not be criticized for holding unorthodox views (some of which I obviously share) but for participating in this sort of deconstructionist critique.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19
Anyway, the short answer to CMP’s question is that “we” love Lewis and hate Bell because we don’t read either and instead take our cues from our part of the evangelical subculture.
Sadly, most Christians would be just as shocked by their own Bibles as they would by Lewis if they read either. To wit, one of the saddest deconversion stories I found on the internet is that of a girl in college who discovered Rom 9 and decided she couldn’t worship Yahweh anymore.
Like or Dislike:
1
CMP:
I have always thought of this myself, and now I have some answers. Thanks, Michael.
Like or Dislike:
2
I think also for many today: C.S. Lewis is a fall back figure / poster boy – when engaging with Atheists.
In many ways Lewis is Barthinian or should Barth be considered Lewisian? Both held a high view of Christ to be central to life and faith.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
14
I think your main point (the centrality of Christ) is the key ingredient to the argument for Lewis and against Bell, but I have another, maybe simpler explanation. Many of us were subjected to Lewis at incredibly young ages by our parents through his children’s books. Personally, Lewis was endorsed whole-heartedly by my mother when I was eight years old. He was a family friend before he was a theologian. We accept a lot of strange quirks from family friends that would be moral failings in people we met on the street.
Like or Dislike:
2
CMP,
Fascinating discussion.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
13
I think the major issue is that C.S. Lewis wasn’t a pastor and therefore could be considered part of the laity who wrote some great things but also some not so great things. Bell’s influence as an “evangelical pastor” is a bit different. If our pastor taught what Bell teaches we would have him removed. In that sense I think Bell’s influence extends further than Lewis (in my opinion) since as a pastor he is speaking for the faith. Lewis wrote about the faith but didn’t speak for it.
Like or Dislike:
1
Well thought out Michael…luv it!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8
C.S. Lewis was part of a distinct Christian tradition, the Church of England, though he wrote about “mere” Christianity. If he reflected that tradition imperfectly, let’s remember he came from Atheism. He described himself as an “ordinary layman” or the Church of England.
What he did extraordinarily well is to understand that tradition, understand Christianity in general, and communicate clearly explaining in such a way that made difficult or obscure concepts crystal clear. And he was able to draw clear, logical distinctions between things and show where the logic of some arguments is flawed and fautly.
What you find in much theological writing today, including and perhaps especially the emerging crowd, though I don’t know Bell’s work directly, is pretty much the opposite. Instead of using language to clarify, they use it to obscure and often to make the lesser argument appear the greater, to make something sound as if it is the same as something else, or equivalent, or interchangeable, when important, even crucial differences exist.
Also Bell comes from a tradition too, American evangelical (Wheaton College, etc.), but he does not present that tradition. He explodes it.
Imperfect as both may be, Lewis is positive, Bell negative.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4
Excellent post Michael. Really well done.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5
SORRY! Who says “we” like C.S. Lewis. As a Fundamentalist Baptist C.S.Lewis was not a genuine Christian. He was a Heretic. Bell is an impostor and not a genuine Christian either. These men do not represent Biblical Christianity but a counterfeit type. Honestly who would follow either of these two men.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/cs_lewis-heretic.htm
Like or Dislike:
1
I often ask my christian friends a very simple question – “what about God?”
Like or Dislike:
2
As Dr John MacArthur has well stated, there is no problem with Rob Bell unless someone thinks he is a true believer.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5
This might be a good place for me to mention an article I wrote a few years back covering and ETS paper on the question of CS Lewis going to heaven (The presenter concluded that Lewis did not make it).
http://www.fellowtravelerblog.com/2005/11/15/ets-archives-did-cs-lewis-go-to-heaven/
I’m not sure that we “love” Lewis because his heresies were more of a footnote than the main text. I think we love him because we basically only read Narnia and Mere Christianity (the occasional evangelical will crack open the problem of pain and put it down permanently after a couple pages), and so we don’t really know that much about him. But I think Lewis was also a nice winsome guy. He was reasonable and he was cool bc he smoked a pipe. He was a Christian a lot “like us” but different enough that he was intriguing. And since he lived on the other side of the Atlantic at a time when travel was not as easy, he could be supported. Bob Jones apparently visited him once and came back saying “The man smokes and drinks, but he’s a Christian.”
The problem with Rob Bell may just be that he’s too young and he has not learned the art of being pastoral. I know that might sound ironic because he is so clearly driven by the questions people are asking and a desire to provide comforting answers. But he provides those pastoral answers in such a way as to alienate those who disagree (the famous person who mentioned Gandhi being in hell, didn’t get a pastoral treatment). This makes us not trust him. He seems to bend over backwards to provide comforting answers for a certain class of people but those outside that class are dismissed. Unlike CS Lewis, he does not give the vibe of someone who has done his homework, has wrestled with the issues and has come up with the best answer. The fact that he plays marking games with important spiritual questions is also another similar problem.
You could also have mentioned John Stott, who believed in annihilation (probably not so different than Bell, actually). But he was careful, humble and biblical in his approach so instead of dismissing him, everyone kind of shrugged their shoulders and said, “Ok John, if that’s how you fell about it…”
Lesson to be learned (and this cuts in good and bad ways): evangelicals often bluster about doctrinal purity, when the real issue is different. Ex. I was talking about “Bell’s hell” with some people who had heard about “an evangelical pastor who denies hell” and they were shocked. But when the understood that it was “the nooma videos guy” their attitude suddenly changed. Suddenly they weren’t so shocked; they thought that maybe it wasn’t as bad as it sounded; they gave him the benefit of the doubt. I bet that’s a common dynamic. But Bell’s videos are not appreciated enough for them to influence the majority of Evangelicals.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5
We love CS Lewis because he did a lot of apologetics. Bell not so much.
Lewis’ writings bear fruit among non-believers. For example, I have a relative who was a non-believer, and he credits Lewis as having a big role in convincing him of the Christian faith. Lewis gets a lot of rope because of examples like that. We’d rather a person become a believer and perhaps disagree with us on certain doctrines, than for that person to not become a believer at all.
On the flip side, Bell doesn’t do apologetics, and he’s pretty much just read by folks who are already believers. At least that’s my impression. So he bears little fruit as far as convincing non-believers in the merits of Christianity. And at the same time he drawing people (who are already believers) away from doctrines which are important. So he’s viewed as a threat.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
12
It’s always interesting to read the Evangelical take on people like Rob Bell or Brian McLaren. For me, if people like that did not exist, I would be unable to be a Christian. I have never been able to subscribe to Evangelical Christianity, nor do I want to. C.S. Lewis was a great discovery for me years ago because he was like a breath of fresh air in a “traditional” faith that didn’t provide answers to questions I was asking, nor support for those questions.
Since, I have graduated to greater “heresy” even than Rob Bell, and I find my faith and my life and my thinking all enriched as a result. It is still worthwhile to read what other people believe, people for whom Evangelicalism holds answers and support they need, but if the greatest “problems” allowed by Christianity were C.S. Lewis’ “problems”, I would not be able to be Christian.
Like or Dislike:
1
Indeed whatever C.S. (Jackes) Lewis was, he was really no strict evangelical, even as an Anglican. He also believed in some kind of “purgatory”. Note his great friendship with Austin Farrer, who was his personal confessor. Of course Farrer was a Anglo-Catholic, but Rowan Williams called Farrer the greatest English or British theologian in the 20th century! I rarely agree with Rowan, but truly Austin Farrer was a great Christian thinker-theolog!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7
Duane – Thanks for the comment about MacArthur. I saw this interview and could not believe MacArthur actually said what he did. I believe his comments represent much of what is wrong with Evangelicalism today. MacArthur, though he may not realize it, has redefined what it means to be a Christian. Not only does one need to believe in the sacrifice of Jesus for the forgiveness of sin, but it seems that one must also believe in a long list of doctrinal positions. Perhaps only MacArthur’s brand of believers are truly Christian. This is kind of sad.
Michael – Your article is well done. I have a few disagreements with what you say toward the end with regard to historical Christianity but your main point is great. Though we may need to be careful in defining Bell’s ministry by just his books, I agree with you that this portion of his ministry does spend too much time in the fringe. I remember reading Velvet Elvis, liking much of what I read, but begging Bell to define what it meant to be saved – he never did.
Thanks for a great post.
Like or Dislike:
0
Another angle on Lewis: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=103
Like or Dislike:
0
If there had been ODM websites in the 1940s Lewis might not have been so popular.
I find it interesting that the different attitudes are based not on what each individual believes, but what he emphasizes. I guess that’s an important point when talking about influence, but not regarding salvation, regardless of whatever accusations MacArthur might deliver on any given day.
The only Bell I’ve read is Velvet Elvis and it didn’t particularly rock my world, but I still don’t understand the hostility that so many aim at him.
Like or Dislike:
1
Very good highlighting of the differences between the two. I’d also add that Lewis’ writing is very systematic and engaging. Bell’s writing seems comparatively fluffy; always more insinuation than argument.
Like or Dislike:
2
CMP’s advice to Bell to “embrace the foundational issues of historic Christian truth” will not satisfy many people who are anxious in their view that any article of their faith once disturbed will collapse the whole. However, it is just that point concerning what is central that has kept me focused and susceptible to the Holy Spirit when answers to my questions are delayed. Quoting Paul: “And I… did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech and wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you but Jesus Christ and him crucified.” I Cor. 2: 1-2 (ESV)
If Lewis were not fully reconciled to Evangelicalism he certainly was to the Gospel. Though I have great respect for most Wheaton alumni I think one may reasonably doubt that a man who can’t pass his finals there has no hope in Christ. This is not meant to overlook Bell (I know nothing about him), but it is simply to say that a kind of theological pedantry tends to create rather than tear down barriers to faith. In my view Lewis avoided that error.
Like or Dislike:
2
Why do we love Augustine and not Pelagius? Augustine has his bad theology too!
Why do we love Calvin and not Servetus? Calvin was not perfect in his exegesis!
Why do we love the Gospel Coalition and not the Elephant Room? Ahem!
Like or Dislike:
1
“This is why I don’t like the comparison of C.S. Lewis with Rob Bell. Their is no comparison.”
It should be “There is no comparison.”
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5
I once read a criticism of one of Bell’s books that said “you should not be reading Rob Bell, you should be reading John Piper!”. Which I found odd as Rob Bell (in the same book) recommended reading “everything John Piper has written”. The point is – if we approached learning about relationship with a complex, hidden and mysterious God in a corporate/’conversational’ way (instead of focusing on what one philosopher calls ‘conceptual idolatry’) we may actually find common ground, greater learning and real fellowship.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5
In your article you say that Lewis, “denied substitutionary atonement in favor of a “ransom to Satan” view, bordered on a Pelagian idea of human freedom, seemed to advocate baptismal regeneration, ” and then you go on to say that “his ministry is defined by a defense of the essence of the Gospel” and “The problematic areas are peripheral, not central.” That seems contradictory. It seems to me that the things he denied are the essence of the gospel and central not peripheral
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
13
I appreciate the writings of Lewis and Bell because they say the same things I am thinking, or ask the same questions I am asking. It is their transparency and honesty at the risk of offending what is “true” or the “right answer” that draws me in. When I read “A Grief Observed,” with Lewis’ description of God behind a locked door, this cold, foreboding silence from Heaven was exactly the experience I had with God. Likewise, in “Love Wins,” Bell asks questions he has asked as well as questions others have asked him. It is an invitation and a conversation many of us want to have. That struck a deep resonance with me.
It was the Christian outcry against Bell that chased away the many of us who really would like to talk about these things. If the outrage against Bell is representative of the body of Christ, then those of us with questions will never truly be invited in. Brothers should never turn on brothers and certainly not in public. The rest of us are watching you and deciding whether this is a family we could consider being a part of. Consider that perhaps Bell, like Lewis, has a ministry to those on the edge, who with a little coaxing might step forward, if his brothers and sisters would support what he is doing.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8
Hmmm
Well, Lewis grew out of a more mainline, intellectual and European Christian context (Anglican), and he was probably a bit more conservative than many of his contemporaries in the modern, mainline, European world. Evangelicals tend to like people like this, because they seem to be a solid witness within the liberal, troublesome, watered down, and unfaithful modern church. To evangelicals it appears that Lewis is moving towards them in thinking and doctrine. Same with Boenhoffer, Barth, Ratzinger, Chesterton, etc. None of these guys would have cared.
Bell on the other hand, is a solid evangelical who really just discovered mainline theology and praxis… so it appears that Bell is moving away from evangelicalism. Bell really didn’t say anything all that interesting or ground breaking, and actually he just held up a view that many evangelicals already hold to. Same with McLaren. The evangelical bugaboo against liberalism and the mainline, leads many evangelicals to be overly concerned with monitoring their own, and making sure that there isn’t any slippage of theology. Theology police. But, I didn’t vote for them.
However, if the slippage is coming the other way, from liberal to conservative, it appears to evangelicals to be a good thing, never mind the actual theology or doctrine.
It is all really quite sad, why evangelicals feel they have to judge, condemn, or condone everyone’s work, and not simply engage people’s ideas honestly and openly. Orthodox Christianity and faith in the King Jesus Christ, can stand on its own (and with the continued power of the HS), it does not need the evangelical thought police to enforce it, never mind the specific theological, historical, and doctrinal problems and inconsistencies that run the gamut of the American evangelical world.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6
I will say this, all my friends who are evangelical pastors and theologians in the mainline denominations (mainly PCUSA) find this kind of stuff fascinatingly hilarious. Basically take a theological idea that has been around for over a thousand years or a wider theological perspective from the broader church (that we are all already aware of and have dealt with) and drop into evangelicalism (of the Baptist or Bible church kind) as if it is something completely new, and then watch the fisticuffs and fireworks.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4
I really liked this article lots to thinnk about. After reading the comments, one thing stands out. Uniformity of belief… didn’t Christ actually dismiss this? So why does every church argue their exclusivity on the truth? That is a rhetorical question not one I expect an answer to here. I think Rob Bell brings up a good point, and I think that it’s God’s role to judge who goes to heaven and hell, and I believe that is done by the heart of someone. None of us Bell ( i don’t really care for his preaching nor his writing at all, too subjective), MacArthur (personally, I dislike what I have read of the man, too harsh-doesn’t mean I believe in there is no retribution or punishment either, again too subjective) not any single one of us is capable of judging nor defending any heart other than our own. I think that many of us argue right/wrong so we don’t have to be as careful in living our lives, which I think Christ slammed the Pharisees for over and over again, “it’s not the law itself it’s the spirit of the law” when Christ refers to their missing the point of mercy in the law. I think that is a point that needs to be remembered. We need to constantly reflect and question ourselves to stay as true to what is God’s will for us. I don’t think we will ever be able to stop until we have all met God face to face, then at that point everything will be evident to everyone, no one will be able to deny any truth about God nor His glory… PS I am not arguing for more individuality, only that in the end none of us will be able to hide completely behind a Lewis, MacArthur, Bell, Boyd, Warren, etc. But they will be responsible for their leadership. Sorry I think too much. Great food for thought in this article and well presented.
Like or Dislike:
3
Oops forgot to finish about Rob Bell’s good point, can’t you as God, want to save as many people as possible without ever compromising who you are? So who are we to judge who will or will not go to heaven… point to be made for comment number 15… who are we to be judging anyone else getting into heaven or hell? I certainly wouldn’t want to do that, but I most surely have done so when I think how can anyone do something so terrible. Some one once said this “I think when we get to heaven many of us will be surprised who will and who won’t be there.” That makes me sad, but it is the truth.
Like or Dislike:
3
[...] Michael Patton of Credo House Ministries makes a thought-provoking case for why evangelicals appreciate C.S. Lewis – despite his decidedly questionable theology – but nevertheless castigate Rob Bell for [...]
Like or Dislike:
2
Very well put. Before I read the article, while the page was loading and I just knew the title, the only thing that came to mind was this:
Rob Bell has some good points. A few sentences here and there in his books that I agree with and appreciate.
Lewis, on the other hand, has whole books that I agree with and once in a while a few sentences that I think, “Huh.”
Basically- just what you said. The central focus of Lewis was something worth standing on.
Blessings. Natasha
Like or Dislike:
1
As someone who essentially learned theology and apologetics from the collected works of C.S. Lewis, but who thinks Lewis’ own Teacher (George MacDonald) got something right that Lewis didn’t, and who arrived at Christian universalism as a result of learning to affirm trinitarian Christian theism more strongly and coherently (again largely thanks to Lewis)… {inhale} {g}
…yes, Rob Bell can be very problematic. He is repeatedly unfair to his opponents in Love Wins, and unlike Lewis he tends to smack of post-rational mystery mongering. I am not familiar with his other work, although I have heard people swear by it; but I don’t altogether blame people for swearing at LW.
Having said that: the climactic final chapters of LW, which are the ground and aim of his whole book, are saturated with orthodox Christology and an evangelical call to repent and place trust in Christ alone for salvation from our sins. Does he lead out with controversial doctrinal challenges? Yes, and that understandably makes for problems, and leads people to overlook what he’s doing that they themselves would otherwise strongly agree with–a problem made worse by his occasional outright cheating. But it still isn’t fair or accurate to overlook those portions as though they are marginal. For Love Wins, those portions are topically and logically cardinal (even if late in the book).
As an administrator at the Evangelical Universalist Forum, I wrote a book-length informal analysis of LW, where (for what it’s worth) I caught some flack for heavily critiquing Rob. Links to that text, as well as to a shorter more formal summary, can be found at a press release here:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/6/prweb8602934.htm
For a related article on how close C. S. Lewis got to trinitarian Christian universalism (and some biography on how that helped lead me to it, too), click here:
http://www.evangelicaluniversalist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1577
Like or Dislike:
0
Hate is such a strong word; so is love for that matter. And if I truly hate Rob Bell, then I need to look within myself. I happen to disagree with Rob Bell on a pretty large set of very important doctrinal issues. I also happen to disagree with Lewis on a number of doctrinal points.
This is the problem with looking to the person and not to the Spirit of Truth. We “love” some and “hate” others because we see the man and perceive some to agree with our particular views where we perceive that others do not. We are called upon to examine their teachings (and our own views) in light of the Word of God and reject those that do not agree with that standard regardless of whether personal preference. A Rob Bell, even if in error, can be valuable in that he can help focus our attention on something that requires our careful study of scripture to understand what scripture teaches. The point is to focus on Scripture, not on the man.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael, I think I got your point, but I’m a bit confused about the post. Do you prefer C.S.Lewis just because he talked less about the heresies that he believed or because Rob Bell believes in worse heresies? It seems to me that your advice to Rob Bell,
“Focus most of your works on defending the foundational issues of historic Christian truth”,
makes little sense, since it seems that he does not believe in many of the foundational truths. I think Kevin’s comment (number 15) is straight to the point. Lewis had bad doctrine, but Rob Bell is a threat. I wouldn’t recommend any of them. I totally agree with your last comment:
“if Lewis would have moved his foibles from his back pocket to his front pocket, he would not be accepted much either”
As someone said, most people like Lewis because of Narnia.
Like or Dislike:
0
Again, whatever C.S. Lewis was theologically? He was not a systematic thinker, but much more of a mystical and existential person. I enjoyed David Downing’s book, ‘Into the Region of Awe, Mysticism In C.S. Lewis’, (IVP, 2005). Leave it to an English professor to get closer to the real C.S. Lewis! See too his earlier Lewis book also, by Downing: ‘The Most Reluctant Convert’, (IVP, 2002). Simply brilliant books on the real Jack/C.S. Lewis!
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] C Michael Patton has a fantastic article on the difference of our opinions for C.S. Lewis and Rob Bell. [...]
Like or Dislike:
3
First of all,and up front thank you for the well thought out blog!
Now on to my critiques:
You say of Lewis, “One has to look hard to find the departures from traditional Protestant Christianity. They are not the subject of his works and do not form the title of his books.” But have you read “The Great Divorce” (Many of my evangelical friends skip that one for some reason)? To be frank “Love Wins” is basically a less provocative version of that title written in non-fiction (with a little bit of NT Wright, a sprinkle of Origin, and Rob Bell’s signature hipster writing style).
While Lewis didn’t always focus centrally on questioning traditional christian doctrines (with the Great Divorce being one exception, and his openness about being influenced heavily by George Macdonald, a well known Uiniversalist, being another) he was writing to a Modern audience. In fact I would go as far as to say that Lewis is to the Modern Era what Luther and Calvin were to the Reformation Era.
And along with that Bell and McLaren are to the Post-Modern Era the same . Where Lewis found it necessary in his setting to “defend God” post-modern thinkers feel that God is big enough to defend himself. In fact maybe we have spent too much time defending God and not the poor, oppressed, and marginalized (what did Jesus spend more time defending: doctrines about God or the oppressed?)
I would put forth that post-modern thinkers view being transformed by Christ as more important than having all the right doctrines nailed down perfectly. And I see that as the direction the Emergent Church is taking. To me the Emergent Church is to Post-Modernism what the Reformation was to the enlightenment. (I strongly recommend reading “The Great Emergence” by Phyllis Tickle – there is a review and a link for it at my blog)
Finally, I would strongly recommend reading “A Generous Orthodoxy” by Brian McLaren in which he shows how our Evangelical ‘traditional” beliefs only make up a small fraction of the traditions that have made up the life of the church, and that maybe a little Christ-like humility is in order on the part everyone (not just evangelicals).
Like or Dislike:
1
Btw, we should add, that for Lewis so-called Christian Mysticism was about Christ and Transformation In Him! Anyone who has read Lewis’s stories knows that he saw a good and bad “mysticism”!
Like or Dislike:
2
And Billy Graham also takes the same stand as C.S. Lewis on “inclusivism”. We all have some beliefs or other that are not true because no one has a “lock” on the truth. Where do we draw the line? Personally, I have to draw the line at at least knowing that God sent His son as a redemption. It’s that act of God that must be accepted. Stories are coming out about Jesus appearing to Muslims in dreams and about angels being sent to dark tribes before any missionaries appear. God has His ways of making Jesus known. We have to trust His justice, not make up one of our own.
Like or Dislike:
0
but………..what about God – isn’t he the “dude” we’re all following…….or supposed to be……why all the attention on Jesus…what about God?
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] Continue Reading This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged C. S. Lewis, Rob Bell, Salvation, Scripture, Truth. Bookmark the permalink. ← Dr. Ivan Panin – The Inspiration of the Scriptures Scientifically Demonstrated [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
No “emergents” for this Anglican! Its back to the ad fontes and Holy Scripture, and this is closer to the Reformation, and Luther & Calvin!
And I would certainly disagree about Lewis and Hell. In his Screwtape Letters part of the bureaucracy of hell, is the ‘Intelligence Department’. “Altough hell dislikes knowledge, which it regards as hateful and mawkish, a certain amount is necessary to have effective power on earth to upset the Enemy’s plans. Devils assigned to human patients pass information back to the Department. Screwtape laments the inability of the Department to penetrate the purposes of the Enemy.” And Lewis, like Plato believed in the eternal nature of the soul. Humanity was made for eternity, with or without God. And of course Lewis saw this as a profound personal choice!
Like or Dislike:
0
I have read most of Lewis. The Great Divorce was really good and I agree with it quite a bit.
Lewis, we must understand, was truly brilliant. As with so many brilliant thinkers it is nearly impossible to have them fit a mold. Their own brilliance causes some departures from the traditional norm and their natural confidence make them oblivious to their tenancy to not fit onto mold (not to mention how mad this makes others!)
There is a difference between being smart enough to rebel against tradition and being rebellious enough to rebel. Lewis was the first. Most other are of the second. I look at Lewis much like I look at C.E. Moule in biblical studies. Both were brilliant. Both had their issues. I
Like or Dislike:
1
Sam,
Jesus is God Incarnate, and still Incarnate at and on the Throne of God, though now certainly transfigured by Resurrection & Ascension! (1 Peter 3:22)
Like or Dislike:
0
I think you’re spot on! But, perhaps we should be a little more critical of Lewis. At least, we shouldn’t turn a blind eye to his theological innacuracies. I always try to make note of some of the exceptions I take with Lewis when I recommend him to someone.
Like or Dislike:
1
2 points I want to raise –
1. in response to a comment – I don’t think that holding a view of ransom to satan necessarily puts Lewis in the “heretic” category. There is certainly language in the NT to support this view, and I have even sung such in hardline evangelical songs – “Christ has paid my ransom”. The bible says we are all in bondage to the principalities and powers in this world. So I don’t think a ransom to satan is necessarily unbiblical.
2. This is not as important, but judging Lewis for his practical foibles (e.g. smoking) is ridiculous for the reformed – Luther was just as bad in that regard if not worse, not to mention he sanctioned the massacre of huge numbers of people in the peasant uprising. If you’re an anglican you don’t fare any better since the founder of that particular sect only made it up to allow himself to divorce. I’m sure every Christian tradition has similar examples. No saint is perfect, anyhow.
Great post, I really enjoyed it.
Saskia
Like or Dislike:
0
Sorry couldn’t get edit to work.
PS Don’t take that as an attack – the only church groups I have ever been part of have been either evangelical or anglican.
Also I’m aware I’m making pretty broad brush strokes here – the point is not to make a big deal of smoking or drinking, all great Christian leaders are sinners too.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] who often steps into controversial issues (which I do not mean as a criticism), asks why people love C. S. Lewis, but hate Rob Bell. His conclusion is that this is because Bell’s ideas that push the boundaries characterize [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
Definitey. I can claim all his practical foibles as my own as well! Theologically mine are different tho
Like or Dislike:
0
I would not consider Anglicanism to be just a sect of the Henry the VIII. He was after all the King and Sovereign of England even when the Church was then under Rome. But indeed the Church of England under Henry, and Cromwell went toward the Reformation. But then too the whole later Tractarian and Oxford Movement, etc. Though certainly the CoE and much of the Anglican Communion has fallen into liberal and broad church ideas. Though Lewis himself of course stood against much of this in his time.
Like or Dislike:
0
Yes, I see your point. As I said, I was painting with a pretty broad brush (also “sect” was the wrong choice of word.”)
Like or Dislike:
1
If I wasn’t Presbyterian, I would probably be Anglican.
Like or Dislike:
0
Since I am semi-retired now (and in the US), I have gotten to preach at a few Presbyterian Churches, but then I am somewhat Reformed, but I like some aspects of the Federal Vision (note some).
Sadly, it appears today that C.S. Lewis is being used to support all kinds of said stuff, I heard an emergent claim the other day, that Lewis was one in his camp. However ecclectic Lewis may have been (and he was), he was always an historical Anglican. Btw, he wrote against women “priestess’s” as he called them.
Like or Dislike:
0
There is another big difference between CS Lewis and Bell: C. S. Lewis moved from agnosticism to faith in Jesus Christ — his direction was toward belief. Bell is beginning with sound doctrine and moving AWAY from it. Will the direction continue, as happened with McClaren?
Like or Dislike:
0
Being an Independent Fundamental Bible Believing Baptist for nearly 30 years, I found the idea of universalism to be at best ridiculous theologically and at worst apostasy.
Knowing the Bible is filled with phrases like eternal judgement, everlasting fire, Hell fire, everlasting destruction, smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever etc.
But I have been studying (berean?) with an open mind, the possibility of universalism or annihilationism for the last few years.
I still hold to a traditional view of Hell and the lake of fire for all those who do not believe on Christ for eternal life. But i hold out the possibility that:
THe lost will burn in Hell upon death and through the Millennium
The lost will be judged at the Great White Throne Judgement and cast into the lake of fire.
BUT the lake of fire is never said to be ever lasting and without end.
And the 100′s of verses that seem to imply universalism will take effect and in the eternal state they will be reconciled.
What was the first of the hundred + verses that made me pause and think?
Romans 5:19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Is it sound exegesis to say the first “many” means every one and the second “every” means only a few or the elect?
Like or Dislike:
0
I wonder at the support of C.S. Lewis stuff too as being so theologically on in so many folks minds in the modern day church,especially since he wasn’t a church father. Of course that could go for any of the modern day popular authors.
Like or Dislike:
0
Though C.S. Lewis was not an exegetical Church Father, he was and is still a theological Father, a voyager of the Spirit…a “Dawn Treader”!
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] Why Do We Love C.S. Lewis and Hate Rob Bell? [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(po, s); })(); Michael Patton: “Why Do We Love C.S. Lewis and Hate Rob Bell?” Rob Bell supporters often appeal to C.S. [...]
Like or Dislike:
1
Lewis didn’t deny inerrancy so much as not give a flip about it. It just wasn’t an issue for him. He was smart enough to realize that not every dot and tittle of doctrine has to be pressed into completely clear, sytematic forms – things like the atonement, nature of the afterlife, etc. He simply had faith in Christ, and realized one didn’t have to work out every detail.
I wish people read more of his stuff than Mere Christianity. That was probably the weakest thing he wrote.
Like or Dislike:
0
I do have to call a bit of coup on the claim that Lewis was not a systematic thinker. He didn’t do much with systematic exegetics, true, but the author of Miracles: A Preliminary Study, his magnum opus of apologetics, was a systematic metaphysician (which fits his philosophy degree.)
Lewis is one of the few apologists I know of who wrote a book that moved from point to point developing a philosophical argument, rather than a salad-bar approach where there are chapters on various arguments but no attempt is made to fit them together. Even his “broadcast talks” series, modified and expanded a bit for the first couple of sections to Mere Christianity, is a systematic progression, albeit of a much simpler sort. (Ditto for The Problem of Pain.) Even his first theological work The Pilgrim’s Regress, despite its heavily poetic form, is a systematic progression, and a deep on if (naturally) not as detailed as his later work would be.
Admittedly, a lot of his work wasn’t systematic per se–although even in his brief articles and sermons he can often be found chewing through an argument in systematic progression, within limitations of the format. But to dismiss him as a systematic thinker because he never got around to doing a systematic exegetic, is as inaccurate as it would be to dismiss him as a mystical writer.
Like or Dislike:
2
Why does anyone care what John MacArthur and Rob Bell think? I’m (obviously) not a fan of either, but at least Bell doesn’t promote himself as an expert/professional exegete. MacArthur implies that his system and interpretations are on par with the authority of scripture. Hogwash.
Like or Dislike:
1
There is a big difference between being a “systematic thinker”, and a “Systematic Theologian”. Lewis is certainly the former, but not the latter. I am very Lewis friendly (I have read almost all of Lewis’s books, both fiction and non-fiction). Lewis just does not really enter the dialogue or debate of either Systematic Theology, or really biblical exegesis.
Btw, when Lewis entered into the debate on reason (the Oxford Socratic Club) with Elizabeth Anscombe, he later revised his argument in the second edition of his book Miracles. She seemed to get the best of Lewis here. Just a point. Later in this edition, Lewis fell back on J.B.S. Haldane’s book: Possible Worlds (quoted in the second edition of Miracles, p. 15). See Victor Reppert’s book: C.S. Lewis’s Dangerous Idea, In Defense of the Argument from Reason, (IVP, 2003).
Like or Dislike:
1
What is Rob Bell? What is CS Lewis?
For you are of Christ, and Christ is of God
Like or Dislike:
0
Btw, we can note that even in his time, Lewis saw that theology was being penetrated by political ideology: “Mark my words: you will presently see both a Leftist and a Rightist pseudo theology developing…” Letters of C.S. Lewis, 176; 17 Jan. 40.
Like or Dislike:
0
You’ve raised some great issues here! We’ve all heard the saying, “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” But most seem unclear about where to draw those lines between essential and non-essential. If we look more intently into scripture on this subject (I think First John is a great place to start), we will reap the benefits of greater unity among the brethren and increased holiness as we root out false teachers.
I believe Rob Bell false squarely in the latter class. His teachings are insidious; we must not fail to notice the presuppositions that underly all of his teaching. I bring this out in a review I did of Rob Bell’s NOOMA video series – http://www.alancoughlin.com/Blog/NOOMA.jsp
Like or Dislike:
0
The things that C.S. Lewis gets wrong he does not expand on or ‘teach’ about through his books. He primarily gives additional perspective on life in a very logically supported fashion. Often showing a deep life-faith-thinking relationship with Christianity.
Like the Screwtape Letters, lets say that evil and demons are nothing at all like that– But the lessons to be learned in our attitude and approach to sin is still valid. From what I have heard about Rob Bell’s recent book, this is not the case; if the premiss is incorrect, then it is all worthless and/or dangerous material.
Like or Dislike:
0
Indeed if we loose the doctrine of God, we simply lose God. And here Bell and Lewis are worlds apart! Therefore we must seek a Christology that is not popular or palatable, but that is biblical and true. Agreed here is 1 John! God, Godhead, and our fellowship therein. But only the real Incarnate Christ can get us there… “We declare to you what we have seen and heard so that you may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.” ( John 1:3)
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] that reason, I was very intrigued with an article by Michael C. Patton at Credo House, Why Do We Love C. S. Lewis and Hate Rob Bell? (A sentiment I don’t share, by the [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
Thanks for this article. It’s important that we’re fair and honest on the issues. Still, I’m a huge fan of Lewis, not because his theology was 100% but because he new to seek after God.
Like or Dislike:
0
Indeed we must or should read Lewis, but certainly not as a Systematic Theologian. But sadly Rob Bell is not a systematic thinker or theolog!
Like or Dislike:
1
. . . And why do we ‘hate’ Rob Bell but love John Stott with his view on hell . . .
Like or Dislike:
1
Well that’s easy, John Stott was an English Anglican!
Like or Dislike:
1
Good article, but keep in mind that baptismal regeneration is not an un-orthodox or non-protestant theology. The vast majority of Christians worldwide and historically have accepted this teaching, which is common in Anglican circles and standard in Lutheran. By many standards, Lewis is MORE orthodox on this point, not less. If you hold to Baptist theology of the sacraments, you must be willing to acknowledge you are potentially on the fringe of orthodoxy on that point, given the lack of historical precedent. Denial of baptistmal regeneration is a comparatively recent novelty, at least on the scale of popularity that it enjoys now.
Like or Dislike:
1
I have to admit that I have read and enjoyed some of Lewis’s books. In the last while however having seen some of the things he believes. I can no longer in good conscience recommend his writings to anyone.
This isn’t taking away anything he wrote that is good, or for that matter biblical. However, some of his beliefs were not periphial issues, they are essential.
We need to be like the Berians (Acts 17:10-11).
It doesn’t matter if it is Lewis, Bell, MacLaren, or anyone who preaches, or teaches a false Gospel, we need warn others about them.
I know all too well how false teachers can lead others astray, I used to be part of the Word of Faith movement.
Like or Dislike:
0
So Credo House can host “coffee and theology” nights with impunity, but when Lewis enjoys a pint and a pipe it becomes one of his “issues”?
A number of commenters have mentioned this, saying that we all sin (even some suggestion of moral equivalence with massacring peasants!), but since when is smoking sinful? Or is Credo House one of THOSE types of ministries?
Like or Dislike:
0
Chris, no. I did not mean for it to come across that way. In fact most of the staff at Credo smokes!
The issues that I spoke of are certainly not issues that I have nor Credo. In fact we thought about having a good beer offered at Credo (not to mention the cigar room!)
Like or Dislike:
0
Credo sounds like my kinda place then!
Like or Dislike:
0
Haha woops I can see how my comment may have sounded that way. That wasn’t what I meant, rest assured. I don’t smoke, and I hate beer, but I love a good cocktail!
Like or Dislike:
0
Fr. Robert: ““Again, whatever C.S. Lewis was theologically? He was not a systematic thinker, but much more of a mystical and existential person.””
Fr. Robert: “There is a big difference between being a ‘systematic thinker’, and a ‘Systematic Theologian’. Lewis is certainly the former, but not the latter.”
Well, I am glad you changed your mind about Lewis not being a systematic thinker anyway. {g}
As to Lewis revising MaPS for the second edition–that was because he was a systematic thinker: he saw that Anscombe was correct, and in the Socratic Club discussion records, after the debate (which can be found in the God in the Dock collection, btw), he can be seen already incorporating her critiques and adjusting his argument in the direction he would eventually republish.
(I am a long-time friend of Victor Reppert, and have second editing credit for his book behind William Hasker. {g} In fact, he credits me for having discovered the relevance of that Socratic Club after-word entry for Lewis’ AfR revision, and plans to include it in his revised edition of DangIdea whenever he gets around to ginning it up.)
Fr. Robert: “Later in this [2nd] edition, Lewis fell back on J.B.S. Haldane’s book: Possible Worlds”
The quote from Haldane is not a fallback position, but a quick rebuttal to a simplistic atheistic determinism that Lewis provides (as being something his readers of the time would be familiar with) right before spending the vast majority of that same chapter arguing against more sophisticated versions of atheistic naturalism–where in the second edition he incorporates and even builds from Anscombe’s critiques (although without credit to her, unfortunately).
I know it’s popular to reduce Lewis’ argument there to the Haldane quote (which Victor certainly does not do, btw), but it is almost as inaccurate to do so as to reduce his argument to his preliminary remarks on quantum physics in the same chapter. (I’ve seen people do that, too, despite Lewis explicitly saying he will base no argument on them, considering that he might have misunderstood the scientists and anyway they might just as easily change their minds later.)
JRP
Like or Dislike:
1
The final paragraphs of my formal review of Love Wins (my much longer and much more informal review can be found here — both reviews are highly critical against Rob in multiple ways):
In regard to the cross, anyone who claims Rob rejects or undermines any meaning at all for what Jesus accomplished with His death, is flatly outright wrong. Rob acknowledges multiple meanings from scriptural testimony and insists that all should be accepted and promoted. While it’s understandable that opponents who accept and promote typical varieties of penal substitionary atonement should pick on Rob for effectively denying this, they should at least mention and address the real reason why he does so: to avoid a trinitarian heresy (be that right or wrong). And they shouldn’t pretend he has no notion of the atonement at all.
Most of all, anyone who claims Rob simply preaches some other God than orthodox trinitarian theism, is flatly, bluntly, wildly, unfairly and outright wrong. Rob’s key chapter, on which his whole book stands or falls, preaches orthodox Christology, neither confounding the Persons of the Father and the Son (and the Spirit, although like many popular preachers Rob doesn’t complexify things for readers by talking much about the Holy Spirit), nor dividing the Substance; and affirming the two natures of Christ, fully human and fully divine, acting historically as the Son Incarnate with one will and in one person. He doesn’t go into technical detail about this, but that’s where he stands, and that is Who he is preaching.
Rob Bell preaches Christ, the one and only Lord Most High and Son of God; and he preaches Christ crucified: drawing all men to Himself when He is lifted up from the earth, giving His flesh as bread for the life of the world.
Rob takes Jesus Christ that seriously, and he takes salvation from sin in Jesus Christ that seriously.
And Rob’s opponents, even if they believe they have to oppose him on some points, ought to take him seriously enough to recognize he takes Jesus Christ that seriously.
Rob insists (quoting from John 14 even) that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, the one and only uniquely begotten Son of God, and that no man comes to the Father but through Him.
And if someone “reviewing” Rob, on video or in print or on the internet, doesn’t acknowledge all this–
then that is no real review of Rob Bell at all.
JRP
Like or Dislike:
0
Jason,
Indeed my further statement sought to clarify my earlier one, as Lewis was not a “systematic thinker” within Systematic Theology. But we can even pin Barth in so-called “Systematic Theology”. Note, I like Barth also!
It just depends on how one defines “Systematic”. But one thing is certain to my mind, Rob Bell comes up short on both accounts!
Like or Dislike:
0
Btw, as one Irish born, and obviously Irish, I drink some brew (note some, not to excess), but I don’t smoke. Smoking is simply a very bad affair, and I am talk’in health here! One of my Irish grandfathers smoked Prince Albert in a can, rolled it, pipe, etc., and only lived to 79, the rest of my family, father, great uncles, etc. lived into their late 80′s. Mum did smoke also, but died in her early 80′s. I am a young 62!
Like or Dislike:
0
Fr. Robert,
Quite agreed on all points. {g}
Like or Dislike:
0
Just a further note on “smoking”, my Father and great uncles did not smoke! And their generation were smokers. They all also fought in WW2 (British).
Btw, does smoking relate to 1 Cor. 10:31?
Like or Dislike:
0
Jason,
The pantheist (the Hindu, the Buddhist, the Christian Scientist) has no trouble expressing his beliefs in Christian terms. This, and the fact that Rob Bell is deliberately trying not to tip Christians off to his philosophy, make it very confusing and difficult to discern what his real beliefs are. However, if you educate yourself in pantheism you will begin to see what Rob Bell is doing.
For instance, in the NOOMA video, Breathe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4PfRuIRWJY), Mr. Bell expounds on the story about Moses and the burning bush (starting at 2:18). At 2:36 he says, “Now Moses has been walking this ground for 40 years. I mean it isn’t as if the ground all of the sudden become holy. The ground didn’t just change. It’s that Moses becomes aware of it. Which raises the question for us, ‘are we standing on holy ground all the time? Passing burning bushes on the left and on the right?’”
He has obliterated the meaning of the word “holy,” in a distinctly pantheistic way. Holy means “set apart.” Therefore, by definition, everything can’t be holy. This is one of the many many times he rejects antitheses in favor of a philosophical unity.
C.S. Lewis fans will appreciate Lewis addressing the way some Christians unknowingly promote pantheism by refering to God as “infinite.” Read this excerpt from Miracles, pp87-88: http://www.alancoughlin.com/BibleStudies/FoundationSeries/02%20-%20Philosophical%20Basis%20for%20the%20Existence%20of%20God,%20v2.pdf
Here’s a piece I wrote on Pantheism: http://www.alancoughlin.com/Blog/OneIsALonelyNumber.jsp
Like or Dislike:
0
Btw, we should note here the affect that WW1 had on Lewis! I heard Lewis speak on the BBC radio in my youth (50′s). I also have the book: C.S. Lewis In A Time Of War, The World War II Broadcasts That Riveted a Nation and Became the Classic Mere Christianity, by Justin Phillips (Foreward by Walter Hooper). I can relate to this myself as a former RMC or Royal Marine Commando (officer, recon), my last combat (but not my first) in Gulf War 1. *I pray my sons will miss this show!
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] Why Do We Love C.S. Lewis and Hate Rob Bell? | Parchment and Pen Tweet Cancel [...]
Like or Dislike:
1
I wonder if Americans know that the British lost over a million men in WW1? Both my grandfathers fought there.
Like or Dislike:
1
My last, on this already too long thread. If C.S. Lewis did not make heaven? then neither do the rest of us! Thankfully, salvation is not based upon merit or a theological litmus test, but in the grace & mercy of God In Christ!
Like or Dislike:
0
Alan,
Pantheists in my experience (nor in principle) would not treat Christ as exclusively God, nor (for that matter) God as exclusively God, especially for purposes of salvation from sin, the way Rob Bell does in LW.
Rob Bell is not very careful as a thinker, and what you described sounds to me more like well-intentioned sloppiness on his part, probably based on the doctrine that all creation was created good (plus God’s omnipresence), than some kind of slipup accidentally revealing his otherwise-well-thought-out-secretly-pantheistic-master-plan.
I’m a gung-ho trinitarian hyper-doctrinaire, with a suspicious streak, who likes (more than I honestly ought!) to pick at fellow theologians on not being trinitarian enough. I was fully prepared to crush Rob based on his whiffly statements during marketing of the book. Rob does say some asinine things in LW, and even outright cheats against his opponents (which greatly disappointed me, as this was something I wasn’t personally expecting). But his occasional theological incoherencies vs. trinitarian theism are, sadly, quite standard in the field among preachers and even scholars who haven’t altogether thought out what they’re saying on the topic and don’t actually mean to be denying ortho-trin.
I found his gaffes, in other words, to be quite consonant with inadvertent mistakes commonly made against ortho-trin doctrine by proponents of ortho-trin; and his affirmations to be by the same token those which someone secretly trying to promote a different theology would not intentionally make. Pantheists as such would not want to assert that Christ is God and we aren’t; but Rob basically does so. (Similarly, pantheists are more likely than not to minimize or eliminate the personal distinctions between anyone, but especially between the Father and the Son. Rob affirms the personal distinction of the Father and the Son in LW.)
On the other hand, as I said I am only familiar with Love Wins, not any of his other material.
JRP
Like or Dislike:
0
Dear Beloved in Christ Jesus,
“‘Come now, and let us reason together,’ Says the Lord…”Isaiah 1:18.
Not long before C.S. Lewis died he penned “Letters to Malcolm:Cheifly on Prayer”: “Our souls demand Purgatory, don’t they? Would it not break the heart if God said to us, “it is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drip with mud and slime, but we are charitable here and none will upbraid you with these things, nor draw away from you. Enter into the joy!” Should we not reply, “With submission , sir, and if there is no objection, I’d rather be cleaned first.” ‘It may hurt, you know” – “Even so, sir.”
Let’s be honest if someone we loved told us this we should know instantly that they have no understanding of the work of Christ.
We cannot stand before a Just and Holy God with foul breath and stains on our garment. Which is why Jesus Christ had to die to pay the penalty of our sins, so by faith in Christ for our salvation we are clothed in Christ’s righeousness. By the grace of God we are Justified and God sees ONLY His beloved Son when He looks at us.
“BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED. BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.” Romans 4:7&8
“He made Him, who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” 2Corinthians 5:21
Beloved, if shortly before Lewis died he had no understanding of the atonement, sanctification, justification or Christ being the mediator between man and God how is it possible for him to have “trusted” in Christ alone through faith by grace for salvation?
Lewis also wrote in “Mere Christianity” “There are people in other religions who are being led by God’s secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it.”
The Bible says “Let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead-by this name this man stands here before you in good health…And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.” 1 John 5:9-12
These are just two examples of unacceptable error. We are in a very dangerous position if we either promote or turn a blind eye to such errors in the presentation of our merciful Redeemer by a mere man.
Brothers and sisters in Christ, who espouse reformed, biblical theology, one day we will each individually stand before our precious Jesus and have to answer to Him and Him alone. May God in His mercy grant us the ability to see the truth as revealed in His Holy Word. Grace and peace in the name above all names, Christ Jesus
Like or Dislike:
0
Lewis’s book: Letters To Malcolm Chiefly On Prayer, is a certain masterpiece on much more than prayer! It is an approach to God, but certainly a mystic approach, but as Lewis says: “We must lay before Him what is in us, not what ought to be in us.” (page 35, Letters To Malcolm..) So before GOD, I cry what I am really, a sinner! But I will leave it to God to say how He sees Christ in me! I think this is always Lewis’s approach, especially since he was something of an Anglo-Catholic Christian. And yes, heaven holds, and will hold even many of them! (Note, I am myself more of a Reformed Anglican).
“In the Incarnation, God the Son takes the body and human soul of Jesus, and through that, the whole environment of Nature, all creaturely predicament, into His own being. So that “He came down from Heaven” can almost be transposed into “Heaven drew earth up into it,” and locality, limitation, sleep, sweat, footsore weariness, frustration, pain, doubt and death, are, from before all worlds, known by God from within. The pure light walks the earth; the darkness, received into the heart of Deity, is there swallowed up. Where, except in uncreated light, can the darkness be drowned?” (page, 96 again, Letters To Malcolm, etc.) And as James Denney could say, “In Christ God took the responsibility of evil upon Himself, and somehow subsumed evil under good.”
Like or Dislike:
0
It’s been a long time since I’ve read Lewis. From what I recall, he does seem to desire to affirm a Bible-guided view of Christ. But I haven’t read much of him, so I can’t say be counted in the “love Lewis” category.
Bell, on the other hand, is a sad excuse for a pastor, let alone a theologian. I lost count of the times I had to groan out loud while reading “Love Wins” because the answers to so many of the questions are RIGHT IN THE BIBLE!
Not in commentaries;
Not in articles;
Not in other books
- right in the Bible itself!
If Jesus was hearing him speak, you know He’d treat him like a modern Pharisee: “Have you not read!!?” (Mt 12:3; 12:5; 19:4; 22:31)
“Love Wins” is thoroughly uninterested in exploring Biblical consistency on the topic. Bell’s intention is to look like a cute little intellectual, plumbing the depths of the great mysteries of life (But we saw all that in his trailer video). If he cared about real answers, he’d make at least a 1/2 hearted attempt to expound on the answers already given in the Bible. Sheesh!
So … Either he knows nothing (and shouldn’t be in a pulpit), or he’s a fraud (and shouldn’t be in a pulpit).
Anyone standing on a pulpit claiming to speak for God has an obligation to have SOME FAMILIARITY with what God has ALREADY said! Bell fails miserably on this point, and his speculations, while cute, are absurd in the extreme, and ultimately drive people *away* from God. So definitely put me in the “hate Rob Bell” category.
If you want the verses that answer the questions he’s raised, here are a few:
http://www.linearconcepts.com/archives/1712
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] Super smart article explaining what the deal is with all the evangelical pearl-clutching over Rob Bell when we are SUCH fans of C.S. Lewis. [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
TMAN,
Rob does a better job than I was expecting answering questions by reference to scriptural testimony later in the book. (It slowly gets better as it goes along.)
But no, I don’t think that excuses his questioning tactics earlier in the book, which end up amounting to arguments from suspicious innuendo. Very poorly and overconveniently played, with occasional cheats against his opposition, too.
Like or Dislike:
0
Having said that, however else Jesus would treat Rob Bell, it wouldn’t be as a modern Pharisee. Rob isn’t a legalist who insists that we must use thousands of traditions of men to keep the Torah for the sake of convincing God His people are finally righteous enough for God to send the Messiah to save them.
Like or Dislike:
0
Charisse,
Since Lewis wasn’t denying the exclusivity of Christ for salvation from sin, including in reference to 1 John 5, but rather spent a lot of his time and energy affirming it (including in Mere Christianity), it’s kind of pointless to quote that against him.
Lewis did deny the exclusivity of Christianity for salvation from sin, or as something we should put our faith in for salvation from sin; but then, the Bible never says that Christianity is the Way, the Truth and the Life. (Nor does Lewis ever once teach that other religions save people from sin. Even in the MC portion you cite, he was in fact teaching, as he consistently did, that Christ saves people from sin, and not by their own religious works lest any man should boast. While also, by the way, affirming as he consistently did, that where the various religions differ, Christianity is right and the other religions wrong.)
As to his comments about purgatory, Lewis was only extending the notion of being washed in the blood of the Lamb–probably while thinking of scriptures such as Mark 9:49-50 (“For all shall be salted with fire…”), 1 Cor 3:15 (“If any man’s work is burned up, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved yet so as through fire.”), or Isaiah 4:4 (where after the day of judgment YHWH shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion and rinse the bloodshed of Jerusalem from her midst, by the spirit of judgment and the spirit of burning–resulting in their becoming righteous instead of remaining rebels.)
What Lewis is denying there, is what he said he was denying: the idea that God rests satisfied with pretending we are righteous. Even if God (which Lewis does not expect) was willing to let us enter into the kingdom having only a legal righteousness while still remaining filthy underneath, Lewis would for sake of the love of God still choose to be cleaned of His sin by God.
What Lewis was rejecting was a hypocritical pseudo-righteousness that trusts in legal formality, remaining at heart still unrighteous; as well as rejecting the idea that God does not expect us to willingly cooperate with God’s salvation of us from our sins. Lewis chose to die with Christ that he may rise with Christ. His post-mortem purgatory belief is only an extension of the same process — in effect, Lewis expects to willingly agree and cooperate with God in being resurrected (by the Resurrection and the Life Himself!) to eonian life.
Like or Dislike:
0
Jason,
With all due respect, you really should familiarize yourself with more of Bell’s work before defending him. And of course you would defend Love Wins, after all, you are an administrator on The Evangelical Universalist web site. I suggest you start with his NOOMA video series (I’ve provided one link for you), and go on from there.
I should also mention that I may be in a different camp than others on this forum, particularly the DTSers, in that I don’t think it’s a choice between God choosing to save all or just some, by force. I don’t think He can secure the salvation of any, but rather, has made provision for all and left us free to respond to His love expressed through Jesus on the cross. I reject Calvinism in its entirety.
I like C.S. Lewis because his heart and mind are a lot like God’s.
I dislike Rob Bell because his heart and mind are a lot like the world’s.
I don’t want to defend my views by comparing them to a famous author, nor to defend an author because his views are like mine. I don’t think scripture is so beyond our reach that we can’t understand it for ourselves if we devote our whole lives to understanding it. And those are the only authors’ opinions I care about for He chose them; and I care about His opinion because He was chosen to bear witness to the truth of God’s love for us.
Is your book, Cry of Justice, an allegory?
Like or Dislike:
0
Yes, what can we say about Bell, other than he is an “emergent”! Yes read and love C.S. Lewis, but forget Rob Bell as a pastor-teacher, this is my own personal feeling. But hey, I am an old-man and a “fossil”, as Lewis called himself – by today’s theological standard…Reformed, in the best of Calvin, and some of the latest thinking and theology on him, with even some of Karl Barth’s theological thought! Now that eclectic!
Like or Dislike:
0
‘who do you say that I am’ remains the ultimate question.
Plenty of bath water to be examined, but those who throw out the baby aren’t Christian. ‘Unless you believe that I AM you will die in your sins.’ I think we are in for some suprises on the final day…
Like or Dislike:
0
Amen! But the true revelation and knowledge of Christ is a “gift” itself! i.e. regeneration! (Matt. 16: 17) There is always this gulf between a Peter and a Judas, (John 17:12 / 2 Cor. 2: 15-16, etc.)
Like or Dislike:
1
I can’t believe how many here have commented/insinuated that Lewis and Bell are not Christian. That’s between them and Jesus Christ. If they say they are Christian, then I believe them. I may not believe the doctrine they teach, but I believe Jesus Christ atoned for their sins and if they believe that, are they not saved? Are they “true Christians”? If you asked that, maybe you should change your question to “Am I a true Christian?”
Like or Dislike:
2
It is humorous to me that you view this ‘battle’ from one side. In my thoughts I don’t believe Rob Bell is ‘trying to win people’ or ‘share the gospel’ through his books, I think Rob leaves the Bible to that. Right? Bell also has a huge church and online following and works with great pastors here and around the world. I think his influence is very large. His NOOMA series is used all the time by church groups, his video Everything Is Spiritual is played all the time, but his books are used in Christian Circles to keep us sharp and keep us thinking while giving a nudge toward one path. Maybe not everything he says everyone likes, but not everything Jesus said everyone liked either. You may think it is out of line to hope in a quasi-unversalism, but many would probably think it is out of line if God asked you to place your son on an alter and sacrifice him, no? I don’t think this topic is nearly as cut and dry as you make it.
I never read the Chronicles of Narnia and have yet to read a CS Lewis book, though I have read many like Evidence That Demands a Verdict and such. But the Bible should ultimately be the main focus. I would’t say what the media throws around and what books they write determine whether we love or dislike these men, or how ‘much’ they influence the world. Maybe you need to go over this topic again.
JM
Like or Dislike:
0
Btw, Jason,
I did want to mention that in the Justin Phillips book that I spoke of (C.S. Lewis, In Time Of War, etc.), on page 105 he mentions Lewis and The Socratic Club, and that Lewis really did feel he lost the debate with the Roman Catholic, Elizabeth Anscombe. “Lewis told Bede Griffiths that her logical positivism had ‘demolished’ his position.” But Lewis moved on and as always made his changes – ‘We have no abiding city in philosophy’. In the end, he knew that we cannot express the mystery of God in logical terms. But that we can try to take logic as far as possible, toward God. But finally ‘faith’ is always itself even God’s mystery!
Like or Dislike:
0
For me anyway there is very little connection between C.S. Lewis and Rob Bell! Lewis was something of a High Church type Anglican, somewhat eclectic, but somewhat too patristic. Though he did say he was not especially “high” nor “low” church, but a layman in the CoE. But certainly Lewis was an Anglican! He called himself an “ordinary” Christian. But he did say also: The Christian community is the one really adequate instrument for learning about God. (Mere Christianity)
Like or Dislike:
0
On most ( but not all ) of these CS Lewis complaints, he is just defending traditional orthodox viewpoints. In fact he had a lot of contact with Eastern Orthodoxy. It’s a bit different to be defending old time Christianity than to be trying to reinvent the faith.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] Why Do We Love C.S. Lewis and Hate Rob Bell - a really insightful article comparing C.S. Lewis versus Rob Bell and their influence on Christianity. [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] Gospel circles lately: Credo House’s Parchment & Pen blog poses the question, “Why do we love C.S. Lewis and hate Rob Bell?” Author C. Michael Patton answers the question by saying that Lewis’s body of work is [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] Gospel circles lately: Credo House’s Parchment & Pen blog poses the question, “Why do we love C.S. Lewis and hate Rob Bell?” Author C. Michael Patton answers the question by saying that Lewis’s body of work is [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] Michael Patton on Why people love C.S. Lewis and hate Rob Bell. [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] that Improve Your Leadership Thinking (Mark Howell) Growing Through Brokenness (Ron Edmondson) Why We Love C.S. Lewis but Rob Bell, Not So Much (Credo House) The Confidence of an Evangelical (Mark Galli) You’re Not as Busy as You Think [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
I do like this summary of the differences between these two authors and thinkers. However, what this highlights most of all is that while we may enjoy or benefit from the thoughts and ideas of others it’s vital that we view them as just that – thoughts and ideas! So, we glean from each thinker what is beneficial to ourselves wherever we are in our Christian walk and we discard that which is not helpful. This is the basis of any sound study method.
On another note: I went to Greenbelt earlier in the year to hear Rob Bell and came away very disappointed. I’d read a couple of his books and liked ‘some’ of the things he said. But, face to face, and facing questions from the audience it became very clear that while he was a lovely man, very polite, very tactful, very prudent, he did not seem to stand for anything as such. Every question was dealt with in a sort of – ‘some think this / some think that’ way while he himself sat on the fence rather than him ever actually coming out and making clear statements about his own belief, experience or the outcome of his study. For someone who challenges the status quo so openly it would have been nice to think he was doing so from a standpoint of some fresh principles.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] article that puts some of the teachings of C.S. Lewis in perspective. It provides a good contrast to the teachings of Rob Bell. Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. This entry was posted [...]
Like or Dislike:
2
Your answer didn’t really resolve much at all. You are still picking and choosing that parts of Lewis you like and dislike. You’re still ignoring much of Bell’s works and sermons that show him in a more “evangelical” light. I’m sure if we all focused on a few lines from any theologians works, removed them from context, we could easily paint them as heretical. John Calvin killed a dude, shouldn’t we burn his works now too?
And then for someone like MacAurthur to say that Bell isn’t a Christian because of his books is absolutely wrong and shameful. Just because someone doesn’t hold to a Calvinistic view of God doesn’t make them out side the bounds of faith. That’s ridiculous.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] There has been some dispute as to whether or not Lewis’s books should be read, due to some of his less-than orthodox views. However, the difference between Lewis and some modern authors is that his theology is not the subject of his books. Lewis confesses that he is no theologian, and the deep thoughts ought to be left to the deep thinkers; he, meanwhile, will be focused on what he calls “Mere Christianity”, the stuff that we all believe and agree with. When his beliefs do come up, they are presented more as his view, not necessarily the end all of truth. I, for one, read his books and thoughts and am drawn closer to Christ because of it. For more on that note, I encourage you to read this blog, “Why Do We Love C.S. Lewis and Hate Rob Bell?” (Fantastic title, I know). http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/11/why-do-we-love-c-s-lewis-and-hate-rob-bell/ [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
Some around C.S. Lewis personally sure questioned his playing with the supernatural a little around the edges. The occult can be fascinating even to born-agains. Some say he was not truly saved because of his excursions on the dark side. I think it is for God to decide and hard to claim he was not truly christian. If you have known one of these more than mere mortal beings, it is easier to understand.
Like or Dislike:
0
Great post, and sound reasoning. Mere Christianity is what unites the “one holy catholic and apostolic church.” Focusing on secondary or tertiary considerations is risky, and if they’re non-orthodox, downright dangerous.
Like or Dislike:
0
Just curious, did Lewis ever Biblically present the Gospel in it’s entirety? And I will illustrate what is meant by Gospel.
The Exclusive Store; Now Open To The General Public
[Hurry, offer ends without notice] Our magnificent and awesome God has made available to you through Grace His exclusive treasure. This unique gift came in the form of a baby named Jesus. “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” John 1:14 [To enter in there are a few instructions]
1) Even though you will see many doors on the building there is only one door that actually works. That door will be clearly labeled “Jesus”. So Jesus said to them agin, “Truly,truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep…I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved,” John 10:7&9 “Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.’” John 14:16 “For theer is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” 1 Timothy 2:5
2) This door however will be very narrow, it’s ok that’s the way it is supposed to be. “Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you will seek to enter and will not be able.” Luke 13:24 “For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.” Matthew 7:14
Point 3 continued on next comment….
Like or Dislike:
0
3)Once grace has shown you the door, you will want to get rid of your sin by having faith that Jesus paid the penalty you deserved and covered over your iniqity with His blood by His death on the Cross. “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God’ Romans 3:23 “Then He[Jesus] said to them, ‘Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.’” Luke 24:46-47
4) Then Knock! “Ask and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be open to you.” Matthew 7:7
Frequently Asked Questions…
1) Is there an entrance fee? No. “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ jesus our Lord.” Romans 6:23
2) Do you accept credit cards? No. The only way to purchase this treasure is by the Grace of God. “But God being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),… For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.” Ephesians 2:4-5&8-9
Point 2 continued next comment…
Like or Dislike:
0
2) “He saves us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” Titus 3:5-7
3) How much does this treasure cost? Everything. “Then Jesus said to His disciples, ‘If anyone wishes to come after Me, he just deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever wishess to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.’” Matt. 16:24-25 “If you love me you will keep my commandments.”John 14:15
4) Do you use rain checks? No.”Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming.”Matt. 24:42“…Today if you hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts.” Heb.3:7b
5) Do you participate in fire sales? No. In the event that a great fire occurs our store will close its doors permanently. “But by His word the present heaven and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgement and destruction of ungodly men.. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. 2 Pet 3:7&10
[Hurry in before it is over!] “He who testifies to these things says, ‘Yes I am coming quickly. Amen. Come…
Like or Dislike:
0
I love Rob Bell and C.S. Lewis, their books are great.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] fall I stumbled across this interesting blog post at Credo House Ministries. It was during the whole “Rob Bell is a universalist” controversy. I think the [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
Very well and respectfully written. I don’t think that I could have written it any clearer than your words have yielded.
It always interests me to look at the fallout of such introspective conversations. I, first of all, agree with your assessment. Moreover, this is a subject requiring heart, humility, and a deferment to the knowledge that we will never have all of the things that we need to know about God, or even Christ for that matter, all lined up perfectly for everyone to understand completely, all at the same time.
I see that there are those who are quick to condemn Lewis and Bell, of which I am not one, in spite of the fact that I disagree with both of them on points. We are here gaining what we can as humans. And, I certainly hope that we are not leaning simply on our own understanding to carry out our faith in what Jesus definitively said was areas that we do not completely understand.
Jesus did not come to condemn us. Is that not the model for our own lives? I am pretty sure that there are clear warnings against such endeavors.
I know that the truth is the truth. I rest in the belief that I get that truth occasionally, fail repeatedly, repent religiously, and lean on some serious grace, while pressing on towards the higher mark. Peace and Blessings
Like or Dislike:
0
“Why Do We Love C.S. Lewis and Hate Rob Bell? | Parchment and Pen” was
indeed a fantastic post. However, if it included even more pix it might be even much better.
Regards ,Lorenzo
Like or Dislike:
0
John Brand says: In your article you say that Lewis, “denied substitutionary atonement in favor of a “ransom to Satan” view, bordered on a Pelagian idea of human freedom, seemed to advocate baptismal regeneration, ” and then you go on to say that “his ministry is defined by a defense of the essence of the Gospel” and “The problematic areas are peripheral, not central.” That seems contradictory. It seems to me that the things he denied are the essence of the gospel and central not peripheral.
This is exactly right.
Lewis did far more damage to the health of the church by lubing the way for all the theological mush and blurry moral boundaries that have rendered her a harmless impotent joke today than Bell ever could. The spirit of bell is an inevitable eventual symptom of the spirit of Lewis. I have really had it up to here with all this perversion of the bible’s teaching on “judging”. Paul named names and warned the saints to stay away. Here is a piece I did a while back when somebody was spewing their sugary “we’re not supposed to judge” garbage at me on another site.
http://gregnmary.gotdns.com/judge.html
Like or Dislike:
0
Rob Bell asks better questions than he provides answers.
More Comments: