Charles - this type of preaching gets me really fired up. Does Bell willingly neglect obvious scripture such as:

Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;
he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

I agree with you - he can’t recover from his pathetic statement - at all.

Well, what bothers me is that it’s a minor point to him. He just uses it to support his main argument about eschewing victimhood status.

But how could this be a minor point in any light?

Penal Substitutionary Atonement

Such an amazing phrase. Capable of turning the pew-sitting rocks into God glorifying voices. (well, that’s how it worked with me

Hearing what others have to say has not ceased to give me new things to wonder about. I’m curious, what do you make of:

From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitutionary_atonement
Pope John Paul II referred to these Acts of Reparation as the “unceasing effort to stand beside the endless crosses on which the Son of God continues to be crucified”.

From http://heartissuesforlds.wordpress.com/2008/08/22/current-controversy-over-penal-substitutionary-atonement-psa/
The evangelical theology I had once held was built on views of suffering: Christ suffered for my sins, so that I would not have to suffer eternally, because God is a righteous judge who punishes for all time those who reject him and the salvation that he has provided. The irony, I suppose, is that it was precisely my view of suffering that led me away from this understanding of Christ, salvation, and God.
Bart D. Ehrman, God’s Problem, 2008, p. 128.

What seems to me the weakest point, from where I stand, of PSA, is this: How can one know one has signed up for said atonement? Does one have to believe in/on Jesus? (if so, what of those living in the Americas from the life of Christ up through the arrival of the ships carrying the good news?) Does one have to do something special to earn this atonement? (baptism, confirmation, acts of piety, send enough money to the televangelist, praying the right prayer, etc) Can one lose this atonement through ones actions or inactions?

I am not Rob Bell, nor can I say I agree with all of his theology, however, Bell’s stance on PSA really *is* a minor point. If I am not taking the writings of Paul out of context,

Philippians 1:15-18

1:15 Some, to be sure, are preaching Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from goodwill. 1:16 The latter do so from love because they know that I am placed here for the defense of the gospel. 1:17 The former proclaim Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely, because they think they can cause trouble for me in my imprisonment. 1:18 What is the result? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is being proclaimed, and in this I rejoice.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/phil1-15-18

Charis kai eirene.

Michael,

Thanks for the thoughts. What you consider a weak point in PSA, is actually an issue that affects every perspective on atonement except universalism. Everyone who believes that there are some who receive salvation and some who don’t, has to come to a conclusion on how it is received.

This isn’t about Bell’s stance on atonement. This is about his stance on God’s will, on sovereignty, about the promises to Abraham and David. He’s saying, as many have (and I think incorrectly) that God didn’t plan Jesus’ death.

Atonement is a relatively minor point, but the idea that “God didn’t will Jesus’ death” doesn’t hold up to Scriptural scrutiny.

Charles,

Thank you so much for replying!

Sidebar:
I’m glad you brought up universalism; it’s a topic I’ve been wrestling with as of late. From Romans 3:22, should πίστις Χριστοῦ (pisti” Cristou) be translated as “faith in Christ” or as “the faith of Christ”?

Main Point:
The universalist believes in a Christ who “was made to be sin” or “chose to become sin” (2Cor5:21). Either way, through Christ, all who are made in the image of God are declared to be righteous.

If I read you right, you’re saying Rob Bell believes in a Christ who “chose to become sin” for we who believe in Him.

When I “prayed the sinners’ prayer” as a child, I believed in a Christ who “was made to pay for our sin” and that belief in Christ was requirement to obtain forgiveness.

Any of these three points of view all claim to believe in Jesus.

I say that they all do. Camp A believers are still Christians according to Camp B. Camp B are according to Camp C. Camp C are according to Camp A. What they disagree about is what happens to those who *don’t* believe in Christ.

I’m willing to accept that perhaps Rob Bell, if wrong, is missing out at least in part on being able to appreciate and glorify God.

But, really, even if Rob Bell *is* wrong (or I am or you are), so what? In every way, whether the Father willed the death of Jesus or not, Christ is being proclaimed. In spite of this major (I say minor =) point, we rejoice.

To the sidebar: I haven’t looked closely at the Greek context of that passage, but there are enough other places that say “in Christ” as to make that one reference insignificant.

To the main point:
Yes, all three believe in Christ. I would say that Camps B & C are not separate groups, but two perspectives on the same concept (Christ’s “becom[ing] sin” was his act of “pay[ing] for sin”).

But Paul told us to watch out for someone, even he, who would come preaching a different Gospel from what he had preached, which seems to say that even if the universalist has faith in Christ, they should be corrected.

Paul also seems to be saying that it’s important for Christ to be proclaimed rightly. And this is a major point if we consider the watchman passages in Ezekiel.

But my main point is that this is not about atonement. It is about the fact that the old testament foretells the death of Christ. Jesus says he has come to die. He says that must die. Then he begs to be saved, but submits himself to God’s will…not the consequences of his actions.

To say that God didn’t will Jesus death is to say that it wasn’t necessary. It was a noble act, but only symbolic, because it wasn’t the (intentional) sacrifice for sin. It’s also to call Jesus, Paul, and Isaiah liars.

That’s not cool with me. And it’s not minor.

I appreciate how this conversation is going (mainly because i’ve seen christians rip one another apart over rob bell) and i kinda get a headache when i try to keep up with these scholastic conversations…i don’t know the answers, but i can’t help but wonder if we’re spending too much time looking for people (like rob bell) to mess up…and if we aren’t trying to make things more difficult than they need to be?? i agree with kierkegaard when he says the following:

THE BIBLE IS VERY EASY TO UNDERSTAND (KIERKEGAARD)

“The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any word in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined. How would I ever get on in the world? Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the Church’s prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Oh, priceless scholarship, what would we do without you? Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes, it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament. “

I don’t know enough about Kierkegaard to say much about him, but I think he’s quite right. The Bible is easy to understand.

I’ve always said that if something in the bible doesn’t make sense, it’s me - not the text - that’s the problem.

I agree that quite often we’re looking for someone to blame, or to nitpick, when we truly need to be focusing on Jesus. But, as I said in the OP, I wanted to hear him preach. I was very impressed with the sermon, and was just rolling along with him until he got to this part.

Incidentally, if we put him against the “easy to understand” theory, Bell seems to be the obfuscator. It’s quite clear that God sent Jesus to die. God says so, Jesus says so, Paul, Isaiah, and…did I mention Jesus?…say so.