1) Chan seems to embrace an ultra-literal approach to the scriptures - even verses in Revelation. So it is pretty understandable that he takes issue with Rob Bell's view.
2) He also seems to embrace a literal interpretation of the OT. Wonder where he stands on the place where Samuel believes that God ordered the killing of innocent infants.
3) Chan seems to use the same "asking questions" approach as Rob Bell does in Love Wins.
4) I am not a fan of the Love Wins book but I do not see anything of substance in this video that would change anyone's mind about the book.
Our small group has been reading Love Wins and having good conversation around it. Most of the people did not recognize the Martin Zender-ish leanings in the chapter on Hell. I have no issues with those leanings (even though I disagree with them) but wish that he was a bit more transparent about them and the way that he embraces Christian Universalism. Guess I have a difficult time with leading questions that try to masquerade themselves as if Bell does not have strong beliefs about the issue. I suggest that someone with a grayer view would ask different kinds of questions.
Thanks Bob. I think his points about the otherness of God are helpful... This video is a preamble to his book coming out in the summer I think. I agree with your comments about Love Wins. I felt frustrated that Bell implied so much about his own beliefs but was unwilling to be straight. Ah well... Would be fun to do in a small group!
Comments
1) Chan seems to embrace an ultra-literal approach to the scriptures - even verses in Revelation. So it is pretty understandable that he takes issue with Rob Bell's view.
2) He also seems to embrace a literal interpretation of the OT. Wonder where he stands on the place where Samuel believes that God ordered the killing of innocent infants.
3) Chan seems to use the same "asking questions" approach as Rob Bell does in Love Wins.
4) I am not a fan of the Love Wins book but I do not see anything of substance in this video that would change anyone's mind about the book.
Our small group has been reading Love Wins and having good conversation around it. Most of the people did not recognize the Martin Zender-ish leanings in the chapter on Hell. I have no issues with those leanings (even though I disagree with them) but wish that he was a bit more transparent about them and the way that he embraces Christian Universalism. Guess I have a difficult time with leading questions that try to masquerade themselves as if Bell does not have strong beliefs about the issue. I suggest that someone with a grayer view would ask different kinds of questions.