Kim Gentes

The early words of Francis Chan are an excellent preface to what you will find in "Erasing Hell", a new book that resoundingly challenges the premise and conclusions of universalism, especially as highlighted recently in Rob Bell's "Love Wins".

Chan takes the high ground in this well researched book- he refuses to label or harangue Bell, and in fact compliments him on the admirable aspects of several of his points. Francis Chan is careful to deal directly with the material on the issue of hell, salvation and our purpose on earth.  What is helpful about the book, is that he provides solid exploration of all the Biblical texts dealing with the pertinent issues- including ones that look (at first) to support an opposing view. This is precisely what Rob Bell failed to do in "Love Wins", and "Erasing Hell" is clearly written to correct and critique on both content and method.   

I won't go into the details of each point made by Chan, but one point that is of major importance is his refutation of Bell's false interpretation of hell, which shows the disparity between Bell's unresearched work and Chan's book. Chan says plainly:

This is backed up by the appropriate details and further context. Additionally, Chan helps explore the actual scripture understandings, especially from Jesus and his followers that speak about hell (Chapter 3) and our understanding and responses to it (Chapter 5). Again, he faces several passages that are normally used by universalists as support and mines through the various interpretations and understandings of them.

Beyond the core of refutation of universalism (and Bell's book), Chan also provides a helpful FAQ (frequently asked questions) section in the Appendix which handles 6 common questions about hell. This material is very helpful and should be read by all pastors, as it is excellent summary to issues that have been discussion for centuries. 

Chan's "Erasing Hell" is not a monolithic or even deeply impressive work, but it is a contrite and succinct response to Rob Bell's "Love Wins".  It sets out to be a clear corrective on postmodern Christian universalism, and succeeds by taking classical and appropriate steps to expose the error and excise it as a sickness from the body of Christ - the American church.

Even if you haven't read "Love Wins", this book ("Erasing Hell") provides the outline for understanding these important issues.

It's true. There is a long history of a small segment of Christianity that has held to the belief that God will save all people, even those that reject him on this earth. Rob Bell's recent book "Love Wins" takes a look at another spin of this age-old concept of universalism.  Bell writes and thinks well. There is no denying it. But ultimately he stays well within the context of the best argument for universalism- human reason and human attribution of the qualities of "love" on to the Divine Person.  As long as you use logic that does not look at all the scriptural record, and rely heavily on personal anecdotes to frame the "kind of God" that you are willing to believe in (and that He is a good God), then you can arrive at the doctrine of universalism and feel pretty good about it. And this is primarily what Bell does.

I was surprised at how anecdotal the entire book was. I love much of Bell's writing, but his treatment of this topic relies initially on a logical progression of human reasoning (not based primarily on Scripture) and ignores investigation, explanation and support of key texts that seem to contradict Bell's thesis. I wanted to emotionally agree with Rob Bell. But neither the specific texts of the Bible that might seem to support universalism (but on deeper look, do not), the historical context of Jesus timeframe or a comprehensive review of all Scripture (including texts which clearly contradict universalism, and overtly declare literal judgment in a literal hell) line up to do anything but refute the premise and content of "Love Wins". I am not a Bell basher, and I appreciate and like some of his other works. Throughout, there are a number of concepts based on specific redefinitions of words (such as forever not actually meaning "eternal", hell not meaning a non-earthly place of punishment but instead meaning "Hell is our refusal to trust God’s retelling of our story"[1] according to Bell). And you see the conflict here- yes Hell could include our refusal to trust God's retelling, but it is a definition that removes the imagery Jesus used of suffering and eternity.

 Bell begins with exploring some thoughts about what kind of God we might be talking about, who is ultimatley in control, some thoughts about hell as a concept (placing it on earth mostly, and certainly not as a reality in the ethereal world), understanding more about what God's desires are and how they might work and ultimately towards a conclusion that just assumes that a good God would not send a person intentionally to a painful punishment for all eternity. But Bell uses conjecture as his backbone to the book, not scripture. He proof texts some support when possible, but does not draw his primary thoughts from the bible.

I love that Bell asks so many profound questions. For this, his voice is refreshing. But "Love Wins" ultimately answers none of its questions except to give universalism a "pass" because ultimately Bell's anecdotal view of life leads him to that conclusion.

Amazon Product Link: http://amzn.to/sHSMrk

Review by Kim Gentes

[1]Bell, Rob. "Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived". (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2011) Kindle Edition.  Pg. 170