If Bell merely stated his arguments, I suspect people would be more skeptical of his conclusions.
Although this is not problematic in itself, it is clear that this style is intended to lead people into the conclusions Bell wants without any critical analysis.
Instead, he chooses to simply ask leading questions. Fourth, he fails to present his arguments. For example, he will often cite a single verse as an argument for a theological position, even though his argument is contradicted in the very next verse or in the same paragraph. Third, his exegesis is problematic in still other ways. Second, his interpretive method is very problematic, as he will often take merely a single part of a verse (sometimes two words completely torn from their context!) in order to make an entire argument about how all of Scripture needs to be interpreted through his chosen phrase. He makes claims about the history of the church which are falsified upon closer examination. First, Bell makes errors regarding historical theology. Yet throughout my reviews of the book (see links at the end), I have noted numerous errors found therein.
Of these, the ones most important are the notion that we often trivialize the message of the Bible into “getting in” to heaven and the argument that we cannot turn Jesus into a slogan or the cross into a symbol for whatever we like.īell has rightly brought the focus onto eschatology, something which is often ignored or avoided in modern settings. There have been several positive themes found throughout the book. Over the past several weeks, I have gone through Love Wins chapter by chapter. I hope this will be useful to those interested in reading the book or who lead/participate in a group that are reading the book. Here, I present a brief overview of my conclusions, as well as providing a study guide. I have spent a great deal of time evaluating Rob Bell’s controversial work, Love Wins.
0 kommentar(er)
