Does Love Win? 6

Does Love Win?

Does Love Win?
By Gary Amirault

Christians seen to have a hard time comprehending a God that actually really wins. For example, Rob Bell recently wrote a book entitled “Love Wins,” but after 202 pages of question with very few answers, he concludes people can have as much of hell as they want because they are free to chose. Rob Bell concludes that because God gave man free will, there is a hell whose door is locked from the inside. Jesus, according to the Bible leaves the ninety nine found sheep to seek a single lost sheep and does not give up til He finds it. Yet among the most compassionate pastors of the traditional church, Love does NOT win despite Rob Bell’s use of the title “Love Wins.”

God is Love. Love Never fails. Nothing is impossible with God. So simple a child can understand it. So why do pastors with Bible college and seminary degrees not understand it? Maybe they need to go back to grade school and learn some basic grammar.

I win
you win
he/she/it wins
we win
you win

I won
you won
he/she/it won
we won
you won
they won

to win

let’s win

Present Participle

Past Participle

Compound forms Simple forms
Past participle        
having won

Present continuous
I am winning
you are winning
he/she/it is winning
we are winning
you are winning
they are winning

Present perfect
I have won
you have won
he/she/it has won
we have won
you have won
they have won

I will win
you will win
he/she/it will win
we will win
you will win
they will win

Future perfect
I will have won
you will have won
he/she/it will have won
we will have won
you will have won
they will have won

Past continuous
I was winning
you were winning
he/she/it was winning
we were winning
you were winning
they were winning

Past perfect
I had won
you had won
he/she/it had won
we had won
you had won
they had won

Future continuous
I will be winning
you will be winning
he/she/it will be winning
we will be winning
you will be winning
they will be winning

Present perfect continuous
I have been winning
you have been winning
he/she/it has been winning
we have been winning
you have been winning
they have been winning

Past perfect continuous
I had been winning
you had been winning
he/she/it had been winning
we had been winning
you had been winning
they had been winning

Future perfect continuous
I will have been winning
you will have been winning
he/she/it will have been winning
we will have been winning
you will have been winning
they will have been winning
So, Rob Bell, what don’t you get about “Love Wins?” What don’t you understand about “…I will draw (drag in Greek) ALL mankind to myself.” (John 12:32) What don’t you understand about “God WILL have all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the Truth.” (1 Tim 2:4, KJV) What don’t you understand about “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;   And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil. 2:10, 11) Why is it so difficult for you to comprehend God   “having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.” (Col. 1:20)

So, Rob Bell, when did you lose the simplicity of being a child? Children with loving parents understand the verses above. And they don’t need perfect grammar to understand them. They understand love never gives up. When did you get seduced into believing the lie? For surely, love under your theology does NOT win, it loses. I understand you like reading deep theological books. You’re into reading ancient Jewish sages. May I suggest you sit at the feet of some children and try to explain to them “Love Wins” but not really? They would recognize immediately the discrepancy between your catchy title and the lying theology in the book. Your son probably recognizes it. Did you consult with him before you decided to write a book misrepresenting God?

Love DOES Win!

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

6 thoughts on “Does Love Win?

  • Chris

    Thanks Gary for the reply. I really don’t know Rob’s stance on free will, but I think in time he will come to the conclusion that free will simply doesn’t exist when it comes to the salvation of all. God sought that the world should be reconciled. Man did not seek it. He had no plan for it, he did not desire it. He had no way to effect it. It was the offended party, not the offending, that sought to be reconciled; and this shows the strength of his love.

  • Gary Amirault Post author

    Thanks Chris for your comments. Personally, I believe Rob Bell DOES believe in universal salvation. But I think he backed off in his book. He left a Hell whose door was locked from the inside. Furthermore, his site, after the book was published His church put up a very formal notice stating that Rob Bell not the church believed in Universal Salvation. Now from a marketing point of view, I can understanding leaving the question wide open and making people second guess. And maybe that’s good. Many Church fathers used a “doctrine of reserve” withholding the teaching of apokatastasis, the restoration of all things, for more “mature” believers. I can’t do that. I have enough behind the scenes information that makes me personally believe Bell believes in universal salvation. But his book and his public statements and the statements from his church lead millions to believe otherwise. He really could clear it all up, if he wanted to.

    Answering the straightforward question “are you a universalist?” posed by Newsweek’s Lisa Miller Monday night, Bell said, “No.”
    “No, if by universalist we mean there’s a giant cosmic arm that swoops everybody in at some point whether you want to be there or not,” he elaborated.

    Bell denies that he is a universalist and says that he does not embrace any particular view but argues that Christians should leave room for uncertainty on the matter.

    I couldn’t find the statement his church put up after the book came out. I may have a copy somewhere, but they made the point quite clear, Rob Bell is not a universalist, he does NOT believe in universal salvation due to free will.

  • Chris

    I have read the entire book Gary, and it seems that your not grasping what bell is believing in. He believes in Universal Salvation without coming out and saying it. That has to do with the pressure I am sure he is under with a church of that size. I am very thankful for Rob to have written such a wonderful book espousing Universal Salvation. So many topics in the book shout out Ultimate Reconciliation, yet most don’t grasp it, or have a little to much pride to acknowledge it. I would recommend that you read the book again. Then come back and tell me that this man is not a believer in Universal Salvation. I am quite sure that he has read many books on the subject, and has come to the conclusion that this is what the bible teaches truthfully.

  • Beltbuckle Minister

    There really needs to be a fair modern book to tackle this subject. I have all the good books out there, but they are lacking in this way or that… some of the common errors which weaken the conclusion of many of these good books: *Surface talk: They just ask a bunch of logical questions without really answering – or only answer partly. As ‘Tentmakers’ we know the answers but they do not do a good job explaining it to non-tentmakers who will have questions. *Fumbling w/ Scripture or using it haphazardly: They use one scripture over a better one to prove their points. By ‘better’ I mean a more direct context so that it can’t be refuted. Or they use one scripture to prove multiple points in the book. These two holes leave some of the best stuff out there as still being from the 1800s. I wish to have a book without these ‘holes’ that I could hand a fellow believer and actually have a discussion beyond the book. (I have most; Even ‘Hope Beyond Hell’ leaves room. Though I’ve used this book most of all. But the ‘Golden Thread’, ‘Christ Triumphant’, ‘Every Knee Shall bow’, etc. We need something without holes.) Instead of having the discussion energy being me defending the book or ‘filling in the holes’. Even if the book were small, it just needs to be sound and solid so it can be a launching point to reasoning together with another Christian. It often ends up w/ the ‘free will’ issue which needs ‘hell’ and sets it up. To a Christian, who knows the love of the Lord, but they cant get past the heresy of the latin ‘Hell’ which depends on that concept – and the confusion it causes. In any discussion, I always must first explain that there is no will ‘free’ from the will of God in the world. (Then back it up with all the verses which plainly show this.) This discussion is massive and ruins simple chat past that subject. The other discussion side road is an ‘end times’ debate which is never solved. In closing, I want to digress slightly: I recently did a series of the Gospel of Luke. ‘sozo’ is so self explanatory throughout. The only mention of Hades/Sheol is once in a practical explanation of Jesus about whom to ‘fear’. And the basis for the letter was so a fellow Christian could learn more about the events in Jesus life. Then lActs. Similarly – no sermon recorded from Paul or Peter to an unbeliever was ‘Beware the Latin Hell’. Of Matthews 7 (NIV) references, 4 of them are in the context of the one from Luke. Of Marks 3 (NIV ), all three are in that context. John…(crickets) They all assume we know what Sheol means from a jewish perspective. Our TWO greatest heresy’s of today are the freewill/hell combo and end times over present life perspective on Jesus declarative statements about sozo or the kingdom of heaven. (ie a misinterpretation about ‘coming’ (or appearing or His presence) in each believers life.) Unless it is understood that His current post-Ascension fleshly ‘body’ is the church members as a whole (at any given historical time). His fleshly 2nd coming ‘body’ (ie us) does not die. The kingdom of Heaven as being something in the future is the second misleading heresy which stuffs out the power of Christ in believers lives. It leaves them in active and only looking towards the future. Instead of the current reign/authority/kingdom of heaven existing now – which is only ‘seen’ by believers here. The next ‘appearing’ will be after each of our deaths when we ‘appear’ ourselves before the Lord. His ‘appearing’ is now left to those who come to know Him and therefore join as a member of His ‘body’. He has appeared to the world. And no eye can miss it. These two heresys dampen the gospel and the power of God in believers lives. one is a focus on eternal punishment instead of life. The other is a focus on the future instead of the present kingdom/reign/rule. No book will be sound unless it clearly answers those two voices simultaneously. :)

  • Gary Amirault Post author

    Yes, I have read it and disagree with Bell’s view of free will also “hell’s doors closed from the inside.” That’s crazy. Also his church’s web site answering questions about Bell’s beliefs state that He is definitely NOT a universalist. If He REALLY believed in the salvation of all mankind, he could have made it MUCH clearer, don’t your think? Peace, Gary

  • Jordan Bowser

    Out of curiosity, did you happen to read the book, Love Wins, before commenting on it? Rob Bell theorizes that we create our own hell, here on earth. He theorizes that perhaps, one by one, people will begin to let go of sin and death, and succumb to the awesome Love of ELOHIM. Until they do so however, they live in the hell they created.

    Can you argue with the idea that many people are wallowing in sin, and the pain that accompanies? Do you believe that, since Love Wins, the earth we live in right now is the Kingdom of GOD, fully manifest?

    I agree with your conclusion on Love winning. I believe that Rob Bell also agrees with you. It seems like you’re arguing with Rob Bell based on a few paragraphs that were taken out of context. Once again, did you read the entire book?