UPDATE: You can read my full review, HERE.

Unless you’ve been on another planet the past week you know that Rob Bell’s not yet released new book, called Love Wins, exploded over the weekend. Highly visible Christian leaders reacted to the book’s back ad and promo vid with blog posts and tweets that zoomed around the globe with a ferocity not felt since the Roman Inquisition!

Said leaders are gearing up for what is promising to be an extremely important conversation because of the nature of which has the potential to impact countless lives.

While at face value I recognize that last statement sounds overly hyperbolic: countless lives are at stake? Are you KIDDING ME Jeremy?

No I’m not kidding you, and here’s why: this is not some internal institutional conversation like those in the past. It’s not like the worship wars of the 80’s or women’s role in ministry convos of the 90’s—or even the 2000’s!—or the ongoing discussion of infant vs. immersive believers baptism.

No, this is a conversation about the nature of salvation itself, which makes the stakes extremely high for the theological content of Bell’s book. These are extremely important ideas that have great bearing for the lives of many people.

While I will hold off on judging the ultimate content of this book until I receive my copy, what I’ve seen so far leads me to believe his position could be universalistic. I’ve already written about my perceptions of this theological trajectory. I’ve also made mention of what I’ve already heard from people in the know who have read it. And even though it has been said that “The book is biblically based and includes EVERY reference to Hell in the bible,” I have had first hand experiences where Rob Bell deliberately makes Scripture passages do and say things they simply are not saying—so I don’t hold out much hope for his handling of the Text.

Aside from my own perspective, however, you can get a sense of the book’s theological direction from the description itself: This is the line that I think will define Bell’s theological arguments here in the book, which also is inline with info I’ve received regarding the book itself: “Bell addresses one of the most controversial issues of faith—the afterlife—arguing that a loving God would never sentence human souls to eternal suffering.”

Let that statement sit with you again: Bell argues that a loving God would never sentence human souls to eternal suffering. Isn’t that a statement most people wouldn’t argue with…that a loving God surely wouldn’t make a human suffer for all eternity. If this is what Bell is arguing, then surely he’s missed the point: God’s love did compel Him to provide a way for humans to be rescued and re-created in Christ. It is humans who reject God in favor of self-rule; humans are to blame for the eternal consequences of their choices, not God.

In his promo video for the book, Rob uses Ghandi as a rhetorical device to ask a series of rhetorical questions about the nature of salvation. Here is what he says:

Gandhi’s in hell? He is? And someone knows this, for sure; and felt the need to let the rest of us know? Will only a few, select, people make it to heaven? And will billions and billions of people burn forever in hell? And, if that’s the case, how do you become one of the few? Is it what you believe; or what you say, or what you do, or who you know—or something that happens in your heart? Or do you need to be initiated, or baptized, or take a class, or converted, or being born again—how does one become one of these few

Then there is the question behind the questions. The real question [is], “What is God like?”, because millions and millions of people were taught that the primary message, the center of the gospel of Jesus, is that God is going to send you to hell unless you believe in Jesus. And so what gets subtly sort of caught and taught is that Jesus rescues you from God. But what kind of God is that, that we would need to be rescued from this God? How could that God ever be good? How could that God ever be trusted? And how could that ever be good news?

Kevin DeYoung makes a strong argument that even though the above quotation is simply filled with questions, those questions are actually a “teaching act.” Rob is making statements about the ideas behind the questions he is asking because his questions teach. Rob is not merely asking questions through his books’ promotional video. Rob is teaching.

The questions he voices are rhetorical swipes at the historic Christian faith perspective that there really is judgment, that there really is a negative outcome to that judgment, and that those who receive that negative judgment will actually experience its consequences eternally.

If Rob Bell argues against this position, against the position that there will be a day of judgment where Jesus Christ Himself will serve as Judge and some will be judged negatively and some positively, this is a major problem.

If Rob Bell argues for a universalistic position that says all people are “in Christ,” that the reality of rescue and re-creation offered in Christ is already true for everybody and all we have to do is live into this new reality (which he did argue for in Velvet Elvis, p. 145-146), this is a major problem.

If Rob Bell argues that “a loving God would never sentence human souls to eternal suffering,” (which the book says is exactly what he argues for), that is a major problem to the extent that he pits God’s judgment against His love, caricatures the historic Christian faith’s understanding of God as both loving and judgmental, and dismisses the idea of the eternal consequences of negative judgment where the entire Holy Scriptures says otherwise, which is a major problem.

Why are those positions major problems? Because positive arguments for all three positions are neither part of the historic Christian faith nor, more importantly, are they part of gospel of Jesus Christ.

If Rob Bell argues that hell is simply a Western, post-Enlightenment concept that does not exist and is “empty” in the sense that no one will be judged negatively by God and that you can reject Jesus and still find His new reality (a.k.a. be saved), he is not teaching the gospel of Jesus Christ and is actually teaching something that opposes the teachings of Jesus Himself, let alone the apostolic witness and historic Christian faith.

From what Rob has already written and said himself, it is not a stretch to be concerned about the teaching that will drop in our bookstores and countless peoples’ mailboxes and eReaders on March 15, which is why this discussion is so important.

This discussion is not simply about institutional preferences but on the nature of salvation itself. Discussing the nature of salvation is not window dressing, folks. It is the very heart of the gospel and center of the Christian faith, which has massive consequences for the real lives of real people and their real eternal outcomes.

I understand the calls for restraint considering the book is not out yet and that those who are beating the heresy drum have not even read the book. I actually applaud them and feel a bit chided myself in light of my early reflections. But make no mistake: if Rob Bell comes out as a universalist, there will be a just outcry.

I get why people find Christian universalism attractive; I’ve explored it myself, theologically and biblically for quite sometime. I do believe in the deepness and wideness in God’s grace and mercy, and if there is to be a universal salvation then so be it. But a universal salvation hasn’t been revealed to us. There are no revelatory grounds to argue for a universal salvation. Universal salvation is not argued for in the Holy Scriptures and has never been part of the historic Christian faith. Therefore, someone like Rob Bell has no business promising or proclaiming it to anyone.

If he does promise and proclaim it—again, I stress IF—then the Church has every right and duty to theologically engage his teachings and refute them as false. Because folks: the stakes are extremely high because the real lives of real people are involved.