“I don’t accept that criticism,” [Kevin] Miller told CP outside the Cinema Village theater. “I know that we have a little fun with Mark Driscoll at a couple of points. I think that we give people who believe what he believes ample time to make their case. We’re not having somebody who doesn’t believe what they believe kind of present a caricature. We give them, some people would say we give them too much time, to make their case.”
Acknowledging that “we don’t have every position,” Miller adds, “I would hope that this film would build bridges too. I know that some people don’t want a bridge. It’s going to burn some bridges, and I’m sorry for that. That’s not what I would like to see happen.”
In Schaeffer’s opinion, “Hellbound?” isn’t trying to explain God or what people believe about Him.
“The fact, is I don’t think this movie is about hell or theology,” he said. “I think there’s a subtext which totally overwhelms the film. And the subtext is flag-waving, insane retributive ideas of justice…”
I find it hard to take seriously anything that has Franky Schaeffer connected to it – the guy has lost pretty much all credibility with me.
But I’d question their assertion that the early church fathers give much support to any concept of universalism. I’m no expert on this, but from my reading of the fathers I’d be surprised to find any clear evidence of such an idea in most of their writings. They have too much sense that you are choosing life or death when you choose for or against Christ, for a concept of universalism to really fit.