Recently, there has been an intramural evangelical internet flame war (I think that should be the name of a sporting event) regarding Rob Bell's newest promo video and the comments made by some about that video and Bell's fidelity, or lack thereof, to the orthodox teaching on hell, and the comments questioning whether those comments were justified based solely on the promo video, and not on the book the video was promoting (since it hasn't been released yet). Look at what this has done to even me. It's caused me to publish this terrible run-on sentence!
Joking aside, I must say I'm pretty sympathetic to the Calvinists on this one. 1) Bell has given ample reason in the past to doubt his adherence to orthodoxy. 2) He's taught patently bad theology in his Numa videos and basically said that it wouldn't matter if Jesus hadn't really raised from the dead or hadn't really been born of a virgin in one of his books.
To point out this seeming lean toward universalism even before the release of the book isn't necessarily bad. Could the way the rhetoric was formulated have been better? Perhaps a couple of them could have toned it down a bit and been a bit more charitable, saying something like, "watch out because it looks like Bell could be promoting universalism here," or something, instead of condemning him to hell. However, some of the responses haven't been too spiffy either.
Bell has no one more to blame than himself for this situation. As Michael Patton points out, even if he doesn't hold to universalism, he released that silly video that gives the impression that he does. Look at what this dishonesty has done in causing separation among brethren (Jude 18-19). That alone should tell you something about Bell.