In John Ortberg’s ridiculously practical book The Life You’ve Always Wanted he sets out to tell everyone how they can live the life they always wanted. This is a problem I have seen that many Christians, including myself, have. This is the topic of many sermons, discussions and books. We want to get closer to God, but for some reason we are always left disappointed and wanting more. Most of these books and sermons, including this one, state the importance of prayer and reading scripture in your relationship with God. This is really simple stuff that very few people will argue with- if you pray and read the Bible regularly, you will be closer to God. We try so hard, over and over, to read the Bible and pray every day, but for some reason, no matter how hard we try, we have trouble keeping it up. 

Ortberg says that the answer lies in the difference between trying to do something and training to do something.

When someone wants to run a marathon, they don’t just try to run the marathon. No one just shows up on the race day without training beforehand. Runners know the importance of training for the race, or else they will not be able to succeed. They do not have the mindset that they are going to try really hard to run the marathon, instead they have the mindset that in order to run the marathon, they need to train for it.

Too often we have the mindset that we need to try really hard to be like Jesus, instead I think we need to have the mindset that we need to train to be like him. When we have the mindset of trying, then when things get hard we tend to give up. If growing closer to God is something we really want, then we have to give it the weight and time it requires of us. Trying is not enough.

Having the mindset of training to be close to God gives us the freedom of knowing that this is something we can accomplish. It shows that this is a process, that this will not happen immediately, but that over time it can happen.

When we just try to do something we either succeed or fail. But when we train to do something we cannot succeed or fail, for we are investing in a process that will continually draw us closer to the goal.

In 1 Peter and throughout the rest of the Bible, God promises us salvation from our sins through Jesus Christ. This sounds like a great thing, and something that just about anyone would want. Usually when people talk about salvation they say that you have to believe in God and follow him, and then when you die you will be saved from your sins and be in heaven forever. In 1 Peter, Peter talks about this in a different fashion. 

Early in the first chapter Peter writes about how having faith is hard, and that we will have to suffer trials,

Yes, it may well be necessary that, for a while, you may have to suffer trials and tests of all sorts. But this is so that the true value of your faith may be discovered. It is worth more than gold, which is tested by fire even though it can be destroyed. The result will be praise, glory, and honor when Jesus the Messiah is revealed.” - NT Wright’s Kingdom New Testament Translation

According to Peter, the thing that gives value to our faith is the trials we face. If we did not face trials, we would not have true faith. It is when we are given trials that we need to have faith in God, because if we do not have faith in God, even in the hardest of times, then our faith does not have value. 

ON-STAR is a popular thing that people are getting installed in their cars these days. It is an emergency subscription service, where it will help you out in case of an emergency. How ON-STAR works is that when in need, the owner can press a button in the car and then a voice will come on and offer assistance. So if someone gets into a crash, or their car breaks down, they can press the button and ON-STAR will send someone to help them, but this does not happen often, so ON-STAR is rarely used. 

People often treat God like ON-STAR, except there is one major difference. We tend to just bring God along with us throughout our days, and it is a comfort knowing he is there. Most problems that come up are minor, and we can solve them on our own. But when something major comes up, such as relationship problems, money shortages, sickness and other things, we get stressed and freak out. God is right there with us, like ON-STAR, but these problems seem so big to us that we also think they are too big for God so we refuse to reach up and press that button. 

Peter teaches us that we are given these trials so that we will reach up and press the button for help. When problems come, we are supposed to trust God for our help, for this is how our faith is made stronger. He writes that we are given these trials “so that the true value of [our] faith may be discovered.” 

We are given trials so that the true value of our faith may be discovered.

If this is true, a lot of times my faith does not have very much value. If we want to have a true faith of value, then we must have faith in God no matter the circumstance. 

I. Introduction

            “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those whom God says, in the end, “Thy will be done.” All that are in hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. To those who knock it is opened.”[1]This description is the framework by which C.S. Lewis views hell, and those who are in it. He does not view one’s fate as being determined by a prayer, or by good things done on earth, but by the ability for one to fully surrender oneself to the will of God.[2] For Lewis, hell is not a place that people are sent to by God, but it is a place where people willingly choose to be. He believes in a metaphorical view of hell, where one’s afterlife is determined not by God, but by one’s own character. This metaphorical view of hell reconciles passages that are contradicting under other views of hell, and provides resolutions to many objections concerning the doctrine of hell. In making his argument, Lewis raises five main objections to the traditional view of hell, and his solutions to these objections are what form his view of hell.

            In The Problem of Pain, C.S. Lewis states that he believes hell is a positive retributive punishment inflicted upon by God.[3] While he believes the punishment comes from God, he believes that the people receiving the punishment in hell are there by their own choice. His metaphorical view of hell sees hell as a place of eternal separation from God. He writes that people are saved by their choice to fully submit to the will of God, which involves the letting go of their sin in favor of choosing God. People are in hell not because they never said a prayer, or did not do enough good things on earth, but they are there because of their inability to give up their sin. They are there by their own choice, and this view is established through his five objections.

II. Objection 1

            C.S. Lewis’ first main objection is centered on the idea that God should not punish anyone, and that there should be no hell. Many people do not believe that anyone could be sinful enough to warrant eternal punishment. In his objection to this, Lewis describes a man full of lust and greed who treats people poorly and yet this man has no guilt for any of his actions. He believes that in his success he has found the answer to the meaning of life, and that he has gotten the best of God and of everyone else.[4] Lewis writes that the notion that God should forgive a man like this while he remains engrossed in his sin is based on confusion between the terms condoning and forgiving.[5] If God were to allow this man into heaven, then God would be condoning his sin, not forgiving his sin. “Forgiveness needs to be accepted as well as offered if it is to be complete,” Lewis writes, “and a man who admits no guilt can accept no forgiveness.”[6] For people to enter heaven we must accept God’s forgiveness, but people like the man Lewis describes, feel they have no need for forgiveness, so they would be unable to accept the free gift from God. [7] It is people like this who deserve punishment. Some people become so caught up in their own sin that they do not even realize they are doing wrong.

III. Objection 2

            Lewis’ second objection to the problem of hell focuses on the problem of eternal punishment for temporal sin. The traditional view of hell paints a picture of those not saved being thrown into the lake of fire for everlasting punishment. Many people view this as immoral, which makes them object to the doctrine of hell as a whole. Lewis also does not believe that it is moral for God to punish someone infinitely for sins they committed during their short time on earth, but he provides an alternative. Any sin that people could commit on earth would not be enough to warrant such a harsh punishment. Lewis believes we need to view time as a line, which is effective because events happen in order and two different times cannot happen at once.[8] He says the beginning of time is on one end of the line, and the end of time is on the other, and humans exist somewhere in the middle. Because our time on earth is so small in compared with eternity, we only make up a very small portion of the line. Lewis states that when we sin, we damage our portion of the line, but that is all the damage we can do because we are only around for a small time, and effect only a small portion of the line. He then questions why God would punish someone for eternity, the length of the whole line, for damaging only his or her small portion of the line.

            One possible solution to this problem would be an annihilationist view of hell, stating that people are only punished in hell based on the severity of their sin, and when their punishment is over, they will cease to exist. But there is Biblical evidence for hell being eternal, and that those in hell will be in hell forever, as shown in Revelation 14, and Mathew 25. To reconcile this, Lewis states that human sin must not be temporal, and that it must continue after death. For sin to continue after death, those in hell must continue to sin while in hell.

            According to Lewis, for people to be able to sin in hell, they must have the option to not sin while in hell. This brings about the possibility of people having a second chance after death, meaning that theoretically someone who did not follow God while on earth, could accept a second chance and choose to follow God after death, and spend eternity in heaven rather than hell. The necessity of having this second chance theory is brought about by the contradiction of God punishing people eternally for sins committed in their finite life. If God punished people eternally for temporal sin, that seems to be unjust and out of character, because eternal conscious punishment is too harsh of a penalty for sins committed in one’s short time on earth. It would be much more logical if God were to punish someone eternally if they choose to sin eternally. By envisioning the way to make God’s eternal punishment just, Lewis opens the door for people to have a second chance at salvation after death. Here Lewis is more focused on the continuation of sin after death, the fact that this opens up the opportunity for a second chance is secondary to Lewis’ argument.

            The question that arises out of Lewis’ second chance theory is the question of how many chances one gets at salvation after death. Theoretically, if people are given enough chances after death, everyone could end up in heaven. This contradicts the passages from the Bible that state that there will be people in hell forever. Lewis believes that God will keep giving people chances until they reach the point where one more chance will not make any difference. He writes, ”I believe that if a million chances were likely to do good, they would be given.”[9] He goes on to say that at some point God giving more chances would be pointless, and that God knows for everyone when enough will be enough. He does not believe that many people will take the second chance after death. If people were damned to hell by God, then it would make sense for everyone to want to be out of hell. But since people are in hell by their own choice, Lewis believes that they will remain in hell by their own choice.

            In The Great Divorce,C.S. Lewis tells a story of what he believes hell to be like. In the story, people in hell go on a bus to visit heaven, and while in heaven he introduces the reader to many characters who do not want anything to do with heaven. The book starts out with Lewis describing hell. He describes it as feeling very empty because over time people have fought with one another and now live millions of miles away from each other. [10] Hell has most of the things that are in earth today, such as theaters, malls and restaurants. When the people of hell get to heaven they do not like anything about it. In heaven, they are like ghosts, which says as much about the complete otherness of heaven as it does the people of hell. The ghosts of hell are weightless, and everything in heaven is painful to touch, it even hurts them to walk on the grass.[11] This shows how difficult it will be for one to be in heaven, and that it will take a lot of transformation and one must be willing to give up everything for it.

            Throughout the rest of the book, Lewis tells stories of many people from hell who actually prefer hell to heaven for many different reasons. The first person introduced is a man who finds out that there is a murderer in heaven.[12] He becomes very angry because he cannot understand why God would let a murderer in, and keep him out. He thought he lived a good life and deserved to be in heaven, while the murderer deserved to be in hell. He could not accept the free gift of salvation from God, he wanted to earn it himself, and this kept him out of heaven. Another person introduced is a famous painter from earth. While in heaven all he can think about is painting the beauty he sees in heaven. He is so caught up in wanting to paint, that he cannot enjoy simply being in heaven.[13] The next person introduced is a woman whose husband has died and is in heaven.[14] She is a very controlling person, and she wants to find her husband because she thinks that he will be in trouble without her. All she can think about is controlling her husband again, and she has no desire to give up control, which is what it would take for her to remain in heaven. In every case in The Great Divorce, the people of hell are not only people that are traditionally thought of as being in hell, such as murderers, rapists, atheists and those of other religions. While Lewis would say that hell does contain those kinds of people, they are not what he focuses on here. His focus is on the very kind people who do good things, but are unable to fully surrender their will in favor of God’s.

            In this objection, Lewis deals with the traditional view of hell is that hell is a place of everlasting punishment for the wicked. In this view, the people in hell are there because God sent them to hell as punishment for their sins on earth. The people do not have any opportunity to get out of hell; they are there to be punished forever. In The Problem of Pain Lewis makes an objection to this view based on his belief that it would not be moral for God to send people to hell eternally as punishment for their sins committed in their relatively short time on earth. His alternative view is that it would make more sense if death was not final, and that people could continue to sin after death. It is much more just for God to punish people eternally for eternal sin rather than temporal sin. This solution opens the possibility for a “second chance” after death. For people to be able to sin eternally, they must have the option to not sin, but Lewis does not give very much hope for people to accept salvation after death. In The Great Divorce Lewis argues that most people in hell will be too caught up in their sinful desires that they cannot willfully surrender to the will of God.

IV. Objection 3

            C.S. Lewis’ next objection to the traditional view of hell is centered on the, “Frightful intensity of the pains of hell as suggested by medieval art and, indeed, by certain passages in Scripture.”[15] Lewis writes that the traditional view of hell believes hell to be a place of intense torture, but he does not believe that this is the case. He acknowledges that this view of hell as being a place of intense torture does have Biblical evidence in Revelation 20 where John writes that the Devil and all those that he deceived will be thrown into the lake of fire where they will be tormented eternally.[16] Lewis cites Von Hugel in cautioning people, “not to confuse the doctrine [of hell] itself with the imagery by which it may be conveyed.”[17] He believes that people have become too enamored with what they believe hell to be like, that they have separated it from the doctrine of hell entirely. Traditionally people tend to focus too much on how hell is a lake of fire where people will be tormented forever, that they lose track of the doctrine of hell and therefore do not spend time studying what Jesus actually taught about the very purpose of hell because they are too caught up in what they believe to be the very nature of hell; it being a lake of fire for eternal torment.

            In attempt to study the very nature of hell, Lewis cites the three different symbols that Jesus uses to describe hell. Jesus speaks of hell as being “punishment,”[18] “destruction,”[19] and “banishment into the darkness outside.”[20] Lewis writes that the image of fire is very significant because it combines the ideas of torment and destruction, as in the idea that fire can be used to both torment and destroy something, or someone. He contends that all three of these descriptions of hell by Jesus were intended to convey something completely terrible, and that whatever interpretation anyone can come to will most likely not be awful enough to describe the nature of hell. The problem with the traditional view of hell is that it is contradicted by some of Jesus’ descriptions of it. If hell is seen as a lake of fire for eternal torment, that can definitely be described as being “punishment,” for one way of punishing someone could realistically be throwing them into a lake of fire for eternal torment, but it cannot be described by the other two symbols as easily. Speaking of hell as a lake of fire for eternal torment does not go as well with the symbol of “destruction” because while one may be able to be destroyed by fire, the traditional view of hell sees the fire and punishment to be everlasting, therefore it would not be possible for someone to be destroyed by the fires of hell because the torment lasts forever. Finally, “banishment into the darkness” is not a good symbol to describe a lake of fire for eternal torment because a lake of fire is a concrete place that one must be sent to, not a place of banishment. If hell is understood as being a lake of fire for eternal torment, Jesus only supports that view of hell in one of his three descriptions of it.

            Lewis does not believe that for our view of hell it is fair to take only one of the three symbols Jesus uses to speak of hell, in this case that of it being “punishment.” He believes that we must consider that all three terms are equally proper symbols.[21] We must understand that if Jesus only wanted to describe hell as being “punishment,” then that would be the only word he would use when describing it. Because he used three symbols, he must have had more in mind than hell simply being “punishment.” He suggests that “destruction” is a symbol that accommodates the other two symbols as well. He writes that the destruction of one thing means the creation of another, such as how if someone were to burn a log the result would be gas, heat and ash. The characteristic that gas, heat and ash all share is that they are in the state of having been a log.[22] By using the word “destruction” to describe hell, Jesus is implying that there are human souls who will be destroyed. “If souls can be destroyed,” Lewis asks, “must there not be a state of having been a human soul?”[23] This state, the state actually ceasing to become a human soul is what Lewis believes happens to those in hell, and this state can be equally described by the symbols of “punishment,” “destruction,” and “banishment.” According to Lewis, people who cannot surrender their will to God will be banished away from God into the darkness. When they are banished, they will gradually cease to become human souls, become weightless and like ghosts, and all this happens as punishment from God for their sin.

            On the other side, Lewis believes that to enter heaven is to “become more human than you ever succeeded in being on earth,” and to enter hell is to be completely “banished from humanity.”[24] God creates humans with a purpose of how they we were meant to live. Then the fall happened, by us refusing to surrender their own will in favor of God’s. This separated us from God, therefore making us unable to live they way that we were created to live. Then God sent Jesus to, in part, show us the way that we were created to live, and died so that humans could have the opportunity to be with God for eternity.[25] According to Lewis, humans were created to be human, and this is what those who enter heaven will finally become. This is where Lewis gets the idea that in hell people cease to become human. If in heaven, when people are united with God they become fully human, then those who are separated from God will gradually cease to become human altogether.

            As described in The Great Divorce, the people in hell are there by their inability to give up their sin and surrender themselves to God. The people that Lewis describes are so twisted that they have the option to be in heaven, but because it would require total surrender, they want nothing to do with heaven. Like most everyone, the people of hell want to be happy. The difference with them is that they only want to be happy under their own terms.[26] God created humans to live a certain way, and this way is best characterized by the ability of one to say to God, “your will be done.” Those in hell do not trust God to make them happy, and they are too caught up in saying “my will be done.” Lewis describes the people of hell as having the desire to bring hell into heaven.[27] It is not enough for them to live alone in their sin, they want everyone to be caught up in their sin along with them.  They live in a way that they do not want anyone else to be happy or to have any joy at all. For reasons like this Lewis states, “There may be truth in the saying that ‘hell is hell, not from its own point of view, but from the heavenly point of view.”[28] Those in hell do not realize how twisted and un-human they are becoming by their constant rebellion to God. Only those in heaven, who can look at hell from the outside can truly realize how lost those in hell have become. It takes one who truly knows the right way to understand how wrong the wrong way really is.

            In this objection, C.S. Lewis argues that hell can best be described by the word “destruction,” for destruction is a symbol that reconciles Jesus’ other descriptions of hell as being “punishment,” and “banishment.” This “destruction” that happens to those in hell is literally the destruction of human souls. Not so much as literally making human souls into nothing, but the idea that those in hell gradually cease to become human. Their desire continue holding onto their sin drives them further and further away from God, and further and further away from the way that they were created to be.

V. Objection 4

            The fourth objection Lewis makes is on the idea that no one could feel happy and blessed in heaven while knowing that there are humans suffering in hell, and if they could feel happy and blessed knowing this, would that make us more merciful than God?[29] Lewis believes that this thought comes from the idea of heaven and hell co-existing in the same way that two countries, such as England and America co-exist. Under this view of co-existence, one could say that the horrors of hell are going on right this minute, but Lewis does not believe that to be the case. He points out that while Jesus spent time describing the horrors of hell, he usually emphasized the finality of hell.[30] When Jesus speaks of sending people to hell, it is always at the end of his teachings. For example, at the end of the parable of the wedding banquet in Matthew 22, Jesus describes a man at the banquet who does not have on the right garment, so he is cast out and banished into the darkness. Jesus uses this “casting out into the darkness” as the end of his parable, not the beginning of a new one.

            Lewis writes that we know a lot more about heaven than we do hell. In John 14 Jesus speaks of going to heaven to prepare a place for his followers. “Heaven is the home of humanity,” Lewis writes, “and therefore contains all that is implied in a glorified human life: but hell was not made for men. It is in no sense parallel to heaven: it is ‘the darkness outside’, the outer rim where being fades away into nonentity.”[31] Since hell was not a place made for anyone, like heaven was, then the very nature of the two places is different. In this way, those in heaven will not view those in hell as co-existing the way someone in England would view someone in America. In The Great Divorce, Lewis does speak of heaven and hell co-existing in some sense, but those in heaven can still feel joy even though they know there are people in heaven. This comes from the idea that those in hell are there by their own choice, and works the same way that people in hell view those in heaven. Lewis believes that people in hell have the desire to bring hell into heaven, and to have those in heaven choose sin like they are choosing. In the same way, those in heaven will have the desire for people in hell to surrender their will and choose Gods. It would be one thing if the people of hell were under intense torture and wanted to be in heaven, but because the people of heaven and the people of hell both want others to join them, the people of heaven will still be able to feel happy and blessed while there are people in hell. The people in heaven will be happy, blessed, and filled with joy for they are finally able to life they way they were created to be, and the fact that there are people who do not want to live this way will not make that joy any less.

VI. Objection 5

            The final objection Lewis makes is on the statement that the loss of a single soul to hell means that God cannot be omnipotent. The idea is that God could not be all-powerful if there are people in hell, because if God were all-powerful then he would have the power to make everyone go to heaven. Lewis does not look at it like this. He believes that the greatest feat that God has ever accomplished is that of creating beings who are capable of resisting their creator.[32] In this sense, God would be all powerful if he created beings that could not resist him, and that everyone would end up in heaven. But Lewis believes that it is far more powerful for God to create beings that have the ability to resist him. He writes that those in hell are so successful at resisting him that the doors of heaven are locked from the inside.[33] He believes that the ghosts of hell may wish to come out of hell, but they “certainly do not will even the first preliminary stages of that self-abandonment through with alone the soul can reach any good.”[34] The fact that God could create people who are capable of such rebellion to him, makes him even more omnipotent than if he had not created them with this freedom to rebel.

VII. Other Views of Hell

            In The Problem of Pain, C.S. Lewis deals with his own objections to the traditional view of hell as well as confronting objections that others have of the doctrine of hell as a whole. His views and theory of what hell comes out through his objections. Lewis’ view of hell is very strong based on the fact that his view clears up many basic contradictions that arise in other views of hell, even though he does not deal with them directly.

            The traditional view of hell most commonly believes that one needs to follow God in their life on earth, and accept God’s forgiveness to enter into heaven. Those who do not follow God will be sent to hell for eternal punishment in a lake of fire. The contradiction to this view is mainly theological, and only Biblical to the extent that what we know about God’s character comes from the Bible. The contradiction is the question of, under this view what happens to those who have not heard about Jesus, or have heard incorrectly i.e. a man’s family is killed by Christians, so that causes him to reject Christ? The traditional view would state that since these people did not follow God while on earth, they will be sent to hell. If this were true, then God would have created millions and millions of people over time just to send them to hell for something they have never heard about. This does not seem to align with God’s character, for we know God to be a loving God who loves and wants the best for people. Yet under this view, it would be better for God never to have created these people at all, if in the end he is going to punish them for something they have never heard of.

            Lewis’ view of hell states that for God’s punishment to be eternal and just, the sin of the people in hell must be eternal as well. Because of this, he states that death must not be final and that people will have a second chance to choose to follow God after death.[35] Based on the people presented in The Great Divorce, Lewis does not give very much hope for people to turn to God after death. But because this option is available, it reconciles the problem of those who have not heard about Jesus, and those who have heard wrongly about him. If God gives people to option to surrender themselves to his will even after death, then this gives the people who have never heard about God hope for they will have the same opportunity to spend eternity in heaven as everyone else does.

            An annihilationist and a universal view of hell ultimately both believe different things, but they have one main thing in common. Annihilationist’s believe that no one will be in hell eternally, that after being punished for their sins, the people of hell will cease to exist. Universalist’s believe that one way or another, everyone will end up in heaven, and that no one will be in hell forever. While they are different, both views believe that there will not be anyone eternally punished in hell. Lewis does not address these views directly, but he would point to the texts in Revelation 20, Matthew 25 and others throughout scripture that specifically say that the people in hell will be punished forever. Some of Lewis’ arguments have no Biblical basis, such as his belief that people will have an opportunity to choose God after death, but his reasoning behind these arguments is both Biblical and theological to the extent that they are necessary to reconcile the character of God with the some of the texts and beliefs that are contradictory.

VIII. Conclusion

            Throughout The Problem of Pain, C.S. Lewis addresses many objections that people have of the doctrine of hell, and reconciles the objections to form a doctrine of hell that is consistent with the character of God. In the end, he summarizes his argument in one way, “What are you asking God to do?” he asks, “to wipe out their past sins and, at all costs, to give them a fresh start, smoothing every difficulty and offering every miraculous help? But he has done so, on Calvary.”[36] Here, to those who believe that God should be more forgiving towards people, Lewis says that God has already done everything he can do for us to have an opportunity of salvation for our sins. Lewis does not believe it takes a prayer, or a certain amount of good works to enter heaven, but the ability to voluntarily surrender oneself to the will of God. Those who are unable to do this will be banished to the darkness outside that is, hell. Lewis believes that there is opportunity for people in hell to turn to God even after death, but he does not give much hope for this. He writes that those in hell will gradually move further and further away from God, becoming less and less human, and moving toward “the outer rim where being fades away into nonentity.”[37] Based on his view, those who choose to give up their lives and follow God, will become fully human once they reach heaven, and will finally be able to live in the way they were created to be. Those who are unable to give up their lives and follow God effectively choose to follow their own will and choose to not be human.

The second chapter in Love Wins is called “Here is the new there” and it is a chapter about heaven. Bell starts out talking about the view of heaven we have been taught all our lives. The view of everyone in white robes just floating up there in the sky. He talks about how many pastors describe heaven as being “unlike anything we can comprehend, like a church service that goes on forever.” Bell adds, that may cause some people to think, “that sounds more like hell.” All joking aside, he basically points out that we view heaven as being somewhere else. When we die, we will leave this earth forever and go “up” to heaven.

Bell then turns to the story in Matthew 19 about the rich man. The man asks Jesus what he must do to get eternal life. Now the good Christian thing that any Christian has been taught to do would be to explain to him about grace, and then invite him to repent his sins, and believe in Jesus. But Jesus doesn’t do that. Instead he says “If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” Notice how he says “enter life.” He doesn’t say “enter eternal life” or “go to heaven” no, he says “enter life.” Bell writes that Jesus wasn’t concerned with telling people how to get somewhere else. That is not what he came to do. He came to show people how to truly enter into life. In this case, he saw that the rich man was keeping the commandments, but the one thing he had to do was to sell all his possessions. When Jesus tells him he must do this later in the story, the man cannot, and he walks away.

In the gospels, and throughout the Old Testament, Jesus and the prophets speak of two ages, the current age, and the age to come. The age to come is what is actually heaven on earth. when the prophets talk about the age to come they talk about a restoration of all things, a place where in it is people of all nations, and only good things, it is a place with no death or suffering, and place of peace. 

To sum this whole thing up. Right now we are in the current age. Also right now there is a place like heaven somewhere, but it is only a temporary place. One day, Jesus will come back and restore all things on earth, and there everything will be perfect. That is what is known as the age to come, and that is the final destination. When we die, we may float away to heaven or wherever and be with God there. But when he returns, he will restore the earth to be what is known as the “new earth” and that is where people will live in harmony with God.

The main implication of this, is that this earth we are on matters. 

Jesus teaches us how to live now in such a way that what we create, who we give our efforts to, and how we spend our time will all endure in the new world (44)

We are called to take injustice and suffering and how we treat the environment seriously. All of these things will not be present in the age to come, so it is important that we try to help with these issues while we are in this current age on earth.

When Jesus calls the rich man to sell all his things, he is calling him to take a step toward opening him up to this new earth God is going to make in the age to come. He would not be able to make it in the age to come with his greed, so Jesus instructs him how he can better participate in God’s work. Our eternal life doesn’t start when we die, it starts right now, and Jesus invites us to work with him starting right now.

In talking about this new earth in the age to come, it causes one to wonder, who will be there? Bell writes that Jesus, and the people following him are not concerned with that question. In Jesus’s many parables he often tells stories of people who accept and reject his invitation to life, but he does not address what happens to these people when they die. When Jesus is on the cross, the man next to him asks Jesus to remember him. That’s all he asks. He doesn’t ask to get to heaven, or to be saved, he doesn’t even ask Jesus to remember him today. He just knows that Jesus is doing something, and whatever it is he just wants to be a part of it. Because of this, Jesus tells him that he will be in paradise with him later that day.

The most interesting and beautiful thing not really mentioned in, but implied by this chapter is the idea of what Jesus came to do. I would say that many people, when asked what Jesus came to do would say that he came to save us from our sins and make it possible for us to go to heaven when we die. That is indeed a nice story, but I think this one is better. Jesus didn’t come all the way to earth just to show us how to get somewhere else. He came to show us how to live. To show us how to truly live the way we were created to. All his teachings and commands were not meant to be a test, meaning that if we follow them, and repent when we mess up, that then and only then can we go to heaven. His commands were meant to show us the best way to live. We should want to follow Jesus not so we can get somewhere else, but so we can truly live the way we were created to. Now that is a story.

In chapter one of Love Wins, Rob Bell starts out by talking about an art show at his church. Someone had a work of art with a quote by Ghandi on it, someone had attached a note to it saying “Reality check: he’s in hell.” He questions how someone can know the fate of another person, and how they know it to be true, without a doubt. From here, Bell questions how someone gets to heaven, and what that means about our view of God. 

His first question is this:

Does God punish people for thousands of years with infinite, eternal torment for things they did in their few finite years of life (2)?

Before dismissing Bell as a heretic right here, it is important to consider this question, as well as what your answer says about your view of God. 

Further questioning this idea, he challenges our common view, by asking how one gets to be saved. If it is assumed that you just have to say a prayer and believe in God, and live a live following him (as a majority of Christians believe), you will be saved, Bell then asks what happens to..

• Children who die? Many people believe that if a young child dies, they will go to heaven because they are not old enough to make a decision to follow Christ, this age of accountability is usually agreed to be around 13 years old. If this is true, then Bell says it may make sense to just kill everyone before they turn 13, because, why risk the chance that they may not get to heaven? He does make a comical and absurd point here, of course we wouldn’t kill off children, but in doing so, he also shows the absurdity of the theory in question. It is amazing how  certain many people are that an 11 year old child who dies will go to heaven, while a grown person who hasn’t heard about God will go straight to hell. Which brings me to the second type of people..
• People who haven’t heard about God? He says “What if the missionary gets a flat tire?” If people have never heard about God, they can’t believe in him, so it is normally understood among Christians that those people will die. Would a loving God create millions and millions of people just to send them to eternal torture for something they have never heard about? I don’t believe this is the case. If it were, it seriously changes the contemporary evangelical view of God as being a loving God. I can understand the idea that God is perfect, and how God can still be loving, but it is sin that keeps us from him, so we must confess our sins and accept Jesus to make it possible to be with God. But still, it is hard to see God as being a loving God if he would send people to hell for not believing something they didn’t even know exists. If that is true, that God would punish people for something they have never even heard about, doesn’t the whole story of Jesus and Christianity just seem at least a little bit flawed? This question, of what happens to these people is a very important one, perhaps the most important question in the whole book, and one this whole book must be read through the lens of this, and the following question.
• People who were given a wrong view of God? Bell gives three stories. One of a woman who’s father would rape her while reciting the Lord’s Prayer. Another about a man where everyone in his entire Muslim village in eastern Europe was killed by Christians. And third, he talks about those who only know about Christians from tv and think he is antiscience, antigay, and someone who stands on the sidewalk yelling at people telling them they are going to burn forever. 

Some Jesuses should be rejected (9).

If being saved is about accepting Jesus, then what about these people? These people who don’t know there is a Jesus that they have the opportunity of accepting. And these people who were given an incorrect view of Jesus, they were presented with a view of Jesus who should be rejected. 

A great point Bell makes is that many times when he talks to atheists and they say they don’t believe in God, he asks them ‘Which God’ and they end up finding out that he doesn’t believe in that God either.

He then says this:

If the message of Jesus is that God is offering the free gift of eternal life through him-a gift we cannot earn by our own efforts, works, or good deeds-and all we have to do is accept and confess and believe, aren’t those verbs (11)?

He says that we believe that Jesus offers us this amazing grace, and we don’t have to do anything, except accept him, confess our sins, and believe in him. Bell writes that verbs are indeed action words. Accepting, confessing, and believing are all things we have to “do” to be saved. I thought one of the great messages of Christianity was that we don’t have to “do” anything because of what God did for us.

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not of your own doing; it is the gift of God. 

-Ephesians 2.8 ESV

I know in the Bible people are instructed to repent and be baptized, and that is great, but what if there is a little more? Or even, as Bell asks, what if there is less? Paul writes that it is grace alone that saves us, and it is by nothing we do. What we traditionally know to be grace is incredible, (if accept, confess, and believe we are good to go) but how amazing would that grace be if we didn’t have to accept, confess and believe to receive it? Wouldn’t that be true grace?

This may cause some to get frustrated. If we don’t have to do anything in this life to receive God’s grace, then what am I doing trying to live this life following God? We won’t get into this too much in this post, but I would answer that Jesus came to show us how to truly live, and that it’s not about going to heaven but it’s about living our lives the way they were created to be. Also, maybe it is not fair that some try to live whole lives of devotion to God and some can just live doing whatever they want. But as Christians, following a God of love, at the very least shouldn’t it be our desire everyone gets saved. Even people who do terrible things, we should long that everyone can experience this grace that God has given us.

In a few parts, I will attempt to provide some insight from a third year undergrad Bible student about Rob Bell’s new book Love Wins. Before this book was even released, Bell was under intense criticism from the likes of John Piper, to even North Park professors and fellow students because of this video promoting the book:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODUvw2McL8g (regardless of what one feels about the video, my main problem with it is that it presents this controversial idea in a way that makes it difficult for anyone  in the Christian community to agree with it) Bell was basically regarded as a heretic by many people (including myself) before even reading the book. I thought it was pretty clear in the Bible that Jesus is the only way to be saved, and that those who did not believe in Jesus would not be saved. But, thanks to the savvy marketing by the people at Harper One, I read the book just mainly so I could tell people that Rob Bell was dumb. Then I actually read the book, and discovered three things that are very important to remember when reading or discussing this book:

1. This book is meant to be a conversation starter

2. This book is not meant to be concrete formal doctrine

3. The Bible is very contradicting when it comes to the afterlife

Basically, in this book Bell asks lots of very deep and important questions. He then gives possible answers to these questions, using both evidence, and lack of evidence from the Bible. Lack of evidence meaning that the Bible is not clear on this, so here is one possibility. In many reviews I have read (google “rob bell review” and you will find plenty) people have not been very nice to Rob Bell, but I also don’t think they have been very fair to him either.  Like I wrote above, Bell asks questions and then gives possible answers to these questions, yet all people tend to do is attack his possible answers, all the while ignoring his questions. It is not fair for someone to say “What Rob Bell thinks about people getting to heaven is dumb, because he misinterprets this Bible verse.” It is not fair to attack his claim without giving another possible solution, or even without addressing his question. Because of this I will try to explore this book in a positive, yet fair way. One does not need to agree with everything said in this book for it to vastly change how one thinks about God and the Christian story as a whole.

Now, onto the actual book. In the preface Bell gives a pretty accurate quote about the state of Christianity, which gives reason to why he is writing this book.

“A staggering number of people have been taught that a select few Christians will spend forever in a peaceful, joyous place called heaven, while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better. It’s been clearly communicated to many that this belief is a central truth of the Christian faith and to reject it is, in essence, to reject Jesus. This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus’s message of love, peace, forgiveness, and joy that our world desperately needs to hear” (viii).

This is a striking quote, and I do not much care for his language of this view being “toxic” and “subverting the spread of Jesus” because there are good, Biblical reasons, why that belief of Christianity came about, and why it could be true. Just give us your argument before bashing what we have known to be true for hundreds of years.

He then points out that nothing in this book hasn’t been taught or thought of by someone else, most notably N.T. Wright and C.S. Lewis. (They both have first names with two capital letters, so you know they are smart) He writes that he wants to present this as something added to the conversation. This isn’t a perfect book, or even a great work of theological insight. Just a book of questions and possibilities, and that’s exactly what it was written to be.

More to come tomorrow, I will get into chapter 1, and you actually might learn something.

In the “Acts 2” church/community that everyone seemingly longs for of seemingly Christlike way of living with shared possessions and such, I am wondering if that way of living is Biblical/Christlike, or if it was something fueled by emotion. i.e. Wouldn’t that way of living be consistent with any movement of that magnitude (I don’t know if there ever has been one) with everyone striving for the same goal so naturally everyone neglects personal things and shares all for the betterment of the same goal, and then once it grew enough it became impractical to continue that same way of living? I am not saying the Acts 2 way of living would be a bad idea, but I am not sure it is a Biblical one in that God is telling us that that is how we are supposed to live.

In reading through the book of Galatians, one apparent theme is that if you are a true Christian, you will have nothing to do with this world, and this world will want nothing to do with you. Paul writes

Obviously, I’m not trying to win the approval of people, but of God. If pleasing people were my goal, I would not be Christ’s servant.

-Galatians 5.10

Because of the cross, my interest in this world has been crucified, and the world’s interest in me has also died.

-Galatians 6.14

This is a very interesting theme of the book, and a fact about who Paul was. In today’s world there are lots of famous and popular Christians. The people who we consider to be the “best” pastors travel around the whole country and get paid lots of money to speak. They are loved by both Christians and non-Christians alike. According to Paul, something is wrong because the “world” has a big interest in them. 

The counter-argument to this is that the “world” is referring to those outside the church, so the people inside the church should all love each other. But I think that those outside the church still have lots of interest in the people in the church. Christians today do not live or preach their faith as much as Paul believes they should.

We should be living in a way that makes the world not like us.

That doesn’t mean that we should be cruel to other people, or yell at them, but we should be true to who we are as Christians. Too often we try to please everyone. Too often we are overly self conscious about offending people. We need to stay strong, and if our faith offends someone, so be it! If we live in a way where our faith offends people, or turns them off to us, then, we are living the way Paul says we as Christians should be living

Job is a great book, and a sad book. I have some insight in a mistranslation, as taught by Dr. Boaz Johnson. Basically, in Job, God is up in heaven with Satan, and he brags to him saying ‘look how good Job is, he is perfect.’ And Satan says ‘well that’s because you give him lots of blessings, a good family and lots of money.’ So God has faith in Job, and he allows Satan to do whatever he wants to him, as long as he doesn’t harm Job physically. so Satan goes and in one way or another kills all of Job’s children and animals. Through all this Job stays faithful to God. So Satan says ‘he is only good because you give him good health.’ And so then God says, fine just don’t kill him, so Satan goes and gives him many painful boils all over his body. Through all this Job keeps his faith in God.

Here is where the insight comes from. At this point, Job’s wife comes to him and says “Are you still trying to maintain your integrity? Curse God and die.” Dr. Johnson teaches that the word that is translated to mean ‘curse’ is the word ‘Barak’h’ in the Hebrew. This word means bless, not curse. His wife really is saying something along the lines of ‘bless God, so then when you die you will be blessed.’ This is mistranslated in English bibles because in order for this to be translated properly we would have to view death as a blessing, and that is something we cannot do. And since every translation is an interpretation, it gets translated this way.

It is interesting that our own terrible views of death force us to miss the the whole point of this verse. Rather than being instructed to curse God, Job is really being instructed to bless God. That is a big difference.

More on this once I get smarter and can understand it all better.

Therefore there is now now condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

-Romans 8.1

One of the biggest travesties in the church today is that they do not focus on the things that the writers of the Bible thought were most important. One of the main things churches do not talk a lot about, is grace. Grace in that because Jesus died for us on the cross, he paid the price for all of our sins. So while sin shouldn’t be taken lightly, we are not condemned after sinning, because Christ already paid the price for our sins.

God’s grace is perhaps one of the most amazing gifts ever given to anyone, and yet the church does not want anyone to know about it. This may be a slight exaggeration but it has some truth. Here is how I imagine a common church board conversation going.

Joe Pastor: I am preaching a series on Romans, and for the next couple of weeks I will be talking about grace, because Paul talks a lot about it, and it would be impossible to preach Paul without making grace the main point of the sermons.

Church elder Bob: Are you sure this is a good idea?? I mean, if people find out about grace there will be anarchy!

Joe Pastor: Anarchy? What exactly do you mean Bob?

Church elder Bob: Well, if they find out about grace then they will just go on sinning left and right! People will know that God covered for ALL of our sins! We need to let them keep thinking that if they sin enough they could go to H-E-double hockeysticks!

Joe Pastor: You make a good point Bob. I will just leave out most of Grace, maybe I’ll touch on it a few times. I bet the parents will sure be happy because we all know they don’t want their kids acting like they have grace!

Church board: (Chuckles)

Like I said, this is a slight exaggeration, and it in no way applies to every church. But churches somehow preach the New Testament and spend way more time talking about how to save your money wisely, and how to live as a Godly family, than they do talking about grace. When reading the New Testament, most notably Paul, grace is the most important thing, and yet so many people leave it out.

In this verse, Romans 8.1 (and there are many other more famous verses discussing grace throughout Paul’s letters), Paul writes that because of what Jesus did we can no longer be held accountable for our sins. John MacArthur writes that Paul’s use of the word condemnation is used strictly in the judicial setting, referring to a verdict of guilty. According to MacArthur here Paul says that “No sin a believer can commit-past present, or future-can be held against him, since the penalty was paid by Christ.” This is an amazing gift from God, and one that everyone needs to know about.

I do understand the side of “Church elder Bob,” because it is possible to take this to meaning that since we believe in God, we can sin all we want because of what Christ has done for us. But if we are true Christ followers we will not want to sin. Sin keeps us from God, so we will hate it. Even though Christ saved us from both the sins we have already committed, and the sins we are going to commit, we cannot want to sin or be okay with sinning if we want to truly follow Christ.