I will begin each post in this series on Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, with this prayer. I am asking that you pause quietly and slow down enough to pray this prayer as the way to approach this entire series:
O Lord, you have taught us that without love whatever we do is worth nothing:
Send your Holy Spirit and pour into my heart your greatest gift,
which is love, the true bond of peace and of all virtue,
without which whoever lives is accounted dead before you.
Grant this for the sake of your only Son Jesus Christ,
who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God,
now and for ever. Amen.†
People ask questions about the faith for a variety of reasons and I want to sketch four — there are of course other reasons. Some ask questions because they want to know. This sort of person asks a good question and then sifts through the Bible and sorts out theological history and intellectual options in an attempt to find the truth. Some people ask questions in a more careless fashion — they ask questions, some of them quite good — like How can God be all powerful and all good and have a world like this? — but don’t seem to want to find answers. They just don’t work hard enough. They are proud of having good questions. Some ask good and middling questions but the questions are a cloak for doubt. They don’t ask to find an answer but they soften their overt doubts or unbelief by expressing them in a question. Others ask questions to befuddle and to bewilder — all with a desire to confuse in order to lead to other questions that are behind those questions in order to find deeper answers. I think Rob is trying the last approach in the chp we are looking at today. [Again, help out this conversation by FB sharing it or by Retweeting it.]
The questions he asks in the first chapter are piled on top of one another, one after the other, question, question, question. They are probing one major issue: If we believe in an afterlife, and if that afterlife is entered as a result of some “condition”, what does it take to get in? What do you think? Please stop and answer that one. That’s the question this chp provokes.
Touching on one Gospel text after another, he is led to this laundry list of options, and I eliminate his white space: “Is it what you say, or who you are, or what you do, or what you say you’re going to do, or who your friends are, or who you’re married to, or whether you give birth to children? Or is it what questions you’re asked? Or is it what questions you ask in return? Or is it whether you do what you’re told and go into the city?” (16-17)
Bell observes that “almost everybody, at least at first, has a difficult time grasping just what Jesus is” (17). Then this: “Except for one particular group.” Then he points to the demonized people. Not that this matters that much but, no, that’s not right. The Gospels clearly present a spectrum from outright rejection (those who sin against the Spirit) to passive inattentiveness (“this generation”) to various forms of belief and obedience, like the disciples. The disciples, in their sometimes failures, represent those who have genuine faith. And then he points also to the woman who washes his feet know him — but why choose her? Aren’t there also plenty of others? Well, he’s sampling and dipping in and out.
His point, so I would infer: getting in might be the way the gospel is presented, but there’s a list of options about how one gets in. His chp rhetorically baffles the reader to get us to ask: What does it take to get in? [If we believe in the "in vs. out" gospel. I do.] And what does this whole getting in or not getting in stuff say about God and what the faith is all about? Is getting in what it is about? Do many present the gospel this way — in an “in vs. out” approach? Let’s take a good look at what we’re doing and saying and ask this question.
But is there confusion on the part of the Gospels? I don’t think so. One needs only to read the Gospel of John to see his terms for proper response, like faith/believe, and abide, and obey. Or examine the “enter into the kingdom” sayings of Jesus — and I can’t quote them so will list them (Mark 9:43-48; 10:15; 10:17-27; Matthew 5:20; 7:21; 21:28-32). But Jesus’ rhetorical aim is not to bewilder by listing but to provoke his listeners in order to gain their attention so they can see the all-consuming claim of Jesus on life.
I will put this differently: from one person to the next the Gospels show us that Jesus did not say the same thing. He didn’t say “Do these three or four things and then you can enter the kingdom.” Shame on our evangelistic simplicities. No, he summoned each person out of their own particular and concrete realities, revealed what it was that stood between them and him, summoned them to see that this is the First Commandment all over again — have no other gods before me — and make the absolutely stunning claim. It’s all about coming to Jesus, surrendering to Jesus, trusting Jesus, obeying Jesus, or following Jesus. Variants on a theme, folks. Variants on a theme.
That trust in and commitment to him was the new first commandment. These demands aren’t designed to bewilder but to stun us into attention and to dig into the depths of our soul and say “Will you give yourself to me or not?” Rob’s book never really comes back to this listing of options, but I think his book does answer the list of questions by synthesizing an answer in chp 7 into this: We respond to God properly by accepting his love story of us instead of the bad story we’ve got of ourselves. He summons us out of our story into God’s story. I like that approach too.
There’s much more to say, and we don’t have space for it. You can read my take on the theme of this post in One.Life: Jesus Calls, We Follow, pp. 109-119.
Exploring Love Wins 1, part 2
For other posts, see Tony Jones, Greg Boyd.
Jeff Cook compares Rob Bell with C.S. Lewis.
Early Rob Bell reviews.
You ask “Is getting in what it is about? Do many present the gospel this way — in an “in vs. out” approach?”
I’m sure some folks explicitly teach this type of approach. But even those who do not wish to paint the gospel only in this light will have to be careful to not implicitly teach the gospel as this only.
And of course what we do not teach (our “null” curriculum) can at times also teach what is important (and not important) to the gospel.
All this to say, I imagine many Christians need to be careful with how they frame the gospel question and to avoid only using in vs. out type themes
Did you say there are four types of questioners because it’s almost Passover and the traditional Haggadah has a part about the four sons (the wise, the wicked, the simple, and the one who does not know to ask) and the four different questions they ask about the Seder?
There is a strong emphasis in my denomination for healthy churches. This is good. The equation often goes like this: healthy churches grow – and the best growth is that of new believers. Not a bad summary. But a dominant, but not oft mentioned, motivator is that of rescuing people from hell. The focus of conversion is emphasis on the afterlife.
I understand the connection, but it undermines discipleship: if conversion now is primarily about after-life later, then as long as I got “in”, I’ve done my part. We can get all creative on the connection between faith and obedience, but as long as we focus on “in” and “out”, we’ll undermine “life abundant” now. Why get serious about following Jesus now if I’m already in? In and out are crude representations of a serious truth.
This is a good discussion. I am reminded of the term “formation”. Is that only a term for aspiring priests and pastors or ought it not be the focus of efforts. That formation will, of course, involve service, humility, striving for peace and justice and all of the other things we are about. There really is more to our faith than handing someone a tract in a McDonalds parking lot and determining in our own minds whether or not that person is going to Heaven or Hell….isn’t there?
“But is there confusion on the part of the Gospels? I don’t think so. One needs only to read the Gospel of John to see his terms for proper response, like faith/believe, and abide, and obey.”
Still not sold on the trustworthiness of the Gospel of John Scott. I know a case can be made that the Gospel could record the actual life and times of Jesus with some fidelity. But the idea that the gospel, matter-of-factly, is a reliable reference? I don’t see on historical grounds how that is such an obvious conclusion. Do you? If you limit yourself to the Synoptics, are the Gospel accounts clear then on this issue?
One of the biggest dangers of the in/out focused approach is that many people pray a prayer or go to church all their lives but do not move away from fear toward love. I have had a tranformation focus the past few years and my experience is that people know they’re not being transformed into Christ-likeness when they are called to it regularly.
One difference I’ve noticed with this change is that every inch of life and heart that is surrendered to Christ along the way is celebrated – we are all on a journey in horizontal relationship to one another. We invite people to the path. When I was focused on the in/out status, we really only celebrating the ‘in’ moment. The transformation afterwards seems to be expected more than celebrated and the ‘in’ folks quite often acted like they had “arrived”…which felt more like a horizontal relationship as we tried to pull others up. I have to say, this felt a lot like WE were winning.
Scot,
A great series of posts. Thank you.
I’ve been blogging through Carl Henry’s God, Revelation and Authority and hit chapter 2 in volume 2 today, which deals with the universal reconciliation of Karl Barth. I like Henry’s overall approach, which asks what does it say about God’s ability to reveal Himself clearly if muddy the clear warnings of divine judgment.
Keep up the great work. Blessings,
What gets you into the kingdom and eternal life is recognizing the King,Jesus. Whether that happens in this lifetime or after this lifetime,when you see Jesus as Lord you will be saved,and bend your knee in worship. This salvation is a gift of God’s grace when ever it is realized.Even the faith is given by God. We don’t create or “muster-up”the faith to believe.The faith and the whole of salvation is a gift of God “lest any man shall boast”. Sadly, many of us still do boast about our faith and being smart enough to figure it all out and believe.
Matthew 7:21-23 is a big one here as I see it. To quote Jesus “He who does the will of may Father will enter.”
Not that we are judged outside on account of failure – but that belief is a complete life-turning toward God and his will.
Scot,
You ask,“Is getting in what it is about? Do many present the gospel this way — in an “in vs. out” approach?”
I have found from growing up in a more ‘traditional’ church that once people think there are in some problems start. And many I have met in the vary churches use ‘in”out’ language.
The ‘in’ mentality took focuss off of solid discipleship in my old church and made the conversion moment the pinacle of being ‘in’; as it does for most churches. After all once your ‘in’ your ‘in’. We all know that people come to faith in different ways. All this comes back to how we accurately say if someone is truly in? Some people might be learning to trust God more in the present for the first time-are they in? Or somebody that makes an emotional decision from an emotionally charged sermon-are they in? Or are they ‘in’ when they come to accept what ever God decides to do they are going to try to live the kind of life that helps others and reaches out to God?
I think the ‘in’ ‘out’ hinders our ability to be fully present doing our best to live for God and others no matter what they believe, which is much more challenging than worrying about how you are going to get them ‘in’ with you. As Rob points out the ‘IN’ group is always us and the ‘OUT’ is always them. I love that Jesus calls the outgroup consistently and calls them in- Samarian, hookers, tax collectors, and leppers!
I really like the approach that we talk about trusting/following Jesus in terms of trusting His story. If we focussed more on this I think it sounds like much better news. All of our stories have failed and have gone to the dump in various ways and God has given forgiveness to the whole world and given us a new story to live into that offers peace, forgiveness, and mercy to all willing to drop their stories for this new one that Jesus invites us into through His life, death, and ressurection. That is a much more compelling Gospel that does not have to sit and wonder who is in and out.
Any thoughts on this?
@ Tim #5 – I was trying to figure out who “John Scott” was! Commas, my friend!
One point of contention, Scot. Yes, there are plenty of folks who recognize/are faithful to Jesus. I think Bell’s point that only one group ALWAYS (can’t italicize to my knowledge) recognized Jesus (though the woman at the well might not fit his point, but he is spot on in regards to demons).
“If we believe in an afterlife, and if that afterlife is entered as a result of some “condition”, what does it take to get in?”
I don’t talk about an afterlife except in terms of resurrection and new creation. I echo Tim Hallman’s response above – heavenly/hellish talk undermines discipleship too often . I talk a lot about abundant life and trusting Jesus here in this moment because eternal life is to know God, and Jesus whom he sent and that begins today, not tomorrow or after I die. I talk a lot about following Jesus and continuing to do so.
When talking with someone who is more familiar with the “fire insurance” approach, I encourage them to think of it as less “a prayer I prayed” and instead a “daily prayer where I turn as much of myself as I understand over to as much of Jesus as I understand” and hold that both of those should be dynamic understandings that grow.
I also can’t help but notice that Jesus declares a lot of people “in” without them doing anything(esp. through table fellowship) and tells a number of parables (wedding banquet, prodigal father) in which everyone is in but some “opt out.” Israel didn’t do anything to be “in” through the Exodus but they did have to respond to stay in… What if we’re all in unless we opt out?
First, thank you Scot for a great discussion. I have been waiting for you to get into the mix as I have always valued your approach to these types of discussions. I pastor a small church in a small and theologically conservative town. What I mean by that is the “in vs. out” language is a dominant theme in the way the Gospel is presented. It’s very much about simply Heaven or Hell. I read Rob’s book and came away thinking the whole point was to get us to ask some difficult questions. Questions that as pastors we have to have answers for because they are not just abstract musings but that they matter to real people. It’s easy for someone to say this is the criteria for getting “in” and its an altogether different beast to minister to a family who’s son/brother/nephew committed suicide after a short and very hard life in gangs and drugs.
My point is this, if its simply about Heaven and Hell and being “in” there’s not a lot of hope there. And it is difficult to say God is love when according to the theology of some most will go to Hell.
“What does it take to get in?” In a word, believing. Some of us in Lutheran, Anglican, and Catholic traditions would add baptism as an entry point into the church and the pouring out of the Spirit in our lives.
Isn’t the central thrust of the New Testament belief in Jesus as a way to get “in”?
Good thoughts, Scot. I especially like the idea that Jesus calls individuals out of their specific places of sin and death into his community of love by variants on the First Commandment.
The problem I see with the “in/out” vs “accepting his love story of us” is the dangling threat of hell. Love is the carrot, eternal torture is the stick. It’s hard to believe the love part if hell is the alternative. In the traditional evangelical view, we need to assent to a set of beliefs – that a man born 2000 years ago was actually God. He was murdered and returned to life. And the individual needs to figure out the truth of this vs all other competing world religions and truth claims. Or else… hell.
If a potential lover made this offer we’d get a restraining order. Something seems not quite right with that narrative – most will end up in hell quite by accident – and I think that’s what Bell is trying to sort out.
I don’t think a *certain*kind* of “in/out” thinking is inconsistent with “Love Wins.” Jesus went around teaching “The Kingdom of God is here”, and yet he prayed “Thy Kingdom come.” Some “get it.” A lot didn’t. John the Baptist was all cool with it, until he was thrown in jail. Then he wanted Jesus to bust him out. Jesus’ (“Jesus’s”?) response was “yeah, of everybody who’s ever lived, John’s tops, but he’s still ‘out’.” Do we think in John’s case love doesn’t win?
Peter was swinging his sword when the temple guard came. Not his best “blessed are the meek/peacemaker” moment. Definitely “out”. Did love win in Peter’s case?
Jesus wants us to buy into (“believe”) what he’s doing and teaching us. In *that* sense there is an “in/out” dichotomy. But love still wins.
Scot, I appreciate you suggesting that Jesus did, in fact, reveal an “in vs. out” vision of the kingdom. Many of us have a knee-jerk reaction to your suggestion because we immediately read into your words the deplorable, reductionistic “in vs. out” plans of salvation so prevalent in USAmerican evangelicalism. I think we need a fresh immersion in the Gospels (including the Gospel of John) to see that while Jesus held an “in vs. out” view of the kingdom, his view was a far cry different from what a lot of JC commentors are reacting to. BTW, your observation of conditions to bewilder (Bell) and to emphasize a single, potent reality is spot on!
@ Richard #13:
I hear you brother. I have been really questioning “conversion.” For many of us who were raised in the church, knowing Jesus and believing God was never really absent. Sure I heard the stories and accepted Jesus, but did I really have another option? I think the only choice or decision I could have made would be to opt out of this faith and community.
I’m thinking of conversion not on an individual basis, but on a familial one. If my great great grandparents were once converted to the faith, all of them leading up to me continued the faith, then when exactly was my personal conversion? Maybe it was way back a couple hundred years ago. Maybe infant baptism truly was God’s gift of grace and that I never chose to give it back, but that I continue to live it out.
AT
I reject the in/out model because it cannot help but lead to the fruit of judging one another. Thus, I don’t believe the in/out question is the right one. The right direction/ wrong direction is the more important question. Wide is the path that is destructive and narrow the one that leads to fullness of life. Few in this life indeed may find it. I do remember that Jesus told one individual that he was not far from the Kingdom. In other words, he was heading in the right direction.
Now, what is the only right direction? I would answer as most evangelicals, “Toward Christ.” I do not take a stand on the matter of death as the finality of the matter though. The Scriptures are not consistently clear enough that death ends a person’s opportunity to change direction. In fact, one thing that does appear clear is that death has been swallowed up in victory. Death doesn’t win. Why? Because Jesus swept it away in resurrection life.
I could be wrong about this, but I always find assurance in asking this question? What kind of God is revealed in Christ? Jesus is the kind of God that is ever praying for the forgiveness of his enemies even as his life is ebbing away. Will that kind of God let death have the final say? All that being said, the direction we are on at any point is leading to either destruction or eternal life and our individual attitudes, words and deeds is not a straight line as Pilgrim’s Progress helps us to see.
RJS @ 9,
To take your quote of Matthew as it is (and probably out of context), can a person do the will of the Father without knowing it? And subsequently, enter in without knowing why?
That would sort of fit with Jesus parable of the sheep and goats. The goats asked “When did we see you” and the sheep also asked “When did we see you?”
Scot,
Love this: “It’s all about coming to Jesus, surrendering to Jesus, trusting Jesus, obeying Jesus, or following Jesus. Variants on a theme, folks. Variants on a theme.”
I see plenty of folks, though, who would argue against your line of thinking here (and have against me when I’ve said the same!). And further, I think if we’re going to ask “what does it take to get in?” we need to also ask what we’re getting in to, exactly.
I think what we’re getting into, or better, who we’re getting into is God, us in him and he in us. We’re getting into the Trinity and getting into what the Trinity’s into, and the Trinity is getting into us. Living forever is just part of getting functionally and personally connected to the One that lives forever. I don’t like how we have tended to talk about “eternal life” as if its some kind of thing that can be separated from the core of God’s person. Either we’re meaningfully connected to him (and thereby live), or we are or remain separated from him (and thereby die).
@Joel #17 Well stated, and I think this is why we need books like Love Wins. I’ll take a stab at answering the points you make. First, I think it’s important to remember that to whom much is given much will be expected. With that in mind, people will not end up in hell by accident. I don’t think God’s requirements of belief will look the exact same for every human being. For the North Korean who has never heard the gospel, God’s standard might be less. The other point I would make is that God really does want all men to be saved. He really does. And since God really does desire reconciliation, I believe he will make the effort to make this happen. But, as Rob Bell clearly outlines several times in Love Wins, we may choose to reject it and lock that door from the inside.
Afterlife or heaven? The condition for entering the afterlife is dying. All of us will move on to the resurrection at some point after our earthly bodies die. What is the condition for entering heaven, the happy afterlife?
Answer: All whom the Lord wants to have mercy on (Romans 9:18). The “condition” is something God does more than anything we can do — if we are able to do anything at all. We might think we have figured out some things that we can do to make God let us in, but I doubt he feels compelled to bow to any of our lawyer logic and let us in on that basis.
Beyond that simple and most general answer, we have conflicting “rules” or “promises” about the details to deal with:
– “he who stands firm to the end will be saved”
– “all who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved”
– “whoever believes and is baptized will be saved”
– those who “sell everything” and “give to the poor”
– those who visit Jesus in prison and invite in strangers
– those in the household of someone who believes in Jesus
etc.
RJS #9,
Would you not say that all of humanity fails at this point, and that this unbelief necessitates judgment? And that this judgment has been meted out by Jesus Christ and also suffered by Jesus Christ? And therefore our judgment transformed?
In vs out…John’s gospel..chapter 9. The religious insiders saw things so clearly and yet were “blind” and unable to recognize who Jesus is. At the end of the chapter Jesus says, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.”
Isn’t the reason Jesus wants to “blind” the Pharisees is so that He can restore their sight? (In other words, so they’ll be able to recognize Him?)
The in vs. out is there, for sure, but the “out” doesn’t seem to be Jesus desired end.
Edit on 27: Last sentence should read, The in vs out is there, for sure, but the “out” doesn’t seem to be Jesus’s *final* desired end.
I too appreciate Bell’s attempt to dig at the deeper issues through raising a plethera of difficult, emotionally charged, questions. Should the Gospel be couched in terms of “in vs. out”? I believe it should, but it’s not “in vs. out” SOMEDAY; but “in vs. out” TODAY! The message that Jesus preached was “Repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, within reach!” We can be citizens in the Kingdom of God if we bow our knee in worship and confess with our mouths allegiance to the King! We can be translated FROM the kingdom of darkness, this present evil age where we are in slaves to sin, oppressed by evil from within and without, translated INTO the Kingdom of Light, the present reality of the love of God where we become bondservants of righteousness, peace, and joy in the glorious Kingdom of Light, freed from the slavery of sin, freed to love God and love one another, true and lasting Freedom! We start on the journey INTO the Kingdom of Light by taking the first step, putting our faith in Christ and turning in that direction, turning from sin, death, and destruction, and turning towards towards God! Are you on the journey INTO the Kingdom of Light? If not, man repent! The other direction only gets worse and worse, believe you me! But as we seek the kingdom of God, we journey from faith to faith, lesson to lesson, experience to experience, ever changing into the likeness of Jesus!
If one is hell-bent on destruction, that’s what will happen, until you repent. It’s called reality discipline! Some must delve deep into the destructiveness of evil before they will see the deception of evil. And I believe that the Lord, in His love and respect for us, will allow us to go as deeply in evil as is needed for us to “come to ourselves” like the prodigal son, and turn towards home!
We were all created in the image of God, created for relationship with Him and nothing else will do. And I believe that ultimately all eventually do come to their senses and are freed from the deception of evil, and freed into the glorious light and love of the Kingdom of God!
Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is Within Reach; we can participate in it Today!
Sherman (#29)- I think that’s a better expression of what I was trying to say.
Scot,
Really liked your thoughts here. I loved how you pointed out there is an “in/out” in the Gospels, and that Jesus called each person from where they were. Ultimately, though, they had to be committed to Him. That is something that is so often missing in the “God is love” (love being as we define it, not necessarily the biblical picture, which includes authority and discipline and Creator/Father love).
I also think it is interesting that there is such a “ripple” over a teaching that goes back to (at least) Origen. Are we blogging, tweeting, reviewing, facebooking and discussing because we have never heard or wrestled with universalism, or is it because it is Rob Bell who is saying or suggesting it?
Sherman #29,
I agree with you, but where does the Resurrection from the dead fit into that idea? The resurrection seems to be a HUGE turning point for the early church. I think the resurrection should also be a major point of our current idea of the Kingdom as well.
Scot said “That trust in and commitment to him was the new first commandment.”
Scot, could you explain this more? You don’t mean, by “new”, that this replaced the original 1st commandment, do you? Surely, “to have no other god’s before me” and “that trust in and commitment to [Jesus]” mean the same thing, don’t they?
Are you saying that the “new” part is their realization of what the original commandment meant or that this supercedes the original 1st commandment from the big 10?
Jon, thanks.
What I’m saying is that the original first commandment, which is to have no other gods before me and to worship God and God alone, etc., found its fullest form in the incarnation so that following Jesus becomes the “new” first commandment. I surely don’t mean supersessionism here, but fuller revelation that gives the original more concrete clarity.
Adam @32,
You asked, “I agree with you, but where does the Resurrection from the dead fit into that idea? The resurrection seems to be a HUGE turning point for the early church. I think the resurrection should also be a major point of our current idea of the Kingdom as well.”
Agreed, the ressurection was a Huge turning point, foundational point, for the early church. Jesus raising from the dead in His glorified body is a foundational “proof” of life after death, that death does not have the last say, but life triumphs over death! So in death we do look for a fuller revelation of the present reality of the kingdom in which we are now members of. Those in the kingdom of darkness will come into the present full reality of that kingdom. And those in the kingdom of light will come into the full reality of that kingdom.
How “long” will a person experience the full reality of the present kingdom of darkness before they are saved and repent? I don’t know and don’t want anyone to find out. And how “long” is “long” in darkness where there is no clock, no day or night, no means of measuring time or need to measure time, no hope of ever getting out; how long is long? Well, it’s endless, until it ends; it’s forever until it’s over.
The Kingdom of God is both Now and Not Yet. We need both dynamics, but the primary dynamic is Now. “Today is the day of salvation!” By focusing on the Not Yet, we loose the vitality of the Now! By speaking of salvation as a destination (having arrived), we loose the vitality of the Journey, the process.
And btw, the destination is not only “ME w/ the Lord”, it’s “Us w/ the Lord”. I cannot be completely happy, joyful, whole until all my brothers and sisters are completely happy, joyful, and whole with US. So our desire, our goal, our ultimate destination that we strive towards is the reconciliation of all whom with love with God and ourselves! And so we pray, “Your Kingdom come on earth (Now) as it IS in heaven (Now and To Come).
My focus has changed from going to heaven some day, to seeking heaven on earth to come today! It’s not so much about us getting into heaven some day (though those who have been saved, tasted of heavenly bread, long to experience it increasingly fully) but about getting heaven into us today!
After reading your post I literally said, out loud, “Wow, that’s so darn helpful.” I especially enjoyed your statement “…he summoned each person out of their own particular and concrete realities, revealed what it was that stood between them and him, summoned them to see that this is the First Commandment all over again.”
Still leaves me wondering if there’s anything to Rob’s claim that people will continue to “have a chance” after death?
@ Sherman #35. AMEN to that Broseph!
I think it is about in/out, specifically in/out of God’s Kingdom now. To be in God’s Kingdom requires following God. Following God varies by individual, thusly requiring judgment to determine whether someone did. Jesus, being human, will be able to be that judge when the time comes.
Having said that, I have a difficult time figuring out how to do that without immediately having people focus on the afterlife.
I disagree with those who think a focus on heaven/hell undermines discipleship in the here and now. The apostles are constantly pointing to the future in order to encourage holy living in the present. Here is a small smattering of texts that come to mind: Romans 13:8,11-14; 2 Thessalonians 1:5-11; Hebrews 4:4-11; James 5:7-9; 2 Peter 3:10-14; Jude 1:20-21; Revelation 3:11-12
The brethren are repeatedly exhorted to holy living, to perseverance under suffering, to making every effort now on the basis that a future judgment is coming and that the Day of Judgment is near.
this is exactly what i love about reading the book of Acts: THERE IS NO FORMULA! there are a number of ways God pursues people. there are a number of ways people bump into God. to say that there is but one way TO Christ is preposterous. we cannot contain nor control our God when he pursues people.
PaulE, you are right. Nearly every book developed on discipleship in the here and now was written by someone who believed in the heaven/hell distinction.
#41 Scot, of course Paul never explicitly wrote about hell
EVERYBODY needs to read Sherman’s comments @ #29 and #35!
Sherman, please let me know if you are writing a book, becaues you just said everything I’ve been trying to say to people for months in two elegant posts. Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!!
@39. to making every effort now on the basis that a future judgment is coming and that the Day of Judgment is near.
Comment by PaulE — April 6, 2011
But that near Day of Judgment was presented as near to the recipients of the epistles. The warning to flee from God’s coming wrath was presented as something the letter recipients would either experience or escape from. There is and was no intimation that 2,000 years later that Day of Judgment and experience of God’s wrath would still not have arrived.
Does the apparently wrong – apparently greatly wrong, in fact – understanding of the time of God’s wrath and Judgment affect or raise questions about the validity of the epistle-writers’ descriptions of the nature of that wrath and Judgment?
PaulE @ 39,
Scripture does warn of judgment and punishment to come, but note that such judgment and punishment is usually based on how we actually lived (not on just whether we have faith or not) and usually addressed to believers (not unbelievers). And judgment and punishment dynamically fit within the concept of reconciliation. We must come to grips with the evil we’ve participated in and repent from it. This requires judgment where we encounter the fire of truth that burns the hell out of us. And we shall all face judgment. Scripture does not say in vain that the Lord shall dry every tear, for I’m confident that I’ll, we’ll shed buckets!
So yes, judgment is a vital aspect of discipleship, but it is certainly not good news. The Good News is that God loves us so much that He suffered the penalty of our sin Himself so that we can freely embrace His love and forgiveness and be reconciled to Him and one another. The reality/fear of judgment only benefits those whose faith is already in God.
I suppose I see the purpose of judgment and punishment as being remedial, for our good, flowing from the love and holiness of God, not meant to exclude, but to include us. And I believe that judgment too is a present eternal reality, something that we tap into even now. I don’t know about you, but I’ve experienced the judgment of God, felt the flames! It burnt the hell out of me and I was forever changed, but changed for the good. My flesh, part of my selfish nature, burnt up, was consumed, destroyed; and my new man, nature born after the Spirit, was strengthed and revealed! Judgment is terrible, but it is good for us, good/terrible medicine! Paul even speaks of turning a brother over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit might be saved! Talk about punishment!
JonG @ 43,
Wow, thanks. That’s very encouraging. I’ve started the research phase for a book, but that’s just the first step. Thanks again though for the encouragement. As I’ve shared elsewhere, my change in doctrine from traditional evangelical to universal reconciliation has and is costing me dearly. Relationally speaking, it’s a desert, so every drop of water is greatly appreciated!
Thanks,
Sherman
@JoeyS – While Paul does not use imagery of fire (except maybe in the 2 Thessalonians 1 passage I mentioned above), the operative word for him seems to be “destruction”. You can see, for instance, in Galatians 6:7-10 how he too encourages his disciples to do goodness now by pointing to “the proper time” of harvest of either destruction or eternal life.
@EricW – Obviously understanding this “nearness” is not without difficulties, but I guess I would point you to 2 Peter 3:3-9. In any event, the inerrancy of Scripture is not a tangent I want to veer off into here.
@Sherman – You wrote a lot more than those other guys, so I will have to respond to you later when I can give more thought to what you wrote.
Linda @47,
To me the concept of Hell is exactly the opposite of “overcome evil with good.” In the concept (unbiblical concept, I believe) of Hell, evil is NOT overcome with good, but people, the beloved of God, are forever locked into evil. Love fails!
ISTM that 2 Peter 3:3-9 doesn’t solve the difficulties, but by providing a corrective to them, seems to admit to the difficulties. And the rest of the chapter seems to be couched in the same expectation of that day coming in the readers’ lifetime.
Again, the NT documents are written as if the last days had come in the readers’ lifetimes, and as if the generations to whom they were directly written would see or experience the soon-coming wrath and judgment of God.
Which to me potentially raises questions about the validity of their descriptions of that Day and that wrath, and whether they had the proper perspective or understanding of those things.
Scot- Did we lose some posts?
Sherman, the apostle Paul is saying in Romans 12 to Christian we are to treat our enemies kindly for their evil deeds they do today. The reason we can be kind to our enemies today is knowing that one day God will punish our enemies after they are judged. I am saying what you believe about heaven and hell/judgment will help you follow God today, so it is important to have the right beliefs about heaven and hell, God judgment and wrath.
Beautiful words, Scot:
I will put this differently: from one person to the next the Gospels show us that Jesus did not say the same thing. He didn’t say “Do these three or four things and then you can enter the kingdom.” Shame on our evangelistic simplicities. No, he summoned each person out of their own particular and concrete realities, revealed what it was that stood between them and him, summoned them to see that this is the First Commandment all over again — have no other gods before me — and make the absolutely stunning claim. It’s all about coming to Jesus, surrendering to Jesus, trusting Jesus, obeying Jesus, or following Jesus. Variants on a theme, folks. Variants on a theme.
I read this today and maybe it will help this conversation.
Dale Bruner comments (p289) on Matthew 19:17b: “‘But if you want to enter the Life, keep the Commandments!’ First Jesus changes the man’s verb. The man asked how he could “get” eternal life, like a possession; Jesus tells him how to “enter” eternal life, as a journey. Jesus transfers the man from a market to a road…Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels speaks preferably of a life and kingdom that lie ahead…”
Wow, Linda. That’s classic. You sure you want to own that last remark?
Did you see Scot’s post about the question “what view of God is suggested by your view of hell?” For a lot people who wrestle with this issue, there’s a difficulty reconciling their view of God and their view of hell. Not you, Linda. Not you.
Linda, thanks for the explanation. I agree that it’s important to have right beliefs about heaven, hell, judgment, etc.; and that having right beliefs helps us follow God today. But I don’t believe that Paul was saying that we should be kind to others who hurt us because one day we know they’ll be punished by the Lord. Rather, we should be kind to others because God has been kind to us. And we should not take vengeance into our own hands because we usually go overboard, and we simply do not have all the facts, we don’t have God’s vantage point on the situation. Rather, we should live in forgiveness and love, and trust God that “IF” there is any punishment needed, that He’ll do what is right, good, and merciful, what is needed for reconciliation.
@ #47, Paul – And destruction is when you take something that exists and make it cease to exist. Not a very “eternal hell” like idea….just sayin’
JoeyS, Paul also uses destruction elsewhere in the context of remedial punishment, “destruction of the flesh so that the spirit might be saved.” In a very real way, in order for the new man to completely live, the old man must completely be destroyed. In order for Paul to live, Saul had to be destroyed.
EricW – Even if you throw away the teaching of the Apostles, you still have passages like Psalm 110, Ecclesiastes 12:13-14, Daniel 12:2, Malachi 3:17-18. The theme of a final judgment runs so thick through the Scriptures that I don’t think you get very far arguing against it by discarding the Apostles’ teaching.
Sherman:
First, I just want to clarify that when I speak of a “future judgment”, “day of judgment” or “final judgment” I do not necessarily tie the word “judgment” in those phrases to God’s wrath. The day of judgment will be for some a time of joy when they receive their praise, glory and honor from God (1 Cor. 4:5; 1 Peter 1:7), when they receive their crown of life (James 1:12), when their righteousness is revealed (Galatians 5:5). And again, 1 John 4:17 demonstrates that our expectation of that day of judgment should shape our lives now: “This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment: In this world we are like Jesus.”
Now, as far as your usage of the word “judgment” being punishment, I do agree that punishment or discipline can be remedial in this world. This is the clear teaching of Hebrews 12. But I do not think that all punishment is remedial. In John 15 there are two kinds of branches: those that bear fruit because they remain in Christ (these the Father prunes that they might bear more fruit) and those who do not bear fruit, which the Father cuts off and tosses in the fire. Some are purified by fire; but not all. “Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked.” (Daniel 12:10)
You mention that the judgment is based on how we actually lived rather than just whether or not we have faith. I think you’re right for certain definitions of “faith”. To get all the way back to Scot’s original question: what it takes to “get in” is a righteousness that surpasses that of the Pharisees. But this righteousness can only be produced by faith, for only the Spirit of Christ in us can work this kind of righteousness and the Spirit works by faith (cf. Galatians 3:5, 5:22, 5:6).
@PaulE: I’m not arguing against a final judgment. I’m raising the possibility that some of the things they said about it may have been unclear or incorrect to them – and hence incorrectly stated to us – since it appears that the timing of it has not accorded with their perception and expression of it.
Kenton, @54, Lol! Pretty condescending there. I gotta love your confidence.
I know this could be oversimplifying, but I think the “in vs out” approach doesn’t work… people focus on going to heaven more than knowing God. If knowing God is “in,” then it works. But that’s now how it is cashed out in evangelism nor the attitude in evangelical culture. There has been a huge shift in the last few years to remembering that the first commandment is to love God and how everything rests on this.
I think boiling everything down to ‘justification by faith alone’ ends up abstracting out love for God (though that’s what “faith alone” means) and into a formula of a courtroom where you make sure you are out of punishment and into paradise.
God gets creepy and impersonal when we think in those terms. It’s like replacing a love letter with a law dictionary. Big difference between the though, though deep within a worldview, we see how they connect. But are we connecting them?
I don’t know that it was meant to be condescending. I’m truly astounded that God is so cruel in Linda’s paradigm.
“the Gospels show us that Jesus did not say the same thing. He didn’t say “Do these three or four things and then you can enter the kingdom.” Shame on our evangelistic simplicities. No, he summoned each person out of their own particular and concrete realities, revealed what it was that stood between them and him, summoned them to see that this is the First Commandment all over again — have no other gods before me”
I absolutely love this! In this picture of God I see a God who is Love, who ultimately wants nothing more than to help us get rid of whatever clutter stands between us and Him. What if what it takes for me to be reconciled to God (saved, if you must) is different than what it takes for someone else because for each of us the clutter is unique? Maybe not, I’m just thinking out loud here.
@ Everyone. Let’s step back a moment and think about this for second: Perhaps what we’re debating is semantics. I don’t say this to diminish the scriptures, but our debates; because we will do this “scripture kung fu” forever.
Often I remind myself of the “wrongness” in my “rightness” and the “rightness” in others “wrongness”. This selfless act of love, I believe this is what makes God happiest. How could it not?
Grace and Peace to all.
Good Morning PaulE @58.
Sorry for the long reply, but you noted several scriptures that I apparently understand (or misunderstand) differently than you do.
And of course, I understand Judgment differently. I understand it as an event of both rewards and punishment for each of us. The good things we’ve done will be celebrated, rewarded; and the bad things we’ve done will be revealed for what they are and burnt to nothing, like wood, hay, or stubble. None of us are completely good or evil. Like 1 Cor. 4:5 notes, both the darkest secrets and the private motives will be revealed. And of course 1 Pet. 1:7 is not talking about the judgment to come, but about how trials that we face today purify us, purify our faith as gold is purified by fire. James 1:12 is also talking about how the trials we face today purify us, and how that God rewards us for enduring and doing well in these trials. And Gal. 5:5 does not speak of rewards, but of us waiting in faith for the righteousness of Christ to be revealed (whether in this life or the life to come), a righteousness that is not by works but through faith.
Concerning all punishment being remedial, the other alternative is vendictive punishment, punishment meant to vent the bitter anger of the one doing the punishing. Fankly, I don’t understand God to be bitter and unforgiving; but I understand God to be loving kind and gracious, always ready to forgive, always loving. His anger lasts but a moment; it’s His love and mercy that endures forever. Discipline, though it be terrible, flows out of love. And I believe that God loves all of humanity. Love doesn’t give up, it always keeps reaching out, always keeps seeking reconciliation. And Love never fails. Love covers a multitude of sins. Love never gives up.
Concerning Dan. 12:10, the ASV translates it as follows, “Many shall purify themselves and make themselves white and be refined, but the wicked shall act wickedly. And none of the wicked shall understand, but those who are wise shall understand.” So if you’re looking to that scripture to affirm that some people will never repent, even in the fire of truth, the unshaded glory of God, I just don’t see that in this passage.
Concerning what gets us “in”, I believe it is the Atonement, the sacrifice and blood of Christ, that has redeemed us, purchased our freedom. And it is the revelation of the atonement that purifies our hearts and minds. So it’s not our righteousness that gets us “in”, but it’s the righteousness of Christ that gets us “in”. We do not save ourselves, pull ourselves up by our own boot straps; rather Christ saves us and sets us free from the slavery to sin and death that we were born into. Slaves don’t free themselves; they need a redeemer. The dead do not raise themselves to life, they can’t even choose life, they’re dead! The dead need to be raised to life by someone who can give them life. It is Christ that saves us, not we ourselves.
Great Writeup. I think that most of the time, when we start talking about heaven and hell, and whose ‘in’ or not, we start cornering our view of God as a Punisher/Rewarder. I think the entirety of the OT was to show that we don’t deserve heaven, and that we never will. Jesus’ sacrifice, however, affords us the opportunity to expand our percaption of God, past a Judge (rewarder/punisher) into a Relational object. This, i believe, fits the origina purpose of our creation as displayed in Eden.
If we choose to view God through a relational lens, then it might change our answers to the questions and propositiions most skeptics and doubters, (and frankly bewildered Christians) bring up. God poured his judgment and penalty onto Jesus, and now, we can stand behind that and reach out to God relationally. If we choose to do this, Heaven is the natural destination, because that’s where he is. Hell, conversely, is where he isn’t and we could choose that as well.
The cross is about love and choice. Not reward and penalty.
I’m also doing a walkthru of this book on my site, chapter by chapter, so it’s good to get some other in depth opinions (as opposed to the overall book review.)0
I find a telling similarity between the tales of the crazy pastor in Florida and Rob Bell.
Both cause a firestorm and then pretend to be baffled at the results, or act like they are no responsible for them.
Only the response is different in each case. The media is quick to blame Pastor Jones for the deaths of many people because he burned a book, and progressive Christians are quick to blame the audience because Rob Bell has chosen to start theological fires.
Odd how in one case we blame the messenger and in the other the responders…
“if there is an afterlife, what does it take to get in?”
basic answer: Jesus.
honestly. we could come up with a great list from the Bible and from evangelical positing, or we could come up with THE answer: Jesus. it’s really that simple. Jesus is the judge. so what we’re really asking is, “HOW does/will Jesus judge?” now that gets stickier.
do we go with:
1) “confess with your mouth and believe in your heart”
2) “sheep and goats” from Matt 25 where it appears our lack of concern for the needy is the benchmark
3) or as someone pointed out earlier, “doing the will of the Father”
4) confessing who Jesus is like the thief on the cross or Samaritan woman at the well
like i’ve said before, NO FORMULA. Jesus is judge. that’s where i’m staking my security and assurance. so, the question becomes, how well do you know and trust Jesus? isn’t this really, as the question in the previous post was about one’s view of God, about one’s view of Jesus?
EricW – Thanks for clarifying; sorry I did not understand what you were hinting at. I think one clear theme the Apostles pass on from Jesus’ teaching on eschatology is the unknown-ness of the day and hour. While they may have hoped for Christ’s return in their lifetime, I don’t think they ever would have testified to the certainty of it – and some seem to hedge against it like in John 21:23 – for to do so would contradict the other teaching. But of course, I realize not everyone will see it this way.
Sherman – Thanks for taking the time to respond. I think we mostly agree on salvation and judgment (even if I see a couple verses as eschatological that you do not). I very much agree that Christ’s righteousness is the only righteousness that can merit the kingdom and that it is therefor vital to be in him and for him to be in us. Likewise I agree that we cannot save ourselves.
Where we chiefly depart is on universal reconciliation. It is my hope that all should repent and not perish; but it is my fear that those who teach universalism are like those of whom the Lord says, “They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. ‘Peace, peace,’ they say, when there is no peace.” (This is not to say I think you are flippant about sin.)