Rob writes, “I point out these parallel claims: that God is mighty, powerful, and ‘in control’ and that billions of people will spend forever apart from this God, who is their creator, even though it’s written in the Bible that ‘God wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth’ (1 Tim. 2). So does God get what God wants? How great is God? Great enough to achieve what God sets out to do, or kind of great, great most of the time, but in this, the fate of billions of people, not totally great. Sort of great. A little great.” (page 97)
• In response to this section, Dr. Ben Witherington writes, “In some ways, the premise of Rob’s question, raised in Chapter Four, is not entirely logically coherent. If the answer to this question (‘Does God always get what he wants?’) was yes, would we even have sin and evil in the world? Would Adam and Eve have fallen in the first place? Would there even be a need for salvation or Hell? If God is truly like the way Augustine depicted him, not merely almighty and all good, but always ‘Charles in charge’, determining every little thing that happens in all of time and history in the whole universe, then it is very difficult to explain, without absolute cosmic dualism (as in Manicheanism which Augustine escaped from) how in the world Evil got a foot in the door of the universe in the first place. And if God didn’t always get what he wanted in the beginning, why in the world would be believe he will get all he wants in the end? Because ‘Love Wins’? Really? But if love is an expression of some sort of freedom of choice, whether by God or by humans, are we really supposed to believe that God’s love stops being freely given and freely received and becomes at some future juncture more like the Godfather than like God—‘making us an offer we can’t refuse?’ This is not a coherent line of thought no matter how much we believe God loves us all. I do wish one of Rob’s friends or editors had pointed some of this out before he wrote the final draft of this book. As it is, the book thus far makes Rob sound more like a hopeless romantic rather than a dangerous heretic.” (http://goo.gl/lQaoZ)
• When you think about the freedom God has given the human race to choose to love Him or reject Him, do you think it diminishes His greatness if some of us decide not to receive His generous gift of salvation? Why or why not?
• Consider the fact that those of us who have accepted this gift have the opportunity and responsibility to warn our fellow human beings about coming judgment and tell them that God has offered a free pardon for anyone who receives His Son as their Savior. With this in mind, do you think the fact that many people are in hell reflects more on the church’s lack of greatness than on God’s? Why or why not?
“God has a purpose. A desire. A goal. And God never stops pursuing it. Jesus tells a series of parables in Luke 15 about a woman who loses a coin, a shepherd who loses a sheep, and a father who loses a son. The stories aren’t ultimately about the things and people being lost; the stories are about things and people being found. The God that Jesus teaches us about doesn’t give up until everything that was lost is found. This God doesn’t give up. Ever.
“Is history tragic? Have billions of people been created only to spend eternity in conscious punishment and torment, suffering infinitely for the finite sins they committed in the few years they spent on earth? Is our future uncertain, or will God take care of us? …Is God our friend, our provider, our protector, or father – or is God the kind of judge who may in the end declare that we deserve to spend forever separated from our Father? Is God like the characters in a story Jesus would tell, old ladies who keep searching for the lost coin until the find it, shepherds who don’t rest until that one sheep is back in the fold, fathers who rush out to greet and embrace their returning son, or, in the end, will God give up?
“Will ‘all the ends of the earth’ come, as God has decided, or only some? Will all feast as it’s promised in Psalm 22, or only a few? Will everybody be given a new heart, or only a limited number of people? Will God, in the end, settle, saying: ‘Well, I tried, I gave it my best shot, and sometimes you just have to be okay with failure’? Will God shrug God-sized shoulders and say, ‘You can’t always get what you want’? (pages 101-103)
• Dr Witherington helps us put this section in biblical perspective. “Rob cites a pile of texts, soundbyting them rather than doing contextual exegesis of them, for the purpose of suggesting that God never ever gives up on anyone. The problem with this is that many of these OT texts are about God’s covenant faithfulness to his own chosen people, not to the world in general. And in regard to the notion that we are ‘all children of God’ the Gospel of John in fact says—No we are not! We are all creatures of God, created in God’s image, but we are not all inherently ‘children of God’. John 1-3 is pretty clear you don’t become a child of God through the decision of your parents, or through mere physical birth, or through the will of a spouse, you become a child of God by being ‘born again’. My goodness, even Nicodemus is told he must be born again in order to enter God’s kingdom. Does God love everyone, the whole world? Yes he does, as John 3.16 says. Does that, or being created in God’s image automatically make anyone a child of God—no. There are issues of being part of the people of God. And here perhaps more than anywhere else is one of the fundamental problems with Rob’s argument—bad ecclesiology. As Paul puts it in 1 Cor. 12, when it comes to being a real child of God “we were all baptized by one Spirit into the one body of Christ (whether Jew or Gentile), and all given the one Spirit from which we all drink. God has a people, and the lost need to become found and a part of that people. This is one of the major messages of both the OT and the NT and it involves covenanting, it involves a people set apart, it involves conscious involvement in the people of God, if you don’t die in infancy. One of the real problems with this chapter (see e.g. p.102) is the tendency to talk in binary opposites. Is God like the woman who seeks the coin, or is God one who will allow you to spend an eternity in Hell? Is history tragic, or does love win? In fact, the Bible is complex, and it gives complex answers to these sorts of questions— questions we have debated for two millennia and can’t be resolved with a simply setting up of a ‘you can give me this or you can give me that’ (cue the Kia commercial) because both can’t be true. In fact both can be true. It can be true that a good deal of history is tragic and also true that God’s love wins in millions and millions of cases.” (http://goo.gl/lQaoZ)
• In Deuteronomy 30:15-20 God says to His people, “See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. For I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess. But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess. This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the LORD your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the LORD is your life.” In your opinion, if humans choose to turn from God or ignore Him, is it unfair for God to give them the consequences of their choice?
• Yes, the Bible says that God wants everyone to be saved, (1 Timothy 2:4) but what if people don’t want God’s salvation. Does their rejection of His gift mean that He has failed? Why or why not? (See Romans 3:3-4)
• Do you think Rob’s frustration should be redirected at the community of believers who know the way to eternal life and yet, in many cases, aren’t telling their friends and family?
“God in the end doesn’t get what God wants, it’s declared, because some will turn, repent, and believe, and others won’t. To explain this perspective, it’s rightly pointed out that love, by its very nature, is freedom. For there to be love, there has to be the option, both now and then, to not love. To say no. Although God is powerful and mighty, when it comes to the human heart God has to play by the same rules we do. God has to respect our freedom to choose to the very end, even at the risk of the relationship itself. If at any point God overrides, co-opts, or hijacks the human heart, robbing us of our freedom to choose, then God has violated the fundamental essence of what love even is. (pages 103-104)
“The question that flows out of this understanding of love, then, is quite simple. Lots of people in our world right now choose to be violent and abusive and mean and evil, so why won’t they continue to choose this path after they die? That Question leads to another idea, one rooted in the dynamic nature of life. We aren’t fixed, static beings – we change and morph as life unfolds… What makes us think that after a lifetime, let alone hundreds or even thousands of years, somebody who has consciously chosen a particular path away from God suddenly wakes up one day and decides to head in the completely opposite direction?
“And so a universal hugfest where everybody eventually ends up around the heavenly campfire singing ‘kumbaya,’ with Jesus playing the guitar, sounds a lot like fantasy to some people. Although we’re only scratching the surface of this perspective – the one that says we get this life and only this life to believe in Jesus – it is safe to say that this perspective is widely held and passionately defended by many in our world today.” (pages 104-105)
• Rob acknowledges that part of loving and being loved is the freedom to say “no” and to turn away from the one who is extending love to us. He agrees that God must “play by the same rules.” God respects our right to choose Him or reject Him because that’s what love does. But he then raises a question about the permanence of that decision. What if someone who has spent their life rejecting God, dies, and then, thousands of years later, decides to repent and return to God. Couldn’t they still do that? Wouldn’t love continue to accept their repentance after death? What do you think about this idea?
• Hebrews 9:27 says, “People are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment.” Jesus told a story about a rich man who went to hell and was repentant. But he was told, “between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.” (Luke 16:26) The Bible teaches clearly that death seals the fate of those who reject God in this life. There is no “universal hugfest where everybody eventually ends up around the heavenly campfire.” Given the clear teaching of Scripture on this, why do you think people still hold onto this idea? Do you think it is wishful thinking? Why or why not?
“… And then there are others who can live with two destinations, two realities after death, but insist that there must be some kind of ‘second chance’ for those who don’t believe in Jesus in this lifetime… At the heart of this perspective is the belief that, given enough time, everybody will turn to God and find themselves in the joy and peace of God’s presence. The love of God will melt every hard heart, and even the most ‘depraved sinners’ will eventually give up their resistance and turn to God.
“And so, beginning with the early church, there is a long tradition of Christians who believe that God will ultimately restore everything and everybody, because Jesus says in Matthew 19 that there will be a ‘renewal of all things,’ Peter says in Acts 3 that Jesus will ‘restore everything,’ and Paul says in Colossians 1 that through Christ ‘God was pleased to …reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven.’
“In the third century the church fathers Clement of Alexandria and Origen affirmed God’s reconciliation with all people. In the fourth century, Gregory of Nyssa and Eusebius believed this as well. In their day, Jerome claimed that ‘most people,’ Basil said the ‘mass of men,’ and Augustine acknowledged that ‘very many’ believed in the ultimate reconciliation of all people to God.” (pages 106-108)
• I’m referencing Dr. Witherington again because I don’t have expertise in church history. He writes, “And now we come to the escape clause part of the argument. Since it is obvious that God’s love doesn’t win over everyone in this lifetime – can we go into overtime, and indeed continue to play overtimes until God finally wins, outlasting our ‘March Madness’? Does God final melt even the hardest of hearts— somewhere out there? The texts, like Col. 1 or Phil. 2 which are thought to suggest such an outcome (and of course no one is suggesting such an outcome is impossible for an omnipotent God if he is prepared to run roughshod over the wills of billions of humans), are not quite on all fours with such an assumption about ‘love winning’. Some of these texts are about how when Jesus comes back, everyone, whether willingly or unwillingly will have to recognize who is Lord, even if they don’t like it. Notice for example in Phil. 2 Paul seems to refer to demonic or angelic beings who will have to recognize the truth about Jesus, but we are not being told they will trust and be transformed by this truth. Indeed, Col. 1 says Jesus triumphs over the powers and principalities on the cross, and 1 Pet. 3 is about Christ proclaiming victory over the ‘spirits in prison’ who are the fallen angels (see Gen. 3). And then there are the texts about God reconciling ‘all things’ (not all persons, all things) by which is meant God’s kingdom will include all of creation, all will one day be under his rule. These texts do not proclaim the salvation of every last individual—- and they never did. Once again, Rob appeals to some church fathers in support of some kind of universalism. The problem is that he is citing theological speculation of this or that church father, not the settled convictions of the church as revealed in their creeds, councils, confessions. There is a difference. The creeds, councils, and confessions are the result of the body of Christ reasoning together and coming to some consensus on what orthodoxy looks like. They are not isolated shots fired in the dark by one or another church father. I hope no one holds me to every speculative thought I have put into writing at some point. The point is— neither in the Catholic nor the various Orthodox, nor the various Evangelical traditions has there ever been a statement of faith by any such church suggesting what seems to be suggested in this chapter in this book. Rob wants to suggest that the stream of orthodoxy is broad and includes those who at some point advocated universalism. This can only be said to be true if you ignore the importance of churches collectively, and stick with speculating individuals. It can only be said to be true if you ignore the nature of the NT canon. Where did it come from? Did it drop from the sky? No. It was assembled by various Christian groups, and then there was agreement of whole churches in the east, and in the west, and in north Africa in about 367 A.D. that ‘these 27 books and no others’ are our NT Scriptures. This was not decided by Constantine, it was agreed upon and recognized by church synods and councils. Why am I pointing this out? You wouldn’t even have the NT to argue about were there no churches and church decisions, and you had best not ignore what the church writ large has said about the interpretation of this Bible along the way, not just cherry pick this or that church father’s momentary entertainment of some idea. In short your theology and soteriology are interconnected with ecclesiology, and you cannot and should not try to decide theological or ethical issues just on the basis of your very selective reading of the Bible or church fathers. Even the Protestant Reformers would not be happy with that sort of approach to theology and ethics.” (http://goo.gl/lQaoZ)
• Rob want so resolve this dilemma in his mind, so he is offering the idea of continuous chances to repent after death. He uses several passages of Scripture that most interpret differently and several quotes from the church fathers to support this idea. From what you know of the Bible and church history, is this view part of orthodox Christianity?
• What is the danger, in your opinion, of holding a theological view about the option of repentance after death that is different from the teaching of Scripture, the creeds and the doctrines of the church?
“Central to their trust that all would be reconciled was the belief that untold masses of people suffering forever doesn’t bring God glory. Restoration brings God glory; eternal torment doesn’t. Reconciliation brings God glory; endless anguish doesn’t. Renewal and return cause God’s greatness to shine through the universe; never-ending punishment doesn’t.
“To be clear, again, an untold number of serious disciples of Jesus across hundreds of years have assumed, affirmed, and trusted that no one can resist God’s pursuit forever, because God’s love will eventually melt even the hardest of hearts.” (page 108)
• In Revelation 14:7, the Apostle John quotes the angel, “Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come.” The Bible teaches that God receives glory both for extending mercy and for executing judgment. In Romans 9: 22-24, the Apostle Paul writes, “What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?” Do you think Rob’s assumption that God’s judgment on unbelievers is something embarrassing for God reflects the view of Scripture? Why or why not?
“Could God say to someone truly humbled, broken, and desperate for reconciliation, ‘Sorry, too late’? Many have refused to accept the scenario in which somebody is pounding on the door, apologizing, repenting, and asking God to be let in, only to hear God say through the keyhole: ‘Door’s locked. Sorry. If you had been here earlier, I could have done something. But now, it’s too late.”
• Throughout the Bible there are stories of people who were shut out because they were too late, starting with the people who laughed at Noah as he built his ark on dry land and then were destroyed by the flood. In Matthew 25: 1-13, Jesus told a parable about ten virgins who were waiting for the bridegroom. Five ran out of oil for their lamps and, while they were going to get it, the bridegroom came, entered the wedding banquet, and shut the door. They pounded on the door and cried out, ‘Lord, Lord, open the door for us!’ But he replied, ‘Truly I tell you, I don’t know you.’”
• In Luke 13: 25-27, Jesus said, “Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, ‘Sir, open the door for us.’ But he will answer, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from.’ Then you will say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.’ But he will reply, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!’”
• The Apostle Paul wrote, “He (God) will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed.” (2 Thessalonians 1:8-9)
• Based on your understanding of the Bible, do you think God will continue to let people in after the door has been shut? Is there an urgency to respond to God in this life? Why or why not?
“Which is stronger and more powerful, the hardness of the human heart or God’s unrelenting, infinite, expansive love? Thousands through the years have answered that question with the resounding response, ‘God’s love, of course.’ At the center of the Christian tradition since the first church have been a number who insist that history is not tragic, hell is not forever, and love, in the end, wins and all will be reconciled to God.
“…It’s important that we be honest about the fact that some stories are better than others. Telling a story in which billions of people spend forever somewhere in the universe trapped in a black hole of endless torment and misery with no way out isn’t a very good story. Telling a story about a God who inflicts unrelenting punishment on people because they didn’t do or say or believe the correct things in a brief window of time called life isn’t a very good story.
“In contrast, everybody enjoying God’s good world together with no disgrace or shame, justice being served, and all the wrongs made right is a better story. It is bigger, more loving, more expansive, more extraordinary, beautiful, and inspiring than any other story about the ultimate course history takes.” (pages 110-111)
• This section gives a glimpse into Rob Bell’s changing view of Scripture. I’ve attended his church for over twelve years. In the beginning he had a high view of the Bible as God’s inspired Word. More recently he has been viewing it as an ancient conversation with different, sometimes contradictory voices. He thinks that God’s revelation didn’t stop with the completed “canon” of Scripture but is still going on today. He teaches that we are part of the continuing conversation. So he doesn’t respond to “proof texts.” Rob is interested in what makes sense, what sounds right, and what makes the best story. Do you agree with Rob’s current view of the Bible? What implications does this have for how you would interpret and apply it to life today?
• If the Bible is the authoritative Word of God (as I believe it is) and it clearly warns of coming judgment and eternal punishment in hell for those who reject God’s gift of pardon (as you’ve seen that it does if you’ve read the verses cited in previous chapters), do you think it matters if we don’t like the story? Do we get to re-write the parts we don’t like in the Bible?
• The Apostle Paul is quite clear in 1 Thessalonians 1: 8-9. “He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.” Based on this passage and Romans 9:1-3, do you think Paul would have agreed with Rob’s desire for a better story? What about when he was sitting in a jail cell because people didn’t like his story? How do you think he would have responded to this section of Rob’s book?
“…We read in these last chapters of Revelation that the gates of the city in that new world will ‘never shut.’ That’s a small detail, and it’s important we don’t get too hung up on details…But gates…are for keeping people in and keeping people out. If the gates are never shut, then people are free to come and go. Can God bring proper, lasting justice, banishing certain actions – and the people who do them – from the new creation while at the same time allowing and waiting and hoping for the possibility of the reconciliation of those very same people? Keeping the gates, in essence, open? Will everyone eventually be reconciled to God or will there be those who cling to their version of their story, insisting on their right to be their own little god ruling their own little miserable kingdom?”
• Again, I’d like to let Dr. Ben Witherington address this section. “Towards the end of this chapter (pp. 112ff.) Rob points out that the book of Revelation doesn’t end with blood and violence. It ends with the picture in Rev. 21-22. True enough, but that new creation only emerges after the last judgment and the casting of demons, the Devil, the wicked into the lake of fire. You don’t get to Rev. 22 by bypassing Rev. 19-21. You have to go through that part of the story. The end of the chapter stresses that if we want heaven or hell, we can have it. God will allow us to have our freedom of choice, and some do and may well continue to choose evil rather than good, unto all eternity. It is statements like this that allow Rob to insist he isn’t a universalist. But Rob wants to leave the door open a crack, and so he draws attention to the fact that in the new Jerusalem the gates are always open. Now that imagery implies to Rob that there is still hope for the outsiders who have chosen darkness rather than light. The problem with that is not only texts like Rev. 21.8 and 22.14-15. The problem is that Rob ignores the verse that speaks of angels at the Twelve gates of the city— God’s bouncers, who will never allow the wicked in (check out the angel guarding the Garden of Eden post Fall). Indeed, the fate of the lost is said in Rev. 21.8 to be the second death in the lake of fire. We are not told the angels at the gates have fire extinguishers and will hose down the outsiders, so they can become holy and enter the city. Because, as John says—- you have to be holy, have to be set apart by and for God, to enter the city. In other words, the image of the open gates is a reassurance to John’s persecuted, prosecuted, and executed churches that there will be no more danger to them when they arrive at the crystal city. There will be no more night, no more deeds of darkness— they will be safe and secure in God’s arm forever. Revelation is the book of the martyrs and the imagery here is meant to reassure the martyrs they will not have to deal with their tormentors any more—- ever. It is not meant to encourage speculation about reversals in the afterlife.” (http://goo.gl/lQaoZ)
• We are a culture of second chances for politicians and sports stars. We all love the stories of people who make dramatic reversals in life. The Bible teaches that God will extend grace to anyone who comes to Him (see Ephesians 2:1-10). But it also teaches that when we die, there are no second chances (Luke 16:26). When faced with the realities of the afterlife, which would you prefer, the truth that makes you sad, or an untrue story that makes you feel better?
