librarymaus's review against another edition
5.0
I remember when I first read this book, and the fact it made me cry all those years ago. It was during a very hard time in my life, I had just learned one of my loved one didn't Care where they went in the end.. Reading this book probably wasn't the best choice for me to read at that time, but I'm made of Stronger stuff and it was good for me to go through this. To read a little about the place people will go if they do not believe in Jesus, to make me worry for those I love.
I thought I could reread this, but I can't. This book was for me in that moment when I was younger, and I will always appreciate the strange "comfort" this book gave me. It showed me How much I truly Loved people, and how important it is to pray for those you love (even if said prayers never take root.)
I thought I could reread this, but I can't. This book was for me in that moment when I was younger, and I will always appreciate the strange "comfort" this book gave me. It showed me How much I truly Loved people, and how important it is to pray for those you love (even if said prayers never take root.)
alisarae's review against another edition
4.0
This book is an explicit response to Love Wins by Rob Bell (I haven't read it), and it's quite good at meeting its objectives. At any rate, people don't go to hell for not believing in hell.
It would be much better if people would just say, "I know what the Bible teaches and I simply don't believe that part," than trying to stretch the words and ignore the context of passages to match up with their beliefs. At least Chan says (repeatedly...) that he wishes that there was no hell but he can't ignore what Jesus said. He also rightly says that "it is incredibly arrogant to pick and choose which incomprehensible truths we embrace."
I have always admired Chan and his contributions to contemporary Christianity. This is an accessible book that takes a systematic look at the theology of hell, and would be appropriate for both Christians and non-Christians who are honestly wondering what the Bible teaches about it.
It would be much better if people would just say, "I know what the Bible teaches and I simply don't believe that part," than trying to stretch the words and ignore the context of passages to match up with their beliefs. At least Chan says (repeatedly...) that he wishes that there was no hell but he can't ignore what Jesus said. He also rightly says that "it is incredibly arrogant to pick and choose which incomprehensible truths we embrace."
I have always admired Chan and his contributions to contemporary Christianity. This is an accessible book that takes a systematic look at the theology of hell, and would be appropriate for both Christians and non-Christians who are honestly wondering what the Bible teaches about it.
mrerickeith's review against another edition
4.0
Very short read. Presents a good argument against Rob Bell's Love Wins. It's a great primer for further personal study.
davehershey's review against another edition
2.0
I have to start by asking that if this book is a response to Rob Bell's Love Wins, why does the cover look similar to Rob Bell's Jesus Wants to Save Christians?
Bell's book and Chan's book were written for different audiences. Bell says his book is for anyone who have heard some version of the story of Jesus that completely turned them off. In other words, people who are told that their friends or family who happen to have the wrong beliefs are going to be tortured for all eternity; those who have been told Jesus loves them enough to die for them but if they do not believe that Jesus also loves them enough to torture them for all eternity.
Chan's audience seems to be the traditional Christian who is having a belief challenged. Thus, one of Chan's main points is "God has the right to do WHATEVER He pleases". This comes up often throughout the book. I suppose this means that if God wants to create people just for the purpose of torturing them for all eternity...well, God is God, so deal with it.
This sounds quite negative so far. I most admire Chan's tone: he is serious, humble and passionate. It is obvious that he desires to purse the truth and do what God calls him to do, and he wants all Christians to do the same. This book comes across as kind and respectful to Bell which is the sort of friendly interchange Christians should have when debating such topics.
Chan argues that Bell's interpretation of Gehenna as just a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem lacks support. Chan argues there is no evidence this was so until 1200 AD. Interestingly, Chan also cites Andrew Perriman of making the same mistake. I frequently read Perriman's blog and he replies to this: http://www.postost.net/2011/08/was-gehenna-burning-rubbish-dump-does-it-matter
"I would argue, therefore, that when Jesus speaks of unrighteous Jews being thrown into the “Gehenna of fire”, what he has in mind is not eternal punishment in a post mortem “hell”, as traditionally understood, but judgment on Israel in the manner presupposed by Isaiah and Jeremiah and described by the historian Josephus. Whether the city’s rubbish was burnt in the Valley of Hinnom is not greatly significant: the allusion is literary, not topographical" (Perriman).
It seems that Bell was somewhat sloppy in his interpretation of Gehenna, but Chan does not do much better. Bell's focus on the garbage dump makes for good writing, but is not historically supported. Yet Chan misses the links to the Old Testament.
On that note, Chan mentions annihilation in hell as a possibility, but dismisses it rather quickly. But a lot of the texts from scripture that he cites appear to more naturally speak of annihilation than eternal conscious torment. At one point I thought Chan was unintentionally convincing me of annihilationism. But when he does address it specifically, he seems to take the one or two passages that most clearly point to eternal conscious torment as trumping the many that point to annihilation.
Chapter five was the most challenging, as Chan writes: "Racism, greed, misplaced assurance, false teaching, misuse of wealth, and degrading words to a fellow human being - these are the things that damn people to hell? According to Scripture, the answer is yes." I wish Chan had focused more here than on simply "God can do whatever God wants". Saying God can do whatever God wants sounds like saying "might makes right". And this sort of overwhelming power does not jive with the person of Jesus Christ, who is our clearest revelation of God.
On one page Chan seems to say a person goes to hell because God can do whatever God wants and on a later page said person goes to hell because of things like greed and racism. There is no attempt to reconcile these two points. The problem is that many people assume that God is a sort of diabolical mad-scientist who sends people to hell just for the fun of it. So people are going to hell all the while calling out for God's mercy, as if they would have lived differently with more information. This portrayal of a big-meany-God is what Bell is opposing. At some points Chan seems to defend this sort of God.
But I think the truth is deeper, and the deeper is what Chan hints at in chapter 5. If someone ends up in hell (whether hell is eternal or annihilation) it is because of their rejection of God, not just in their head but in their actions and life. God does not unilaterally send people to hell simply for wrong beliefs. People freely choose to live against God in all sorts of ways: greed, racism, putting their own life first, pride, etc. To live this way is to choose hell now. Left to their own free will, they end up in hell in the future. They end up there not just because God is a big meany, but because they have rejected God in how they live. In the words of CS Lewis, to those who reject God, God says, "thy will be done" (okay, that was a rough paraphrase of Lewis).
Chapter six, focused on Romans, is all about how God does whatever God wants. So if God, the potter, wants to create people to torture for all eternity in heaven, who are we to question God? I am not a Reformed Calvinist and this chapter (if not the whole book) leaned that direction, which may be why I struggled with it. There seemed to be an over-emphasis on the transcendent, powerful God of the book of Job and not enough emphasis on the immanent God seen in Jesus who condescends to walk among us.
In the final chapter Chan says, "Yet God is not licking his chops looking for any poor soul He can send to hell". I agree. But based on the previous chapter, God kind of is looking for that. Maybe it is not that God is looking for that, instead God has created people just for the purpose of sending them to hell, so he knows who and where they are.
Overall, if you are interested in this topic, or have read Love Wins and want a response, check this book out. Chan's heart for Jesus and for other people shines through. It is a challenging and stimulating read. And at least he had footnotes, which Bell's book was sorely lacking!
I am not sure whose position I am more in agreement with: Bell or Chan. Probably neither, as when I read scripture it seems they both are right in some places and wrong in others. I suppose if Chan's book sent me back to scripture for further study, he achieved his goal.
As a postscript, I found the reviews by Jeff Cook on JesusCreed blog to be very good, here is the third one (from which I stole the whole "might makes right" analogy): http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2011/08/03/erasing-hell-might-makes-right-jeff-cook/#more-18973
PPS. I thought this video was pretty good - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqquvhwRoW4
Bell's book and Chan's book were written for different audiences. Bell says his book is for anyone who have heard some version of the story of Jesus that completely turned them off. In other words, people who are told that their friends or family who happen to have the wrong beliefs are going to be tortured for all eternity; those who have been told Jesus loves them enough to die for them but if they do not believe that Jesus also loves them enough to torture them for all eternity.
Chan's audience seems to be the traditional Christian who is having a belief challenged. Thus, one of Chan's main points is "God has the right to do WHATEVER He pleases". This comes up often throughout the book. I suppose this means that if God wants to create people just for the purpose of torturing them for all eternity...well, God is God, so deal with it.
This sounds quite negative so far. I most admire Chan's tone: he is serious, humble and passionate. It is obvious that he desires to purse the truth and do what God calls him to do, and he wants all Christians to do the same. This book comes across as kind and respectful to Bell which is the sort of friendly interchange Christians should have when debating such topics.
Chan argues that Bell's interpretation of Gehenna as just a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem lacks support. Chan argues there is no evidence this was so until 1200 AD. Interestingly, Chan also cites Andrew Perriman of making the same mistake. I frequently read Perriman's blog and he replies to this: http://www.postost.net/2011/08/was-gehenna-burning-rubbish-dump-does-it-matter
"I would argue, therefore, that when Jesus speaks of unrighteous Jews being thrown into the “Gehenna of fire”, what he has in mind is not eternal punishment in a post mortem “hell”, as traditionally understood, but judgment on Israel in the manner presupposed by Isaiah and Jeremiah and described by the historian Josephus. Whether the city’s rubbish was burnt in the Valley of Hinnom is not greatly significant: the allusion is literary, not topographical" (Perriman).
It seems that Bell was somewhat sloppy in his interpretation of Gehenna, but Chan does not do much better. Bell's focus on the garbage dump makes for good writing, but is not historically supported. Yet Chan misses the links to the Old Testament.
On that note, Chan mentions annihilation in hell as a possibility, but dismisses it rather quickly. But a lot of the texts from scripture that he cites appear to more naturally speak of annihilation than eternal conscious torment. At one point I thought Chan was unintentionally convincing me of annihilationism. But when he does address it specifically, he seems to take the one or two passages that most clearly point to eternal conscious torment as trumping the many that point to annihilation.
Chapter five was the most challenging, as Chan writes: "Racism, greed, misplaced assurance, false teaching, misuse of wealth, and degrading words to a fellow human being - these are the things that damn people to hell? According to Scripture, the answer is yes." I wish Chan had focused more here than on simply "God can do whatever God wants". Saying God can do whatever God wants sounds like saying "might makes right". And this sort of overwhelming power does not jive with the person of Jesus Christ, who is our clearest revelation of God.
On one page Chan seems to say a person goes to hell because God can do whatever God wants and on a later page said person goes to hell because of things like greed and racism. There is no attempt to reconcile these two points. The problem is that many people assume that God is a sort of diabolical mad-scientist who sends people to hell just for the fun of it. So people are going to hell all the while calling out for God's mercy, as if they would have lived differently with more information. This portrayal of a big-meany-God is what Bell is opposing. At some points Chan seems to defend this sort of God.
But I think the truth is deeper, and the deeper is what Chan hints at in chapter 5. If someone ends up in hell (whether hell is eternal or annihilation) it is because of their rejection of God, not just in their head but in their actions and life. God does not unilaterally send people to hell simply for wrong beliefs. People freely choose to live against God in all sorts of ways: greed, racism, putting their own life first, pride, etc. To live this way is to choose hell now. Left to their own free will, they end up in hell in the future. They end up there not just because God is a big meany, but because they have rejected God in how they live. In the words of CS Lewis, to those who reject God, God says, "thy will be done" (okay, that was a rough paraphrase of Lewis).
Chapter six, focused on Romans, is all about how God does whatever God wants. So if God, the potter, wants to create people to torture for all eternity in heaven, who are we to question God? I am not a Reformed Calvinist and this chapter (if not the whole book) leaned that direction, which may be why I struggled with it. There seemed to be an over-emphasis on the transcendent, powerful God of the book of Job and not enough emphasis on the immanent God seen in Jesus who condescends to walk among us.
In the final chapter Chan says, "Yet God is not licking his chops looking for any poor soul He can send to hell". I agree. But based on the previous chapter, God kind of is looking for that. Maybe it is not that God is looking for that, instead God has created people just for the purpose of sending them to hell, so he knows who and where they are.
Overall, if you are interested in this topic, or have read Love Wins and want a response, check this book out. Chan's heart for Jesus and for other people shines through. It is a challenging and stimulating read. And at least he had footnotes, which Bell's book was sorely lacking!
I am not sure whose position I am more in agreement with: Bell or Chan. Probably neither, as when I read scripture it seems they both are right in some places and wrong in others. I suppose if Chan's book sent me back to scripture for further study, he achieved his goal.
As a postscript, I found the reviews by Jeff Cook on JesusCreed blog to be very good, here is the third one (from which I stole the whole "might makes right" analogy): http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2011/08/03/erasing-hell-might-makes-right-jeff-cook/#more-18973
PPS. I thought this video was pretty good - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqquvhwRoW4
danthemingo's review against another edition
5.0
This book is very scholarly. It hits dead on with what the scriptures truly say on Hell and is a big counter to the terrible book that Rob Bell put out.
jmutz's review against another edition
3.0
Didn't go as deep theologically as I was wanting. Or rather, it didn't explore the major theologies of hell and damnation as I'd like.