Once again you had me cracking up Jason, how Chan believes you can’t help but be changed when you encounter God’s love and the obvious implication that the reason some never repent is because God didn’t elect them, will make sure they don’t encounter God’s love. And how interesting that so many people like it and don’t consider the universal implication if God really is faithful to reach us with his love. I hadn’t realized that. So interesting!
Welcome to the forum InChristAlone, I hope you find it encouraging and helpful 
Check out some of the reviews on Amazon. Francis Chan is conflicted and needs therapy. 
Looks like there are some good discussions happening in the review comments.
Sonia
I don’t always know what to do with the things revealed in the scriptures. I know I need to submit to his word, but it’s not always easy. My hope is that I remain true to him and not reject something because I don’t like it. It really is the height of arrogance to go around judging God based on how you think things should be. I can’t make God in my image.
My heart went out when I read this. I believe man has taught us how to read Scripture “wrongly”. A couple comments in this thread about how God’s ways are not our ways . .which I totally agree . . .yet as was mentioned, those who weld that passage around so dangerously imply that “they” are also above most and what they see is as it should be. Yet their conclusions are not through spiritual revelation . . .they are through great study, discipline and lengthy commentaries.
It’s a platform of mine . . the Peter Experience I call it. One of my favorite spiritual embraces that I felt as God drew me closer into my relationship with him. It’s in the passage where Jesus poses the question “who to men say that I am?” Jesus didn’t care about the answer . . .he used the question as one uses a key to open a door. But answer they did . . .everybody had an opinion of who they thought Jesus was. Some had a Baptist spin . . .some had an orthodox, some pentecostal . . .then Jesus went through the door. "Who do YOU say that I am? And then God showed up. Through the door and into Peter’s heart. “Thou art the Christ!! The Son of the ever-living God!!” What was Jesus’ response? FLESH AND BLOOD HAS NOT TAUGHT YOU THIS, BUT THE FATHER IN HEAVEN HAS . . .WHAT??? **REVEALED **IT TO YOU. It was Peter’s first Revelation. He didn’t come to this truth through great colleges, being in great church services and hearing great big pumped up sermons . . . he “could” have easily sided with any of the other opinions they shared out as to who others thought Jesus was . . .but no, he had a PERSONAL revelation. God wrote his word upon Peter’s heart that day and changed his identity. No longer was he referred to as Simon . . .instability . …his name now was “Rock”.
When I read Scripture, I avoid flesh and blood tactics . . .it’s good to study and do word searches . . .it feeds the soul . . .but I don’t rely on memorization or long study periods . . .or daily reading routines . . .I rely on the relationship the Father has chosen to have with me. Through “there” comes the revelation of the nature of Jesus. By the way, that little incident changed the direction of Jesus ministry. Up to that point, he was laying a foundation of what the kingdom what like. yeah, God’s ways are above ours, but Jesus still took much time to explain the principles of how it worked anyway . . .least is greatest, first is last . . .mind of a child can get in . . .but “that” day, Jesus changed the direction of his ministry from the kingdom, to his up-coming death, burial and resurrection . . .Peter messed up that one to. That was when he interveined and tried to talk Jesus out of going to Jerusalem all together and he got rebuked for it. Why? Because all Peter heard was . .death and burial . . just like religion . . .but what Jesus was saying was . . .he was on his way to bring us resurrection . . .the death and burial were merely stepping stones to the prize. May we hear the message of resurrection so that we to can avoid beoming the adversary (definition of “satan”) to God’s purpose for all of our lives.
[bold/italics mine]
So we have the appeal from Psalm 115:3: "But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased." Which kind of seem arbitraury when you read it like that. Yet if indeed the scriptures are His Word, then we already have the mind of God and what He wants. And what He has done is place His Word above His Name (Psalm 138:2). So you can’t tell me that we cannot determine that God is basically love (as well as all the other attributes), nor that the attribute of love trumps all others (of which the two commandments hang upon). If one understands the purpose of God in relation to Man is that God loves us and He wants us to love Him back as well as love others as ourselves. Some are obviously going to take longer to grasp this than other. Indeed, even the best of us will not have perfected it in our life time. But God has all the time in the world. Why would one suppose that the finite, frail, and ignorant beings who can only hope for 70-80 years will be able to satisfy every requirement with that time? Granted, one must start in the proper spot, that is Christ. But even then, that’s no guarantee. I know some people who are more loving than I, and they’re not even Christians.
I won’t go into Romans 9:22-23 because i don’t think that it even addresses eternity (or the whole chapter, for that matter).
Out of curiosity I looked up Psalm 115. The quote is, not surprisingly, taken out of context again (though not so freakishly contraventive to his position as his appeal to Isaiah, discussed upthread. 
)
The statement is made in order to contrast the Living God with dead idols who have no power, including no power to save, nor to bless, nor to give the earth to the sons of men.
True, “the dead” may not praise YHWH or any who go down into silence (as toward the end of the Psalm), but that isn’t about YHWH doing what He pleases in the heavens (or anywhere else): that’s about sinners doing what they please in sheol.
(What God pleases to do in Sheol, especially in regard to sinners, is not discussed in that Psalm. )
I just find this too ironic to be funny!! But it still makes me laugh. The quote by Francis out of Psalms 115 that was posted here on this thread . . .the guy used “this” passage as his defense that not only can God do what he wants, but hell exists because God “wants” to send us there? Is he the one that’s supposed to have written a book called “Crazy love”? Because I find it odd that someone who has no clue what true love is all about would then decide to write a book on what they know nothing about.
Here’s the funny part . . .or ironic . . .they kinda go hand in hand by now. "He left off at Psalms 115:3 . . .what he SHOULD have done is apply the very next part to his INWARD nature and he’d hopefully find a pattern there.
4Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men’s hands.
5They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not:
6They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not:
7They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat.
8They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them.
For me, the doctrine of hell has become an idol in the church. They force their members to bow down to their version of it and if you don’t, then you either have to be silent about it, or leave. But as they continue to worship these idols, they become just like them . . .it deafens their ability to hear God speaking in their hearts. It blinds their ability to see God’s voice. I posted this very same passage yesterday or the day before . . .not sure where I did it though. In fact, when Jason stated he looked it up out of curiosity and found it was taken out of context, I felt a bit unnerved because, until I read the thread further, I thought he was responding to “my” post on the passage. That’s the eerie part. But there’s a connecting passage in Psalms.
Psalms 135
15The idols of the heathen are silver and gold, the work of men’s hands.
16They have mouths, but they speak not; eyes have they, but they see not;
17They have ears, but they hear not; neither is there any breath in their mouths.
18They that make them are like unto them: so is every one that trusteth in them.
This one still jumps at me . . .verse 17 . .there’s no breath in their mouths. For me, that’s saying there’s no spirit, there’s no life in their words. And people who agree and embrace them become just like them. White washed tombs. Throats of death . . .bad breath to say the least.
Jesuscreed is running a series by Jeff Cook on Erasing Hell. Interesting discussion there. My 19 yo daughter (a Harvard student who loves all things Asian and is in China studying Mandarin right now) thinks very highly of Francis Chan. I predict some lively discussions in our future, although I’m not interested in reading the book. (dd is a pretty persuasive apologist against universalism in her own right- CS Lewis style. She said it would not be loving of me to lock her in my house if she hated me and chose to be a prodigal. And I think she’s right.)
Anyway, I put in my 2 cents over there comment 113.
That part is true . . .one thing about parenting is that we also need to let our kids experience falling down for themselves so they’ll learn how to stand back up. But it doesn’t make watching them fall down any easier to accept. So . . .it’s true that you can’t lock up a prodigal under durress . . .at the same time, does she think God would lock her up in torment for eternity just because her head couldn’t wrap around his infinite nature?
You as a mother however, love her so unconditionally and so infinitely that your door is forever open for when she returns. And because she is still your daughter with that “mother-sized hole”, the witness of your prayers and desires constantly drawing her, she too like the Prodigal who has found the swine pit to be no glorious life, will return.
If she considers it unloving to keep a human soul “prisoner” to God, who is Love, and Grace, and Goodness, and Blessedness, and Righteousness, and Freedom, and Hope, and Faith, and everything wonderful - then I would consider it a greater unlovingness, even the death of God himself who is Love, if He as God should never let the Prodigal come home, even as a disembodied spirit. God is not defeated by Death, not by his own death on a cross, and not by the death of anyone.
If the acceptance of Salvation requires that one accept it while alive - behold; God will raise every man in the Resurrection, they will be alive indeed.
Late to this thread I see but I will throw something out there anyways.
When Chan quoted Isaiah 55 he could have been simply stressing that there are things that God does that humans don’t understand. Though Chan doesn’t specifically mention the context this quote was found in, ie/ having mercy on rebel sinners if they turn to the Lord, he does list off a number of examples in which he wouldn’t have acted like God- some acts of punishment, but also including sending his perfect Son to save wicked people.
If the meaning of Isaiah 55:8-9 is only that God has mercy on rebel sinners when we wouldn’t have shown mercy, then shouldn’t the verses read something along the lines of “God’s ways toward sinners are more merciful than ours”?
As written, that his ways and thoughts are higher than ours, it seems to be open to a broader application. Valid point that God is more loving than we expect, but as in Chan’s examples of God’s punishment ie with Job, the reality could also be that God might punish when our first inclination would be to do otherwise, could it not? If I am not in line in with God in one aspect [showing mercy] then I would wager to bet that in other areas [justice, punishment, joy, gentleness, etc] I am also not on the same plane as God: Certainly I would make a poor judge. The point of Isaiah 55: 8-9 as I read it seems to be God’s ways are higher than mine, including -but not limited to- how he shows mercy.
Thoughts?
Tim
Tim,
I think it’s not incorrect to extrapolate the principle to other facets of the character of God. However, since it is specifically and explicitly used in terms of God’s mercy being incomprehensibly greater than ours, it would seem to be inappropriate to use this saying in order to limit the extent of God’s mercy. Especially since some of us humans are merciful enough to desire the salvation of even the worst enemies of humanity, including our own worst enemies. There is no way that our mercifulness can be greater than God’s.
I would not agree that the fact that our sense of justice is also much inferior to God’s can be used to reduce God’s mercy to a lower level than our own.
By the way, welcome to the forum, and thanks for the comment!
Sonia
Exactly! 
I’ve often thought that same thing. It wouldn’t make sense us being more merciful then God. If anything we can have the ability to hate our enemies, wishing them harm if they hurt us… whereas God says to love our enemies.
And welcome aboard Tim.
As Sonia noted, it wouldn’t be proper to simply exclude the saying as having application beyond mercy (since God’s ways are demonstrably higher than our ways in other non-disputed regards, such as omniscience).
However, the verses occur smack in the middle of an extended discussion on God’s mercy and salvation of sinners, exhorting sinners not to lose hope but rather encouraging all who thirst to come drink of healthy life from God without cost, and to listen in order to live, the result being that God will make an ongoing covenant with whoever will do this. (The promise of a covenant is admittedly conditional, but it is also offered to all sinners.)
The topic is explicitly mercy and salvation, going back into practically all of chapter 54, too. 55:8-9 may not explicitly mention those topics, but they might as well have done so.
Ignoring the context in order to quote those verses against hope of salvation from sin, when God said those verses deep within context of hope of salvation from sin…? At best, that’s wildly incompetent. It might even count as being anti-inspired (even without conscious approval) to reverse the declaration of God.
I wouldn’t dare imagine that someone would flagrantly reverse the contextual meaning on purpose, aside from a devil, or a conscious servant of the devil, which Francis evidences elsewhere he certainly is not. But this is no small failure, particularly in the middle of a claim by Francis to have studied the scriptures deeply and seriously so as to present the truth against statements taken out of context. Even if the rest of his book was of supreme quality, that application remains wrong, wrong, wrongity wrong. There is no possible way to make such an application for that purpose better.
I do not mean there is no possible way for a Calvinist to properly apply the verse in context–although I wouldn’t want to be the Calv theologian tasked with explaining how the covenant offered to all sinners earlier in chapter 55 doesn’t really apply as a serious offer, or as an offer at all, to all sinners. But a Calv theologian could easily make use of 55:8-9 in context, to evangelistically emphasize the amazing saving capability of God. Just as an Arm theologian could easily make use of 55:8-9 in context, to evangelistically emphasize the amazing saving scope of God.
And just like a Kath theologian could easily make use of 55:8-9 in context, to evangelistically emphasize both the scope and the capability. 
But the point either way (or both ways! ) is an explicitly evangelical appeal for sinners to be saved from their sins. God can get it done, no matter how vile the sinner (even to the murderer of God who tries to put herself up in the place of God, as earlier in the context). And God intends to get it done, no matter how vile the sinner (offering salvation freely to all who thirst in sin).
For God’s ways are higher than our ways, and His thoughts are higher than our thoughts.
That’s practically the good-message, the euangelion, the gospel, right there. God loves sinners, too, and goes the distance to save them from their sins–even the ones we can’t imagine being saved (and maybe don’t want to be saved).
If those verses are not being quoted in positive support of the gospel of salvation (which Francis was definitely not doing), they’re being quoted out of context. And maybe even quoted against the gospel of salvation.
Which, it has to be said, is exactly what Francis was doing, even if only inadvertently (but still ultra-incompetently).
As for me, I would sooner die the death than quote them against the gospel of salvation, considering their context. That would be like denying the name of Jesus (“the Lord saves”). I am not usually given to emotional outbursts, but if I found I had been doing such a thing, I would be wailing and gnashing my teeth against myself, that I had even inadvertently quoted God out of context against the gospel of salvation.
I can (sort of) understand quoting God against salvation from sin in what I thought, upon study, to be context indicating such a thing. And had Francis been doing such a thing in his promotional video, I wouldn’t have bothered to say anything (aside from some ironic technical observations perhaps, seeing as I find many such supposed sources against hope of salvation from sin to be pointing instead toward that hope for the people being punished for their sins.)
But I do not have words strong enough to express my repudiation of quoting God against salvation from sin, from a context emphatically focused on the hope from God, in God, by God, for salvation from sin and into righteous loyalty to God.