Between Two Theives- Rob Bell and Eternity

Just recently I have found myself engaged in several Facebook discussion about a new book by Rob Bell that proposes to solve the question of who goes to Heaven. As I saw him interviewed at length regarding this book I was at first surprised, and then deeply dismayed. One statement Bell made was that "the only people who will not go to Heaven are those who do not want to be there". Bell referred to a wedding he presided over where the bride's father did not want to be there, and then drew a comparison between that, and Heaven. If you do not want to be there then God is not going to make you go there, because God is love, and love would not force you to be somewhere you don't want to be. I was deeply dismayed by this comment, and although Bell is free to ascribe to any religious philosophy he so chooses, he should be wary of leading the masses of his followers down this dangerous path. As I struggled to understand his viewpoint, my mind was drawn to the sacrifice of the cross and it's central importance in the work of salvation. As Jesus hung dying between two thieves, one of the men mocked him with the idea that He could save himself from this ignominious death. The second thief responded asking Jesus to remember him when he reached Paradise. Jesus told the second thief that he would be in Paradise that day. What is the difference between the two thieves? One showed belief and made a request that was based on his faith that Jesus could do exactly what the thief had requested of him. Are we to assume that the second thief received the same treatment as the first? If he so wished, would he also be entering into Paradise? It would seem that Bell feels the second thief would be in Paradise as well. Why then would Jesus even have bothered to tell the dying thief that he would join Him in Paradise that day, if indeed both thieves would be in Heaven. Seems like a waste of His dying breath. I feel there was a major significance in Jesus' words to this dying man, as the man's words were prompted by his faith and belief in the changing power of Christ. Another concept that disturbed me was that Bell clearly postulated that "Heaven and Hell" are a state of being while we live our lives on earth. When asked about Heaven and the afterlife, the only answer Bell gave was very flippant and insincere.."do I think Heaven is a place with gold streets and where everyone drives a fancy sports car...No." I am not sure what group is proposing this "sports car" Heaven, but Bell seems to be effectively combatting this ever elusive group of miscreants. I was more under the impression that Heaven was all about spending time with our Creator in fellowship with Him and even if Bell beleives this in some corner of his mind, his flippant answer was actually rather disgusting to me. To minimize the presence of the Holy Trinity for eternity for the sake of hyperbole is a tragic understatement of what the conversion process entails. The idea that all who want to will be able to attain Heaven also brings up a very disturbing mistake that God must have made. Why did he send the Holy Spirit if everyone is going to Heaven either way. Who even needs guidance? Who even needs to interact with the Father and the Son? Who needs to heed the battle that Paul presents between the flesh and the Spirit. Who needs regeneration? I can anticipate that those who support Bell would begin to follow the mantra of Love being the focus of all things Christian, as I have seen and heard Bell ascribe to this idea repeatedly. It is hard to argue against this idea of an all encompassing love that would send none to punishment. I kind of like it, and if i did not have kids of my own I would be more likely to support this theory, but that love also propells me to give them boundaries and set limits, and at time even discipline them. I know they are prone to wander, and this is sadly enough something they share in common with all mankind. This is where another trait of God that Bell seems to ignore fully comes in to play. God is indeed a God of justice. (not fairness-Justice) We as man are fallen and are in direct opposition to the justice that God demands of us. He did not make each and every one of us choose to cheat on a test, to pick and choose which laws we follow, to lie to our fellow man, to be absorbed in greed, to envy our neighbours boat or car or Lear jet. This fallen state required a sacrifice to bring us back into alignment with our Creator. In what is the greatest act of love, God sent his Son as our atonement. Jesus died on the cross so that we would have a choice. That choice must be made. It cannot be assumed, it cannot be generalized, it cannot be spread around evenly in the idea of fairness which we as humans seem sadly predicated toward. God's justice and love must by necessity coexist for there to be any meaning to our conversion. Our need must dictate our response. We certainly prefer His love over His justice, but to discount the one while preaching the more palatable is negotiating with the One who has already negotiated our freedom. Love does indeed win, as Rob Bell has stated, but it does so as the counterbalance to the justice that God has required. This love, however, does not negate the process of the Holy Spirit wooing and drawing sinners towards the cross. Seeing the cure, or hearing about the cure for any given illness does not in itself provide healing. The cure must somehow be administered to a willing patient. A conscious decision to change from one path to another is an integral part of the salvation experience. The thief on the cross knew this to be true and acted accrodingly. I only hope and pray that you make this decision as well. That being said... In the immortal words of Dr. Evil (paraphrased) "I am finished with the Rob Bell conversation":)