I discovered that my author's storefront, http://store.rlcopple.com, had experienced some problems from people who tried to order on it or obtain the free ebook. During login as well as some functions of checking out, a blank page would appear, making it difficult to buy anything.
That has now been fixed, site updated, and my test show it operating as one would expect. I apologize for the difficulties in processing orders. You are now free to move about the storefront!
Thank you.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Karina Fabian Interviews Me
Author Karina Fabian is promoting Transforming Realities this week on her blog, and has a good interview with me posted. Please visit her blog and leave a comment. And while there, consider picking up one of her books. Her latest will have you laughing.
Thanks, Karina, for doing this!
Thanks, Karina, for doing this!
Sunday, July 12, 2009
"Deuces Wild: Beginners' Luck" Review
On the surface, Deuces Wild: Beginners' Luck by L. S. King is a good, old-fashion, space opera story full of adventure with a touch of humor that most, if not all, will enjoy. Are there are explosions? Yes! Battles? A plenty! Spacey technology? Yep, but the story doesn't get bogged down in it. Aliens? You bettcha, including their cultures and a believable world.
But there are two other details needed to make a book of any kind interesting: plot and characters.
On the plot front, the story consist of the two main characters, Slap and Tristan, who confront the Mordas, a Mafia-like group controlling Slap's planet. The Mordas attempt to steal the settlers' land, even if it means killing. Slap's loss of his wife and children at their hands leads to meeting Tristan at the beginning of the story. Their two fates become intertwined with interesting results as they attempt to avoid capture, or are busy rescuing one another from capture. Along the way, they meet a respectable cast of secondary characters and adventures that adds spice to the tale and moves the story forward. In the end, they return for a final confrontation with the self-appointed organization controlling Slap's planet in a satisfying battle.
The plot is standard fare, but L. S. King puts enough of her own spin on it to keep it interesting. However, if this was the extent of the book, it wouldn't be enough to make it stand out. What really causes this to rise above your average space opera tale are the two characters. King has taken pains to paint two very three-dimensional characters who you'd never expect to become friends. They don't even expect themselves to become friends. But by the end of the book, they know it and the reader knows it. But what does a mercenary with a hidden past and agenda, and a moral cowboy-like family man have in common? On the surface, not much, but the fun is in watching them find out that real friendship has roots that dig under the surface of differences and bind them to one another. Then when events force them to make a decision, they discover their bond brings them to one another's aid—because they care.
The real joy of this book is in watching that friendship unfold and tested between these two endearing characters. For me, it is what makes this book worth reading. The interesting plot, the space and planetary backdrop and cultures, the adventure and explosions, are all icing on the cake, making this book one well-rounded story that few would regret plunking down the money to read.
There are some minor drawbacks to note. For me, it took a while to get into the story with the switching between the two main characters frequently. One character per chapter would have made it easier. That said, the confusion was temporary. Once I read further in and the two story lines became more solidified in my head, I had no problem. Most of the time the switches were done well, but I think it was the frequency of them that made getting a handle on the story more difficult, at first.
There were also spots where it was too easy to lose who was talking, but that didn't happen frequently. And a minor info-hiding toward the end of the story. It could be justified and was minor enough it didn't distract from the story, but it was info hiding.
Positives aside from what I've mentioned above is solid writing—it never distracted me from the story but pulled me into it. The printing is of good quality, and a snappy cover that while giving a picture of the two characters and is a cool graphic, doesn't accomplish much more, but fun to look at.
I recommend this as a good read for most anyone. While set in a science fiction world, the story itself is one anyone can identify with. For space opera lovers, this is a must read—a prime example of an exciting but well-rounded adventure. I fully enjoyed it, and I bet you'll not regret picking this one up.
But there are two other details needed to make a book of any kind interesting: plot and characters.
On the plot front, the story consist of the two main characters, Slap and Tristan, who confront the Mordas, a Mafia-like group controlling Slap's planet. The Mordas attempt to steal the settlers' land, even if it means killing. Slap's loss of his wife and children at their hands leads to meeting Tristan at the beginning of the story. Their two fates become intertwined with interesting results as they attempt to avoid capture, or are busy rescuing one another from capture. Along the way, they meet a respectable cast of secondary characters and adventures that adds spice to the tale and moves the story forward. In the end, they return for a final confrontation with the self-appointed organization controlling Slap's planet in a satisfying battle.
The plot is standard fare, but L. S. King puts enough of her own spin on it to keep it interesting. However, if this was the extent of the book, it wouldn't be enough to make it stand out. What really causes this to rise above your average space opera tale are the two characters. King has taken pains to paint two very three-dimensional characters who you'd never expect to become friends. They don't even expect themselves to become friends. But by the end of the book, they know it and the reader knows it. But what does a mercenary with a hidden past and agenda, and a moral cowboy-like family man have in common? On the surface, not much, but the fun is in watching them find out that real friendship has roots that dig under the surface of differences and bind them to one another. Then when events force them to make a decision, they discover their bond brings them to one another's aid—because they care.
The real joy of this book is in watching that friendship unfold and tested between these two endearing characters. For me, it is what makes this book worth reading. The interesting plot, the space and planetary backdrop and cultures, the adventure and explosions, are all icing on the cake, making this book one well-rounded story that few would regret plunking down the money to read.
There are some minor drawbacks to note. For me, it took a while to get into the story with the switching between the two main characters frequently. One character per chapter would have made it easier. That said, the confusion was temporary. Once I read further in and the two story lines became more solidified in my head, I had no problem. Most of the time the switches were done well, but I think it was the frequency of them that made getting a handle on the story more difficult, at first.
There were also spots where it was too easy to lose who was talking, but that didn't happen frequently. And a minor info-hiding toward the end of the story. It could be justified and was minor enough it didn't distract from the story, but it was info hiding.
Positives aside from what I've mentioned above is solid writing—it never distracted me from the story but pulled me into it. The printing is of good quality, and a snappy cover that while giving a picture of the two characters and is a cool graphic, doesn't accomplish much more, but fun to look at.
I recommend this as a good read for most anyone. While set in a science fiction world, the story itself is one anyone can identify with. For space opera lovers, this is a must read—a prime example of an exciting but well-rounded adventure. I fully enjoyed it, and I bet you'll not regret picking this one up.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Breaking the Rules
I've read some perspectives on points of view recently, primarily first person, that I find myself disagreeing with.
Nancy Kress in her book, "Characters, Emotions, and Points of View" writes that in first person, it is like you're in their head all the time, so you can't do multiple points of view (though she suggest there are novels that do that successfully). And in first person, the point of view is artificial compared to others, in that people don't go through life giving a word-for-word accounting of what they were thinking or a dialog that took place.
I understand where she was coming from, and who am I, a newbie published author, telling Nancy Kress she's wrong? But I don't feel that first person is any more artificial than third person. In each case, what you have is someone telling a story. In third person, it is someone telling a story about someone else. In first, someone is telling their own story. In either case, it would be artificial for them to recall word-for-word dialog and details. On that point, third person is just as artificial. That's what it all boils down to. People realize that fact and generally accept it in trade for having the feeling of "being there" with the character and sinking into the story. No narrator is going to have that much detail at their fingertips. As a matter of fact, one would expect a first person narrator to know more of the details than a third person narrator.
I've also heard it said that scene breaks are not proper for a first person point of view. In a stream-of-consciousness story, I would suggest that would be true. That is the only type of story where you are in someone's head without break. But if you can have scene breaks in third, you can in first as well. After all, if someone is telling us a story, no matter who it is about, and they want to skip over the parts that don't really move the story along, why would you include that?
To put it another way, if I'm telling my son about something that happened to me and I wanted to dramatize it, it would be natural for me to skip over the parts that weren't relevant to the story. Same as third person. Scene breaks in first person are quite natural, in fact and don't violate the point of view.
I think what confuses people is that first person is automatically associated with a close first person. For by default, that is what most first person is. It is one of the advantages of first person, down to being able to see things the way the character sees them, even if it is wrong and not the truth. Out of all the points of view, you can get the closest to a character in it. So when it is used, it tends to be used with that goal in mind.
But, you can have a more distant first person. This is a case where the narrator "I" becomes more overt, just like in distant third or even omniscient. Yes, there is an omniscient first. But it is not the same as omniscient third. In first, you don't jump from head to head at will. However, it is the blatantly overt narrator who already knows how the story will play out, and may make comments like, "If I'd known then what I know now, I wouldn't have entered that building." They're omniscient in the sense they will look over the whole story as it is being told, knowing how it all fits together, who will do what, and how it all will end. It is more like sitting by a fire while your uncle tells you a story from when he was in the war.
So first person can have distance like third can, or be close where the narrator, though there, is invisible and you're reading it "as it happened." But the past tense still says, "this happened in the past so someone is telling you this after the fact." It is still narrated and so can take all the same rules that a third person narration would take. What changes that is whether either is close or more distant.
Another assumed rule about first person is that you cannot write a first person story where the point of view character dies. The idea is, who is telling you the story? If it is past tense, which most first person is, then that assumes you have a dead narrator telling you the story. How can that be? Third person avoids that because it is someone else who is narrating.
But I'm not that hung up on that issue. Here's why. The above only holds true if you're of the belief that once you die, that's the end of things. You pass away into oblivion and exist no more. But there are plenty of beliefs out there which would say otherwise--that say you do continue to live on in another state. And in many of these beliefs, there are stories of people who have come back to help others or talk to them. Christianity, for example, has plenty of stories of saints returning to guide someone in need. It would not be hard to imagine that such a person has returned in spirit form to tell his or her story. This explanation even works for mainstream, but certainly for fantasy and non-hard science fiction.
So, whether such a "framing story" is explicitly stated or not, I find it probably that you could have a narrator telling us his or her story who no longer is bound by this life. But on this issue, the practical reality is that there are a lot of editors out there who see it differently. So violate at your own risk. I've had stories rejected because my first person point of view character died.
If you find yourself in such a situation, there are three things you can do. One is to create that framing story explicitly. Have the ghost return to tell someone his story. Maybe he can't be released from this world until he gets it off his chest. We've seen such stories, so making it into a framing story would help make sense of the first person character dying in the end.
Two, convert your story to third person. You can keep it in a close third and not lose much. But if your plot depends on the reader seeing an untruth as true through the first person point of view, you could consider the third option, as unlikely as you are to use it.
Three, you could convert your story to a first person, presence tense. Being in presence tense, your story ends when the character dies...because he's the narrator. But since it is present tense, you can take the narration right up to when he or she dies. But, you'll have to balance what you gain from that with what you lose, which is difficulty in the reader adjusting to a hard-to-swallow point of view. Few like present tense for a story. I've read one, and it did take about three to five chapters before I wasn't thinking about the oddness of it. It takes some skill to write one that people will accept.
A possible fourth option, though it may not fly with an editor, is to explain in your cover letter why you're using first person past point of view even though your character dies in the end. Acknowledging that you're aware of this fact, and you are doing it on purpose for a specific reason may be enough for the editor to give it a chance.
In my Reality series, I use first person point of view in a semi-unique way. The basic rule is that the first person point of view follows the ring. You get a hint of that in the recently released book, "Transforming Realities," but it comes out even stronger in the last book, yet to be published, "The Reality." Because of that, I've done a couple of unconventional things. But as you can tell by this post, I'm not opposed to breaking the "rules" when I have a reason to do so. And I disagree with some of the rules given to begin with, radical that I am.
Nancy Kress in her book, "Characters, Emotions, and Points of View" writes that in first person, it is like you're in their head all the time, so you can't do multiple points of view (though she suggest there are novels that do that successfully). And in first person, the point of view is artificial compared to others, in that people don't go through life giving a word-for-word accounting of what they were thinking or a dialog that took place.
I understand where she was coming from, and who am I, a newbie published author, telling Nancy Kress she's wrong? But I don't feel that first person is any more artificial than third person. In each case, what you have is someone telling a story. In third person, it is someone telling a story about someone else. In first, someone is telling their own story. In either case, it would be artificial for them to recall word-for-word dialog and details. On that point, third person is just as artificial. That's what it all boils down to. People realize that fact and generally accept it in trade for having the feeling of "being there" with the character and sinking into the story. No narrator is going to have that much detail at their fingertips. As a matter of fact, one would expect a first person narrator to know more of the details than a third person narrator.
I've also heard it said that scene breaks are not proper for a first person point of view. In a stream-of-consciousness story, I would suggest that would be true. That is the only type of story where you are in someone's head without break. But if you can have scene breaks in third, you can in first as well. After all, if someone is telling us a story, no matter who it is about, and they want to skip over the parts that don't really move the story along, why would you include that?
To put it another way, if I'm telling my son about something that happened to me and I wanted to dramatize it, it would be natural for me to skip over the parts that weren't relevant to the story. Same as third person. Scene breaks in first person are quite natural, in fact and don't violate the point of view.
I think what confuses people is that first person is automatically associated with a close first person. For by default, that is what most first person is. It is one of the advantages of first person, down to being able to see things the way the character sees them, even if it is wrong and not the truth. Out of all the points of view, you can get the closest to a character in it. So when it is used, it tends to be used with that goal in mind.
But, you can have a more distant first person. This is a case where the narrator "I" becomes more overt, just like in distant third or even omniscient. Yes, there is an omniscient first. But it is not the same as omniscient third. In first, you don't jump from head to head at will. However, it is the blatantly overt narrator who already knows how the story will play out, and may make comments like, "If I'd known then what I know now, I wouldn't have entered that building." They're omniscient in the sense they will look over the whole story as it is being told, knowing how it all fits together, who will do what, and how it all will end. It is more like sitting by a fire while your uncle tells you a story from when he was in the war.
So first person can have distance like third can, or be close where the narrator, though there, is invisible and you're reading it "as it happened." But the past tense still says, "this happened in the past so someone is telling you this after the fact." It is still narrated and so can take all the same rules that a third person narration would take. What changes that is whether either is close or more distant.
Another assumed rule about first person is that you cannot write a first person story where the point of view character dies. The idea is, who is telling you the story? If it is past tense, which most first person is, then that assumes you have a dead narrator telling you the story. How can that be? Third person avoids that because it is someone else who is narrating.
But I'm not that hung up on that issue. Here's why. The above only holds true if you're of the belief that once you die, that's the end of things. You pass away into oblivion and exist no more. But there are plenty of beliefs out there which would say otherwise--that say you do continue to live on in another state. And in many of these beliefs, there are stories of people who have come back to help others or talk to them. Christianity, for example, has plenty of stories of saints returning to guide someone in need. It would not be hard to imagine that such a person has returned in spirit form to tell his or her story. This explanation even works for mainstream, but certainly for fantasy and non-hard science fiction.
So, whether such a "framing story" is explicitly stated or not, I find it probably that you could have a narrator telling us his or her story who no longer is bound by this life. But on this issue, the practical reality is that there are a lot of editors out there who see it differently. So violate at your own risk. I've had stories rejected because my first person point of view character died.
If you find yourself in such a situation, there are three things you can do. One is to create that framing story explicitly. Have the ghost return to tell someone his story. Maybe he can't be released from this world until he gets it off his chest. We've seen such stories, so making it into a framing story would help make sense of the first person character dying in the end.
Two, convert your story to third person. You can keep it in a close third and not lose much. But if your plot depends on the reader seeing an untruth as true through the first person point of view, you could consider the third option, as unlikely as you are to use it.
Three, you could convert your story to a first person, presence tense. Being in presence tense, your story ends when the character dies...because he's the narrator. But since it is present tense, you can take the narration right up to when he or she dies. But, you'll have to balance what you gain from that with what you lose, which is difficulty in the reader adjusting to a hard-to-swallow point of view. Few like present tense for a story. I've read one, and it did take about three to five chapters before I wasn't thinking about the oddness of it. It takes some skill to write one that people will accept.
A possible fourth option, though it may not fly with an editor, is to explain in your cover letter why you're using first person past point of view even though your character dies in the end. Acknowledging that you're aware of this fact, and you are doing it on purpose for a specific reason may be enough for the editor to give it a chance.
In my Reality series, I use first person point of view in a semi-unique way. The basic rule is that the first person point of view follows the ring. You get a hint of that in the recently released book, "Transforming Realities," but it comes out even stronger in the last book, yet to be published, "The Reality." Because of that, I've done a couple of unconventional things. But as you can tell by this post, I'm not opposed to breaking the "rules" when I have a reason to do so. And I disagree with some of the rules given to begin with, radical that I am.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
New Covey Cover Awards
My book, Transforming Realities, is in the running for the New Covey Cover Awards. E. J. Mickels did a great job on the cover and I think it stands a good chance of winning. But to do that, enough people have to vote on it. The voting is already in progress, and ends on June 30, 2009. So I would appreciate all who like this cover to go and express your opinion by voting for it.It is number 14 in the list. Be sure to click the right one!
Thanks.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
The Nature of Hell
Hell is not a place apart from God.
I know that may not be what many have been taught. Some may consider it a new concept that doesn't match the Bible's teachings. But if you'll bear with me for a few paragraphs, I'll show you how this ancient theological concept actually has abundant Biblical support.
But why am I throwing this out now? Quite simply, my Reality series has as its underlying theological foundation this fact. It is in fact God's glory, His unfiltered, unhidden face-to-face contact that either puts one into a state of heaven or hell based upon the person's relationship with Jesus Christ--their union with Him--so that His healing life can attune us to God's glory and enable us to live in it.
First, we must state the nature of God to understand the rest. Hebrews 12:29 says it most directly: "...for our God is a consuming fire."
We see evidence of that through the Bible. Deuteronomy 5:24-26:
The same sentiment is listed in other passages like Deuteronomy 4:33, 18:6, and Psalms 50:3. The Old Testament also backs up what we find in Hebrews: Deuteronomy 4:24, "For Jehovah thy God is a devouring fire, a jealous God." Moses experiences God as a fire around a bush that doesn't consume it (Exodus 3:2). Fire is used to devour the sacrifices, the most dramatic example being Elijah's duel with the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:25).
In the New Testament, not only does Hebrews state this directly, Paul speaks of it when he talks about those who enter the next life in less than perfect shape:
There are some key concepts in this passage. One, this fire is where the saved will be. This is God's nature as an "all consuming fire." It is coming into His presence which results in the dross of our lives being burned away. This is also stated in the Old Testament:
Two, it is taken as a given that those who don't have Jesus Christ as their foundation will experience this fire, but it will not be unto salvation or refining, rather it will be the second death, Hell itself. To be saved from this devouring fire, the minimum requirement listed is to have Christ as the foundation of our life. Those who are saved are enabled to live in the fire by Christ.
The premier example of that is the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego in Daniel 3. They refused to bow down to Nebuchadnezzar's idol, and as a result the king had the fire heated seven times hotter than usual and tossed the threesome into it as a punishment. What did the king see? He saw the three dancing in the fire, unharmed, and a fourth with them like the Son of Man. Theologians generally say this fourth is Jesus Christ with them. I have a scene similar to this in Transforming Realities. Indeed in each of the books of the Reality Series, you will find a place where the one wearing the ring goes through some type of fire and lives. This is a type of being able to live in the "all consuming fire" of God's presence.
But those who are not ready for it by the union with Jesus Christ will experience a different reality. Psalms 68:2 says, "As smoke is driven away, so drive them away: As wax melteth before the fire, So let the wicked perish at the presence of God." Again, we see that Hell becomes a reality not away from God's presence, but by being fully exposed to it.
This is why in Revelation 6:15-16 it says, "And the kings of the earth, and the princes, and the chief captains, and the rich, and the strong, and every bondman and freeman, hid themselves in the caves and in the rocks of the mountains; and they say to the mountains and to the rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb." They fear His presence even as Adam and Eve did the day they sinned, for they lost the clothing of God's glory about them and could no longer bear God's presence due to their nakedness. It is for this reason that no man can see the face of God and live, as God told Moses on Mt. Sinai (Exodus 33:20).
But on the last day, the Day of Judgment, that will change. Then His glory will be fully revealed and it will result in dividing the sheep from the goats, that is, those who have Christ as their foundation (Matthew 25:31-32). The result of that event is those who have not been healed by union with Christ will be forced to see God face-to-face in all His glory, and it will result in their second death.
"Wait! Hold on," I hear you saying. "Doesn't it say in that parable that Christ tells the wicked to depart from him into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels?" Yes it does, Matthew 25:41. Keep in mind two things here. This is Christ talking to them, so he does have a resurrected bodily presence. So there is a sense in which they will depart from Him. However, that doesn't mean they can depart from his fiery presence, for it is no longer hidden as it is now and fills creation. You see, when Adam and Eve fell, God allowed creation to fall with them so that they would not be immediately destroyed. Fallen creation acted as a buffer hiding the full presence of God from them. This is what it means that they were cast out of Paradise. But at the last day, creation will be redeemed and there will no longer be this life to hide from God presence. There will be no where for those without Christ to hide from His glory. Remember? There is no sun there because Christ's glory will be so bright there is no need for one. They will depart from his bodily presence, but not from his "all consuming fire."
In Revelation we see elements of this as well. John in describing what he saw around the throne says in Revelation 15:2, "And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire; and them that come off victorious from the beast, and from his image, and from the number of his name, standing by the sea of glass, having harps of God." This is known as the "river of fire" proceeding from the throne of God. This is representative of the fire that divides the sheep from the goats, refining and sending the former into heaven and the later into Hell.
But someone may still say, "But what about Lazarus and the Rich Man story Jesus told? It made it sound like the rich man was in a separate place apart from Lazarus and Abraham." And in this instance, yes they were in separate places. There's obviously a gulf separating them, but apparently of a different nature than distance since they could still talk with each other and the rich man seemed to think it would be possible for Lazarus to bring him some water.
However, the rich man is not in Hell as in the eternal lake of fire we've been talking about. Yes, some translations like the KJV use the word "hell" to say where he is, but the Greek word used here (per Strongs) is,
When the Scriptures mean the literal lake of fire and not Hades, it uses the word,
This is why you will find some translations that use "hell" in relation to where the rich man is, but also Hades for that is the literal rendering of the word used, not the lake of fire. And there is a sense that the saved, like Lazarus, go to Paradise to await the final Day of Judgment, while Hades is the holding place of those who face death. That Hades and Hell are two separate realities is clear from Revelation 20:14, "And death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death, even the lake of fire." Hades itself is destroyed by Hell. In the Reality Series, especially the last book, this reality plays a key part in what happens.
But it is because some reading that book where this division is made more clearer, they will have questions about both Hades and Hell not being the same thing, and what Hell really is, that I wanted to post this now. When people have those questions, they will have this reference to the theological reality being presented in the books. I pray this adequately clarifies and helps explain some of what happens in all the books, and how it plays into the final ending of the series and the ring's journey.
I know that may not be what many have been taught. Some may consider it a new concept that doesn't match the Bible's teachings. But if you'll bear with me for a few paragraphs, I'll show you how this ancient theological concept actually has abundant Biblical support.
But why am I throwing this out now? Quite simply, my Reality series has as its underlying theological foundation this fact. It is in fact God's glory, His unfiltered, unhidden face-to-face contact that either puts one into a state of heaven or hell based upon the person's relationship with Jesus Christ--their union with Him--so that His healing life can attune us to God's glory and enable us to live in it.
First, we must state the nature of God to understand the rest. Hebrews 12:29 says it most directly: "...for our God is a consuming fire."
We see evidence of that through the Bible. Deuteronomy 5:24-26:
and ye said, Behold, Jehovah our God hath showed us his glory and his greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire: we have seen this day that God doth speak with man, and he liveth. Now therefore why should we die? for this great fire will consume us: if we hear the voice of Jehovah our God any more, then we shall die. For who is there of all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived?
The same sentiment is listed in other passages like Deuteronomy 4:33, 18:6, and Psalms 50:3. The Old Testament also backs up what we find in Hebrews: Deuteronomy 4:24, "For Jehovah thy God is a devouring fire, a jealous God." Moses experiences God as a fire around a bush that doesn't consume it (Exodus 3:2). Fire is used to devour the sacrifices, the most dramatic example being Elijah's duel with the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:25).
In the New Testament, not only does Hebrews state this directly, Paul speaks of it when he talks about those who enter the next life in less than perfect shape:
(1 Corinthians 3:11-15) For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. But if any man buildeth on the foundation gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay, stubble; each man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it is revealed in fire; and the fire itself shall prove each man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work shall abide which he built thereon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as through fire.
There are some key concepts in this passage. One, this fire is where the saved will be. This is God's nature as an "all consuming fire." It is coming into His presence which results in the dross of our lives being burned away. This is also stated in the Old Testament:
(Zechariah 13:9) And I will bring the third part into the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried. They shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people; and they shall say, Jehovah is my God.
Two, it is taken as a given that those who don't have Jesus Christ as their foundation will experience this fire, but it will not be unto salvation or refining, rather it will be the second death, Hell itself. To be saved from this devouring fire, the minimum requirement listed is to have Christ as the foundation of our life. Those who are saved are enabled to live in the fire by Christ.
The premier example of that is the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego in Daniel 3. They refused to bow down to Nebuchadnezzar's idol, and as a result the king had the fire heated seven times hotter than usual and tossed the threesome into it as a punishment. What did the king see? He saw the three dancing in the fire, unharmed, and a fourth with them like the Son of Man. Theologians generally say this fourth is Jesus Christ with them. I have a scene similar to this in Transforming Realities. Indeed in each of the books of the Reality Series, you will find a place where the one wearing the ring goes through some type of fire and lives. This is a type of being able to live in the "all consuming fire" of God's presence.
But those who are not ready for it by the union with Jesus Christ will experience a different reality. Psalms 68:2 says, "As smoke is driven away, so drive them away: As wax melteth before the fire, So let the wicked perish at the presence of God." Again, we see that Hell becomes a reality not away from God's presence, but by being fully exposed to it.
This is why in Revelation 6:15-16 it says, "And the kings of the earth, and the princes, and the chief captains, and the rich, and the strong, and every bondman and freeman, hid themselves in the caves and in the rocks of the mountains; and they say to the mountains and to the rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb." They fear His presence even as Adam and Eve did the day they sinned, for they lost the clothing of God's glory about them and could no longer bear God's presence due to their nakedness. It is for this reason that no man can see the face of God and live, as God told Moses on Mt. Sinai (Exodus 33:20).
But on the last day, the Day of Judgment, that will change. Then His glory will be fully revealed and it will result in dividing the sheep from the goats, that is, those who have Christ as their foundation (Matthew 25:31-32). The result of that event is those who have not been healed by union with Christ will be forced to see God face-to-face in all His glory, and it will result in their second death.
"Wait! Hold on," I hear you saying. "Doesn't it say in that parable that Christ tells the wicked to depart from him into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels?" Yes it does, Matthew 25:41. Keep in mind two things here. This is Christ talking to them, so he does have a resurrected bodily presence. So there is a sense in which they will depart from Him. However, that doesn't mean they can depart from his fiery presence, for it is no longer hidden as it is now and fills creation. You see, when Adam and Eve fell, God allowed creation to fall with them so that they would not be immediately destroyed. Fallen creation acted as a buffer hiding the full presence of God from them. This is what it means that they were cast out of Paradise. But at the last day, creation will be redeemed and there will no longer be this life to hide from God presence. There will be no where for those without Christ to hide from His glory. Remember? There is no sun there because Christ's glory will be so bright there is no need for one. They will depart from his bodily presence, but not from his "all consuming fire."
In Revelation we see elements of this as well. John in describing what he saw around the throne says in Revelation 15:2, "And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire; and them that come off victorious from the beast, and from his image, and from the number of his name, standing by the sea of glass, having harps of God." This is known as the "river of fire" proceeding from the throne of God. This is representative of the fire that divides the sheep from the goats, refining and sending the former into heaven and the later into Hell.
But someone may still say, "But what about Lazarus and the Rich Man story Jesus told? It made it sound like the rich man was in a separate place apart from Lazarus and Abraham." And in this instance, yes they were in separate places. There's obviously a gulf separating them, but apparently of a different nature than distance since they could still talk with each other and the rich man seemed to think it would be possible for Lazarus to bring him some water.
However, the rich man is not in Hell as in the eternal lake of fire we've been talking about. Yes, some translations like the KJV use the word "hell" to say where he is, but the Greek word used here (per Strongs) is,
hades, hah'-dace
Properly unseen, that is, “Hades” or the place (state) of departed souls: - grave, hell.
When the Scriptures mean the literal lake of fire and not Hades, it uses the word,
geenna, gheh'-en-nah
valley of (the son of) Hinnom; gehenna (or Ge-Hinnom), a valley of Jerusalem, used (figuratively) as a name for the place (or state) of everlasting punishment: - hell.
This is why you will find some translations that use "hell" in relation to where the rich man is, but also Hades for that is the literal rendering of the word used, not the lake of fire. And there is a sense that the saved, like Lazarus, go to Paradise to await the final Day of Judgment, while Hades is the holding place of those who face death. That Hades and Hell are two separate realities is clear from Revelation 20:14, "And death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death, even the lake of fire." Hades itself is destroyed by Hell. In the Reality Series, especially the last book, this reality plays a key part in what happens.
But it is because some reading that book where this division is made more clearer, they will have questions about both Hades and Hell not being the same thing, and what Hell really is, that I wanted to post this now. When people have those questions, they will have this reference to the theological reality being presented in the books. I pray this adequately clarifies and helps explain some of what happens in all the books, and how it plays into the final ending of the series and the ring's journey.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Interview floating in Shark Infested Waters
For those who missed the interview Taylor Kent did with me Thursday night, here's your chance to listen to it! Not live, but as a podcast. It is currently up at the Shark Infested Waters site. Check it out when you get a chance.
I want to take this opportunity to say that I had a fun time with Taylor. Thank you Taylor for interviewing me and for the enthusiastic endorsement of Transforming Realities--he gave it "5 out of 5 shark bites" (which means its great!) and said that he felt it was the Pilgrim's Progress for a new generation. I couldn't ask for a better review!
Be sure to check out Taylor's other shows and drop by for a live interview some time. They are always entertaining.
I want to take this opportunity to say that I had a fun time with Taylor. Thank you Taylor for interviewing me and for the enthusiastic endorsement of Transforming Realities--he gave it "5 out of 5 shark bites" (which means its great!) and said that he felt it was the Pilgrim's Progress for a new generation. I couldn't ask for a better review!
Be sure to check out Taylor's other shows and drop by for a live interview some time. They are always entertaining.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)