I think it is safe to say that one of the major disputes with Christianity is the Christian concept of Hell. To be fair, I think that most Christians aren't entirely comfortable with the concept. I say that because so many have tried to explain it away. The first objection, of course, is the enormity of "eternity in torment." "No, no, that can't be. That's just ... too big." I mean, eternity is hard enough to grasp. An eternity of torment? Way outside our comfort range. And then there's the obvious objection, "That's not fair!" How is it fair to have a lifetime of peccadilloes answered by an eternity of torment? The question is one of justice, and that just doesn't seem right.
So why would anyone believe in Hell? I don't think most humans like the idea, even if we're all pretty sure it won't be us there. Clearly it's not some internal enjoyment. Like so many other things in the faith, this one doesn't seem like it would be thought up by human beings because it's so repulsive to human beings. So, why?
Well, of course, we believe in Hell because it's in the Bible. "No, it's not!" some will immediately object. Sorry. It is. Jesus (yes, that Jesus ... the One whose title, Christ, adorns our faith) spoke of the eternity of torment (e.g., Matt 13:41-42, 49-50; Mark 9:43, 48-49; Matt 22:13; Matt 8:12; Matt 25:46). Other texts do as well (e.g., Rev 14:9-11; 19:3). Dance around it if you will, but it's still there -- "eternal" and "torment." If we strip that out, there's very little we can't strip out of whatever Jesus might have said ... or the rest of the Scriptures. "It doesn't mean that ... because I don't like it or I don't understand it."
So, how can that be fair? How can that be just? In what possible sense can we consider it correct that someone who spent a lifetime of sinning would need to spend an eternity of paying for it? For reasons I can't quite fathom, most people seem to think in terms of time here. "It's such a short time to be sinning compared the eternity of punishment." Of course, no one actually sees justice that way. If we did, we'd protest life imprisonment for murderers. "Well, it only took him two minutes to kill that guy, so he shouldn't do more than two minutes in prison." No! That's not how it works ... anywhere. We humans understand that the punishment must fit the crime, not the time. Stealing a candy from the local store is not the same magnitude of a crime as murder with malice aforethought. We get that. So what about sin? Scripture isn't vague. Sin is against God (Psa 51:4). Sin is a violation of God's glory (Rom 3:23). Sin isn't merely breaking the rules; it is an attempt to overthrow God (Gen 3:5; Isa 14:14). Sin is idolatry, replacing God with something less -- generally ourselves in the final analysis. When we transgress the Ultimate Being, it is the ultimate crime. When we violate an Eternal Being, the penalty is likely to be eternal. Not because it took us an eternity to do it, but because of the magnitude of the violation.
Here's the funny thing. If you are one that believes in the biblical concept of Hell, you're likely going to nod your head and say, "Yep, that's right." Maybe you'll say, "Hey, I never saw it that way. That helps me understand a little better." All well and good. But I'm pretty sure that if you are one that does not believe in the biblical concept of Hell, showing you biblical reasons to believe it won't make a dent. I'm pretty sure that you'll be outraged that anyone would stand on mere Scripture for such an unjust thing while you offer no Scripture in response or give an answer to the ones I've given (and there are more). "The Bible never talks about Hell" is a common objection to Hell without actually addressing the fact that it does. I guess that just goes to show that Jesus was right (John 10:16, 27). No, we humans are not comfortable with Hell, but the humans who are listening to Scripture still have to accept that it's a reality. And a very good motivation to give the gospel to as many as possible so others can avoid it.
26 comments:
Orthodox Bible scholar David Bentley Hart:
No truly accomplished New Testament scholar, for instance, believes that later Christianity’s opulent mythology of God’s eternal torture chamber is clearly present in the scriptural texts. It’s entirely absent from St. Paul’s writings; the only eschatological fire he ever mentions brings salvation to those whom it tries (1 Corinthians 3:15). Neither is it found in the other New Testament epistles, or in any extant documents (like the Didache) from the earliest post-apostolic period. There are a few terrible, surreal, allegorical images of judgment in the Book of Revelation, but nothing that, properly read, yields a clear doctrine of eternal torment. Even the frightening language used by Jesus in the Gospels, when read in the original Greek, fails to deliver the infernal dogmas we casually assume to be there.
Like I said, if you don't believe in Hell, you'll likely not care what I wrote here. "It doesn't say that" doesn't demonstrate why it does say that. On the other hand, the only "truly accomplished New Testament scholar" acceptable in this application is the one that agrees with this new "Hell doesn't exist" version. Oddly enough, most of those very same "truly accomplished New Testament scholars" don't actually believe the Bible as God's Word anyway, so denying that Hell is in there doesn't surprise me.
I'd like to point out, however, that nothing I wrote here suggests a literal, "Dante's Inferno" kind of Hell in my mind. What is clear is "eternal" and "torment" and I frankly don't think "fiery" does it justice. I just think that the concept of eternal fire is the closest humans can get to grasping the level of torment that an eternity with God turning His back to them will bring.
I've seen some advocate for hell being eternal separation from God, I'm thinking that that doesn't really sound like a huge improvement over eternal torment.
It's interesting that you've gotten a commenters that is the opposite of the red letter folx. It's rare to see someone suggesting that Paul's mentioning (or lack thereof) are more significant than Jesus'.
I suspect that, just as we don't really grasp the magnitude of sin, we don't really grasp the torment of separation with God.
And Paul is only significant when he appears to agree with their position. If he disagrees, he is equally insignificant.
My point exactly. If being with God is as beyond our understanding of good as it sounds, I'd argue that we get a taste of it here on earth, then being completely separated is likely to be much worse than we could imagine.
We've heard about the enforced separation because of Covid and how it's negatively affecting people's mental health, I'd suggest that if being "shut up" in our homes is that significantly negative then being in a place devoid of all that is good might be worse. It just might be torment.
Ditto about Paul and his value.
Isn't it true that all humans will encounter God in the final judgment? Their separation from God after that will be much worse.
Hadn't thought of that. Even if Hell is simply eternal separation from God, those who end up there will definitely know what they're missing. Which should make it worse.
If this is the case, and there is torment, then couldn't it be argued that the torment comes from person in Hell, and is therefore self inflicted rather that inflicted by God?
How do you define truly accomplished? Would someone like, RC Sproul be considered truly accomplished? I guarantee he believed in eternal torment. Or maybe Ravi Zacharrias? Would he be a truly accomplished New Testament scholar? He believed in eternal torment. When you throw out these all inclusive terms, it might be better to define them, because there are more New Testament scholars that believe in eternal torment than don't. I will grant that no truly accomplished New Testament scholar believes in a literal lake of eternal fire. But that's not the same as believing there is no Hell.
Depends on what you mean by "inflicted by God." I'm pretty sure that everyone who faces judgment without forgiveness of sins will find it "the right thing to do." They will be an extreme version of Peter: "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.” (Luke 5:8) They won't be able to tolerate His presence in their condition.
I doubt Naum will be back to answer, David. He didn't say it; he quoted it. David Bentley Hart said it; you'd have to ask him. But for the most part people accept as "truly accomplished scholars" those that make the most sense to them, as do you and I. It is, however, a logical fallacy here -- the appeal to authority. It's a form of name dropping like "Hey, I used the magic words, 'truly accomplished scholar'. You can't disagree with me now." It's like the Emperor's New Clothes where "only stupid people can't see them" so everyone claimed to see them so they wouldn't be classified as stupid.
He quoted it, but he should be able to defend his quote, right? It must mean he agrees with it.
He should. He won't.
David Bentley Hart is an Orthodox Bible scholar whose knowledge of Greek & ANE (Ancient Near East) probably has few rivals.
It's not a denial of "hell", or unbelief in it. While there are Protestant streams (mostly fundamentalist or conservative "evangelical") that hold to ECT, Eastern Orthodox theology has never embraced it and is not only David Bentley Hart, but Kallistos Ware & others.
Sheol, Gehenna, Hades, etc. are not all the same thing & blindly just lopping them into an amorphous concoction of ECT is not sound theology IMV.
And even proponents of ECT have to acknowledge that there is biblical support for all 3 of the major "hell" paradigms -- ECT, Annihilation (of which many Protestants like John Stott were adherents of), and Universalism (which may strike you as odd, but was dominant paradigm of the early church & pervasive championing of ECT is a post-Augustinian development).
Reformed theologian Juergen Moltmann, arguably most significant theologian of 20C (beside Barth, Tillich, Bultmann, etc. wrote:
Can some people damn themselves, and others redeem themselves by accepting Christ? If this were so, God’s decisions would be dependent upon the will of human beings. God would become the auxiliary who executes the wishes of people who decide their fate for themselves. If I can damn myself, I am my own God and judge. Taken to a logical conclusion, this is atheistic.
Then, what is the punishment for sin? Is there punishment for sin? Is sin real, or just a misunderstanding on our part? If there is no punishment, what are we saved from and to? If there is no punishment, why should I bother trying to live a moral life? Why not enjoy everything this life has to offer and still get to enter heaven? Without some sort of punishment, God is neither Just nor Justifier, and ceases to exist.
To say that only truly accomplished theologians see the truth of no eternal punishment means that anyone that does see Hell in Scripture isn't actually an accomplished theologian. Hart is saying that anyone that believes in Hell can't actually be good at New Testament study. And you want to call us arrogant?
As far as I understand it, Annihilation and Universalism are fringe beliefs that stem from divergent theological beliefs. Annihilation comes from the sentiment Stan alluded to in his post that it appears unfair to punish for eternity for only a lifetime of sin. Universalism comes from a belief that God loves everybody and wouldn't want to condemn people He loves to any punishment. I can only acknowledge those two as having any biblical support on the basis of failing to understand multiple other biblical teachings.
I don't know of any theologians that believe that Sheol, Gehenna, Hades, or Hell are the same. Throw in Abraham's Bosom and purgatory for good measure. Certainly, the laymen may confuse those terms, or use them interchangeably, but not theologians.
I would have to disagree that Moltmann is the "most significant theologian of 20C" since I've never heard of him, or any of those you listed with him. You keep putting out these universal statements. I'm not sure what the point of his statement is there. It appears to be some sort of conclusion to a chapter, but doesn't give what his ultimate conclusion is. I don't disagree with your quote of his. Certainly, if we are our own judges', then there is no God. But nobody on this blog, or any theologian I'm familiar with, is suggesting that God lets us judge ourselves. We are condemned, not for unbelief, but for sin. We don't save ourselves by choosing Christ, Christ saves us by choosing us.
How would you respond to someone who argues that hell is what we experience during our lifetime as a result of the consequences of our sin?
David,
I'd agree that Moltmann is not the "most significant" theologian of recent history. Although I haven't done a deep dive into his theology, I tend to see him most often venerated by those on the theological left, which raises questions in my mind.
I do agree that the quote provided does line up with the concept of a Sovereign God that Stan (and others) holds to, and takes human choice out of the equation. So there is that.
Stan,
My point about “self inflicted”, is in line with what Lewis says about people who are in Hell because of their choice. Ultimately it comes back to who God calls. But for most people in Hell, being in God’s presence would be torment enough.
“When the big one finds you, let this song remind you, that they don’t serve breakfast in Hell.”
Something went really wrong there, Craig, and I don't know what it is. I published that comment up there but it came out blank for reasons I don't grasp.
As to the question, since Scripture is clear about "eternal" and "torment," the concept that hell is what we experience as a consequence of sin doesn't qualify since it is barely torment and not even close to eternal. Someone once said something like, "For the redeemed this life is all of hell that they will experience and for the unsaved this life is all of heaven that they will experience."
C.S. Lewis, by the way, was big on "self-inflicted" when it came to Hell. Ever read The Great Divorce? Very much self-inflicted. He said, "Hell is locked from within."
I believe, at that final judgment, hell will be a mutual conclusion for the unsaved. "Yep, that's where we need to be." "Yep, that's where' you're going."
I deleted it and added it to the other comment because of the typos.
Oh, I agree that scripture is clear about Hell being more than temporal. I've just heard that argument and wanted your take.
I haven't read the Great Divorce yet, it's on my Kindle, but yes Lewis takes that position elsewhere as well.
I agree that someone who's spent their entire life avoiding God is unlikely to decide that spending eternity with him is an attractive option.
I also think that Universalism tends to minimize evil and it's punishment. It seems absolutely ridiculous to think that Hitler (etc) would end up with God without having repented, and ridiculous to think that he'd get the opportunity to repent after death.
I tend to think that the "anti Hell christians" tend to think that there's nothing after death, but don't have the guts to actually acknowledge that belief publicly. Either that or they hide behind the "we don't know", which ignores plenty of the red letters.
I can't even fathom the Universalists with any sense of commitment to Scripture. Was Jesus mistaken when He said, "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few." (Matt 7:13-14) If everyone "makes it," what is all that threat throughout the Scriptures about not "making it"? Makes no sense at all. The other end, annihilationism, makes people feel better, I suppose, but "dead and its over" isn't really much of a punishment, so to speak, is it? I mean, they complain that "A lifetime of sinning shouldn't end up in an eternity of Hell" and then argue that it is completely just to have a lifetime of sinning end up in nothing at all? But, it looks to me as if the real bottom-line problem is my original premise -- sin is really a big deal and we just don't get that.
I agree that both of those fail to adequately punish sin, even by the standard you just quoted.
I was thinking that it looks like the real problem is that people want to take the place of God. But really either are probably equally problematic.
"... people want to take the place of God."
In a discussion about the problems of the world (that is, I don't remember what problems, but they were big ones) a friend once accused me of oversimplifying things. "What do you think is the cause?" he asked. "Sin," I said. You "oversimplified" here, but I think it is dead on.
The chief sin of Man is "I will be like the Most High".
1. The "punishment for sin" is the fallout from our own human falling and disturbance of God's perfect shalom, the Kingdom that Jesus announced was "at hand". Condensing God to some medieval king anointing or condemning individuals is not the Gospel of Jesus but religion of the pagans.
2. On Matthew 7, I'll quote Brian Zahnd: Somewhere along the way in our post-Reformation paranoia of anything that references works — a paranoia not endorsed by the New Testament — we have distorted salvation. The salvation of Messiah that fulfills the Law and the Prophets becomes salvation from fulfilling the Law and the Prophets. And the results have been disastrous. To put it more bluntly — we have invented a Christianity where the Golden Rule and the narrow gate are utterly disassociated ideas. But once we pry apart the Golden Rule and the narrow gate, we have concocted a distorted Christianity that is self-centered, that is afterlife oriented, and that abolishes the Law and the Prophets — the very thing Jesus said he did not come to do!
3. Boiling the Gospel down to a transaction seems un-Jesus to me. Ironic that fundamentalist and conservative evangelicals can't see that they're trapped in an post-Enlightenment individualistic rubric that would have struck early followers of Jesus as foreign.
4. Again, much of universalism doesn't deny the existence of hell, it just recognizes the long standing Orthodox view that even the gates of hell are not secure from the power of the love of Jesus.
5. See also https://internetmonk.com/archive/92833
What about those people that never experience the consequences of their actions in this life? Not all sin leads to immediate negative conditions.
Are you (and your quote) saying that we are saved by being good people? That salvation is indeed works based?
Not sure what this is in reference to. But the New Testament is full of transaction terminology. And again, you give these all encompassing claims. All of the Early Church wouldn't recognize these transaction based terms? Really, all? There were certainly disagreements dating all the way back even to the writing of the New Testament.
Again, you ignore the Justice of God. Universalism ignores Justice. I don't deny that the power of Christ can overcome the gates, but nothing in that requires He deny Justice to extend Mercy. Both must be answered for, or God ceases to be God.
Don't have time at the moment to look into your link.
Odd, your link seems to think Universalism isn't the traditional position you seem to be saying it is. The first paragraph even says that Universalism goes against traditional Christianity.
The only people who think Universalism is traditional is Universalists.
Post a Comment