Hell is not a popular topic. Some have suggested it doesn't exist. Others say that it's not as bad as it seems. But most people tend to think that eternal torment is not, likely, in the final analysis, eternal torment. Simple as that.
It may come as a shock, then, that Jesus was so prolific on the topic of Hell. Yes, Jesus. He spoke of "Gehenna." the local dump where bodies and trash were burned ... continually ... without ceasing, as a metaphor for Hell. He described it as a prison and outer darkness. He said that there was weeping and gnashing of teeth. In the story about Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-13), the rich man was in torment after he died, and there was no escape. He said He would tell those He never knew to depart from Him.
The Gospels are full of Jesus's warnings on Hell. The one angry with his brother without cause is in danger of hell fire (Matt 5:22). It's best to lose a body part than to be cast into hell (Matt 5:29). Don't fear those who can kill your body, but Him who is able to destroy you in Hell (Matt 10:28). The gates of Hell will not prevail against His church (Matt 16:18). Capernaum was hellbound (Luke 10:15). The broad gate leads to destruction (Matt 7:13). The tares would be burned with fire (Matt 13:42). The unprofitable servant would be cast into outer darkness (Matt 25:30). Hell is where the worm does not die nor the fire quenched (Mark 9:44). "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned" (John 15:6). And on and on.
"What's that all about?" some may ask. I think it's obvious. He came to seek and to save the lost (Luke 19:10). Why? If there is nothing to be saved from, why bother? On the other hand, if that from which He came to save is as horrible as He described, it's a big thing. A very big thing. Jesus was the Great Theologian when it came to Hell, which only made His sacrifice and salvation so much sweeter because it was ultimately significant. Mission accomplished.
Showing posts with label Hell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hell. Show all posts
Sunday, May 01, 2022
Friday, June 03, 2011
No Hell Below Us
I've written several things on Hell, both in days gone by and more of late due to the "Rob Bell book incident". Obviously I stand by the longstanding, traditional, biblical view that Hell is a reality, a place of eternal torment, a place to be avoided. There are other voices out there, however, that hold a different view. These views vary in places. Some say that there is torment, but it's not eternal. These are the annihilationists. There are those who believe that Hell is a myth entirely, but these also tend to believe that Heaven and even God are myths. There are those who believe that everyone will get a second chance at it and, of course, when you're standing in the presence of the Savior looking at the flames of eternal torment and being offered eternal bliss, it's pretty clear what your choice will be. This particular group falls in two basic categories. One says that God gives Man free will and it is possible that, even in this situation, some may choose Hell. The other says that this would be ludicrous and no one, in the final analysis, will choose damnation. And, of course, there are variations within the variations.
The question I want to examine is what if Lennon was right? What if there is no Hell below us? What if, by whatever method it works out, Rob Bell and N.T. Wright and the entire Universalist movement and all those who are quite sure that, in the end, God redeems all men are right? Now what?
N.T. Wright argues that what we do matters. So does Bell. So do most of those who argue against Hell. What I have yet to hear is how? What does it matter? If all people in all walks of life are all, in the final analysis, redeemed, what does what we do matter? We can't be deceived and miss Heaven. We can't be right and obtain Heaven by it. There are no consequences for faulty deeds and no benefit for good deeds. Love wins! So what would it matter what I do now?
In fact, why argue at all? People like Bell seem to want to make Christ more "palatable". They want to paint Him in a more favorable light. But ... why? I mean, sure, that would be nice and all, but if seeing Him in an unfavorable light will result in Heaven, why would it matter? It's not like they hope to obtain the salvation of those who currently have a not-so-nice view of Christ now since that salvation is already assured. So what's the point?
The Bible is full of the "carrot and stick" approach. From the Old Testament blessings and curses to the New Testament rewards and unquenchable fire, the Bible consistently warns of the consequences of sin while promising blessing to the righteous. The whole "fire is not quenched" concept doesn't come from the Roman Catholic church; that's a line from the lips of Jesus Christ Himself. The description of a place of the dead where there is flaming agony is not a product of Dante, but of Jesus. It wasn't some mean-spirited religious zealot that taught "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it." Nor was it some narrow-minded right-wing nut jobs that held that Jesus was the only way, that no man comes to the Father but by Him, or that "there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." So the writers of the Bible from beginning to end -- and Christ Himself -- seemed to think that there was blessing promised to those who are righteous and fearful danger to those who are not, so we need to warn people about that danger. On the other hand, if all of that is a simple misunderstanding and everyone is saved in the final analysis, then why bother? Who knows? Maybe Jesus really was a mean-spirited religious zealot, a right-wing nut job trying to scare people for no good reason. If the universalist-types are right, I can't imagine what other conclusion I can come to. And if they are right, I can't imagine why they bother making any argument at all. "Don't worry. Be happy! It'll all work out fine! Can't we all just get along?" But if they're wrong ...
The question I want to examine is what if Lennon was right? What if there is no Hell below us? What if, by whatever method it works out, Rob Bell and N.T. Wright and the entire Universalist movement and all those who are quite sure that, in the end, God redeems all men are right? Now what?
N.T. Wright argues that what we do matters. So does Bell. So do most of those who argue against Hell. What I have yet to hear is how? What does it matter? If all people in all walks of life are all, in the final analysis, redeemed, what does what we do matter? We can't be deceived and miss Heaven. We can't be right and obtain Heaven by it. There are no consequences for faulty deeds and no benefit for good deeds. Love wins! So what would it matter what I do now?
In fact, why argue at all? People like Bell seem to want to make Christ more "palatable". They want to paint Him in a more favorable light. But ... why? I mean, sure, that would be nice and all, but if seeing Him in an unfavorable light will result in Heaven, why would it matter? It's not like they hope to obtain the salvation of those who currently have a not-so-nice view of Christ now since that salvation is already assured. So what's the point?
The Bible is full of the "carrot and stick" approach. From the Old Testament blessings and curses to the New Testament rewards and unquenchable fire, the Bible consistently warns of the consequences of sin while promising blessing to the righteous. The whole "fire is not quenched" concept doesn't come from the Roman Catholic church; that's a line from the lips of Jesus Christ Himself. The description of a place of the dead where there is flaming agony is not a product of Dante, but of Jesus. It wasn't some mean-spirited religious zealot that taught "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it." Nor was it some narrow-minded right-wing nut jobs that held that Jesus was the only way, that no man comes to the Father but by Him, or that "there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." So the writers of the Bible from beginning to end -- and Christ Himself -- seemed to think that there was blessing promised to those who are righteous and fearful danger to those who are not, so we need to warn people about that danger. On the other hand, if all of that is a simple misunderstanding and everyone is saved in the final analysis, then why bother? Who knows? Maybe Jesus really was a mean-spirited religious zealot, a right-wing nut job trying to scare people for no good reason. If the universalist-types are right, I can't imagine what other conclusion I can come to. And if they are right, I can't imagine why they bother making any argument at all. "Don't worry. Be happy! It'll all work out fine! Can't we all just get along?" But if they're wrong ...
Saturday, May 28, 2011
I Don't Believe in Hell
Rob Bell is the author of Love Wins, a recent book that set off its own firestorm even before it was released. In it, the well-known, very popular, "evangelical" pastor explained that no one goes to Hell. Love, you see, wins. And those who understand Scripture and recognize the clear teachings of the Church and the Word throughout the history of Christianity were up in arms. There is no question. Hell isn't a fabrication of a few mean guys a couple thousand years ago. It's right there in the pages of the Bible as clear as it gets.
I've written a few things about Hell in general and an entire series on the Bell incident in particular. It's pretty clear from what I've written that Hell is real. On the other hand, I would suspect that the truth is that I don't much believe in Hell ... and neither do you.
It has been (rightly) said that we are activated by what we believe. Do you want to know what you truly believe? Look at what you do. When Al Gore, for instance, preaches the end of the world from human-caused global warming and doesn't do a thing to change his own high-carbon lifestyle, you have to ask, "Does he really believe that?" When a smoker takes a drag on his cigarette and tells his young charge, "Don't smoke, kid. It will kill you," it's reasonable to ask, "Does he really believe that?" Conversely, when a guy tells his friends, "I'm not afraid of them" while whipping his head around to see if they're coming (assuming "them" is some sort of threat), you can be pretty sure that, despite what he says, he is afraid.
So when I walk into a sin with eyes wide open and claim, "I believe in Hell," I'm not telling the truth. At that moment, I'm not really conscious of the reality and threat of Hell. I'm not admitting to the cost of my sin and the quantity of the mercy provided. When I get mad at God for failing to come through on what I thought He owed me, I'm not really believing in Hell. When I can work with people that I care about and not say a word about their need for Christ, I am not really believing in Hell. It's not a real place to me at that moment.
How about you? What do you do that says clearly by your deeds, "I don't believe in Hell"? Do you recognize the justice that would call for you to face judgment, or do you live as if salvation is owed? Are you a vessel of wrath who has been shown mercy or a child of God who has been shown the mercy you deserve? Are you living and speaking Christ to those around you -- your friends, family, neighbors, coworkers, fellow humans -- who are condemned already? If any of this gets close to you, perhaps you, too, don't believe in Hell. Moving what's in your head to your heart can be a difficult thing, can't it?
I've written a few things about Hell in general and an entire series on the Bell incident in particular. It's pretty clear from what I've written that Hell is real. On the other hand, I would suspect that the truth is that I don't much believe in Hell ... and neither do you.
It has been (rightly) said that we are activated by what we believe. Do you want to know what you truly believe? Look at what you do. When Al Gore, for instance, preaches the end of the world from human-caused global warming and doesn't do a thing to change his own high-carbon lifestyle, you have to ask, "Does he really believe that?" When a smoker takes a drag on his cigarette and tells his young charge, "Don't smoke, kid. It will kill you," it's reasonable to ask, "Does he really believe that?" Conversely, when a guy tells his friends, "I'm not afraid of them" while whipping his head around to see if they're coming (assuming "them" is some sort of threat), you can be pretty sure that, despite what he says, he is afraid.
So when I walk into a sin with eyes wide open and claim, "I believe in Hell," I'm not telling the truth. At that moment, I'm not really conscious of the reality and threat of Hell. I'm not admitting to the cost of my sin and the quantity of the mercy provided. When I get mad at God for failing to come through on what I thought He owed me, I'm not really believing in Hell. When I can work with people that I care about and not say a word about their need for Christ, I am not really believing in Hell. It's not a real place to me at that moment.
How about you? What do you do that says clearly by your deeds, "I don't believe in Hell"? Do you recognize the justice that would call for you to face judgment, or do you live as if salvation is owed? Are you a vessel of wrath who has been shown mercy or a child of God who has been shown the mercy you deserve? Are you living and speaking Christ to those around you -- your friends, family, neighbors, coworkers, fellow humans -- who are condemned already? If any of this gets close to you, perhaps you, too, don't believe in Hell. Moving what's in your head to your heart can be a difficult thing, can't it?
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
What Must I Do to Avoid Hell? Part 5
Subtitle: What does Hell mean to me?
That subtitle has been hanging over these posts for days. What's the answer, then? What does Hell mean to me? I've explained what would be required to remove Hell. Thus, the existence of Hell means a lot to me. It means that God is Just as well as merciful, Holy as well as gracious. He has righteous wrath for sin and genuine love for those who trust Him. He is good through and through because "good" requires both doing what is right and not doing what is wrong and He does both.
It means that there is justice and there is a real basis for morality. The existence of Hell assures me that sin is not just an anomaly or a fluke or a mistake of DNA, but an affront to the God of Heaven. It assures me that the Bible is reliable (again) and offers the Church back to me for support. It gives real substance to the Gospel. It provides genuine, no, ultimate value in the Cross of Christ. And it puts Man back in his proper place as creature rather than god.
Can you be a Christian and deny Hell? If "Christian" means "follower of Christ" and Christ taught the reality of Hell (and He did), then the answer should be clear. If you redefine "Christian" to mean "the follower of some group of people that consider themselves loosely connected with some guy named Jesus of Nazareth, but only in the way in which each individual envisions it, not necessarily in any concrete way", then of course you can be a Christian and deny the existence of Hell. And since we're apparently in the business these days of redefining terminology, I suppose that's not a problem. I mean, we've redefined "male and female", "marriage", "fornication", "integrity", "homosexual", right and wrong, and so much more. Why not "Christian"? So in that sense it's perfectly reasonable to be a Christian (defined as "someone who calls himself or herself a 'Christian'") and deny Hell. Easy!
None of this proves the existence of Hell or the doctrine thereof. Nor does it offer my views on the nature of Hell. These weren't the intents of the posts. But perhaps, if you can see what's at stake, you, too, might take a serious look at this rising attempt at mediating Hell. It may sound benign, even friendly. It's not. And welcoming it would be a serious mistake.
What must I do to avoid Hell? Well, there are two options. I can deny its existence based on "the love of God" who I then render no longer God, remove justice and morality, defang sin, erase Scripture, the Church, and the Gospel, and build up an unreal picture of Man. Of course, if Hell is real and simply denying the existence of something that is real and terrible doesn't protect me from it, I might need a new strategy. The other option is to avoid it by acknowledging its reality and place my faith in the finished work of Christ who died for me on the cross and rose again so I can have life -- the highest example of love there is. As it turns out, we need Hell. As a clear representative of justice and a stark contrast to Heaven, it's necessary.
That subtitle has been hanging over these posts for days. What's the answer, then? What does Hell mean to me? I've explained what would be required to remove Hell. Thus, the existence of Hell means a lot to me. It means that God is Just as well as merciful, Holy as well as gracious. He has righteous wrath for sin and genuine love for those who trust Him. He is good through and through because "good" requires both doing what is right and not doing what is wrong and He does both.
It means that there is justice and there is a real basis for morality. The existence of Hell assures me that sin is not just an anomaly or a fluke or a mistake of DNA, but an affront to the God of Heaven. It assures me that the Bible is reliable (again) and offers the Church back to me for support. It gives real substance to the Gospel. It provides genuine, no, ultimate value in the Cross of Christ. And it puts Man back in his proper place as creature rather than god.
Can you be a Christian and deny Hell? If "Christian" means "follower of Christ" and Christ taught the reality of Hell (and He did), then the answer should be clear. If you redefine "Christian" to mean "the follower of some group of people that consider themselves loosely connected with some guy named Jesus of Nazareth, but only in the way in which each individual envisions it, not necessarily in any concrete way", then of course you can be a Christian and deny the existence of Hell. And since we're apparently in the business these days of redefining terminology, I suppose that's not a problem. I mean, we've redefined "male and female", "marriage", "fornication", "integrity", "homosexual", right and wrong, and so much more. Why not "Christian"? So in that sense it's perfectly reasonable to be a Christian (defined as "someone who calls himself or herself a 'Christian'") and deny Hell. Easy!
None of this proves the existence of Hell or the doctrine thereof. Nor does it offer my views on the nature of Hell. These weren't the intents of the posts. But perhaps, if you can see what's at stake, you, too, might take a serious look at this rising attempt at mediating Hell. It may sound benign, even friendly. It's not. And welcoming it would be a serious mistake.
What must I do to avoid Hell? Well, there are two options. I can deny its existence based on "the love of God" who I then render no longer God, remove justice and morality, defang sin, erase Scripture, the Church, and the Gospel, and build up an unreal picture of Man. Of course, if Hell is real and simply denying the existence of something that is real and terrible doesn't protect me from it, I might need a new strategy. The other option is to avoid it by acknowledging its reality and place my faith in the finished work of Christ who died for me on the cross and rose again so I can have life -- the highest example of love there is. As it turns out, we need Hell. As a clear representative of justice and a stark contrast to Heaven, it's necessary.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
What Must I Do to Avoid Hell? Part 4
Subtitle: What does Hell mean to me?
My how the mighty have fallen. With the simple removal of the doctrine of Hell, we've begun the slow demise of Christianity. But surely it is salvageable, right? I mean, how about "the Gospel"? That's a good thing and everyone likes "good news". That can stay, right?
I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but another casualty in this new concept of Hell is the Gospel. For as long as there has been a human in relation to God, the threat of punishment for sin has been hanging around. It started with Adam -- "the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." It hasn't let up. Jonathan Edwards was famous for his sermon, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. That whole "fire and brimstone" style of preaching was a big deal in lots of periods of Church history. Threat of damnation was the horrible counterpoint to the sweetness of salvation. "You can go to eternal torment, but Christ offers you a way to get free!" That, in essence, has been the Gospel Call. Now, strip off the first phrase, and all you get is "Christ offers you a way to get free!" Free? Of what? The Philippian jailer cried out, "What must I do to be saved?" to which Paul should have replied, "Ah, don't worry about it! No one is in jeopardy of damnation here!" Strip off the "bad news" -- sinners earn eternal damnation -- and you don't have much good news -- "Place your faith in Christ and you can avoid ... well, never mind."
However, after all these casualties from this removal of Hell, there is a "gain". Remember, the problem with Man is "I will be like the Most High." The problem with Man is that we worship the creature rather than the Creator. The problem with Man is that we tend to think of ourselves more highly than we ought.
So along comes the biblical concept of Hell. And we don't like it. No, we don't. Man deserves better than that! God ought to do something about it. Look, quite frankly, if God allows people to go to eternal torment because of sin, well, He's not a very bright God, after all (at best), because we are pretty important. Or, at least, that's how it would seem.
Stripping away the biblical doctrine of a place of eternal torment for those guilty of Cosmic Treason, as I've already pointed out, will strip away many of God's fundamental character traits. It will destroy Justice in general, remove the rationale for morality, minimize the problem of sin, and undercut the reliability of Scripture as well as the Church. But the "good news" is that it makes Man a lot more important, a lot better off. It feeds his worship of the creature. By removing the penalty of sin, it makes God more amenable to seeing our true importance. We finally get what we deserve! Oh, wait ... that was Hell, wasn't it? Well, see, we get better than we deserve! No, wait ... that can't be right. Say, is this real gain, or is it an illusion?
My how the mighty have fallen. With the simple removal of the doctrine of Hell, we've begun the slow demise of Christianity. But surely it is salvageable, right? I mean, how about "the Gospel"? That's a good thing and everyone likes "good news". That can stay, right?
I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but another casualty in this new concept of Hell is the Gospel. For as long as there has been a human in relation to God, the threat of punishment for sin has been hanging around. It started with Adam -- "the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." It hasn't let up. Jonathan Edwards was famous for his sermon, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. That whole "fire and brimstone" style of preaching was a big deal in lots of periods of Church history. Threat of damnation was the horrible counterpoint to the sweetness of salvation. "You can go to eternal torment, but Christ offers you a way to get free!" That, in essence, has been the Gospel Call. Now, strip off the first phrase, and all you get is "Christ offers you a way to get free!" Free? Of what? The Philippian jailer cried out, "What must I do to be saved?" to which Paul should have replied, "Ah, don't worry about it! No one is in jeopardy of damnation here!" Strip off the "bad news" -- sinners earn eternal damnation -- and you don't have much good news -- "Place your faith in Christ and you can avoid ... well, never mind."
However, after all these casualties from this removal of Hell, there is a "gain". Remember, the problem with Man is "I will be like the Most High." The problem with Man is that we worship the creature rather than the Creator. The problem with Man is that we tend to think of ourselves more highly than we ought.
So along comes the biblical concept of Hell. And we don't like it. No, we don't. Man deserves better than that! God ought to do something about it. Look, quite frankly, if God allows people to go to eternal torment because of sin, well, He's not a very bright God, after all (at best), because we are pretty important. Or, at least, that's how it would seem.
Stripping away the biblical doctrine of a place of eternal torment for those guilty of Cosmic Treason, as I've already pointed out, will strip away many of God's fundamental character traits. It will destroy Justice in general, remove the rationale for morality, minimize the problem of sin, and undercut the reliability of Scripture as well as the Church. But the "good news" is that it makes Man a lot more important, a lot better off. It feeds his worship of the creature. By removing the penalty of sin, it makes God more amenable to seeing our true importance. We finally get what we deserve! Oh, wait ... that was Hell, wasn't it? Well, see, we get better than we deserve! No, wait ... that can't be right. Say, is this real gain, or is it an illusion?
Monday, March 21, 2011
What Must I Do to Avoid Hell? Part 3
Subtitle: What does Hell mean to me?
I've been reviewing the effects of removing the doctrine of Hell. So far we've managed to view the assault the character of God. The damage there would call into question Justice in general. The injury to Justice would minimize Sin. And the hits just keep on coming.
I need to say that the doctrine of Hell isn't a fabrication of Man. I mean, that's a nasty idea no matter how you cut it. And, to be honest, we generally identify more with Man than with God, so it just wouldn't be something we'd want to make up. So where did the Church get the idea for an eternity of damnation? Well, it's in the Bible. I did a quick check in a Naves Topical Bible and found these two listings. The first is on the topic of "Wicked, the Punishment of" and the second is on the use of the term "Hell" as a place of torment. (Note: The Bible also uses the term "Hell" or "Sheol" as a reference to the place of the dead. That's why Revelation 20:14 says that "death and hell" are thrown into the lake of fire. The temporary place of the dead is thrown into the place of eternal torment.) I know, I know, it's too long; you won't read it. But, at least, you have a reference ... and a sense of magnitude.
The Punishment of the Wicked
Genesis 2:17; 3:16-19; 4:7; 6:3,7,12,13; Exodus 20:5; 32:33-35; 34:7; Leviticus 26:14,16-39; Numbers 15:31; 32:23; Deuteronomy 7:9,10; 11:26,28; 28:15-68; 30:15,19; 31:29; 1 Samuel 3:11-14; 12:25; 2 Samuel 3:39; 7:14; 22:27,28; 23:6,7; 1 Kings 21:20,21; 1 Chronicles 10:13,14; 15:13; 28:9; 2 Chronicles 15:2; Job 4:8,9; 5:3,14; 8:20,22; 10:14,15; 11:20; 15:20-24,28-30; 18:5-21; 19:29; 20:5-29; 21:7-33; 27:8-23; 31:3; 34:22; 36:12,17; Psalm 1:4-6; 2:4,5,9; 3:7; 5:5; 7:11-13; 9:5,17; 10:15; 11:6; 18:14,26,27; 21:9,10; 28:4,5; 32:10; 34:16,21; 36:12; 37:1,2,9,10,13-22,34-38; 39:11; 50:22; 52:5; 55:19,23; 56:7; 58:6-9; 59:5,8; 62:3; 64:7,8; 68:1,2,6,21; 73:2-21,27; 75:8,10; 78:1-67; 89:10,31,32; 91:8; 92:7,9; 94:13,23; 97:3; 101:8; 104:35; 106:18,43; 107:17,34; 109:6-19; 119:21,118,119,155; 129:4; 139:19; 145:20; 146:9; 147:6; Proverbs 2:22; 3:33; 6:12-15; 10:3,6-8,24,25,27-31; 11:3,5-8,19,21,23,31; 12:2,3,7; 13:2,5,6,9,21,25; 14:12,19,32; 16:4,5,25; 18:3; 19:16; 21:12,15,16; 22:5,23; 24:20,22; 26:10; 28:14,18; 29:1,16; Ecclesiastes 2:26; 7:17; 8:12,13; Isaiah 2:19; 3:11; 5:11-14,24; 9:18; 10:3; 11:4; 13:8,9,11; 24:17,18; 26:21; 28:18-22; 33:11,12,14; 40:2; 48:22; 50:11; 57:20,21; 64:5-7; 65:12-14; Jeremiah 8:12-14,20-22; 9:1; 13:14,16,22; 14:10,12; 16:18; 21:14; 25:31; 36:31; 44:23; 49:12; Lamentations 3:3; 4:22; 5:16,17; Ezekiel 3:18-20; 5:4,8-17; 7:4-6; 9:5-7,10; 11:21; 18:1-32; 20:8; 22:14,20,21,31; 24:13,14; 25:7; 33:7-20; Daniel 12:2; Hosea 2:9-13; 5:4-6,9; 7:12,13; 9:7,9,15; 10:8; 12:2,14; 13:1,3; 14:9; Joel 2:1,2; 3:13-16; Amos 3:2; 5:18-20; 8:14; 9:1-5,10; Jonah 3:9; Micah 2:3; 6:13; Nahum 1:2,8-10; Zephaniah 1:12-18; Zechariah 5:2-4; Malachi 3:17,18; 4:1; Matthew 3:7,10,12; 5:19-30; 7:13,19,23,26,27; 8:12; 10:28,33; 11:23; 12:34; 13:12-15,30,38-42,49,50; 15:13; 16:26; 18:7-9,34,35; 21:19,41,44; 22:13; 23:14,33; 24:50,51; 25:30,32,33,41,46; 26:24; Mark 4:12,25; 8:36,38; 9:43; 11:26; 12:1-9,40; 14:21; 16:16; Luke 3:7,17; 6:49; 8:18; 9:24-26; 12:4,5,46,47; 13:3,5-7,9,24,27,28; 16:22-28; 17:1,2; 19:26,27; 20:18; 22:22; 23:30,31; John 3:15,16,18,36; 5:14,29; 7:34; 8:21; 12:40; 15:2; 17:12; Acts 1:18,25; 3:23; Romans 1:18; 2:5,8; 5:12,21; 6:16,21; 8:2,6,7,13; 9:22; 11:22; 14:23; 1 Corinthians 3:17; 5:5,13; 6:9,10; 9:27; 10:5-11; 15:21,22; 2 Corinthians 7:10; Galatians 3:10; 5:19,20; 6:8; Ephesians 5:5,6; Philippians 3:18,19; Colossians 3:25; 1 Thessalonians 1:10; 5:3; 2 Thessalonians 1:5-9; 2:8-10; 1 Timothy 1:20; 5:24; 2 Timothy 2:12,13; Hebrews 2:2,3; 6:8; 10:27-31; James 1:14,15; 5:1-3,20; 1 Peter 3:12; 4:17,18; 2 Peter 2:3-9,12-17; 1 John 3:14,15; Jude 1:5-7,11-15; Revelation 2:22,23; 3:3; 6:15-17; 9:4-6,15,18; 11:18; 14:9-11; 16:2-21; 18:5; 19:15,17-21; 20:10,15; 21:8,27; 22:19
"Hell" in the Bible
Isaiah 5:14; 14:9,15; 28:15,18; 57:9; Ezekiel 31:16,17; 32:21,27; Amos 9:2; Jonah 2:2; Habakkuk 2:5; Psalm 9:17; Proverbs 5:5; 9:13,15-18; 15:24; 23:13,14; Isaiah 30:33; 33:14; Matthew 3:12; 5:29,30; 7:13,14; 8:11,12; 10:28; 13:30,38-42,49,50; 16:18; 18:8,9,34,35; 22:13; 25:28-30,41,46; Mark 9:43-48; Luke 3:17; 16:23-26,28; Acts 1:25; 2 Thessalonians 1:9; 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 1:6-23; Revelation 2:11; 9:1,2; 11:7; 14:10,11; 19:20; 20:10,15; 21:8; Matthew 5:22,29,30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15,33; Mark 9:43,45,47; Luke 12:5; James 3:6
So what is my point in providing these vast lists on the topic of Hell? Well, quite simply, if "no Hell", then "no Bible". You can't strip out a fundamental biblical truth without ripping the reliability out of Scripture.
Removing the reliability of Scripture like that has its own ripple effect directly related to the doctrine of Hell (or its absence). It begs the question. If the Scriptures are so unreliable -- they're quite wrong about all that "eternal torment" stuff, after all -- then what does that say about the Church? The doctrine of Hell has always been a component of Church doctrine. Historically, it was never in question. Now, fortunately, we're coming around to the truth that no such thing ever existed. That means that, just as we can't have much confidence in Scripture, we can have little confidence in the Church. Yeah, yeah, Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth, and He did! It just took Him a really, really long time. So it would be unwise of anyone to rely very much at all on the Church, its historical accuracy, or the vast numbers of believers who went on before. Genuine truth is what we make it today. And the Church goes down in the flames of rabid individualism.
By simply removing a little and unpleasant concept -- the idea that there is a Hell, a place of judgment for sinners -- we've managed, so far, to topple God, justice, sin, the Bible, and the Church. And ... we're not done yet.
I've been reviewing the effects of removing the doctrine of Hell. So far we've managed to view the assault the character of God. The damage there would call into question Justice in general. The injury to Justice would minimize Sin. And the hits just keep on coming.
I need to say that the doctrine of Hell isn't a fabrication of Man. I mean, that's a nasty idea no matter how you cut it. And, to be honest, we generally identify more with Man than with God, so it just wouldn't be something we'd want to make up. So where did the Church get the idea for an eternity of damnation? Well, it's in the Bible. I did a quick check in a Naves Topical Bible and found these two listings. The first is on the topic of "Wicked, the Punishment of" and the second is on the use of the term "Hell" as a place of torment. (Note: The Bible also uses the term "Hell" or "Sheol" as a reference to the place of the dead. That's why Revelation 20:14 says that "death and hell" are thrown into the lake of fire. The temporary place of the dead is thrown into the place of eternal torment.) I know, I know, it's too long; you won't read it. But, at least, you have a reference ... and a sense of magnitude.
The Punishment of the Wicked
Genesis 2:17; 3:16-19; 4:7; 6:3,7,12,13; Exodus 20:5; 32:33-35; 34:7; Leviticus 26:14,16-39; Numbers 15:31; 32:23; Deuteronomy 7:9,10; 11:26,28; 28:15-68; 30:15,19; 31:29; 1 Samuel 3:11-14; 12:25; 2 Samuel 3:39; 7:14; 22:27,28; 23:6,7; 1 Kings 21:20,21; 1 Chronicles 10:13,14; 15:13; 28:9; 2 Chronicles 15:2; Job 4:8,9; 5:3,14; 8:20,22; 10:14,15; 11:20; 15:20-24,28-30; 18:5-21; 19:29; 20:5-29; 21:7-33; 27:8-23; 31:3; 34:22; 36:12,17; Psalm 1:4-6; 2:4,5,9; 3:7; 5:5; 7:11-13; 9:5,17; 10:15; 11:6; 18:14,26,27; 21:9,10; 28:4,5; 32:10; 34:16,21; 36:12; 37:1,2,9,10,13-22,34-38; 39:11; 50:22; 52:5; 55:19,23; 56:7; 58:6-9; 59:5,8; 62:3; 64:7,8; 68:1,2,6,21; 73:2-21,27; 75:8,10; 78:1-67; 89:10,31,32; 91:8; 92:7,9; 94:13,23; 97:3; 101:8; 104:35; 106:18,43; 107:17,34; 109:6-19; 119:21,118,119,155; 129:4; 139:19; 145:20; 146:9; 147:6; Proverbs 2:22; 3:33; 6:12-15; 10:3,6-8,24,25,27-31; 11:3,5-8,19,21,23,31; 12:2,3,7; 13:2,5,6,9,21,25; 14:12,19,32; 16:4,5,25; 18:3; 19:16; 21:12,15,16; 22:5,23; 24:20,22; 26:10; 28:14,18; 29:1,16; Ecclesiastes 2:26; 7:17; 8:12,13; Isaiah 2:19; 3:11; 5:11-14,24; 9:18; 10:3; 11:4; 13:8,9,11; 24:17,18; 26:21; 28:18-22; 33:11,12,14; 40:2; 48:22; 50:11; 57:20,21; 64:5-7; 65:12-14; Jeremiah 8:12-14,20-22; 9:1; 13:14,16,22; 14:10,12; 16:18; 21:14; 25:31; 36:31; 44:23; 49:12; Lamentations 3:3; 4:22; 5:16,17; Ezekiel 3:18-20; 5:4,8-17; 7:4-6; 9:5-7,10; 11:21; 18:1-32; 20:8; 22:14,20,21,31; 24:13,14; 25:7; 33:7-20; Daniel 12:2; Hosea 2:9-13; 5:4-6,9; 7:12,13; 9:7,9,15; 10:8; 12:2,14; 13:1,3; 14:9; Joel 2:1,2; 3:13-16; Amos 3:2; 5:18-20; 8:14; 9:1-5,10; Jonah 3:9; Micah 2:3; 6:13; Nahum 1:2,8-10; Zephaniah 1:12-18; Zechariah 5:2-4; Malachi 3:17,18; 4:1; Matthew 3:7,10,12; 5:19-30; 7:13,19,23,26,27; 8:12; 10:28,33; 11:23; 12:34; 13:12-15,30,38-42,49,50; 15:13; 16:26; 18:7-9,34,35; 21:19,41,44; 22:13; 23:14,33; 24:50,51; 25:30,32,33,41,46; 26:24; Mark 4:12,25; 8:36,38; 9:43; 11:26; 12:1-9,40; 14:21; 16:16; Luke 3:7,17; 6:49; 8:18; 9:24-26; 12:4,5,46,47; 13:3,5-7,9,24,27,28; 16:22-28; 17:1,2; 19:26,27; 20:18; 22:22; 23:30,31; John 3:15,16,18,36; 5:14,29; 7:34; 8:21; 12:40; 15:2; 17:12; Acts 1:18,25; 3:23; Romans 1:18; 2:5,8; 5:12,21; 6:16,21; 8:2,6,7,13; 9:22; 11:22; 14:23; 1 Corinthians 3:17; 5:5,13; 6:9,10; 9:27; 10:5-11; 15:21,22; 2 Corinthians 7:10; Galatians 3:10; 5:19,20; 6:8; Ephesians 5:5,6; Philippians 3:18,19; Colossians 3:25; 1 Thessalonians 1:10; 5:3; 2 Thessalonians 1:5-9; 2:8-10; 1 Timothy 1:20; 5:24; 2 Timothy 2:12,13; Hebrews 2:2,3; 6:8; 10:27-31; James 1:14,15; 5:1-3,20; 1 Peter 3:12; 4:17,18; 2 Peter 2:3-9,12-17; 1 John 3:14,15; Jude 1:5-7,11-15; Revelation 2:22,23; 3:3; 6:15-17; 9:4-6,15,18; 11:18; 14:9-11; 16:2-21; 18:5; 19:15,17-21; 20:10,15; 21:8,27; 22:19
"Hell" in the Bible
Isaiah 5:14; 14:9,15; 28:15,18; 57:9; Ezekiel 31:16,17; 32:21,27; Amos 9:2; Jonah 2:2; Habakkuk 2:5; Psalm 9:17; Proverbs 5:5; 9:13,15-18; 15:24; 23:13,14; Isaiah 30:33; 33:14; Matthew 3:12; 5:29,30; 7:13,14; 8:11,12; 10:28; 13:30,38-42,49,50; 16:18; 18:8,9,34,35; 22:13; 25:28-30,41,46; Mark 9:43-48; Luke 3:17; 16:23-26,28; Acts 1:25; 2 Thessalonians 1:9; 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 1:6-23; Revelation 2:11; 9:1,2; 11:7; 14:10,11; 19:20; 20:10,15; 21:8; Matthew 5:22,29,30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15,33; Mark 9:43,45,47; Luke 12:5; James 3:6
So what is my point in providing these vast lists on the topic of Hell? Well, quite simply, if "no Hell", then "no Bible". You can't strip out a fundamental biblical truth without ripping the reliability out of Scripture.
Removing the reliability of Scripture like that has its own ripple effect directly related to the doctrine of Hell (or its absence). It begs the question. If the Scriptures are so unreliable -- they're quite wrong about all that "eternal torment" stuff, after all -- then what does that say about the Church? The doctrine of Hell has always been a component of Church doctrine. Historically, it was never in question. Now, fortunately, we're coming around to the truth that no such thing ever existed. That means that, just as we can't have much confidence in Scripture, we can have little confidence in the Church. Yeah, yeah, Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth, and He did! It just took Him a really, really long time. So it would be unwise of anyone to rely very much at all on the Church, its historical accuracy, or the vast numbers of believers who went on before. Genuine truth is what we make it today. And the Church goes down in the flames of rabid individualism.
By simply removing a little and unpleasant concept -- the idea that there is a Hell, a place of judgment for sinners -- we've managed, so far, to topple God, justice, sin, the Bible, and the Church. And ... we're not done yet.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
What Must I Do to Avoid Hell? Part 2
Subtitle: What does Hell mean to me?
(Note: I know. I usually try to post something more uplifting on a Sunday. A part of a series on Hell doesn't seem so uplifting. I think, when all is said and done, it is, so bear with me.)
Of course, since God is the Judge of All the Earth and we've managed to strip God of that attribute, I think we would need to look at Justice further.
Back in the 18th century, Immanuel Kant wrote Critique of Pure Reason in which he appeared to argue that there is no God. In truth, he was arguing that you can't prove the existence of God, not that there is no God. While Kant was closing the front door on God, he was opening the back window when he argued about the necessity for the existence of God. Kant said that there must be a God or morality had no basis. For there to be any basis for morality, there must be justice. This justice would require a Judge. And the characteristics of this Judge just happen to match the characteristics of God. It's called the Kantian Moral Argument, and it makes sense. It doesn't prove the existence of God, but it certainly begs for it. You see, if there is no Hell, Kant's argument goes away. Without eternal punishment for an eternal crime, there is no justice. Without a judgment in the afterlife, there is no justice. If everyone gets saved and no one gets punished, there is no justice. You've heard and likely even felt, "You'll get yours someday" when someone seems to get away with some bad thing. Well, if no Hell, don't count on it. There is no justice. And, if no justice, neither is there any rational basis for morality. Consider that for a moment.
Now, having stripped off justice in God and justice in general, followed by morality, that would have to bring sin into question, wouldn't it?
Did you ever see the movie, The Bad Seed? It's a 1956 movie about a concept. The concept was a question then, but almost an assumed certainty today. The idea was that bad people inherent their "bad". In the movie, cute little 8-year-old Rhoda Penmark turns out to be a vicious killer. She murders a schoolmate for a penmanship trophy she thought should have been hers. She murders a handyman who threatens to turn her in. Her mother tries to end the evil by giving her daughter an overdose of sleeping pills, then kills herself ... but Rhoda survives. What was the source of such awful darkness? Well, it must have been her maternal grandmother who was a serial killer. You see, "sin" isn't really our fault at all. Today it's a mistake, a chemical imbalance, a genetic deficiency, a product of a bad environment. It's "the bad things we do" and it's mostly excusable to some degree. Really, it's not so bad at all. So while Scripture describes sin as pernicious and pervasive, we're moving it out of the realm of an assault against God -- Cosmic Treason -- and moving it toward the magnitude of a social faux pas. If there is no Hell, how bad can sin be?
And we're not done, yet.
(Note: I know. I usually try to post something more uplifting on a Sunday. A part of a series on Hell doesn't seem so uplifting. I think, when all is said and done, it is, so bear with me.)
Of course, since God is the Judge of All the Earth and we've managed to strip God of that attribute, I think we would need to look at Justice further.
Back in the 18th century, Immanuel Kant wrote Critique of Pure Reason in which he appeared to argue that there is no God. In truth, he was arguing that you can't prove the existence of God, not that there is no God. While Kant was closing the front door on God, he was opening the back window when he argued about the necessity for the existence of God. Kant said that there must be a God or morality had no basis. For there to be any basis for morality, there must be justice. This justice would require a Judge. And the characteristics of this Judge just happen to match the characteristics of God. It's called the Kantian Moral Argument, and it makes sense. It doesn't prove the existence of God, but it certainly begs for it. You see, if there is no Hell, Kant's argument goes away. Without eternal punishment for an eternal crime, there is no justice. Without a judgment in the afterlife, there is no justice. If everyone gets saved and no one gets punished, there is no justice. You've heard and likely even felt, "You'll get yours someday" when someone seems to get away with some bad thing. Well, if no Hell, don't count on it. There is no justice. And, if no justice, neither is there any rational basis for morality. Consider that for a moment.
Now, having stripped off justice in God and justice in general, followed by morality, that would have to bring sin into question, wouldn't it?
Did you ever see the movie, The Bad Seed? It's a 1956 movie about a concept. The concept was a question then, but almost an assumed certainty today. The idea was that bad people inherent their "bad". In the movie, cute little 8-year-old Rhoda Penmark turns out to be a vicious killer. She murders a schoolmate for a penmanship trophy she thought should have been hers. She murders a handyman who threatens to turn her in. Her mother tries to end the evil by giving her daughter an overdose of sleeping pills, then kills herself ... but Rhoda survives. What was the source of such awful darkness? Well, it must have been her maternal grandmother who was a serial killer. You see, "sin" isn't really our fault at all. Today it's a mistake, a chemical imbalance, a genetic deficiency, a product of a bad environment. It's "the bad things we do" and it's mostly excusable to some degree. Really, it's not so bad at all. So while Scripture describes sin as pernicious and pervasive, we're moving it out of the realm of an assault against God -- Cosmic Treason -- and moving it toward the magnitude of a social faux pas. If there is no Hell, how bad can sin be?
And we're not done, yet.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
What Must I Do to Avoid Hell? Part 1
Subtitle: What does Hell mean to me?
(Note: This is a multi-part series since it's a lot bigger than I originally thought.)
Rob Bell has been in the news quite a bit lately. His new perspective is all the buzz. Bloggers and even mainstream news like MSNBC are talking about his position that Hell is a myth. Since Hell has been a component of Christian theology since the beginning, this is big.
The doctrine of Hell has always been an unpleasant one. The notion that there is somewhere that an apparently large number of souls exist in torment for eternity is, to any caring person, a nasty proposition at best. The idea that sins committed in a lifetime should be punished forever seems like overkill. And, really, is it nice to think that God would save just those who have faith while not saving all the rest? What kind of narrow-minded, mean-spirited God would pick that arbitrary concept? So it should not seem odd to us that it is under attack these days not only by atheists and skeptics, but by those who call themselves Christians and even Evangelicals. What might seem odd, though, is that anyone (like me) would think to rise to its defense. I mean, seriously, if we could figure out that the Church has been wrong all these millennia and there really is no place called "Hell" or the like, wouldn't that be a good thing? Well, for me, the answer is "No." You see, Hell has meaning to me.
It is not possible to shift the doctrine of Hell into oblivion without having a major impact on all sorts of other areas. The first and foremost is the assault on God's character. Since God is supernatural, the primary, most reliable, best method we can have of knowing God's character is to simply know what He tells us about Himself. So what does God tell us about Himself? Well, we know He is Holy (really, really Holy ... since it is the only attribute of God that is not only repeated twice in Scripture, but repeated three times in those two places). We know that He is Just. We know He is gracious and merciful. We know that the Bible is full of references to God's wrath. We know that He is good. We know that "God is love". (I put it in quotes because it is ... odd. He isn't "loving" or "lovely" or the like. He is love. That is, whatever love is is defined by God.) We know a lot about God because these are the kinds of things He has told us about Himself. Now ... strip off that whole "eternal damnation" thing. What do we know now about God? Well, He would certainly be merciful (where "mercy" is defined as "not getting what you deserve") and gracious (where "grace" is defined as "getting what you don't deserve"). So far, so good. Of course, we'd have to remove that whole "Just" thing. That's out the door. And the whole "wrath of God" thing would have to go, too. He's a friendly God now. And what about "Holy"? No, not so much. Having stripped off any sort of punishment for sin, that one doesn't work so much either. Of course, since all of these have been dismantled, we will certainly call into question His reliability and, with that, His faithfulness. I mean, there are all those things about "wrath" and "justice" and the like which we can't really hold, so what else is He lying about? And, of course, that would also terminate the idea of God being good. Oh, this isn't going well, after all, is it?
This is just the beginning. While we don't like the concept of Hell, the first and foremost impact if we strip it from the pages of Scripture is the impact on the character of God. Don't believe, however, that this is the last impact.
(Note: This is a multi-part series since it's a lot bigger than I originally thought.)
Rob Bell has been in the news quite a bit lately. His new perspective is all the buzz. Bloggers and even mainstream news like MSNBC are talking about his position that Hell is a myth. Since Hell has been a component of Christian theology since the beginning, this is big.
The doctrine of Hell has always been an unpleasant one. The notion that there is somewhere that an apparently large number of souls exist in torment for eternity is, to any caring person, a nasty proposition at best. The idea that sins committed in a lifetime should be punished forever seems like overkill. And, really, is it nice to think that God would save just those who have faith while not saving all the rest? What kind of narrow-minded, mean-spirited God would pick that arbitrary concept? So it should not seem odd to us that it is under attack these days not only by atheists and skeptics, but by those who call themselves Christians and even Evangelicals. What might seem odd, though, is that anyone (like me) would think to rise to its defense. I mean, seriously, if we could figure out that the Church has been wrong all these millennia and there really is no place called "Hell" or the like, wouldn't that be a good thing? Well, for me, the answer is "No." You see, Hell has meaning to me.
It is not possible to shift the doctrine of Hell into oblivion without having a major impact on all sorts of other areas. The first and foremost is the assault on God's character. Since God is supernatural, the primary, most reliable, best method we can have of knowing God's character is to simply know what He tells us about Himself. So what does God tell us about Himself? Well, we know He is Holy (really, really Holy ... since it is the only attribute of God that is not only repeated twice in Scripture, but repeated three times in those two places). We know that He is Just. We know He is gracious and merciful. We know that the Bible is full of references to God's wrath. We know that He is good. We know that "God is love". (I put it in quotes because it is ... odd. He isn't "loving" or "lovely" or the like. He is love. That is, whatever love is is defined by God.) We know a lot about God because these are the kinds of things He has told us about Himself. Now ... strip off that whole "eternal damnation" thing. What do we know now about God? Well, He would certainly be merciful (where "mercy" is defined as "not getting what you deserve") and gracious (where "grace" is defined as "getting what you don't deserve"). So far, so good. Of course, we'd have to remove that whole "Just" thing. That's out the door. And the whole "wrath of God" thing would have to go, too. He's a friendly God now. And what about "Holy"? No, not so much. Having stripped off any sort of punishment for sin, that one doesn't work so much either. Of course, since all of these have been dismantled, we will certainly call into question His reliability and, with that, His faithfulness. I mean, there are all those things about "wrath" and "justice" and the like which we can't really hold, so what else is He lying about? And, of course, that would also terminate the idea of God being good. Oh, this isn't going well, after all, is it?
This is just the beginning. While we don't like the concept of Hell, the first and foremost impact if we strip it from the pages of Scripture is the impact on the character of God. Don't believe, however, that this is the last impact.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
What Ever Happened to Hell?
Recently I had a commenter go all silly on me explaining that there was no hell and any such thought was crazy. I didn't even post the comment. Too much nonsense. Imagine my surprise, then, when days after I wrote this piece about "nothing to say", Rob Bell releases a video promoting his new book entitled Love Wins in which, from all appearances, he plans to explain that "love wins" and there is no hell. And the Internet exploded with the conversation.
Dr. Al Mohler, in an essay entitled Doing Away with Hell, has begun his response. He starts with this:
Universalism is easy. It is the belief that everyone goes to heaven. It is the belief that salvation is universal. Such a belief is, of course, problematic since there is so much in Scripture that contradicts it. Jesus Himself spoke more about hell than heaven. It wasn't some narrow-minded, mean-spirited, modern right-wing nut job who 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). This idea of universalism finds pitiful support in Scripture and vast contradiction. But there are those who hold to it.
Conditional immortality was new to me. I had to research that one. Turns out that it is closely related to annihilationism, so let's do that one first. Annihilationism is very popular in certain sects. This idea holds that no one goes to "eternal torment". Those who don't go to heaven simply cease to be. And, as it turns out, this is the basic concept behind conditional immortality. The idea there is that souls are not inherently eternal. Those to whom God has given eternal life will continue eternally, and those to whom He has not will not. Simple! This idea is not limited to the non-Christian Jehovah's Witnesses or the more Christian Seventh-Day Adventists. Names like Greg Boyd, John Stott, and Clark Pinnock are flaunted as supporters. This view, of course, requires the re-definition of clear biblical statements about the eternal torment of those who do not believe. It also represents a failure to properly understand God's definition of "life" (John 17:3).
I can figure out postmortem evangelism even if I've never really heard of it. The idea is "second chances". Christ can give everyone a second chance after they die. "Here you are, faced with an eternity of heaven or hell. Which do you choose now?" The fact that this is favored largely by people I consider dangerously heretical and the glaring lack of any suggestion of such a possibility in Scripture renders this one as nonsense to me.
Inclusivism was a new term to me (in this context). Pluralism sees all religions as valid. "All roads lead to heaven." That kind of thing. On the opposite extreme, exclusivism claims that only by faith in the finished work of Christ can anyone be saved. You know, standard historical orthodox Christian teaching. Inclusivism would fall between these two. Some forms lean toward pluralism -- "It's not the religion you believe, but the God you worship that matters. God can save anyone regardless of their religion." (I hope you can see the distinction between that view and pluralism. It is different ... slightly.) Leaning away from "regardless of their religion", others might say that Christ is capable of saving whom He will however He will. That is, while the only way to heaven is through Christ, it doesn't necessarily require mental knowledge of the story of His death and resurrection and all to be saved. This, then, would be a means of including dead infants and the like who never get the chance to hear or decide or those fabled pygmies in Africa who never hear.
As it turns out, the biblical concept of Hell appears to be a problem. While the Church hasn't balked at the idea for its entire time and the Scriptures seem abundantly clear on the idea that God may choose to eternally torment those who commit Cosmic Treason against the Most High, many have decided to be more compassionate than God. "That will never do," they assure us and the shift from God's holiness, wrath, and justice begins. "All that really matters," they're quite sure, "is His love. The rest is expendable." Well, no, they don't say it, but it's there.
Dr. Al Mohler, in an essay entitled Doing Away with Hell, has begun his response. He starts with this:
Whatever happened to hell? What has happened so that we now find even some who claim to be evangelicals promoting and teaching concepts such as universalism, inclusivism, postmortem evangelism, conditional immortality, and annihilationism — when those known as evangelicals in former times were known for opposing those very proposals?Now, I know there are some who were hoping to hear what I think about hell (it's a real place -- there, you have it) or maybe what I think about the controversy (see "it's a real place") or make some arguments on the topic. I'm not. At least not here. What I am wondering is ... what's all this then? What are these horrible things being included that Dr. Mohler finds so evil? I asked, of course, because I frankly didn't know. So I had to find out.
Universalism is easy. It is the belief that everyone goes to heaven. It is the belief that salvation is universal. Such a belief is, of course, problematic since there is so much in Scripture that contradicts it. Jesus Himself spoke more about hell than heaven. It wasn't some narrow-minded, mean-spirited, modern right-wing nut job who 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). This idea of universalism finds pitiful support in Scripture and vast contradiction. But there are those who hold to it.
Conditional immortality was new to me. I had to research that one. Turns out that it is closely related to annihilationism, so let's do that one first. Annihilationism is very popular in certain sects. This idea holds that no one goes to "eternal torment". Those who don't go to heaven simply cease to be. And, as it turns out, this is the basic concept behind conditional immortality. The idea there is that souls are not inherently eternal. Those to whom God has given eternal life will continue eternally, and those to whom He has not will not. Simple! This idea is not limited to the non-Christian Jehovah's Witnesses or the more Christian Seventh-Day Adventists. Names like Greg Boyd, John Stott, and Clark Pinnock are flaunted as supporters. This view, of course, requires the re-definition of clear biblical statements about the eternal torment of those who do not believe. It also represents a failure to properly understand God's definition of "life" (John 17:3).
I can figure out postmortem evangelism even if I've never really heard of it. The idea is "second chances". Christ can give everyone a second chance after they die. "Here you are, faced with an eternity of heaven or hell. Which do you choose now?" The fact that this is favored largely by people I consider dangerously heretical and the glaring lack of any suggestion of such a possibility in Scripture renders this one as nonsense to me.
Inclusivism was a new term to me (in this context). Pluralism sees all religions as valid. "All roads lead to heaven." That kind of thing. On the opposite extreme, exclusivism claims that only by faith in the finished work of Christ can anyone be saved. You know, standard historical orthodox Christian teaching. Inclusivism would fall between these two. Some forms lean toward pluralism -- "It's not the religion you believe, but the God you worship that matters. God can save anyone regardless of their religion." (I hope you can see the distinction between that view and pluralism. It is different ... slightly.) Leaning away from "regardless of their religion", others might say that Christ is capable of saving whom He will however He will. That is, while the only way to heaven is through Christ, it doesn't necessarily require mental knowledge of the story of His death and resurrection and all to be saved. This, then, would be a means of including dead infants and the like who never get the chance to hear or decide or those fabled pygmies in Africa who never hear.
As it turns out, the biblical concept of Hell appears to be a problem. While the Church hasn't balked at the idea for its entire time and the Scriptures seem abundantly clear on the idea that God may choose to eternally torment those who commit Cosmic Treason against the Most High, many have decided to be more compassionate than God. "That will never do," they assure us and the shift from God's holiness, wrath, and justice begins. "All that really matters," they're quite sure, "is His love. The rest is expendable." Well, no, they don't say it, but it's there.
Monday, November 08, 2010
Does God make people He knows will go to Hell?
It's a tough question, really. The first response is easy. "No! It can't be. It's not acceptable. No way. Not a loving God!" And, truthfully, anyone of us would find the mere suggestion unpleasant at best and abhorrent and unthinkable at worst.
Then you start mulling things over. Thinking can be such a mistake sometimes. Consider God's Omniscience. David wrote (speaking to God), "Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in Your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them" (Psa 139:16). Now, some would like to argue that God's Omniscience means that God knows everything that can be known, but that since future events haven't occurred, He can't know them. This passage says that before we're born God has every day of our lives already written down. That sounds a lot like He knows the end from the beginning.
Now, assuming that God is indeed Omniscient in the sense that He knows all things (including the future to us) and assuming that He knows all things accurately, ask that question again. "Does God make people He knows will go to Hell?" Assuming that no one is born whom God didn't intend to be born and assuming that God knows all things, the answer to the question becomes inevitable: "Yes. Undoubtedly. Absolutely. If God knows all things and people are born who will go to Hell, then God makes people He knows will go to Hell."
Now, there is a biblical reason given and you can find it if you wish, but I'm interested in the reason that we have a problem with this idea. We find this notion repulsive. (Don't misunderstand. It bothers me as well.) Why? I would guess that there are a few reasons.
First, I would suggest that it is a problem of holiness. You see, God is holy. No, more than that. He is "holy, holy, holy" -- holy to the utmost. This doesn't merely mean "completely apart from sin". It means "other". And inherent in human beings is the absolute dislike of "other". It is the source of racism and sexism and the conflict between classes. We are most comfortable with the things most like us. We are uncomfortable with "different". And God is different. So we more closely align ourselves with other humans than we do with God. That's natural ... but it isn't right.
Second, I would assume that it is a problem of self-centeredness. You see, if the natural problem of sin is "I will be like the Most High", then self-centeredness is the natural result. It makes us value ourselves most highly. So while God is actually the highest Being, we tend to think of ourselves as quite important. The suggestion that God doesn't think of us as important as we do is offensive to us.
Related to that is the problem that Paul points to. Describing the sinful decline of Man he writes, "For although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things" (Rom 1:21-23). We call it "idolatry". It's simple. If we exchange the glory of the immortal God for anything at all that is less than God, it is idolatry. And that's the state of Natural Man. "They exchanged the truth about God for the lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator" (Rom 1:25). Sinners worship and serve the creature rather than the Creator. Therefore, for God to actually make creatures He knows will go to Hell would be evil because we serve the creature.
So, let's see where we stand. Does God make people He knows will go to Hell? Absolutely. Given His Omniscience, it can be no other way. Why is that a problem for us? We have a natural distaste for the "otherness" of God, a natural problem with self-centeredness, and a real problem with the idolatry of serving the creature over the Creator. Now, we could continue to be upset about the notion that God makes people He knows will go to Hell, or we can work at eliminating the sinful perspectives that make that so repulsive. You decide.
Then you start mulling things over. Thinking can be such a mistake sometimes. Consider God's Omniscience. David wrote (speaking to God), "Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in Your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them" (Psa 139:16). Now, some would like to argue that God's Omniscience means that God knows everything that can be known, but that since future events haven't occurred, He can't know them. This passage says that before we're born God has every day of our lives already written down. That sounds a lot like He knows the end from the beginning.
Now, assuming that God is indeed Omniscient in the sense that He knows all things (including the future to us) and assuming that He knows all things accurately, ask that question again. "Does God make people He knows will go to Hell?" Assuming that no one is born whom God didn't intend to be born and assuming that God knows all things, the answer to the question becomes inevitable: "Yes. Undoubtedly. Absolutely. If God knows all things and people are born who will go to Hell, then God makes people He knows will go to Hell."
Now, there is a biblical reason given and you can find it if you wish, but I'm interested in the reason that we have a problem with this idea. We find this notion repulsive. (Don't misunderstand. It bothers me as well.) Why? I would guess that there are a few reasons.
First, I would suggest that it is a problem of holiness. You see, God is holy. No, more than that. He is "holy, holy, holy" -- holy to the utmost. This doesn't merely mean "completely apart from sin". It means "other". And inherent in human beings is the absolute dislike of "other". It is the source of racism and sexism and the conflict between classes. We are most comfortable with the things most like us. We are uncomfortable with "different". And God is different. So we more closely align ourselves with other humans than we do with God. That's natural ... but it isn't right.
Second, I would assume that it is a problem of self-centeredness. You see, if the natural problem of sin is "I will be like the Most High", then self-centeredness is the natural result. It makes us value ourselves most highly. So while God is actually the highest Being, we tend to think of ourselves as quite important. The suggestion that God doesn't think of us as important as we do is offensive to us.
Related to that is the problem that Paul points to. Describing the sinful decline of Man he writes, "For although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things" (Rom 1:21-23). We call it "idolatry". It's simple. If we exchange the glory of the immortal God for anything at all that is less than God, it is idolatry. And that's the state of Natural Man. "They exchanged the truth about God for the lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator" (Rom 1:25). Sinners worship and serve the creature rather than the Creator. Therefore, for God to actually make creatures He knows will go to Hell would be evil because we serve the creature.
So, let's see where we stand. Does God make people He knows will go to Hell? Absolutely. Given His Omniscience, it can be no other way. Why is that a problem for us? We have a natural distaste for the "otherness" of God, a natural problem with self-centeredness, and a real problem with the idolatry of serving the creature over the Creator. Now, we could continue to be upset about the notion that God makes people He knows will go to Hell, or we can work at eliminating the sinful perspectives that make that so repulsive. You decide.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
The Dichotomy of Hell
Dichotomy: division into two mutually exclusive, opposed, or contradictory groups.
I already wrote about hell in a recent post. I defended the notion. It seems unavoidable from Scripture. I stand by it. However, I have to admit that the concept of Hell carries with it a certain dichotomy, an apparent contradiction.
I explained that Hell was basically separation from God. It's hard to avoid that conclusion. Jesus, talking to those who claimed to work for Him but never did, said, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness" (Matt 7:23). At the end of Revelation, John describes the New Jerusalem -- our standard perspective on heaven. He says, "Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood" (Rev 22:15). There is a view that says that Hell is simply the presence of God for people who hate God, and that would be torment. But how does that take into account these passages that talk about separation, not proximity?
So what's the problem? I have passages that tell me there is a separation from God. And why would anyone suggest otherwise? Well, the reason for such a suggestion is the problem. You see, if God is indeed omnipresent -- actually present everywhere -- then God is present in Hell. I know ... we've been told that's the domain of Satan. (Don't believe it. Nothing in the Bible supports that.) But if God is everywhere, He is there, too. So ... now we have a problem, don't we? If Jesus said "Depart from Me", but God is anywhere else you might go, how is Hell a separation from God?
There are a couple of given difficulties when we examine human concepts of God. One of the problems of human-to-God relations is this problem of finite v. infinite. Simply by definition, the finite cannot fully grasp the infinite. So when the demand is, "You must fully explain God", the demand is irrational. No human can fully understand or explain God. The second difficulty is that, being human, we can only relate to God in ways that we know. In other words, we can only work from our own perspective. God may (likely does) have a whole variety of aspects outside of our comprehension, but we can't see, understand, or even discuss them because we can only look at things from our own perspective. The truth is that all we can know about God is what He chooses to reveal to us about Himself, and we can only understand them from the things we know.
Well, here's what I know. I know that it is possible to be present and apart at the same time. You know how that can work. You know people who are lonely in a room full of people. You've had relationships with people where you are sharing the same space but there is a gulf between you. You're in the same geographical location, but you're not connected. Maybe you're mad or maybe the conversation is outside of your area of understanding or ... lots of reasons. But we're already familiar, as humans, of this odd dichotomy of being present but apart.
Since this oddity is something we can understand from our own experience, I don't see why it's so hard to understand from God's perspective. There are a variety of views on what Hell is in Christendom. Some argue it doesn't exist. That requires a presupposition that the Bible cannot be trusted and that what we have today is a modified Bible. Let's not go there. Some argue that "Hell" simply references the annihilation of those who die without Christ. This doesn't line up with the eternal torment passages ... primarily from the lips of Christ Himself. Some argue that it is eternal torment away from God and some (primarily Eastern Orthodox) argue that it is eternal torment in the presence of God. I would argue, from those last two ideas, that the right answer is "Yes!". God is omnipresent, so no one can be actually outside of God's presence. On the other hand, if you are one who loves God, being in His unadulterated presence would be sheer joy. If, on the other hand, you're one who hates God (Rom 8:5-8), then being in His presence would be agony. There would be a separation, not of geography, but of a different kind, and being one who loves the darkness forced into eternal light would be eternal torment. So I would say that it would be eternal separation from God in some sense.
Let me try explaining it from this approach. We've all heard the classic Jewish blessing: "The LORD bless you and keep you; the LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; the LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace" (Num 6:24-26). That's the standard biblical definition of "blessing" -- God's face is turned toward you. The standard biblical definition, then, of "curse" is not some "evil eye" or some such. It is simply the reverse of the blessing -- God's face is turned away from you. If you want peace, grace, security, and joy, you want God's face toward you. If God's face is turned away, there is no peace, grace, security, or joy. Now, consider this: In which of these two scenarios -- God's face turned toward you and God's face turned away from you -- is God not there? One is eternal joy and one is eternal torment, but God is present in both. The separation in this description is not geographical; it is relational. Does that help?
I already wrote about hell in a recent post. I defended the notion. It seems unavoidable from Scripture. I stand by it. However, I have to admit that the concept of Hell carries with it a certain dichotomy, an apparent contradiction.
I explained that Hell was basically separation from God. It's hard to avoid that conclusion. Jesus, talking to those who claimed to work for Him but never did, said, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness" (Matt 7:23). At the end of Revelation, John describes the New Jerusalem -- our standard perspective on heaven. He says, "Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood" (Rev 22:15). There is a view that says that Hell is simply the presence of God for people who hate God, and that would be torment. But how does that take into account these passages that talk about separation, not proximity?
So what's the problem? I have passages that tell me there is a separation from God. And why would anyone suggest otherwise? Well, the reason for such a suggestion is the problem. You see, if God is indeed omnipresent -- actually present everywhere -- then God is present in Hell. I know ... we've been told that's the domain of Satan. (Don't believe it. Nothing in the Bible supports that.) But if God is everywhere, He is there, too. So ... now we have a problem, don't we? If Jesus said "Depart from Me", but God is anywhere else you might go, how is Hell a separation from God?
There are a couple of given difficulties when we examine human concepts of God. One of the problems of human-to-God relations is this problem of finite v. infinite. Simply by definition, the finite cannot fully grasp the infinite. So when the demand is, "You must fully explain God", the demand is irrational. No human can fully understand or explain God. The second difficulty is that, being human, we can only relate to God in ways that we know. In other words, we can only work from our own perspective. God may (likely does) have a whole variety of aspects outside of our comprehension, but we can't see, understand, or even discuss them because we can only look at things from our own perspective. The truth is that all we can know about God is what He chooses to reveal to us about Himself, and we can only understand them from the things we know.
Well, here's what I know. I know that it is possible to be present and apart at the same time. You know how that can work. You know people who are lonely in a room full of people. You've had relationships with people where you are sharing the same space but there is a gulf between you. You're in the same geographical location, but you're not connected. Maybe you're mad or maybe the conversation is outside of your area of understanding or ... lots of reasons. But we're already familiar, as humans, of this odd dichotomy of being present but apart.
Since this oddity is something we can understand from our own experience, I don't see why it's so hard to understand from God's perspective. There are a variety of views on what Hell is in Christendom. Some argue it doesn't exist. That requires a presupposition that the Bible cannot be trusted and that what we have today is a modified Bible. Let's not go there. Some argue that "Hell" simply references the annihilation of those who die without Christ. This doesn't line up with the eternal torment passages ... primarily from the lips of Christ Himself. Some argue that it is eternal torment away from God and some (primarily Eastern Orthodox) argue that it is eternal torment in the presence of God. I would argue, from those last two ideas, that the right answer is "Yes!". God is omnipresent, so no one can be actually outside of God's presence. On the other hand, if you are one who loves God, being in His unadulterated presence would be sheer joy. If, on the other hand, you're one who hates God (Rom 8:5-8), then being in His presence would be agony. There would be a separation, not of geography, but of a different kind, and being one who loves the darkness forced into eternal light would be eternal torment. So I would say that it would be eternal separation from God in some sense.
Let me try explaining it from this approach. We've all heard the classic Jewish blessing: "The LORD bless you and keep you; the LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; the LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace" (Num 6:24-26). That's the standard biblical definition of "blessing" -- God's face is turned toward you. The standard biblical definition, then, of "curse" is not some "evil eye" or some such. It is simply the reverse of the blessing -- God's face is turned away from you. If you want peace, grace, security, and joy, you want God's face toward you. If God's face is turned away, there is no peace, grace, security, or joy. Now, consider this: In which of these two scenarios -- God's face turned toward you and God's face turned away from you -- is God not there? One is eternal joy and one is eternal torment, but God is present in both. The separation in this description is not geographical; it is relational. Does that help?
Monday, October 05, 2009
Oh, Hell? No.
"Excuse me, do you believe in Hell?" "In what?" "Hell." "Oh, Hell? No."
The concept of Hell has been part and parcel of Christianity since it began. Today the idea is slipping into the Hell of Tossed Ideas. A survey in 2006 held that 76% of Americans believed in Hell. In 2008, that number was down to 59%. While belief in Heaven remains fairly high, the idea that there is some sort of eternal damnation, some torment forever for my sins, is no longer the fear factor it once was. Most people are pretty sure they'll get to Heaven. Hell is not an issue.
When I was younger, I was baffled by the idea of Hell. I got that it was intended to be punishment for sin. I was fine with punishment for sin. However, I wondered, "Shouldn't the punishment fit the crime?" After all, if I defied my mom and dad, I got something like a spanking. If I defied God, I got eternal torment. How was that reasonable? If I commit temporal crimes, why do I get eternal punishment? This was all, of course, because I was operating from the center of Man rather than God. Sin was just "doing bad things" and God was a big Dad. I was a nice fellow. Why would I deserve that kind of response?
God explains the problem in a different light. Starting with God, we see the One and Only Master of the Universe, the King, the Sovereign of All. He doesn't simply make suggestions; His Word is Law. He not only demands, but deserves complete obedience. So we, as creations of His, see those demands and respond with "I will make myself like the Most High" (Isa 14:14). We decide to overthrow the King of the Universe and make ourselves masters of our universe. Looking at this top down, we can see that our refusal to submit to the King of Kings is not simply a violation of rules. It is treason. We are committing Cosmic Treason against the King. Now, in normal, temporal governments, treason is punishable by temporal death. It makes sense, then, that in an eternal government, the punishment for treason would be eternal death.
The second problem in our thinking about Hell is that we have some faulty definitions. Take, for instance, the concepts of "life" and "death". We see them as fairly simple ideas. Life, to us, is the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally. Death, then, would be the absence of life, the permanent cessation of all the vital functions of an organism. Not much controversy there. God, however, sees these differently. Jesus said, "This is eternal life, that they know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent" (John 17:3). From God's perspective, then, life is our relationship with God and His Son. The absence of life would be the absence of said relationship. Jesus confirmed this when He told of those who would come to Him falsely claiming Him as Lord. The defining problem, according to Jesus, was "I never knew you" (Matt 7:23).
Another faulty definition we perpetrate is thinking of "Hell" as "a place of fire". The biblical concept of Hell is simply the place of the dead. The Old Testament word is Sheol, and the concept is simply the grave. The New Testament (Greek) word is Hades, the grave. Now, don't misunderstand. I'm not saying that there is no place of eternal torment, of eternal death. I'm saying that our wording here is confused. According to John, at the end of the Millennial Kingdom, "Death and Hell were thrown into the lake of fire" (Rev 20:14). So, if both Death and Hell are terminated in this "lake of fire", what are we talking about when we use the term "Hell" as eternal death and eternal torment? In fact, how do "eternal death" and "eternal torment go together?
So, we have a view of sin that is simply "doing bad things" and God sees it as Cosmic Treason. We see "life" as living and breathing and death as the permanent cessation of such life while God sees it as connection to Him or the lack thereof. We see "Hell" as "a place of eternal fire" and God terminates Hell in the Lake of Fire. Holding up the concept of Hell to these new values, then, we might begin to have a new perspective on Hell. First, Hell is not the final resting place of sinners. The "Lake of Fire" is. But that's a minor issue, a trivial point, a matter of terminology, not reality. The reality is that Cosmic Treason demands justice and the just recompense for that crime is Cosmic Death. Life is not living and breathing, but connection with God, so Cosmic Death would be an eternal separation from God.
"Oh," some might think, "that's not so bad. You're just talking about separation. That's nothing at all like 'fire and brimstone' like we hear about." Again, we're suffering from a faulty concept. Humans are designed by God to be in connection to God. We are built in His image and fashioned to have a relationship with Him. This loss of connection, this separation from God, is not a small issue. Interestingly, the most prolific information we have on the eternal torment that awaits those who are damned comes from the Son of God. People like to think of Jesus as a warm and loving guy, but Jesus spoke more of Hell than He did of Heaven. It is Jesus who gives descriptions like "the unquenchable fire" (Mark 9:43) and "Where their worm does not die" (Mark 9:48). Whatever it is, we know that it is eternal and it is torment.
The final abode of those who die without Christ may not be a place of fire. That image comes from language in Scripture and is popularized by Dante's Inferno. Whether or not it is literally such a place is up for discussion. What we do know is that it is eternal, that it is eternal death, that it is eternal separation from God, that it is eternal torment. Physical torment? Who knows? But I suspect there will be slim satisfaction to the soul that is damned to find out that it isn't fire and brimstone ... just eternal torment.
The concept of Hell has been part and parcel of Christianity since it began. Today the idea is slipping into the Hell of Tossed Ideas. A survey in 2006 held that 76% of Americans believed in Hell. In 2008, that number was down to 59%. While belief in Heaven remains fairly high, the idea that there is some sort of eternal damnation, some torment forever for my sins, is no longer the fear factor it once was. Most people are pretty sure they'll get to Heaven. Hell is not an issue.
When I was younger, I was baffled by the idea of Hell. I got that it was intended to be punishment for sin. I was fine with punishment for sin. However, I wondered, "Shouldn't the punishment fit the crime?" After all, if I defied my mom and dad, I got something like a spanking. If I defied God, I got eternal torment. How was that reasonable? If I commit temporal crimes, why do I get eternal punishment? This was all, of course, because I was operating from the center of Man rather than God. Sin was just "doing bad things" and God was a big Dad. I was a nice fellow. Why would I deserve that kind of response?
God explains the problem in a different light. Starting with God, we see the One and Only Master of the Universe, the King, the Sovereign of All. He doesn't simply make suggestions; His Word is Law. He not only demands, but deserves complete obedience. So we, as creations of His, see those demands and respond with "I will make myself like the Most High" (Isa 14:14). We decide to overthrow the King of the Universe and make ourselves masters of our universe. Looking at this top down, we can see that our refusal to submit to the King of Kings is not simply a violation of rules. It is treason. We are committing Cosmic Treason against the King. Now, in normal, temporal governments, treason is punishable by temporal death. It makes sense, then, that in an eternal government, the punishment for treason would be eternal death.
The second problem in our thinking about Hell is that we have some faulty definitions. Take, for instance, the concepts of "life" and "death". We see them as fairly simple ideas. Life, to us, is the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally. Death, then, would be the absence of life, the permanent cessation of all the vital functions of an organism. Not much controversy there. God, however, sees these differently. Jesus said, "This is eternal life, that they know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent" (John 17:3). From God's perspective, then, life is our relationship with God and His Son. The absence of life would be the absence of said relationship. Jesus confirmed this when He told of those who would come to Him falsely claiming Him as Lord. The defining problem, according to Jesus, was "I never knew you" (Matt 7:23).
Another faulty definition we perpetrate is thinking of "Hell" as "a place of fire". The biblical concept of Hell is simply the place of the dead. The Old Testament word is Sheol, and the concept is simply the grave. The New Testament (Greek) word is Hades, the grave. Now, don't misunderstand. I'm not saying that there is no place of eternal torment, of eternal death. I'm saying that our wording here is confused. According to John, at the end of the Millennial Kingdom, "Death and Hell were thrown into the lake of fire" (Rev 20:14). So, if both Death and Hell are terminated in this "lake of fire", what are we talking about when we use the term "Hell" as eternal death and eternal torment? In fact, how do "eternal death" and "eternal torment go together?
So, we have a view of sin that is simply "doing bad things" and God sees it as Cosmic Treason. We see "life" as living and breathing and death as the permanent cessation of such life while God sees it as connection to Him or the lack thereof. We see "Hell" as "a place of eternal fire" and God terminates Hell in the Lake of Fire. Holding up the concept of Hell to these new values, then, we might begin to have a new perspective on Hell. First, Hell is not the final resting place of sinners. The "Lake of Fire" is. But that's a minor issue, a trivial point, a matter of terminology, not reality. The reality is that Cosmic Treason demands justice and the just recompense for that crime is Cosmic Death. Life is not living and breathing, but connection with God, so Cosmic Death would be an eternal separation from God.
"Oh," some might think, "that's not so bad. You're just talking about separation. That's nothing at all like 'fire and brimstone' like we hear about." Again, we're suffering from a faulty concept. Humans are designed by God to be in connection to God. We are built in His image and fashioned to have a relationship with Him. This loss of connection, this separation from God, is not a small issue. Interestingly, the most prolific information we have on the eternal torment that awaits those who are damned comes from the Son of God. People like to think of Jesus as a warm and loving guy, but Jesus spoke more of Hell than He did of Heaven. It is Jesus who gives descriptions like "the unquenchable fire" (Mark 9:43) and "Where their worm does not die" (Mark 9:48). Whatever it is, we know that it is eternal and it is torment.
The final abode of those who die without Christ may not be a place of fire. That image comes from language in Scripture and is popularized by Dante's Inferno. Whether or not it is literally such a place is up for discussion. What we do know is that it is eternal, that it is eternal death, that it is eternal separation from God, that it is eternal torment. Physical torment? Who knows? But I suspect there will be slim satisfaction to the soul that is damned to find out that it isn't fire and brimstone ... just eternal torment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)