I often hear Christians of every stripe say they wish hell did not exist, or that no people would end up there. I understand what they mean. Hell is a gruesome prospect. The idea of people suffering for eternity is a grim one. It’s hard to be excited about a doctrine like this, particularly when all of us have family and loved ones that we have good reason to believe will end up in hell. On a purely emotional level, there is a sense in which all of us can say we wish there was no hell or that no one would go there.
That said, as Christians, are we truly honoring God when we bemoan hell? It’s as if we are embarrassed of our God, or think that God is making a mistake in sending people to hell for their moral crimes. Our apologies for hell are really apologies for God since hell is His idea. On a certain level, however, I think that all people—Christians and non-Christians—should want something like hell to exist. After all, hell is a place where justice is meted out on evil. We all complain about the problem of evil and lack of justice in this life, so why would we not want justice for those evils in the next? To say we wish hell did not exist is to say we wish there was no place of reckoning for evil. Do we really want to say we hope the wrongs will never be righted? Dennis Prager, himself a Jew, once wrote:
One, therefore, need not be a conservative Christian to believe in some form of hell for the evil. All one need be is a rational believer in a just God. For if there is a just God, it is inconceivable that those who do evil and those who do good have identical fates. A just God must care about justice, and since there is little justice in this world, there has to be in the next.[1] (emphasis mine)
How could we not want to see Hitler pay for the crimes he committed against humanity? How could we want someone like Hitler to have the same fate as someone like Mother Theresa? Everything within us cries out that that would be unjust.
All of us deserve hell for our moral crimes, but thankfully, Jesus paid the penalty for those crimes and now we can be pardoned. In Jesus, God’s justice is satisfied for all those who trust in Christ.
[1]Dennis Prager, “Is It OK to Hope Anyone Is In Hell?”; available from http://www.dennisprager.com/columns.aspx?g=aac5d2b3-b501-491d-be06-1cfcde056444&url=is_it_ok_to_hope_anyone_is_in_hell; Internet; accessed 23 July 2012.
Thinking to Believe 
July 27, 2012 at 3:08 pm
When I read posts like this and various recent books on the subject, I’m bewildered by the fact that most Christians simply aren’t aware of the purgatorial view of hell, which was held by Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and other pre-Augustinian church fathers.
For instance, I see in this post an implied false dichotomy that either there is or will be an infinite hell, or there will be no punishment at all (and thus things would be unjust; “How could we not want to see Hitler pay…?”).
Furthermore, statements like “[Infinite hell is] God’s idea” beg this question, which is understandable if and only if the writer is unaware of the ancient, purgatorial view.
I was recently reading Francis Chan’s “Erasing Hell,” and he seems equally oblivious to the doctrine of purgatorial universalism. He pits “infinite hell” against “no-punishment universalism,” neither of which had major support in the first 3 centuries of Christianity.
I recommend the recent release, “Hope Beyond Hell.” Here’s a preview video. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BpB18IU6xu0#!) There’s a free PDF download of the entire book, abridged and unabridged, on the author’s web site (http://www.hopebeyondhell.net/).
LikeLike
July 27, 2012 at 4:01 pm
Stan,
We are aware of the Catholic doctrine of purgatory, but we do not discuss it because we do not think the doctrine is taught in Scripture. Furthermore, even Catholics don’t think that everyone goes to purgatory. Purgatory is only for those will ultimately be saved. Those who are not saved go straight to hell, do not pass through purgatory, and do not collect $200.
Jason
LikeLike
July 27, 2012 at 4:08 pm
Purgatorial universalism is not related to the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. Purgatorial universalism means that hell has a purpose, which is the agonizing correction and rehabilitation of the wicked in service of his master plan (the ultimate reconciliation of everything). References to hell in the Bible would be references to an experience that may be aonian (age-like), especially for the truly wicked, but not everlasting.
LikeLike
July 27, 2012 at 6:26 pm
Substitutionary atonement hardly satisfies an innate sense of “justice”. Neither does infinite torture for finite offenses. Or punishment for the misfortune of swerving into the wrong religion by happenstance of geography.
Your last paragraph amounts to evangelical terrorism: Believe it—or else.
LikeLike
July 27, 2012 at 10:40 pm
Hi, Stan
One problem with that view is that the same concept, by default (being the same Greek word used in the exact same context) is used to describe everlasting life, i.e. heaven, as seen, e.g. in Matthew 25:46.
We cannot equivocate the terms and say one use of the word is age or aeon-based in length, but the other is actually and factually eternal. They mean the same thing.
Otherwise, we must conclude that our everlasting life with God in heaven is in some way temporal. I’m not prepared to do that. Are you?
LikeLike
July 28, 2012 at 9:02 am
Suppose that I write an e-mail to you saying, “My grass this summer is meklei just as the pine tree is meklei.” And our common understanding of the word meklei is “enduringly green.” Centuries later, two scholars debate the meaning of my e-mail. And the one argues that my grass must have been extremely tall, thick and rigid, since it is described as meklei, and a pine tree (which is tall, thick and rigid, among other things) is also described as meklei. He tells his opponent that to conclude that my grass was short, thin and pliable would require accepting that the pine trees of my era were also short, thin and pliable… and says he is clearly not prepared to do that.
The word must indeed mean the same thing. But what if the word carries neither the weight of infinity, nor the limits of temporariness? What if it just means “really, really long” or “of the coming age?” The Greek-speaking, pre-Augustinian advocates of purgatorial universalism did not read the word as one which implied anything about infinity or temporariness, just as “meklei” isn’t mean to convey anything about height, thickness, or rigidity.
LikeLike
July 28, 2012 at 4:49 pm
Jason,
My understanding of Biblical Hell is that people are punished in Hell for a period of time, and some receive worse punishments in Hell than other people receive. In the end, Hell and those inside it will be tossed into the Lake of Fire and cease to exist (the “second death”).
So those in Hell receive an eternal punishment (eternal death), but are not punished eternally. Those in Heaven will live for eternity.
Arthur
LikeLike
July 28, 2012 at 10:24 pm
Hi, Stan
By definition, grass and pine trees are two different things, as with hell and heaven, as with death and life. So a scholar confusing the adjective with the noun is not likely going to occur.
If the word you supplied, “meklei” means enduringly green, then why in the world would someone or anyone, centuries later, deem it to possibly mean “tall, thick, and rigid”? Those words would have each their own words in the source language.
So that would be a complete misuse of the adjective. And the fact is, the way we understand aionos today is the same way it was understood then. The same way we use and mean eternal or everlasting is the same way it was meant and used then.
For example, God is called the everlasting God in Romans 16:26. Did any of the pre-Augustine theologians you mention think of God as age-based, really really long or the coming age?
Of course not. So the issue isn’t in understanding the adjective’s meaning. The issue is understanding the noun it modifies. To use your example, whether it’s grass, a pine tree, some other plant, or a hummingbird, green is going to always mean green, and so any noun it modifies, by default makes that noun to mean something that is green. Less than this is equivocating.
Therefore, the question is: what is hell, i.e. the Lake of Fire? Is it truly eternal? Understanding the noun will automatically allow us to define and properly use the adjective that modifies it.
And since gehenna, the Lake of Fire, is the prison God created for the devil and his demons, who are un-redeemable, we can assume that their prison is truly eternal in nature, since those evil spirits are eternal, too. And since they are not going to be purged, those people who have made the devil their father by the deeds they’ve done should expect a similar, if you want to use the word, fate.
LikeLike
July 29, 2012 at 10:11 am
Stan, LA and Arthur
Thank you so much for carrying this banner. I earlier argued extensively on this site about all this and felt like I got nowhere. And I did argue – and your words are so much better measured.
Jason and Aaron, believing that God would send someone to an eternal hell is simply not taught by Scripture. There is a mountain of excellent scholarship on the matter and I strongly suggest you study it thoroughly. And, please study the real Scholars, such as Thomas Allin who wrote “Christ Triumphant.”
The doctrine of eternal punishment is traceble, primarily, to Augustine. It is not what the early Church taught and it is not what Jesus or Paul or Mark, or John or Peter taught.
My favorite verse on this is 1 Timothy 4:10-11:
“….we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers. Prescribe and teach these things.”
We need to prescribe and teach that staight forward announcement. It is the very core of the Good News. Teaching otherwise, is the single biggest reason many reject Jesus. None will eternally reject Jesus. He will be 100% successful.
Randy
LikeLike
July 29, 2012 at 5:57 pm
Aaron, you said:
“And the fact is, the way we understand aionos today is the same way it was understood then.”
What on earth makes you confident of this, given that various Greek-speaking, pre-Augustinian church fathers disagree with your theology?
You said:
“For example, God is called the everlasting God in Romans 16:26.”
Or “the God of ages,” or “age-lasting God,” or we could take the Vulgate’s suggestion of “God of the future age,” etc.
Finally, it should go without saying that your “definition of hell” and opinion on what will happen to fallen angels begs the very question we’re debating. 🙂
LikeLike
July 29, 2012 at 9:56 pm
Hi Sir Jason! is this still you e-mail address – jasondulle@yahoo.com?
Please see my letter!
Thanks!
LikeLike
July 29, 2012 at 10:55 pm
Hi, Randy
In another place, we read that God is the God of the spirits of all flesh.
God being God is what makes Him God (redundant, I know).
God being the Savior is what makes Him to Savior, even of all men.
However, not all men make God their God (even though since He’s the only God, by default He is their only God). The same with His status as Savior.
Therefore, when I read the verse you supplied, I gather this meaning:
Since God is the only Savior, any Savior that humanity hopes to ever have is Him. This is what makes God the Savior of all men. This does not mean that all men somehow will all be saved in the end.
Secondly, on a different post, you argued against the idea about God not willing that any should perish and that God wants all men to be saved and to acknowledge the truth.
There, in that post (about determinism and sovereignty vs. free will) you argued that the “all men” phrase simply meant all types of men, not every individual human being. So why aren’t you applying that same meaning here to 1 Timothy 4:10-11?
LikeLike
July 29, 2012 at 11:13 pm
Hi, Stan
“What on earth makes you confident of this, given that various Greek-speaking, pre-Augustinian church fathers disagree with your theology?”
Because the disciples and authors of the New Testament, even if they wrote in Greek, were Jewish men with a Jewish mind for theology. And they, in Hebrew have their own word for eternity/everlasting: olam. This word is used in Daniel 12:2 to tell us some, when they are resurrected from the dead, will go to shame and everlasting contempt. Here, it is quite clear what olam means: it means forever.
Second, in Isaiah 66:24, we read that those who end up in the Lake of Fire, will have a worm that will never die, and that their fire will never be quenched.
Jesus quoted this passage in Mark 9:44-48 three times to prove the point that the Lake of Fire is truly eternal.
The point being that a Hebraic, Jewish view and exegesis is more consistent than a Greek, paideia view that was consistently applied by 2nd and 3rd century Hellenised theologians.
So, whatever the New Testament was written in (some scholars believe Hebrew and Aramaic before Greek), approaching it with a Hebraic mindset that bases itself in the Jewish culture and theology of Jesus Christ and His disciples is the way to go. After that, it doesn’t really matter what someone (many of whom never truly left Hellenism) studying Greek a couple of centuries later believed to be true.
Finally, if one checks the Septuagint translation of Daniel 12:2, one sees that aionos is the word used to translate or replace olam. And since the meaning in Daniel 12:2 of olam is clear, it must be believed that aionos is to be understood or informed by olam’s meaning, and not vice versa.
LikeLike
July 30, 2012 at 12:34 am
First, olam usually does mean “everlasting,” but doesn’t always. Sometimes it just means a long period of time, as in Psalm 143:3, or ancient, as in Jeremiah 18:15. Thus, aionios is a roughly adequate Greek translation. Furthermore, olam is used dozens of times to describe statutes that are no longer in effect under the New Covenant.
Second, Daniel 12:2 doesn’t say anything about infinite torture. It’s about shame and contempt, which will forever qualify the “tools of dishonorable (atimian) use” even after they are reconciled.
Third, Isaiah 66 is referring to the dead corpses of God’s enemies. It’s a figurative illustration of extreme dishonor (Your corpse exposed is bad enough; but burning and being eaten by worms?! The shame!). Employing this as a literal description of endless suffering will runs you into various problems, not the least of which is that a corpse doesn’t experience what’s happening to it, and you’d need to adopt immortal worms into your theology.
LikeLike
July 30, 2012 at 3:13 am
Hi, Stan
First, when olam modifies a noun, which by definition, is not truly eternal, like people who are dead, or a path, or a hill (as in everlasting hills) it stands to good reason that the noun then reciprocates the modification and helps us to understand that, in this case, that olam doesn’t mean eternal. The noun does that. So, as with olam, so with aionos (like the point I made before).
That’s why both words, the noun and the adjective, have to be understood together. We can’t translate them or come to some understanding of them in a vacuum to use them however we want.
So, when it comes to everlasting shame and contempt, again, we must concern ourselves not only with olam, but also with these two nouns which are modified. If your view is the accurate one, then a resurrected soul, who died in sin and was lost, will for only a time (however long) be raised to shame and contempt, but then afterward, that shame and contempt will be removed, presumably by God.
This requires some questions.
1.) What is the Biblical means whereby God intends to purge a lost sinner who suffered the second death from their shame and contempt, and so, eventually save their soul from sin, death, and hell?
2.) Since the Gospel that saves is called the everlasting Gospel (Revelation 14:6), and that Jesus Christ is the same today, yesterday, and for ever, and has an unchangeable priesthood (being called forever a priest after the order of Melchizedek), how is that this Gospel can save a person who has suffered the second death seeing as how the Gospel must be obeyed and applied to a person’s life while they are alive in the here and now?
3.) Can a disembodied soul condemned to hell obey this Gospel after they’ve been so condemned?
4.) Do you believe that everlasting Gospel only means an age-based Gospel and that, once the age is past, a new Gospel from God will be forthcoming, since a lost soul in the lake of fire will still require some mechanism from God to be saved?
5.) Can any of this be proven from Scripture? (God’s Word is forever [olam] settled in heaven, is it not? Psalm 119:89)
And I could go on. The point being, any doctrinal position must be taken to its furthest degree, and every question has to be asked. There is more to this than simply thinking a God who is love wouldn’t send someone off to an eternal torment because we assume it’s contrary to His nature.
“Third, Isaiah 66 is referring to the dead corpses of God’s enemies.”
This is not the Lord Jesus’ exegesis of this passage as found in Mark 9:44-46. His exegesis is that human souls (not physical bodies in a literal fire with actual worms) will have an eternal recompense for un-remitted sins committed in this life. Worms and fire here are symbols for a spiritual reality. Second, in both passages, regardless of how literal they should be understood, the fact is, these symbols (fire and worms) represent an un-ending suffering (they die not, the fire is not quenched, etc.) So, if these symbols are perpetual or un-ending, by definition, they are eternal, making the suffering they cause upon an un-regenerated soul who suffered the second death to be eternal as well, which brings us back to olam and aionos:, both of which traditionally mean un-ending, perpetual, etc.
(And by the way, contempt in Daniel 12:2 and abhorrence in Isaiah 66:24 are the same Hebrew word, so an obvious parallel between the passages must be drawn–and they both talk about the same thing: an eternal judgment for the unrighteous: contempt, shame, suffering, fire, etc.)
LikeLike
August 4, 2012 at 11:52 am
Aaron,
My understanding is that the Jews did not believe in an eternal afterlife of heaven and hell. No? If an eternal afterlife were presented in the OT, they would have believed in it.
Arthur
LikeLike
August 4, 2012 at 10:21 pm
Hi, Arthur
When God revealed Himself to Moses, He said “I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob”. The Lord taught that this verse proves the resurrection of the dead, since God is not a God of the dead, but of the living.
So, if Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were still alive to God those four centuries later, obviously they were in an afterlife, alive/resurrected. And since God is still a God of the living, then we may believe they are still alive now. So, add almost four thousand years. Then add however long this age has, plus the thousand year reign, and now we’re talking five thousand plus years of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob still being alive and resurrected in an after life.
Taking all this into account, if the afterlife of which those three are partaking is not eternal, then at what point do they cease to exist (or die???) so that God stops being their God? Does God annihilate the souls of the saved, or those who died in the faith from OT times, and so stops being their God? I think not.
So, while there are some Jews, both of today, and from ancient days, that deny the eternality of the afterlife (or its very existence, i.e. Sadducees), I think it’s pretty clear that the OT teaches it, that Jesus Himself believed it, and therefore, so should we.
Apart from this, there are other Hebrew idioms from the OT that strongly indicate an eternal afterlife, e.g. ages of ages, from everlasting to everlasting, etc.
Then we have Isaiah 9:7: “…of the increase of His government there shall be no end”. This is an obvious reference to the Kingdom of Heaven, and it’s clear here that it shall never end. This kingdom is a kingdom of priests, so it stands to reason that the people who are priests who enjoy this kingdom shall enjoy an everlasting or eternal kingdom that has no end.
Less than this is the cessation of the human soul, with God causing the cessation. It could be God’s prerogative to annihilate a saved soul (or all souls, whether lost or saved), but this isn’t born out by Scripture, so I don’t think it’s accurate to say Jews don’t believe in an eternal afterlife–at least not on account of the testimony of the OT. They may otherwise do so for whatever reason, but not because of the Book.
LikeLike
August 8, 2012 at 11:52 am
You said, “1.) What is the Biblical means whereby God intends to purge a lost sinner who suffered the second death from their shame and contempt, and so, eventually save their soul from sin, death, and hell?”
The idea is not that they will be saved from their shame, but that they will be saved from the second death. Jesus Christ died for the sins of all men; he is the “foundation already laid.” But the variability comes in the form of how one builds atop that foundation. How else do you interpret 1 Corinthians 3:11-15? (Catholics interpret it as their Purgatory; in my experience, Protestants try to ignore the passage entirely).
You said, “2.) Since the Gospel that saves is called the everlasting Gospel (Revelation 14:6), and that Jesus Christ is the same today, yesterday, and for ever, and has an unchangeable priesthood (being called forever a priest after the order of Melchizedek), how is that this Gospel can save a person who has suffered the second death seeing as how the Gospel must be obeyed and applied to a person’s life while they are alive in the here and now?”
The “elect” or “firstfruits” are those who repent and submit to God in life. Christ will save both the elect and the non-elect from the second death. God’s hands are not tied by the man-made “salvation rules” of particular Christian denominations.
You said, “3.) Can a disembodied soul condemned to hell obey this Gospel after they’ve been so condemned?”
I’m not really sure what you mean by “obey this Gospel.” The Gospel is the good news that all have been saved from the second death by the blood of Christ. Being a firstfruit or elect allows sanctification early, perhaps to avoid remedial hell entirely.
“4.) Do you believe that everlasting Gospel only means an age-based Gospel and that, once the age is past, a new Gospel from God will be forthcoming, since a lost soul in the lake of fire will still require some mechanism from God to be saved?”
The same Gospel applies to everyone.
“5.) Can any of this be proven from Scripture? (God’s Word is forever [olam] settled in heaven, is it not? Psalm 119:89)”
All of it can, yes. For an exhaustive study on purgatorial universalism, including an intimidating wealth of cited Scripture, please read at least pages 15-45 from “Hope Beyond Hell,” a book available for free from their site:
http://www.hopebeyondhell.net/what-others-are-saying/
See the “unabridged PDF” link on the right-hand sidebar. To give purgatorial universalism a fair shot, read at least pages 15-45, then keep reading as you feel so inclined.
You said, “So, if these symbols are perpetual or un-ending, by definition, they are eternal.”
If these symbols represent shame and contempt, rather than being symbolic of agonizing suffering (however “spiritual”), this is a moot point.
LikeLike
August 8, 2012 at 6:20 pm
Stan,
I just want to say that I am impressed by your scholarship and edified by all you have written. I want to repeat your words to Jason and Aaron and others “please read at least pages 15-45 from ‘Hope Beyond hell”. I would add, think deeply about 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 as well as 1 Timothy 4:10-11 and literally hundreds of other verses and passages. Those verses and passages cannot be explained away by your side.
Jason, and Aaron, you undoubtedly won’t change your minds on this issue until you study it more thoroughly for yourselves. It is such a very, very important matter, I hope you both slow your other studies down and take this matter to heart.
As Stan said, there is “an intimidating wealth of cited Scripture” that proves, absolutely proves, to me anyway, that our Lord will save us all. That is why it is called the “Good News.”
Randy
LikeLike
August 9, 2012 at 1:51 am
Hi, guys
I took a look at the booklet, from pages 15-45 per your suggestion. I don’t stand convinced. While it would be impossible (and perhaps unnecessary) to try and critique the statements made there here at this blog, I will say this. Take it for what you will. I mean it solemnly, without ego or pride.
If what you are saying is true, then it is perfectly reasonable that all of humanity can do anything they want, commit any and all sins, even blaspheme the Holy Spirit (which Jesus said will never be forgiven) and, after they suffered a temporary amount of time (even if 10,000 years) can get out of the Lake of Fire, having never obeyed the Gospel, having never had their sins washed away by the blood of the Lamb, having never trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ, having never had God’s righteousness imputed to them by faith, having denied the only Lord God, having never received the Holy Spirit, which is the down payment and seal of our eternal inheritance, having committed as many works of the flesh as many times as humanly possible before death, up to and including rape, torture, murder, genocide, ad nauseum, and so be unrighteous, and therefore be deserving of death, etc. and etc.
And still, after all that, on their dying day, with their last breath, they can still condemn Jesus Christ as a scoundrel, a fool, a false prophet/messiah, etc. and deny the blood of His cross, count it an un-holy thing, then die, be judged, pay for their own sins in a non-eternal hell where their own suffering (not Christ’s) purges them of their sins, (instead of the blood of Jesus Christ, see Hebrews 1:3, 1 John 2:12, and Revelation 1:5) then make heaven with everyone else by a divine fiat that you both (and others who esteem this view) say that God will make some time in the far distant future, even though the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God, said Paul twice by the Holy Spirit in both 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and Galatians 5:19-21.
Do you not realize this idea negates the preaching of the Gospel and makes the need to be saved in this life pointless? There is absolutely no benefit to my salvation, if I can tough out the Lake of Fire (which I will have to do if I die lost, since my soul is eternal), if I’m going to get a reprieve and spend eternity with God, anyways. Yeah, maybe I can have some peace and blessedness here on earth beforehand if I get saved, but otherwise, my reward for obeying the Gospel, submitting myself to the commandments of the Lord, dying daily, suffering and sacrificing, is for what? The same thing as everyone else, even if they recklessly lost their soul to sin, should what you both believe is true.
Therefore, no matter how bad the second death’s punishment may be, if it doesn’t last forever, literally forever, then dying in one’s sins is, in the end of it all, meaningless. Fear Him, Jesus said, who can destroy not only one’s body, but also their soul, in hell/gehenna/lake of fire. But why fear? God’s just going to save me (drag me to Jesus according to the booklet) and save me, anyways, whether I like it or not.
You may not want to admit it, but this is the final analysis of such a doctrine. For whatever it’s worth, I hope you both will reconsider and realize this doctrine is not true. If not, it’s your business between you and your Maker.
But what a terrible thing it will be if, at your judgment, you find out you were wrong, and God damns you for a real eternity for being a false teacher. I pray that doesn’t happen. And I mean that in love.
Peace
LikeLike
August 9, 2012 at 11:57 am
Hi Aaron,
You are making two argumentum ad absurdums, which are valid means of argumentation. Basically, “If you believe X, then you must also believe Y, and Y is absurd.”
The “Y”s in this case are:
1) A person “can get out of the Lake of Fire, having never obeyed the Gospel, having never had their sins washed away by the blood of the Lamb, having never trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ, having never had God’s righteousness imputed to them by faith, having denied the only Lord God, having never received the Holy Spirit…”
and
2) There is no benefit for being saved in this life.
I believe these are both non sequiturs. In other words, I dispute the notion that, “If you believe X, then you must also believe Y” in this case.
1) A person will not be saved *despite* his rejection of and hatred toward God. Rather, when a person is sufficiently purified in the agony of God’s hellish judgment, he will be a new person, and rejecting or hating God will be unthinkable at that point. How can a fully reformed person reject God and his salvation?
2) There is a point in being saved in life. You are an elect or firstfruit, charged with the duty of spreading the good news of God’s salvation and practicing worldly charity (feeding the hungry, helping the poor, etc.). Furthermore, by adopting sanctification early, you may be in a position to avoid judgment entirely, since your faith will be credited as righteousness (the Bible clearly says, however, that even some believers may undergo a painful judgment, depending on what was built atop the foundation of Christ).
Finally, the “What if you’re wrong?” argument doesn’t really hold water for me. It’s possible that I’m wrong about Islam, and that when I die, I will be eternally punished by Allah for my unbelief. This doesn’t sway me, because I don’t believe Islam is true. In the same way, I’m not swayed by “What if you’re wrong?” about eternal torture because I don’t believe eternal torture is a true Christian doctrine. I find that the Bible overwhelmingly supports purgatorial universalism. And since I am called to preach the good news (not the bad news), I’m not going to shy away in fear of implausible afterlife hypotheticals.
LikeLike
August 10, 2012 at 3:23 pm
There can be nothing just about eternal punishment for a human. No human is capable of infinite evil. Eternal pain punishes an evil person an infinite amount more than the pain they caused. Justice is the balance of crime and punishment. Imagine which way eternal punishment would make the scales of justice tip.
Hitler was quite possibly the most evil person in history, and hopefully will remain so until there are no more people, but his crimes were not infinite.
If Hitler experienced one thousand times the pain of every single one of his millions of victims, both those who lived and those who died, one billion times every second for one trillion years, he wouldn’t even have completed the first hour of his punishment.
That fate is not just in the slightest, but if you disagree, then wouldn’t the quadrillionth year of Hitler’s punishment in this way finally even the score? If Hitler experienced one million times the pain and fear of every single one of the billions of people who ever lived, one trillion times a second for one quadrillion years, the first hour of his punishment still wouldn’t quite be over. Are the scales of justice lopsided to the punishment side yet? What about in the quintillionth year?
If a mere human like Eva Mozes Kor was capable of forgiving Hitler, then to say God is incapable of the same feat is to say God is small indeed.
LikeLike
August 10, 2012 at 3:48 pm
Your objection assumes that people no longer sin in hell. Why assume this? People sin because they are in moral rebellion against God. They are in moral rebellion because they hate God and refuse to submit to His sovereignty. Why think this deep-seated hatred of God will change once they are in hell? If they continue in their moral rebellion against God forever, they will continue to sin forever. Since their sin is perpetual, so is their punishment. Consider those in Revelation who refused to repent even when experiencing the judgment of God.
Another way of understanding the eternality of hell is that it is just punishment for sinning against an infinitely holy God. One’s degree of guilt is proportional to the dignity of the person offended. If I torture and kill a dog I should not be punished to the same degree I should be punished if I did the same to a human being. The offense against the human is greater because humans have a higher status than dogs. Likewise, offenses against God are greater because God has a higher status than humans since the value of God outweighs the value of humans to an infinite degree. Because the dignity of God is infinite, offenses against God are infinite in seriousness. Crimes against God, then, result in greater consequences.
The justice of a punishment is not informed by how long it took someone to commit the crime, but rather by the kind of crime that was committed. It only takes a few seconds or a couple of minutes to kill someone, and yet most people would agree that the just punishment for such an act is death or life imprisonment. Both forms of punishment have temporal consequences that are highly disproportionate to the amount of time it took to commit the crime. Capital punishment results in the irreversible extinction of life, and life imprisonment results in the enduring loss of personal liberty. When it comes to deciding the punishment for murder, no one asks, “How long did it take Joe to kill Karen,” and give a lesser sentence to Joe if he killed her in three seconds, or a greater sentence if he killed her in three minutes. We understand that the nature of some crimes is such that the only just punishment is one that endures for the rest of one’s conscious life (or one that makes it impossible to have a conscious life). Likewise, the duration of divine punishment for sin is not based on how long it took to commit the crimes against God. The duration is based on the nature of the crime itself. Rebellion against an infinitely holy and sovereign creator carries with it a punishment that is infinite in duration.
Jason
LikeLike
August 10, 2012 at 11:21 pm
One thing to consider in all this (then I’ll probably be done with my comments) is that we should consider what both eternal and punishment mean.
If we consider the true meaning of eternal, we have to admit that anything that is eternal is automatically outside the realm of time. Eternality cannot be counted in seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, decades, centuries, millennia, eons, etc.
Time to us is determined by the rotation of the earth around the sun. But this is earth time only. Other planets have a different measurement of time. For some planets, one days can last for hours more than ours, and for others, their years are decades longer than our own.
But either way, keep in mind this is all within the sphere of the material realm. God, heaven, hell, and etc., while having some part to play in the material realm, are not really apart of this universe, meaning any definition and measurement of time within this universe is automatically invalidated.
The only word that might be applicable to such concept is the word “now”. Eternality is an eternal now. There are no yesterdays, no tomorrows, no six months later, etc. So, the soul that sins and dies lost is not going to be able to track time, and say, “It’s been a quadrillion earth years since I’ve been in the Lake of Fire. Not fair God, nor just of You. Let me out already!”
There’s no clock, human or divine, keeping count.
As far as punishment is concerned, we have to be careful not to take the symbolism of the Bible too literally here. Fire, and etc. should not be thought of as literal (imo). Fire is a material universe concept not applicable to the eternal, immaterial realm. Any torment suffered in the Lake of Fire is not physical in nature, so we shouldn’t think of this suffering as typical pain (e.g the old pitchfork in the you know where idea).
So then, in what way can we say that a lost soul in the Lake of Fire suffers torment?
The Bible says fear has torment. What else? Well, imagine the fear, rather the sheer, massive TERROR of God in judgment, now knowing the truth that He was real, Jesus Christ was His Son and the Savior of the world, and you rejected that only to die lost, and all the ideas of hellfire suddenly fill your mind right before He pronounces judgment. That would sure cause torment. Then, to be confronted with your sins, all myriad upon myriad of sins, stained and in anguish by presence of the very Judge who died for those sins, knowing full well you will not measure up? Again cause for torment.
But the real torment, post-judgment, will be when you realize you could have had Heaven for eternity, that God was there the whole time in your life trying to save you, that Jesus really did love you enough to die for your sins, that He really did resurrect, that the Bible was truly the Word of God, and that this all was given as a free gift of grace, imagine the regret, the horrible, horrifying regret of that knowledge after the fact. That will torment people. Not any specific sins to be punished, but to just know what was lost because you died lost. That in itself is sufficient punishment.
Just to know that because you didn’t want God, you’ll now never get Him will torment any soul. And if God banishes you from all that is good about His eternal presence (this is what makes Hell, Hell) is punishment enough.
You may not have to experience any other external torment. The internal torment of your own soul knowing you are lost forever without hope of redemption, that is Hell indeed.
So, considering the shame, agony, anguish, and condemnation that exists in this life, as caused by sin, imagine how much worse it will be in the life to come when you realize there is no atonement left for you. Your own sins and the condemnation you will feel after coming into contact with an Almighty, Eternally Holy God, i.e. the very One who could have saved you from all this, if you just would have believed, will be enough to torment you forever.
LikeLike
August 11, 2012 at 12:35 pm
Jason, do you think it’s plausible to say that every unsaved person hates God and/or will hate God forever? I don’t think that’s plausible.
Furthermore, Romans 2:5-8, Revelation 22:11-12, Job 34:10-11 (and Job in its entirety) are literally meaningless if any kind of infraction against God warrants infinite punishment.
LikeLike
August 13, 2012 at 10:50 am
Stan,
I think the Bible teaches clearly that those who will not submit to God do not do so because they are in moral rebellion. The Bible describes people as loving their darkness more than light, and hating God. Call it what you will, or describe it as you will, but the fact remains that these are people who chose sin and self over God and righteousness.
I don’t see what those verses prove other than the fact that people commit a lot more than just one sin. That much is obvious. But it does not detract from the fact that even one sin against an infinitely holy God is enough to warrant eternal separation from Him.
Jason
LikeLike
August 13, 2012 at 11:48 am
Point 1) I agree that all sorts of people choose sin and self over God and righteousness in life. I don’t see how you can think it plausible, however, that NONE of these people, absolutely none, will change their minds about this forever and ever.
Point 2) Those verses show that God apportions his judgment according to the gravity of the sin. When you multiply the gravity of every sin by infinity (since they’re against an infinitely holy God), these kinds of claims about God’s justice become nonsense.
LikeLike
August 15, 2012 at 1:57 pm
1) I’m not even saying this view is true. I’m just saying it’s plausible. But if the people who go to hell do genuinely hate God or love sin more than God, then I have no reason to think they’ll truly change their mind in hell. They may be willing to say “I love you God” in order to avoid the punishment, but they would not truly mean it.
2) I agree that punishment is meted out by the number and gravity of sins, but that does not have to equate into different lengths of punishment. I could be calculated in terms of the severity of the punishment experienced, even though all who sin will experience the same length of punishment. My point is simply that one sin alone would be sufficient for eternal punishment because the sin is against an infintely holy God. I don’t believe for one second that anybody has actually committed only one sin.
Jason
LikeLike
January 7, 2013 at 3:40 pm
No rational, moral being would ever even entertain the notion of Hell, and no being has the right to make one. That’s barbaric! Immoral.
LikeLike
January 7, 2013 at 4:55 pm
Griggs,
Says who? It’s one thing to make the assertion, but another to explain why what you are saying is true. Hell is for the punishment of sin. Is there anything irrational, immoral, or barbaric about punishing people for wrongdoing?
Jason
LikeLike
October 17, 2013 at 11:24 am
[…] We Should Not be Embarrassed by the Doctrine of Hell […]
LikeLike
October 17, 2013 at 6:35 pm
[…] We Should Not be Embarrassed by the Doctrine of Hell […]
LikeLike