In light of a couple sermons I’ll be preaching this year (yes I do know what I’ll be preaching on pretty much all year, yes I am sort of proud of that, hopefully in a good way) I decided I needed to bone up on the doctrine of Hell. It’s one of those many areas where it’s easy to default to Sunday School on and never really think or study about it. Here are my key thoughts and ideas:
Hell is for the Devil and his angels and those who have rejected salvation (and there some other grey areas)
Hell was / will be created by but God. I don’t think it will be run by him or overseen by Him. I don’t think God will be standing around with a hot poker. If it is God who holds the universe together and all creating is sustained by Him I believe Hell is a place that will be sort of self sustaining, sort of a deist approach, God will / has created the place the then stepped away to let it run itself.
Hell is eternal death and separation from God. I believe that the “punishing” purpose of hell is somewhat secondary and coincidental. God created humans and angels to live forever and yet he will not tolerate rebellion forever. This requires, for lack of a better world, and dumping ground for the wicked. I believe hell is a place devoid of God’s sustaining, creative power, His God gifts, his well, anything. It is the universe falling apart but never quite getting there. It is existence plus nothing; it is a process of destruction that never achieves its end. The pain, loneliness, etc are all simply byproducts of being removed from the presence and power of God. Hell is what happens when God forgets about you.
Hell is forever. If it were primarily about punishment or penance then at some point, one would assume the debt gets paid and it ends. If it were about correction I think you would learn in a hurry. If it were simply for total destruction than surely it would be instantaneous. But if it is simply a place God created that is totally without His presence, grace, or sustaining power then it would by necessity be eternal. There is no process to complete (punishment), no goal to achieve (destruction) and no response to illicit (repentance) your just thrown there and forgotten about.
These thoughts are young, feel free to help them grow up.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Hellish Thoughts
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
"The Great Divorce" by C.S. Lewis is great reading on this. The book is a tale about a bus load of people from hell who are given the option of visiting heaven and the different reasons they have for returning.
I like what you say about hell being void of God's presence. Interestingly, I also find it compelling to think that hell is the eternal presence of God for those who wish to be rid of his presence.
Matthew Rose had a good series of blogs on this subject, too.
Aaron comment is similar to one of my points— how do we discuss omnipresence and yet decide he's not in hell. Perhaps it is unredeemed people facing God in all his glorious fullness.
"God will / has created the place then stepped away to let it run itself." This seems to go against christian eschatology where everything ultimately returns to God and he again "takes the reins". To think that come eternity God is again in control except for one little spot...I don't know.....
"Hell is eternal death." I've never liked the statement eternal death. These are two opposing terms I think. Perhaps eternally dying.
"Hell is what happens when God forgets about you....your just thrown there and forgotten about." This goes against my/our core belief in a loving God. How could he forget about any who bear his image? Whose name is written on the palm of his hand?
"If it were simply for total destruction than surely it would be instantaneous. But if it is simply a place God created that is totally without His presence, grace, or sustaining power then it would by necessity be eternal. There is no process to complete (punishment), no goal to achieve (destruction) and no response to illicit (repentance)"
These are some good words AJ, and the whole post is stimulating. There is one characteristic of this post I noticed and it is no dig on you, but is actually paradigmatic of this whole dialogue— where is the scripture support? Really the only thing you've said that I can hear a scripture echo in is your first point about hell being created for the devil. So much of our discussion on eternal damnation comes from so little scripture......
I've actually slowly been leaning more an more towards annihilationism because of some passages. There are two scripture passages— conveniently one at the 'beginning' and one at the 'end'.
First:
“Then the LORD God said, “See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”—” (Gen 3:22)
It seems to me that God specifically hindered fallen humanity from attaining eternality (is that a word?). This verse would be entirely unnecessary if eternal life were inherently 'built in' to humans already.
The last is three verses in Revelation referring to the second death (Rev 20:6, 14; 21:8). What is the second death? Is it perhaps the annihilation of those not saved— well my dwellings on the subject are taking me that way.
I think your thinking is logically consistent. I especially like your final paragraph which touches on the different views of hell and why you don't take them (Even without mentioning them by name). The only reason I've come to different conclusions than you is b/c I've removed an opening assumption that we had previously shared, namely, "God created humans and angels to live forever"
In a sense I agree with that quote. God's purpose was to have humans live forever. But God desires that none shall perish also. Some will perish, b/c salvation is only entered into by some. And some will not live forever, b/c not all receive immortality.
God alone is immortal by nature. All else that lives lives by his grace. If hell is 'totally without his presence' then His 'sustaining power' is no longer present to keep one alive. The view I take is best titled conditional immortality (not annihilationism, which makes it sound like God someone destroys supposedly immortal men).
First off - Danny, I have been consulting scripture on the subject and these thoughts grow out of that but this was more about "capture my thoughts" that "prove me point". And I guess to some extent I'm trying to fill in the gaps in my own mind with what I readily admit are guesses.
I like the presence idea but I can't buy it. Isn't heaven ultimately his presence as well? Wouldn't that clear a revelation of God, where faith is no longer and issue, ultimately "convert" someone (as in to no longer wanting to be away from God) Is it any more loving for God to torture people with his presence than with his absence?
I ultimately agree that eternal dying or eternal being destroyed is more accurate - in fact I thought I pointed to that in my post, maybe not clearly.
Any argument for hell has to answer the "loving God" question. As does suffering, as does pain, as does evil, as does... It is a problem but hardly one unique to the views here. There is nothing less loving about forgetting you as you are removed from his presence that remembering you burning in hell for all eternity (as with the traditional view) or allowing you to be completely destroyed. How does God allow the total destruction of one who bears his image and who's name is written on his hand? Again - a real question but not unique to the thoughts I've shared here.
Matt - I think the tree of life was about physical life in the current state not the immortality in general but mostly cause that's what strikes my fancy. I'll have to revisit those passages.
The next point to me is ultimately one of those "omnipotence paradoxes" (as in "can God make a rock..." Can God create a place where beings can exist apart from him or does that lie beyond the range of His power. As with the aforementioned rock question I think the answer is, sure. If he wants to.
As to his omnipresence I lean more toward an "anywhere-ness" view than an "everywhere-ness" view (which probably makes me a heretic) so that's a little less troubling for me. Again - can God choose not to be somewhere should he so desire...
Great pushing boys, keep it up. Eventually I have to cut through tradition and my own theories to get to the stuff I'm willing to preach and this helps.
AJ, NT Wright is actually very concise, for a change, in dealing with this subject on pages 180-183 of Surprised by Hope, which I just reviewed on my blog.
For me hell is a place that grows out of God respecting our free will. God does not desire to be separated from us and through his grace he draws us but at some point he respects our decsions to reject him.
Although not specifically about hell in Romans 1 where Paul says that God turns people over to there natural thoughts to me gives a picture of hell at some point God removes his grace and presence from our lives and leaves us to ourselves.
A book that has a number of different authors that each wrote a chapter about Hell is "Hell Under Fire".
AJ, hopefully I didn't offend you :-) I have no doubt you've been reflecting on scripture, my point was we don't have a ton to reflect on for this issue.
one thing to comment on. You said, "I like the presence idea but I can't buy it. Isn't heaven ultimately his presence as well? Wouldn't that clear a revelation of God, where faith is no longer and issue, ultimately "convert" someone"
Heaven is his presence yes, but we are only able to be in his presence because we have been redeemed. Certainly 'faith' would no longer be an issue as we would see him face to face, but intregal to this theory, I think, is that humanity's chance to be saved is this life.
The Bible also gives us some examples of people being terrified when seeing God, or angels hiding their faces, or Moses only being allowed to see his back on the mountain. Seeing God in all his holiness is dreadful, but we are allowed to come boldly to the throne of grace because of Christ.
I'm not sure I'm buying any of this stuff I'm shoveling either....still thinking through this all too....
"Wouldn't that clear a revelation of God, where faith is no longer and issue, ultimately "convert" someone (as in to no longer wanting to be away from God) Is it any more loving for God to torture people with his presence than with his absence?"
Hi AJ,
I have been thinking about this statement and the parable that comes to mind is that of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16). The rich man asks that Lazarus be sent to warn his brothers. Abraham replies, "They have Moses and the prophets." I think what is going on is hte man is saying, "If only I had such a miraculous warning" and Abraham responds that revelation is given in the form of Moses nad the prophets. I am not sure that one who would not listen to God in this life would want to listen to him in the next. Meaning, part of the assumption in your statement, I think, is that a clearer revelation of God entails a better chance of repentance. I don't know if I can follow that.
Of course, I don't think anyone will end up in broken relationship with God because of lack of or poor information. I am too much formed by C.S. Lewis on the matter! :) Another Lewis quote, "The door to hell is locked, but it is locked from the inside."
Thanks for a post that is stimulating good conversation.
Danny - Not at all "First off" came across more confrontational than I meant it to. I really did just mean "let's start with this. I get what you are saying about his presence and I can embrace that. That said many of the images of hell in scripture seem to imply more of a removal of creation of distance like "CAST OUT into outer darkness" or "THROWN into the lake of fire". I know there is a certain symbolic aspect to those descriptions but I do think they convey something meaningful.
As a less meaningful aside I have a hard time picturing Jesus turning to the one thief and saying "today you shall be with me in paradise" and then looking at the other and saying "and I'll see you in Hell"
AP - Great point. While I think there is still some difference between hearing from a miracle working prophet and seeing God face to face it's a fair point that lots of people have chosen to reject Jesus after a very clear revelation of Him.
And on to general question - if people in hell are simply annihilated (or have the condition of the mortality removed Matt) then what's the big deal. Frankly, if that's the case I say screw the lost and the horse they road in on. What's with the fire and the darkness and the weeping and gnashing of teeth? Shouldn't it just be "pop" and your gone. (Although that scenario does make a lot of stuff in the OT easier to swallow.)
It becomes another "loving God" problem. If hell is about bringing the unrepentant to non-existence than wouldn't a loving God just make them disappear rather then torturing them into oblivion?
This and many other views of Hell make God an active agent there and on the "loving God" front a God who has left us to suffer the consequence of our choice to reject Him is far easier to swallow than a God who actively punishes people for all eternity or out of existence.
Keep pushing boys, I need it.
my deleted comment was the same as the one I actually left just with less ugly formatting. It's late, what can I say...
One other thought on the "revelation of God" view. Won't that have already happened in some sense? People will come before God in judgement and that may not be the divine full monty but certainly enough that "every knee will bow and every tongue confess" Doesn't that imply that level or revelation will bring everyone to an accurate understanding of who God is?
And on the "hell is his presence" and pictures from scripture front - In Mt 25 Jesus says "Away with you" (away from Him one assumes). And in the same passage but on the annihilation front "into the eternal fire". Isn't eternal fire unnecessary if what it's there to combust burns up "root and branch". This passage also talks about "eternal punishment" vs "eternal life" this seems to imply far more of a burning forever type idea than a cease to exist concept. You could argue that since the punishment of annihilation is forever it is "eternal" but that seems to me to be reaching.
"And on to general question - if people in hell are simply annihilated (or have the condition of the mortality removed Matt) then what's the big deal. Frankly, if that's the case I say screw the lost and the horse they road in on. What's with the fire and the darkness and the weeping and gnashing of teeth? Shouldn't it just be "pop" and your gone. (Although that scenario does make a lot of stuff in the OT easier to swallow.)"
I'm not sure I'm interpreting your statements correctly, but it sounds like you're saying that if the wicked are going to, ultimately, cease to 'exist' then why have a 'hell' at all.
Well, I don't know if hell is metaphor for the means of extinction or if punishment is required for rebellion against God. But it makes more sense, to me, that crimes committed in time would have a time-oriented period of punishment.
Bottom line is, though, that the Bible seems to clearly state that God alone is immortal. Any other being that lives forever does so only by the sustaining power of an eternal God. So when we push forward the eternal torment view of 'hell', we are pushing forward the idea that a loving God would refuse to let mortals perish and, instead, would keep them alive just to torture them, or, to avoid the emotional response to that, just to keep them from His presence.
In my analysis, there's less need to defend such an action on our God's part than there is a reason to support the view that the fire consumes. Upon careful examination, the verses used to prove eternal life for the damned don't pass any test that goes beyond proof text.
Let me get specific. When I ask people to defend the eternal torment view, one of the most popular passages used to support the idea that the wicked live forever is 'worm dieth not'... But when we realize that Jesus was quoting one of the final verses of the prophet Isaiah, and when we look up that verse and allow it to say what it says, we realize that the worms are infesting DEAD bodies, not living beings.
John 3:16 must be the most known and yet most ignored verse of Scripture. For God so loved the world, that He gave His one and only Son, that whosoever believes in Him, will not PERISH, but have ETERNAL LIFE.
We have access to eternal life through Jesus Christ. Our other choice is to perish without Him.
TMNK, I'm glad I've contributed to this conversation just so I could hear what you have to say. Those are some great thoughts on this subject.
AJ, you said "if people in hell are simply annihilated ... then what's the big deal. Frankly, if that's the case I say screw the lost and the horse they road in on." I'm sure you agree with me that becoming a Christian isn't just fire insurance— that's shallow evangelism. It is about embracing life as God meant it to be for human beings. Even if souls were extinguished immediately upon death, would we still not proclaim the message of love, forgiveness, and eternal life through Christ?
Matt - I'm not saying why have Hell at all I'm saying it's not nearly such a big deal to go there. If we can, over the course of time "suffer enough" than wouldn't our sins then be paid for, in effect making our own atonement?
I'm not sure I see your point about God along being immortal as clearly in scripture as you do. In fact, I see a whole lot that points toward people as having an eternal existence. I would look at verses that talk about eternal punishment before ones about worms though.
So would you equate term like perishing death with ceasing to exist? That's a distinction I've been thinking a lot about lately and I think there is a difference. For example when I was "dead in trespasses" I still existed. I think that "life" (and death) is a quality of existence not a condition of it. A rock exists but does not have life. A body can exist, at least in some form, for centuries after death. I agree that the unrepentant perish, die, etc I just don't think I'm ready to equate that with non-existence.
Danny - I purposefully overstated my case. My point is not that Jesus is simply fire insurance but that the reality of Heaven and Hell are important to an honest presentation of the Gospel. Otherwise, if someone is happy in their sin, what's the big deal? They can eat drink and be merry for tomorrow they die and then cease to exist. No problems, no real consequence, nothing to avoid. They have a good run and then "pop" nothing.
1. "I'm not saying why have Hell at all I'm saying it's not nearly such a big deal to go there"
Well, you'd have to ask the attenders. I tend to think they'll disagree with you!
2. "If we can, over the course of time "suffer enough" than wouldn't our sins then be paid for, in effect making our own atonement?"
To me, that's a theology majoring on the cross and minoring on the resurrection. It's one thing to do your time, it's another thing to be a changed person, the kind of person that participates in the true freedom of knowing Christ.
3. "I'm not sure I see your point about God along being immortal as clearly in scripture as you do."
Well, there are dozens of passages in the NT in which people want to acquire eternal life. And, of course, 1 Timothy 6:16 speaks of God "who alone is immortal." The idea of natural immortality comes from Plato.
4. "In fact, I see a whole lot that points toward people as having an eternal existence. I would look at verses that talk about eternal punishment before ones about worms though."
I'd like to hear them. I see a lot of verses about punishment being eternal, but that's true both the torment and conditional immortality views. The only passages that sound like eternal consciousness are found in Revelation, which, it seems to me, should be weighed against the clearer doctrinal texts in other parts of the NT.
5. "So would you equate term like perishing death with ceasing to exist? That's a distinction I've been thinking a lot about lately and I think there is a difference. For example when I was "dead in trespasses" I still existed. I think that "life" (and death) is a quality of existence not a condition of it. A rock exists but does not have life. A body can exist, at least in some form, for centuries after death. I agree that the unrepentant perish, die, etc I just don't think I'm ready to equate that with non-existence."
And that's fair enough, though, you pretty much have to take those definitions to keep the eternal torment view alive. I just disagree. I think words like eternal and perish and death are about quality AND quantity. But if I HAD to pick one, I'd go quantity.
Go thoughts Matt - for the record I am as much playing devils advocate as defending a position. I don't have a solid position to defend. That's the point of the exercise.
Same here, well, I am in the CI camp, but not set in stone :)
I'm a buddhist and just egging you both on ;-)
Post a Comment