May 1, 2009

Thinking of Hell

What does our doctrine of Hell say about the way we view God?

by Major Geoff Ryan Opinion & Critical Thought

I know at least one person in town who is terrified of going to Hell. He came out with it once when I was visiting him in prison and it took me a little by surprise. He is a tough guy —a little crazy even, some might say. There is not much finesse to him. He has a reputation for unpredictability and a lengthy criminal record packed with violence.

On this visit he was awaiting trial. He worked for the mob as a low-level enforcer. There didn't seem to be much he was afraid of. The way the other prisoners reacted to him, this certainly seemed to be the case.

He was afraid of Hell, though. After talking for about half an hour about things he had done, a confessional of sorts, he leaned across the table in the visiting room, dropped his voice down low, glanced around the empty visiting room as if there were someone else besides just the two of us and hissed with a low urgency: “I don't want to burn in Hell!”

As I mentioned, this took me by surprise, coming so unexpectedly at the end of a confession with hardly a warning in sight. It seemed at first that he just blurted it out, but then I understood that he had been heading in this direction all along, leading up to it in fact. It was this vivid fear that had been preying on his mind as he sat in prison. Sunday school memories stirred up by the chapel services he had been attending in order to kill time as he waited for his day in court. He was afraid and looking for an out.

“All folks who pretend to religion and grace,
Allow there's a Hell, but dispute of the place”—Jonathan Swift

“I don't like to commit myself about Heaven and Hell—you see, I have friends in both places.”—Mark Twain

“Yes, because it is the dogma of the Church—but I don't believe anyone is in it.”—Abbe Arthur Mugnier, upon being asked if he believed in Hell

Frankly, I did not know what to say, not having thought much about Hell lately. I was certainly not used to using it as an evangelistic method or a ruse to winkle my way into someone's soul in order to get a profession of faith. Let's say it isn't a window of opportunity I am accustomed to climbing through. But then it wasn't me who raised the subject of Hell.

* * *

We do not talk about Hell much—not in The Salvation Army, not in evangelical circles and definitely not in Canada. Hell remains the domain of the wild-eyed, revivalists who inhabit the barely respectable fringes of evangelicalism; the crazies south of the border in their bad suits and worse accents (yet who somehow have scads of money to pay for TV time).

Most of us are several generations removed from such crudity and view their antics with distaste. We are more educated, more urbane, more dignified and frankly much more humane than to be scaring people with tales of everlasting torment and unquenchable flames and devils with pitchforks. We know that fear is only good as a short-term motivator, that it wears off pretty quickly. We are surgeons, using our scalpel with razor-sharp precision on seeker-sensitive terms, not theological thugs bludgeoning our way into people's souls with the doctrine of Hell as our cudgel.

Personally I cannot remember hearing one single sermon on Hell in, say, the last 10 years (not that I'm complaining, mind you). Jonathan Edwards may have been able to convict ranks of New Englanders with his Sinners in the Hands of An Angry God, but what was effective in 1741 might not play so well today. Besides, I have my doubts about the efficacy of any step of faith motivated primarily by self-preservation.

As is usually the case, there seems to be two hard poles between which the majority of us flounder and flop and eventually position ourselves. On the more liberal (ergo compassionate) side are those who cannot conceive of consigning their children or any of their friends to Hell—so naturally they transfer this parental indulgence to God. Hell is strange that way. It's the one doctrine that makes otherwise theologically conservative people go soft and wobble into a vague liberalism. People who would be quite offended if you referred to them as liberal, nevertheless slide into a gentle universalism in order to get a handle on Hell. Now going this way raises all sorts of questions about God's deep intolerance for sin, his unassailable holiness, not to mention more than a few passages of the Bible that will need some rather clever explaining away. For me it seems too easy an out—way too easy. Why play the game if everybody wins in the end? Why run the race if it's fixed? Common sense says there is a yin to the yang of God's love.

The other side is more hardcore. It's made up of the black-and-whiters who hold fiercely to a kind of “The-Bible-said-it-I-believe-it-that-settles-it-turn-or-burn/Jesus-or-Hell” kind of theology. All Augustinian rigidity and dire consequences. They don't do much for me either. I've never liked bullies—physical or theological. At the end of the day, the hardcore crew seem to enjoy the prospect of Hell far too much for my liking. There is an almost pathological glee about their adamant views on the matter and their careless willingness to consign whole nations into the lake of fire. This raises all sorts of questions about God's essential nature being love, the tremendous pains he has gone through over several thousand years of human history in order to reconcile mankind to himself, his utter inability to sin (isn't torture always a sin?), to name a few.

Such people would have had a hard time in Russia. When I lived there I was constantly fielding queries from first-generation Christians who, as the concept of a Hell dawned on them, wondered if this meant that the past several generations of their countrymen and women, not to mention parents, grandparents, siblings, friends, were basically toast? Their lives on earth had been hell enough under Stalin and his cronies—but I'm the guy here to tell them that it was all just a warm-up for the really big one? There was no way on earth! Innate cowardice aside, I didn't really believe it.

I resolved the issue for myself while I was in Russia by reading a book entitled Four Views on Hell. In this book four theologians present their views on Hell, followed by a response from the other three. The four views are literal, metaphorical, pugatorial and conditional. The Salvation Army's position, according to our Doctrine 11 is literal, but I must confess that after reading this book, I became a conditionalist, if not a downright annihilationist. Clark Pinnocks' rhetoric won the day for me as he eloquently held the line between the demands of a Holy God, the various biblical hints on some very nasty consequences to sin and the essential quality of God as Love.

The competition consisted of the literalist, John Walvoord of Dallas Theological Seminary, who was predictably unyielding, with the smugness of a convinced inerrability and the smell of blind faith about him. The metaphorical argument (read liberal) was presented by William Crockett of Alliance Theological Seminary. He was frankly a little too airy-fairy and high-brow for the average pew warmer to ever comprehend, myself included. Zachary Hayes' defense of purgatory (Catholic Theological Union) was tempting, but too dependent on tradition and not enough on Scripture, and overall a little too weird for a Protestant boy.

But Pinnock hit the nail on the head for me. His convincing theology aside, I figured that any serious Canadian theologian who has consistently resisted the siren-call of the United States, who has had the courage to publicly change his mind and his theology over the years and who chooses to worship and minister in a small, inner-city church—well, he's got my vote.

For purely psychological reasons, I think our Doctrine 11 could do with a bit of brushing up. It's a bit of a downer to end our statement of faith on. At each commissioning of new Salvation Army officers, as the new hopefuls repeat the doctrines from memory, that final phrase, “ … the endless punishment of the wicked” always seems to echo around the hall—it kind of kills the conversation. If it must stay in, maybe we could shuffle things around a bit, put it first and at the very least end on something more upbeat such as: “ … whosoever will may be saved.” (doctrine 6) or even: “ … whole spirit and soul and body may be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Doctrine 10). Just a thought.

* * *

As for the guy I visited in prison. He walked. In spite of his past record, in spite of being on probation and in spite of having been caught red-handed, he went free. It's amazing what can be done with one of the best lawyers in town on the case. Last I heard he had become a partner in a downtown sports bar, our visiting room chat most probably a distant memory.

But you know what? Theological queries and methodological misgivings aside, I've been thinking lately that I may just walk into that bar one day and remind him of that conversation. A herald of Hell, in a manner of speaking—or a messenger at least. It seems to be the only chink in his armour, and some windows you have to learn to crawl through, even if they just open a crack.

Views of Hell

Four Views on Hell, edited by William Crockett, features the debate of four evangelical systematic theologians' conflicting personal beliefs about Hell. Beliefs covered in the book include:

1. Literal or Orthodox View
In this view, Hell is a place of punishment that lasts forever. The descriptions of the horrors of Hell that are found in the Gospel of Matthew and in the rest of the Bible are literally true. Everlasting and terrible levels of torture are required by “a righteous God who demands absolute justice of the wicked.”

Some inmates of Hell will be punished more severely than others, depending on the seriousness of their crimes. This is implied in Mark 12:40 and Luke 12:47-48. Punishment is physical, mental and emotional. Hell's inmates will realize that there will be no relief from their endless punishment, which would add greatly to their suffering.

This has been the historical teaching of the Christian Church.

2. Metaphorical View
Hell is a place where the unsaved will spend eternity. The extreme pain and environmental conditions described in the Bible are not to be interpreted literally. The biblical descriptions of heat, bondage, darkness, thirst, worms, pain, flogging and fire are symbolic of the emotional pain of being separated from God.

Two characteristics of Hell that are mentioned throughout the Christian Scriptures are fire and darkness. Interpreted literally, these factors conflict. It is necessary to interpret at least one of them symbolically; perhaps the other characteristics of Hell should also be interpreted symbolically. As Billy Graham stated: “I have often wondered if Hell is a terrible burning within our hearts for God, to fellowship with God, a fire that we can never quench.”

This view has only been promoted since the 16th century.

3. Purgatorial View
This is a belief taught by the Roman Catholic Church. Everyone, at death, is immediately judged. Those who have committed one or more mortal sins that have not been repented and erased through church sacraments will go directly to Hell. A very few who have lived unusually spiritual lives will go directly to Heaven. The rest will go to Purgatory which many Roman Catholics believe is a place of punishment—a type of temporary Hell. After a period of punishment, which may extend over many centuries or millennia, each inmate will become sufficiently purified. They will then be accepted into Heaven.

Purgatory was originally interpreted in symbolic terms. It later became viewed as an actual location, a form of Hell. More recently, the church has returned to a more symbolic interpretation. In 1999, Pope Paul II described a concept of Purgatory which is at variance with the popular view. He stated that Purgatory “does not indicate a place but a condition of life.”

4. Alternate Views
These many views have been proposed by a minority of conservative Protestants who cannot harmonize “the doctrines of everlasting punishment” with “a God of love and grace.” As C. H. Pinnock, an Evangelical writes: “Everlasting torture is intolerable from a moral point of view because it pictures God acting like a bloodthirsty monster who maintains an everlasting Auschwitz for his enemies whom he does not even allow to die. How can one love a God like that? I suppose one might be afraid of him, but could we love and respect him? Would we want to strive to be like him in his mercilessness?”

Some alternate views of Hell include:

• No Hell: The unsaved simply cease to exist at death. This belief is held by a few Evangelical Christians who believe that unsaved persons will not be punished in Hell. Some support for this concept can be found in the writings of Paul; for example, Romans 6:23, “For the wages of sin is death” (KJV).

• Hell is not really that bad: C. S. Lewis, in his book The Great Divorce pictures Hell as a rather drab, inconvenient, almost pleasant place, whose inmates can take a day-trip to the outskirts of Heaven. This concept avoids the picture of God as a sadistic torturer. However, Lewis' Hell is at variance with biblical passages.

• Conditional immortality (Conditionalism and Annihilation): The unsaved are punished in Hell for a finite interval. The duration of one's sentence is determined by the seriousness and frequency of one's sins while on earth. The individual then experiences the “second death” and ceases to exist in any form. Supporters of this belief must necessarily abandon the concept of an immortal soul. Some creative interpretations of some biblical passages are needed to fit the annihilation theory:

- Mark 9:48, which refers to the worms that do not die and the fire that never ends, could refer to the annihilation process itself, in which the bodies of the inmates of Hell are totally destroyed after their second death.

- Matthew 25:46 mentions eternal punishment; but this could refer simply to annihilation itself being permanent, and ending all life and consciousness for eternity.

- Revelation 14:9-11 describes the “smoke of their torment” rising forever. But that does not necessarily mean that their torment lasts forever; only the smoke does.

• Universalism: Origen (182-251 B.C.) taught that the unsaved are tortured in Hell temporarily, with a series of graded punishments, until they are sufficiently cleansed to be accepted into Heaven. This is historically known as the Universalist belief. It was condemned as a heresy. It formed a major part of the beliefs of the Universalist church. Everyone is eventually saved and is welcomed into Heaven.

Courtesy of www.religioustolerance.org

« Yorkminster Presents Album of Sacred Music View All The Rainbow and the Call »

33 Comments | Leave a Comment

Comment

On Saturday, June 13, 2009, calvin hepditch said:

As a final contribution to the discussion on a literal hell, I feel it is necessary to submit the following comments and corrections to the interpretations of my previous submissions. Juan mentioned that I missed the main point regarding the rich man and Lazarus. If this is simply an account of what can or cannot be the basis for ones entrance to heaven, which is contained in the first four verses, why are the following nine verses even necessary? I do not believe for a moment that Jesus was being superfluous or verbose on this or any other occasion. He could say more in ten words than we can in ten paragraphs, and I don't think this was any exception. In this instance, what he said spoke volumes about the nature and severity of punishment in hell. To miss or ignore that aspect of the passage is to be naive or deliberately inattentive as to what's being said. Verse 23 say the rich man 'lift up his eyes, being in torment'. In verse 24 he pleads for mercy 'for I am tormented in this flame'. In verse 25 Abraham says 'thou are tormented in this flame'. In verses 27-30 the rich man prays that his brethren be told about 'this place of torment'. Why did Jesus repeatedly use this descriptive terminology if it was not a place of torment and suffering? Why was there such emphasis on the word torment? Are we not to take the words of Jesus as truth, or are we to ignore them at our discretion?

I would also like to clarify my position on bullying. If one reads my previous comments, it is obvious that the term bully was used facetiously (and I admit that was not a wise thing to do in light of the seriousness of the topic) and was simply borrowed from earlier references. I do not condone bullying, nor do I consider anyone who preaches a literal hell to be a bully. They are just preaching a gospel truth that they believe to be a sincere, honest interpretation of God's Word. Which begs the question - does a foundational tenet of a church, in this case the Salvation Army, suddenly become a 'false doctrine' on the basis of one or two personal interpretations? And should we now expect to receive an official notification of a revision to the Army's doctrines? And where is the evidence support a statement that preaching a literal hell has driven people to atheism? Are there statistics to back up such a conclusion? I sincerely doubt it.

I also found it most interesting that, in the four views of hell, and the conditionalist section in particular, that the first part only of Revelations 14:11 was quoted to support that theory. Part B of that verse says 'they have (not had) no rest day or night', which parallels Revelations 20:10 'they (the devil, the beast and the false prophet) shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever'. Again, it doesn't sound like annihilation to me.

With regard to the logic, or lack of it in my contentions regarding this topic, I would assert that Biblical interpretation does not always conform to human logic or understanding. If we were in Joshua's shoes, would God's plan to conquer Jericho have been logical to us? Does the account of Jonah and his experience fall within the parameters of modern day logic? Most importantly does a sinner kneeling, speaking to God in repentance and faith, and rising a new creation in Christ conform to logic - surely not to the majority of unsaved persons? As I mentioned previously, our understanding of this matter, as well as of hell and the degree of suffering are limited as we see 'through a glass, darkly'. One thing we do know with certainty though, is that nobody is lost or gets saved simply because of fear or lack of it. If there is no genuine conviction of sin, repentance and regeneration by the Holy Spirit there is no resulting salvation. Hopefully, this discussion will have influenced some lost souls to seek the One 'whom to know is life eternal'.

On Friday, May 29, 2009, Nicole said:

Thank you for your explanations and input Steve and Juan. I appreciate the time taken to explain things in your understanding.

On Thursday, May 28, 2009, Juan said:

Hi Nicole,

God bless you. I think you are struggling with some important topics here and coming up with some of the same problems that I have faced.

Remember that though the Bible is inspired by God, it was written by ordinary people like you and me who were restricted by the limits of their language. That's pretty plain to see to a casual reader that what Paul wrote doesn't sound like what James wrote or John wrote. When Jude wrote that Sodom and Gomorrah were razed by an "eternal fire", his readers didn't mistake that to mean unending. They understood what it meant and that the fire was extinguished. It's a little difficult, too, because the Greek language is so different than our's. For example, they have four words for "love" and we only have one word. Well, how do you figure out what was really being said in our English version? We can come close, but not always perfectly. We also need to be aware that the traditional teaching of Hell by the church, as Geoff points out, has been literalism. So the majority of Bible translators will also be literalists who will translate the original language the way they think is best. As a result, we have so many versions of the Bible.

It's confusing for many of us because we have been preached at for years that sinners burn in hell forever. And we also tend to think of ourselves as primarily spiritual beings who are confined to earthly bodies that we are eager to escape and, that after death, the "real me" will go off as a spirit to either Heaven or Hell to live for eternity. But the Bible says nothing of the sort. When Jesus came onto the Jews, they did not have an expectation of a short physical life on earth followed by an eternity in a disembodied state in a celestial palace. They looked forward to the establishment of God's kingdom on earth (though some didn't understand exactly how that would work) and the resurrection of the dead. Take this passage from John 11:23-25: "Jesus said to her, Your brother shall rise again. Martha said to Him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. Jesus said to her, I am the Resurrection and the Life! He who believes in Me, though he die, yet he shall live." Even though we die, we know we will come back to life in God's kingdom with a new heaven and earth. Amazing.

Anyway, back to your questions. You're right, there is no need for an unending fire when there is nothing left to burn. That's why it doesn't make sense. You're also right that vengeance (especially that which is portrayed by the literalists who understand Hell in the traditional way) is hard to reconcile with love. But the alternative view that I believe shows God, instead of being vengeful and unable to be satisfied no matter how long people suffer, as one who is holy and loving. He is holy and so sin is dealt with, but loving in that even though we could all die, He extends a new life to those who trust Him.

You are also right that it is awful to confuse so many people with the lie of unending eternal torture. You say sadistic, but at the very least seriously misguided. When you look at the facts as presented in the Scripture, you see that there is not that much written about Hell. Although many convince themselves that it's the main subject. And most of the notions we have about Hell come from preconceptions based on movies, artwork, preachers, etc. rather than a careful study of Scripture. I would suggest that you read through the passages that do. Someone may come along and argue the traditional case for Hell and throw all kinds of verses that have been taken out of context at you. But I can do the same and Christians have done that for centuries. Start reading the verses that are usually used by the literalists and view them through a different lens. Could they be saying something different than I've always thought? Sometimes I misinterpret what people say to me because I think I know what they are going to say even before they speak. Or because I judge their motives beforehand. So, I don't really get the real message. Maybe God is trying to say something to us about our views of Him and we can't hear what He is saying because we think we already know. God bless.

On Thursday, May 28, 2009, Nicole said:

Also I don't believe we can come close to knowing what Heaven or Hell is like. We can only go by what the bible tells us. And why would God give us a book to read that tells us how beautiful Heaven is and how terrible Hell is if we weren't meant to know just a little about it. I DO believe that Heaven isn't something so much more beautiful than we could ever imagine and the same goes for Hell(not beautiful but terribly frightening). I believe they were described that way because that is the way they are.Why would God write it(inspire it to be written that way) if for one it wasn't true and secondly it would confuse too many people and even make people upset over it and angry about it? I think it is sadistic to confuse so many people over this when it could have been done correctly and written the right way by saying that people will die forever if they don't turn to Jesus.Hope to hear back about this as well.:)

On Thursday, May 28, 2009, Nicole said:

Okay well you said that eternity or aion means everlasting or forever right? And as humans we use that term loosely when referring to for example" I will love you forever."But I would assume-since I am not God and do not know everything- that when God says forever(aion), he means forever? And that he doesn't use this term so loosely.And again I assumed that death meant death of the body and separation from God not death where the souls is burned up.Also why does Jude 7 say " Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire?" Why is there an eternal fire when there is nothing left to burn? Why would there be an eternal fire if there is no reason for it?And why didn't the bible say that the people would be burned up instead of saying "suffering in the eternal fire?"Why would it be written this way for people to get confused about it? God did say"Vengeance is mine." And I really don't think love has anything to do with vengeance. If God is all about love how can he be vengeful? Look forward to more responses.

On Thursday, May 28, 2009, Juan Burry said:

Okay let me try again. I may miss some of my original material because I didn't save it. Which is too bad because some of it was quite good. Just kidding - thought I'd add some humour to a dark subject:

1. The Greek word used in the New Testament is “aion”, which is interpreted as "everlasting" and "forever". But it does not necessarily mean never ending. It sometimes refers to a space or period of time, especially a lifetime. It sometimes may in fact refer to eternity. It may even refer to a clearly marked out and defined era or age. A good example where it doesn’t mean “never ending” is in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah. In Jude 1:7, it says that the punishment for the peoples’ sins was the “vengeance of eternal fire” (KJV). Well, what does that mean? We know that this fire is not still burning. 2 Peter 2:6 makes it clear that the result was that they were turned to ashes, or annihilated. The words eternal, everlasting, and forever are sometimes taken for a long time and are not always to be understood strictly. It signifies time, short or long, in its unbroken duration. Oftentimes, in classical Greek, it signified the duration of human life. Sometimes we say, “I will love you forever” and what we really mean is that we will love you as long as we live or as long as we are able. So, understood this way, hell’s fire is eternal or unquenchable in that it cannot be extinguished until it accomplishes its task. Sodom and Gomorrah suffered it’s consequences for eternity, that is until they all died. The punishment lasted forever.

The problem with our understanding is that we think everybody lives forever, so they either have to be happy forever or in punishment forever. But the Bible does not teach that we necessarily live forever or are immortal. In fact, 1 Timothy 6:16 says that only God is immortal. From the dust and ashes we came, to the dust and ashes we return. Have you ever heard that said at a funeral? It’s true. However, for those in relationship to Christ, we have conquered death and we put on immortality (according to 1 Corinthians 15). Immortality is not our natural state, but it is a gift. God shares this attribute with us as we become like Him. “As my Redeemer lives, we also shall live.” Not so for those outside of Christ. Because they are not immortal, the fire of hell consumes them. That’s why we are told explicitly that the fire "shall burn them up" and "shall leave them neither root nor branch," so that "they shall be ashes under the soles" of the feet of the righteous (Mal. 4:1-3). So, while we can thus properly conclude that the "everlasting" torment of the wicked is but a limited period, we can at the same time rationally conclude that the "everlasting" reward of the righteous is an unending one, for we are explicitly told that the righteous "put on immortality”. Have you ever noticed that the consequences of accepting or rejecting Christ in the New Testament are most always described in terms of life and death? Look at our most famous evangelistic verses - John 3:16 & Romans 6:23. Our gift is eternal life; the opposite of that is unending death, not unending torture.

2. You are right in that those who reject Christ must be responsible for their decisions. We cannot hold God accountable for this. However, if we believe that God is the Creator of all things (which would include Hell) and that the Judge has the right to pronounce the appropriate sentence, then we must conclude that Hell is within God’s will. I don’t mean that God will’s anyone to go to Hell. But once a person chooses to reject Him, it is within His will that they face that punishment. The excuse for Hell that has so often been used (that it is our doing and not God’s) seems to work on the surface, but the problem is it makes God out to be a hypocrite. On the one hand we portray Him as a loving Father, but on the other hand He is a sadistic torturer who punishes endlessly those who choose to reject Him. That’s a pretty big problem as far as I can tell (big understatement). However, that problem disappears once we understand that the soul is not immortal as I’ve outlined in point #1. God is holy and just in consigning those outside of Christ to Hell, but He avoids the accusations of being a torturous monster because people do not suffer unendingly in Hell. As Jesus said, God is one who destroys both the soul and body in Hell (Matthew 10:28). Why is it that the literalists are willing to overlook these verses I wonder?

3. With regards to the point about darkness and light/fire, I was trying to demonstrate that a strict literalism will not hold when it comes to describing Hell. For example, 2 Peter 2:17 refers to ultimate judgment as the “blackest darkness”. I understand what you are saying about a bonfire, but what is it really “blackest darkness”? When a bonfire is lit, it is no longer complete darkness. In the past, we have tended towards those images of Hell that emphasize fire and burning as opposed to those that speak of darkness and death. I assume that’s because the former references have a greater urgency about them. But when taken out of context and without a proper understanding of eternity/immortality, people use them in a manner that injures the character of God and the Gospel message. The message of the Gospel is that the resurrection of Jesus Christ gives us the hope that even though we may die, we shall rise from the dead someday, be clothed in immortality, and live forever in the kingdom of God. Now that to me sounds like good news I can share and not be embarrassed about.

On Thursday, May 28, 2009, John McAlister said:

Sorry, Juan. We moved the website to a new server yesterday, so we lost some comments in the process. Feel free to repost your comment if you wish.

Grace and peace,

John McAlister, Senior Editor

On Thursday, May 28, 2009, Steve Wiscombe said:

Nicole, I have been wondering who is in control or will be in control of hell? Is it God or satan?
I personally believe that the evils that we see, in our life time, is nothing in comparable to what hell is or will be like.
We cannot vision the beauty of heaven, can we really imagine the torment of hell?
Regards,
Steve

On Thursday, May 28, 2009, Juan Burry said:

Nicole,

I posted a reponse yesterday to all three questions. The post was quite lengthy, but for some reason it is not showing up here.

On Thursday, May 28, 2009, Nicole said:

Anybody have any comments to the above statement?

On Wednesday, May 27, 2009, Nicole said:

Hi.The question I have is,"How come when 'eternally' living with GOD means forever or never ending, yet when it is referred to living in 'eternal torment' you die?"Doesn't eternal MEAN eternal whether it is in torment or with GOD?Why is it two different meanings? Secondly why do everybody blame GOD for this eternal torment when "PEOPLE" are choosing to live in sin and where they go?Finally Juan you mentioned how you have never been somewhere where there is a fire lit and it has been dark? Haven't you ever had a bonfire and it has been dark outside? It certainly wasn't bright.Look forward to hearing a response.

On Tuesday, May 26, 2009, Juan Burry said:

Hi Steve,

No, my comment about the bullying was not related to your posts, but rather in support of Geoff's observation about bullies and against Calvin's applauding of the bullying. I teach my children that bullying is wrong and if it's wrong, it is wrong all the time. This is not a case of the end justifying the means. For people who take things so literally, I am not sure I see the explicit command of Jesus to bully people into the kingdom. Such an approach surely demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of kingdom ethics.

I appreciate your other comments, Steve. I don't wish to argue with anyone's near-death experience. I think it is perfectly plausible that when one is near death God brings blessed assurance of our relationship with Him. I also think that an unbeliever may also have a deeper understanding and revelation of the eternal separation that may await him. I am not a "hell-denier" as Sandra keeps proposing above. That kind of rhetoric shows that the debate is not between our opinions, but perceived opinions of what the other is thinking. Hell is real; I just don't believe it is the way medieval artists and theologians have painted it. I do agree that it is separation from God and that separation is for eternity. That is something literalists, conditionalsists and metaphoricalists can agree on.

Sandra, Jesus most certainly did not talk about hell more than any other subject. This error only weakens your argument rather than strengthening it. Jesus talked mostly about love, forgiveness, not judging others, wealth and poverty more than he talked about hell. It is wrong to try to make Scriptures says something they don't to back up a false doctrine. The Bible teaches that the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23) and that the soul who sins shall die (Ezekiel 18:4), not that they are allowed to live forever in utter agony. This leads me to another false doctrine, that is related to this issue, and that is that the soul is eternal. That is a Platonic doctrine and comes more from Greek philosophy than Bible teaching. The resurrection of Jesus gives us the hope of an actual physical resurrection into the kingdom/new earth. There is nothing in the Bible that says those separated from God MUST live forever too. Remember - it was the Devil himself who put the lie into Eve's (and our) mind that we will not die.

With regard to the usage of the rich man and Lazaraus above, I'm afraid that Calvin has severely missed the point of this parable - and that is what it is, a parable. People in hell can't talk to people in heaven. The rich man was in hell in bodily form, while we know that the body does not go to hell at death. The Bible teaches that it remains in the grave. Parables can't be taken literally or else we could assume that trees talk. The point of this parable is that neither wealth nor birthright can grant one salvation. To use this parable in such a way to promote a false doctrine and misrepresent God's loving character is abhorrent. The teaching of eternal torture in hell has done more to drive people to atheism (and some believers to insanity) than any good it has caused. Untold harm has been done to our cause because of this belief. So much for bullying!

On Tuesday, May 26, 2009, Steve Wiscombe said:

Good Morning:
Juan, my reason for asking the question, concerning Bill Wiese's book, was to see if anybody had read it and to get an opinion on the content. Yes, I find it hard to accept what he has written. Is it a true account of what hell is like as I understand it? The answer is no. I do believe that hell will be a terrible place to spend eternity.
I sincerely appreciate and respect your observation.
With reference to documented proof. I have read articles and heard testimonials from people who when dying and brought back to life and had experienced the peace of heaven and the fury of hell.
My father, who was resuscitated, had experienced the joy of going to heaven and was extremely agitated when he became conscious. He spoke of going to be with Jesus. He passed away a week later and as he died, he raised his hands and joyfully said "God is coming for me now".

Juan, it is my understanding that, at the resurrection of Jesus,those saints who were in Abraham's bosom, were taken to heaven.

I don't understand your reference to bullying. If you feel that I have used bullying tactics, I sincerely apologize.

Love you in The Lord.

Steve

On Monday, May 25, 2009, sandra hepditch said:

Comment deleted by request.

On Monday, May 25, 2009, Juan said:

Steve, I am not sure what you mean by "documented proof of strange and unexplainable experiences". If you are referring to the book by Bill Wiese, then that is a far cry from documented "proof". This is one person's opinion/dream/experience. How do I know this is real or to be taken as proof? Maybe this guy had a really bad dream. Maybe he has a mental illness. Maybe he was severely traumatized earlier in his life. I know one thing - it is not proof. If someone else wrote a book in which they claimed to experience hell and it was not the literal place of flames, the fundamentalists would be writing it off as hooey. Bill Wiese's book is only taken as proof for those whose viewpoint it fits. The title and publisher alone should make anyone skeptical.

To use the case of the rich man and Lazarus above, if Abraham didn't see fit for Lazarus to go and issue a warning on top of Moses and the prophets, why then is God now sending us Bill Wiese? If God wants to confirm the reality of an eternally burning oven for sinners, let him confirm it with me. Funny, but he hasn't done that. I wonder why? Also, Wiese's book doesn't even make sense (at least the excerpts I've read). Besides the fact that his descriptions are what a nine year old would concoct, his understanding doesn't jive with good Christian theology. Wiese says that hell exists now in the center of the earth and that bodies are flung around in his vision and in constant torment. Well, my understanding of the Scriptures tells me that our bodies have returned to the dust of the earth and await the resurrection of the dead at the end of the age. Our souls are either in Hell/Hades or at Abraham's side/Heaven waiting for the coming of the Kingdom of God. Christians will afterwards be raised to immortality. But right now? Wiese's view that sinners' bodies are in the bowels of the earth being tortured by monsters is ludicrous. We do not know for certain what that interim place is like, but it is most certainly not like Wiese portrays it.

As far as the bullying comments go, Jesus said, "By this will all men know that you are my disciples: if you love one another", not "If you bully one another". No matter what the results, that doesn't excuse poor methodology.

On Monday, May 25, 2009, sandra hepditch said:

Juan
I did get in on Pinnocks site and read it myself. It is saying the same things that most hell deniers are saying today about a literal hell. You know my belief on all as Jesus preached more on hell than he did on anything else, and why did he go through so much suffering and torture not only physcially as well as spiritually if it wasn't for love of sinners to keep them away from this awful place. This love for sinners should turn us back to God and not away from Him. And regardless of our own logic or understanding of what hell really is we can be very sure that it eternal, at least that is what the scriptures say. Please forget logic and mans teaching and get back to God and i am sure you could be used mightly of Him if you are only willing. Its like the hymn says "If that isn't love"

On Monday, May 25, 2009, Juan Burry said:

I had respect for some of Walvoord's writings too when I opened the Four Views, but his defence of literalism was downright embarassing and weak. I actually felt bad for proponents of lietralism that they never had anyone stronger to step up to the plate. It seems that the literalists (read fundamentalists) are afraid to actually pick up the book in question. It is not sufficient to say to an unbelieving member of contemporary society that "I trust God to work out the apparent inconsistency of his love on the one hand with his thirst for eternal torture on the other." In case you haven't noticed, a lot of people do not take God's existence for granted anymore... let alone the existence of a schizophrenic one that is being portrayed by the fundamentalists. If you cannot be logical about your views of God, then better to keep silent.

On Monday, May 25, 2009, calvin hepditch said:

Further to my comments on the existence of a literal hell, I would like to take exception to Major Ryan's summary dismissal of of John Walvoord's position as rooted in 'smugness of convinced inerrability' and having the 'smell of blind faith'. Having read a number of Walvoord's writings, and having used his book 'The Revelation of Jesus Christ' as a basis for a bible study on Revelations, I find his writings to be solid, reliable expositions of biblical truth. I also agree with his approach that 'the prophetic utterance of the book (Revelations) has therefore been taken in its ordinary meaning unless the immediate context or the total revelation of the book indicates that terms are being used in a symbolic sense.'

On Sunday, May 24, 2009, sandra hepditch said:

For you who are really interested in hell and being truly born again ,why not look up dr Fred Barlow and Shelton Smith in search .They are baptist preachers .

On Saturday, May 23, 2009, Steve Wiscombe said:

Thanks Calvin for stating, very clearly, your position on hell. It is a position that I totally agree with and have accepted from my 45 years as a Born Again Christian.
1 Corinthians 2:9 speaks about us not being able to comprehend what God has prepared for those who are in Christ.
It begs the question, can we fully comprehend what is prepared for those who don't love Christ?
I believe in a place of eternal torment because, in my opinion,
the bible declares that there is such a place
and the documented proof of strange and unexplainable experiences of people.
It is understood that there are things, in God's Word, that we will not all agree on but the most important question we have to ask ourselves is
are we "Born Again"?
Again, this is a subject, that there are conflicting opinions.

On Friday, May 22, 2009, calvin hepditch said:

I believe any discussion or debate concerning hell should be prefaced by an acceptance of the fact that there are mysteries of God and the Christian gospel that are beyond the capacity of human wisdom and understanding to comprehend. God's Word makes it perfectly clear that His ways and thoughts are infinitely above those of mortal man.

As a fundamentalist Bible believing Christian, I am willing to accept a literal interpretation of the Scriptures, except where it is indisputably clear that the text is meant to be figurative or metaphorical. Whether or not there is a literal 'lake of fire' that conforms to our limited knowledge or concept, I cannot definitively say, but I prefer to believe the description contained in the Word of God to that of latter day theologians or illuminati. No one can question the fact that Jesus and the apostles took great pains to warn sinners, and inform Christians, that there is a real hell, and that suffering and torment are a reality in that place.

With regard to the duration of time spent in hell, or the degree of suffering, I'm willing to leave that to my perfectly just, omniscient and compassionate God. I think it worthwhile to note that Revelations 19:20, 20:10 clearly indicate that the beast and false prophet spent 1000 years in the lake of fire, and were there when Satan was sentenced to the same fate. Revelations 20:10 also states that they shall be 'tormented day and night for ever and ever'. That doesn't sound like annihalation to me - conditional or otherwise. Is this the work of a compassionate God? I have confidence enough in my God to leave that kind of decision to Him. Was God being compassionate when He rained fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah? What's next? Will we hear of this event being really a downpour of jelly beans and marshmallows? Or will hell become the Veggie Tale scenario of condemnation to a specified period of tickling as punishment for not loving God?

Jesus' account of the rich man in hell contained the words 'I am tormented in this flame'. I don't for one minute believe that he, or Jesus, was being melodramatic or overstating the situation. Hebrews 10:31 warns that 'it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God'.

It is sad when great men of God such as William Booth and Jonathan Edwards are practically held up to ridicule for preaching the reality of a literal hell, even though poor undiscerning and gullible sinners were converted by the thousands under such 'misleading' preaching. If these are examples of 'hell bully' preaching, then I say bully for them. We need more of that type of bullies today - the results of preaching a watered-down gospel, and tickling the itching ears speak for themselves. Just as God changes not, neither does His Word. New methods and means of ministry come along as society changes, but 'forever God's Word is settled in heaven. (Psalm 119:89)

The Army doesn't need modernism, liberalism or humanistic interpretations of the Bible that align with the doctrines of cults to revive it's success of former years. It just need more Spirit-filled and God directed individuals who are willing to preach 'in season and out of season' the 'Word of God which liveth and abideth forever'.

On Wednesday, May 20, 2009, sandra hepditch said:

I already made a comment that i do not understand that whole bible. and i am sure if you did you would not be asking so many questions yourself .When I speak of the Gospel I am referring to the good news of redemption through the blood of Christ Jesus .I don't profess to be a theologian or a preacher neither do i believe all are theologians any more than all are evangelists ,pastors ,prophets etc .Even mormonism ,jws's and other religious sects and organizations have their own theology .But i don't think a minister should be in a pulpit preaching a Gospel of Christ unless they know what they are preaching .You can take the gospel of prophecy for example to me that is a special gift from God as well as discerning false prophets .I want no arguments about it ,but i do believe that we have to be careful of false prophets and expose them ,as Christ himself warned that "they would deceive the very elect if it were possible ' .I did read a book on the cults by walter martin which i found to be very good .you should find it in search .I think this site could be used to win the lost if it is put to the proper use .Thanks for your comment ,too bad more christians don't give some imput .

On Wednesday, May 20, 2009, Rob said:

A simple gospel you say? Respectfully sister, I would say that although there are elements of the "the gospel" that can be exaplained simply, there is nothing about it that is simple. In this way, like Paul, "we see through a mirror, darkly". But praise God, he makes the fundamentals clear. Theologians perhaps are confusing, but for the most part they are dedicated men and women who only seek to bring clarity to the sacred scriptures and how we as God's people are to live in accordance to them. And I think as well that like it or not, we are all theologians. That is to say - we all engage in theology. Even in reading the Bible the emphasis we put on certain words reflects our own theological beliefs and assumptions. Blessings.

On Monday, May 18, 2009, sandra hepditch said:

I forgot to mention the other comment by steve .I wonder how any book can tell about 23 minutes in Hell ,unless they were there.and how can someone really tell us what Hell is really like unless they have been there themselves .nuff said

On Monday, May 18, 2009, sandra hepditch said:

Juan
I am not here to condemn you or get into debates ,which is one thing i don't like .I don't profess to know everything in the bible or know it all ,but i know enough to be saved by the grace of God and accepting Jesus Christ as my blood sacrifice .As for reading books I got too tired of that. they all have so many different opinions it becomes very confusing .All i know that there is a hell as mark 9-44 ,isaiah 66-24 teaches .its also taught in rev.Now to assume that i know what hell really is ?,but i do believe its a separation from God which to me would be torment if that soul is still alive .I don't want to add or take away so i want to be careful .But read rev 21 -8 .my personal opinion on this is that we are asking questions that the bible may not even reveal .So why not just lift up the name of Jesus and warn of Hell as the bible certainly do .Why not just leave it up to the theologians to confuse it they have been doing pretty good so far .Most of the problems Juan is that most people today won't accept the simple Gospel just because it is too simple .Thanks for listening Juan and if i can find something else that will help i will get back to you .

On Monday, May 18, 2009, Juan said:

I never said once that I didn't believe in Hell. Obviously if it is in the Bible and mentioned by Jesus than it is real. But what is it exactly? Just as people misinterpret Satan as a being with horns and a tail, people misinterpret Hell as a literal place of fire that torments people forever. If your read the Bible with an open mind you will see that the passages that speak of Hell most often refer to a fire that consumes rather than one that will not people die. If Hell's fire does not consume/annihilate, then what does 'perish' mean (John 3:16)? Or what does the 'second death' mean (Revelation 20) if it is not a real death? If you want to take everything so literally, what about the fact that hell is called a place of fire in some passages and also a place of darkness in others? I have never been in total darkness when a fire has been lit. Unless we should assume that our loving God gouges out their eyes too while sending them into the eternal oven?!? These are metaphorical images meant to show the dire consequences of rejecting God in this life. To not accept God is to be cut off from Him forever and miss out on the resurrection into the kingdom of God. That's the reason we preach.

Anyhow, my challenges are still out there: read the book for yourself then come back and talk & reasonably reconcile your literalist view with the love of God that the Bible is clear about. I am open-minded, but I am pretty sure this cannot be done. Hoping you get back to the Bible too.

On Sunday, May 17, 2009, sandra hepditch said:

Juan
If you don't believe in the whole bible ,than you are rejecting Gods own words and why are you preaching if its not to keep people out of hell .I don't know why you profess if you don't believe .The bible i read has many stories about hell .I think the problem today is that people are looking for the easy way out and that can give them a licence to do as they please .For one thing I don't believe in all the new bible versions as there are too many verses missing but i am sure hell must be there somewhere .Another problem is that man puts too much faith in mans teachings than in God Almighty .I don't care what people thinks of me Juan ,but what Christ Jesus says is more important than what man thinks of me .Today its Christ without a cross so please count the cost of your family and friends and forget the false doctrines of men .Let God be true and every man a liar .Hoping you will get back to your bible Juan .

On Sunday, May 17, 2009, Steve Wiscombe said:

Has anybody read Bill Wiese's book "23 Minutes In Hell?"
Link:

http://www.spiritlessons.com/Documents/BillWiese_23MinutesInHell_Text.htm

Personally, I believe our view of hell is based on our "intimate" relationship with Jesus.
I have my personal view, from studying God's Word.
Hell is a prepared place.Matthew 25:41
Heaven is a prepared place. John 14:1 - 6
Sin and hell are words that people, who are not in love with Jesus, don't want to hear.
My hope for today and for the future has been placed in Jesus.
Blessings

On Friday, May 15, 2009, sandra hepditch said:

Where do people get the idea that satan comes with a tail and horns? According to the bible i read ,he comes as an angel of light to deceive .Do people think he is going to show his true colors ? You decide

On Monday, May 11, 2009, Juan Burry said:

Hi Geoff,

Great article. I read this similar article on theRubicon awhile back and responded to it, so I won't go into all of it again. But I am always interested to see the responding comments as much as the articles. I became a conditionalist/annihilationist also from reading the same book. I was deeply troubled by the traditional view of God that pictured him "acting like a bloodthirsty monster who maintains an everlasting Auschwitz for his enemies whom he does not even allow to die." As Pinnock asks, "How can one love a God like that?". My faith lacked integrity. How could I denounce torture and uphold a God who would practice it exceedingly more than our vilest human rights offenders?

So, I read this book a few years back mostly because of Pinnock, who has made sense of my Wesleyan-Arminian faith. When I read the Four Views, once again Pinnock stood out among the other scholars and I became convinced. I do not say this jokingly or flippantly, but I was at a crisis point in my faith. If the traditional view won out (and I carefully weighed the evidence), I don't think I would have remained a Christian. As I said to my father, if I am wrong about this then this is not a God of love and not one I want to be in relationship with.

My suggestion to anyone who reads Geoff's article and is deeply offended is to read the Four Views of Hell for yourself. Most of the disagreements I hear and see here are on the basis of disloyalty (either to traditional teaching or past methods). It's the mindset that says, "We cannot re-think or throw away any of our past or else we are going to hell in a handbasket" (no pun intended). I have yet to hear a rebuttal that truly reconciles a literalist view with God's love. Open your mind and heart and you will draw closer to God, not farther away as you might suspect.

PS - Jesus or Hell bullies? LOL. nice

On Saturday, May 9, 2009, Philip Brace said:

My dear Major,
After reading your article, methinks I heard William Booth's gravelly voice shout, "Bramwell, get that young Major into my office!"

Serves you right, too. To me, your expurgation of the Word is an exercise that pleases the Enemy immensely.

It seems to me that between many proponents of the Word and the Truth there is a "great gulf fixed".

On Saturday, May 2, 2009, Captain Hannu Lindholm said:

Within our ranks this seems to be a very sensitive topic! Why? I think we have become a society tolerant to sinful behaviour within our own walls. I am not saying that we deliberately allow sin to flourish but rather we to often refuse to hold our own accountable for their behaviour. If we don't do it within our own walls then we certainly don't have the right to hold other brothers and sisters around the world to account. So as for hell does it exist or not...well inside probably the large majority of sermons it doesn't. I am not saying we preach hell constantly....but we as Salvationist's have to be fully aware of it's existance. It is when we become complacent and believe that the bible is nothing but grace....we are in serious trouble! God's grace is bountiful throughtout His Word and the Word reminds us of the consequences of living against God's love. Judas found out first hand what happens....I personnally believe that The Salvation Army has relaxed in many areas and preaching about hell is one of them. No I don't pound my soldiers or members with hell sermons. I had a wonderful homiletics professor who taught us the balance of grace and judgement...Thankyou Major Julie!!!! Never the less I have been called by God to preach His Word and win souls for His glory. In times of popularity or persecution....we have a dying all around us who need to know the truth....I for one as an officer of The Salvation Army commissioned and appointed to preach to both the lost and saved do not let up on the Word of God...as a matter in fact our congregations have said they very much appreciate hot sermons....as do visitors to our Corps. Let us remind our soldiers that we are The Salvation Army....led by the Holy Spirit's fire....remember God will give us the words to speak....but we must be bold and speak the Word also....Hallelujah praise the Lord Fire a volley...Amen!!!

On Saturday, May 2, 2009, Rob Jeffery said:

Geoff, thank you for this excellent article on Hell. It helps uncover a definite aspect of our theology (hell) that has become to the majority of us, rather abstract. I'll leave everyone to form their own conclusion about hell, whether it's a literal, metaphorical, purgatorial, or alternative sort of place.

It is worth mentioning that when the Gospels refer to 'hell', the Greek word they use is Ghenna - a place known officially as the Himmon Valley, a cursed place outside of Jerusalem associated with child sacrifice that had become by Jesus' day, a garbage dump where refuse was burned. This very real physical place, was used be Jesus to convey to the people his understanding of hell - a place of eternal separation from God.

You may remember Geoff, Bart Campolo's address at the Urban Forum, and the controversy he stirred up among the delegates by suggesting that in the end, no one truly remains in hell. A hopeful argument to be sure, but one I'd have to research more before I give up the tradition belief that hell is eternal.

As for rearranging the Doctrines so that it doesn't end with "the endless punishment of the wicked", I agree that they are seemingly harsh words. I think today though, we don't often understand the function of doctrine. They are used to define our beliefs to ourselve and others - yes, but they are also meant to be theologically sound and logical. Any claims regarding the eschaton (end things) must be stated last. There's simply no other way to order it. That being said, I would hope that when we as Salvationists teach our doctrines, we don't teach them piece meal, but as a single set of claims and teachings. God bless.

Rob