A Real Live Preacher Questions Hell
Hell has been a big topic lately. There's an informal group of guys that tend to talk about the scriptural idea of hell on Wednesday evenings at the FroPo. It was a message topic a few weeks ago.
And now one of my favorite bloggers, Real Live Preacher, is coming out and asking the public for help in his comprehensive New Testament study of hell.
He is looking for all those who believe in hell to give him solid New Testament evidence to back up their beliefs. He's not being patronizing, or antagonistic. He is honestly and respectfully seeking out those who can make a good case.
Go read his post, and perhaps be one of those who can help round out the discussion in a meaningful way. I don't have to explain why this topic is so important.
UPDATE 8-14-08 I think it would be best not to end this post without a few vague personal thoughts about hell. So here it is:
In order for God to be consistent with himself, and for Scripture to maintain its integrity, I think the deal with hell has got to be one of two things:
1) Perhaps it is not what the traditionalists have made it out to be. Maybe it's not eternal. Maybe the punishment is heavily graded, depending on how much truth and righteousness you rejected, and how much falsehood and evil you embraced, making possible a portion of "hell" that is actually not unspeakably terrible. Or maybe hell is allegorical in some other way I haven't thought of. Or...
2) Perhaps the nature of God's judgment of people is not what traditionalists have made it out to be. It doesn't work in my mind for hell to be populated simply with all "non-Christians". That makes Christianity sound like a cult, and it is far to superficial to be God's true measure of judgment. This is not just a sentiment, this is Scriptural... God judges the heart, not the outward appearance. If there is indeed an eternal, horrible place called hell, it will not be for the people who failed to join a certain group, but for those who have rejected God, by way of rejecting Jesus. And we can't necessarily assume that never hearing about Jesus is the same as rejecting him.
My current leaning is toward number 2, as vague as it is. If we're really going to be known as a people who trust God, we have to trust his knowledge of every person's heart, and remember that he doesn't desire that any should perish. If we don't trust that God will give each person a solid opportunity to find him, and receive his mercy, then I don't really think we trust God.
Posted at 1:19 PM
View 22 comments made so far
Add a comment
Links to this post
22 Comments:
I certainly hope no one makes up their mind on the nature of hell based on a few blog conversations. How about people read books by people who have committed themselves to serious study of the subject rather than pooling their relative ignorance. I'm becoming more and more convinced that the blogosphere is an inadequate place for seeking answers to serious theological and philosophical questions. I've tried and tried to do it, and to help others toward such answers, but the ensuing conversations just take far too much "space" (and time). I'd prefer a discussion based on a particular book that everyone participating agrees to read. Perhaps chapter-based discussion. That way everyone is exposed to the major arguments, and the author serves as a sort of "mediator" for the discussion.
Concerning the hell issue, it's simply not feasible to do justice to it via blog. Real Live Preacher can't present his perspective concisely; nor can commenters, without overwhelming everyone else. So I think his project is overly ambitious. At best, the results will be very misleading, because they will be based on shallow analysis.
You're right, though... it is an important conversation.
P.S. Jesus saw things very similarly (if not identically) to the way you explained hell in option #2. Matt 7:21-23 makes it very clear that many people who think they're "in" actually aren't and never were... "Christians" who weren't disciples and weren't "in Christ". So belonging to the "cult" of Christianity is essentially meaningless with regard to one's eternal destiny. Being an actual child of God, biblically-defined, is all that counts. Many of us will not know whether this includes us until it's too late. As far as rejecting Jesus goes, I'm not sure there's a biblical basis for the belief that this is the criteria for (can I use this word?) damnation. The criteria is "not believing" (John 3:18), which is different than "rejecting". "Rejecting" is active; "not believing" is passive. People who have never heard of Jesus cannot reject Jesus, but they can "not believe".
Just read RLP's post. Only two words for it: knee jerk. Emotionalized rhetoric. Knee jerk.
If you believe in blog conversation at all, you might as well talk about hell, too. I don't know who ever said a blog conversation can be definitive, or should substitute for serious study. But RLP is a blogger, and his readers are blog-readers, so why not? He has obviously put serious study into the topic of hell, and he wants to augment that by asking for input from the blogosphere. I can't see anything wrong with that.
And in a sense, it is a discussion centered around a particular book: The Bible. Which I think is better than taking one step back from scripture to discuss what some scholar says about it. RLP is asking for serious scriptural arguments, and not claiming that the result will settle the matter... far from it.
You say the criteria is "not believing". Is that the same as "disbelieving"? Because disbelieving is active. How sure are you that the criteria for "damnation" is passive, rather than active?
Finally, in regards to the "knee-jerk" comment... RLP is an emotional person. He is simply writing as himself, and doing it in a very measured, thoughtful way. The fact is that so few theologians or clergy actually talk about their emotional responses to the idea of hell, that there is a gaping hole in our collective consciousness. Anyone who sees that hole and tries to fill it will be accused of being imbalanced. Even when it's authentic to one's own nature and character to do so.
I would equate disbelieving with rejecting. The Bible doesn't use either of these terms with reference to Jesus and salvation, nor does it state them indirectly. We draw logical inferences from passages that lead us to assume rejection as the criteria.
I'm not suggesting RLP or anyone else ignore their emotions or communicate dispassionately (you know me!). But his arguments spring from his own personal feeling that if God is the way orthodox Christianity has understood him for 2,000 years, then He is unjust. That's the baseline for his blog post. It takes committed opposition of orthodox ideas about hell in order to jump the hermeneutical hurdles required to reinterpret all the biblical passages about it. For some people, that's all it takes. So long as there's a possible way of explaining their preferred meaning of a passage, many feel it has equal legitimacy. But that's not how things work, otherwise interpretation is literally a free for all. That's where tradition, what we call orthodoxy, comes in. We should certainly question orthodoxy, but should do so tenuously. Orthodoxy must be our baseline.
I don't know why tradition and orthodoxy should hold such a high position. Is that Biblical? Isn't it clear that the Church is capable of making the same mistake hundreds and hundreds of years in a row?
Besides, remember that logic is one of the most powerful tools that has been used to bring about this "orthodox" interpretation of scripture, and it's this same logic that protests when we try to compare one biblical description of God to another.
My goal (and quite possibly RLP's goal, too) is not to arrive at a belief I can enjoy, it is to arrive at a belief that really seems scripturally consistent. And the concept of the "automatic ticket to hell" for those unexposed to the message of the gospel does not seem at all consistent with the nature of God expressed elsewhere in scripture... not even in the Old Testament.
1Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish." Luke 13:1-5
There will come a time when those without Christ will perish. Whatever 'perish' means it doesn't sound good. With this one, the devil definitly is in the details.
If the devil is in the details, allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment:
What the verse seems to say to me is, "unless you ask forgiveness, you will die, just like those kiled by the tower collapse."
But Christians read, "Unless you enter into a relationship with Christ, you will go to hell."
I don't see anything about eternity, or about a relationship with Christ in there. "Perish" simply means "die".
I'm not saying that the latter statement isn't true, I'm just wondering whether that can safely be drawn from the Luke 13 passage.
Asking whether orthodoxy itself is biblical is like asking whether gravity is biblical. But there is a very strong sense in which orthodoxy is itself a biblical, guiding principle for faith. It is inherent in the repeated NT exhortations (e.g. Matt 28:19-20; 2 Tim 2:2; Paul's repeated defense of The Gospel, e.g. Gal 1:6-9) to ensure the faithful transmission of The Faith to all peoples in all generations until Christ's final consummation of the world.
Concerning the infallibility of tradition, we cannot throw the baby out with the bath water. Yes, tradition can be--and has been--dreadfully wrong (in my view, as a Protestant). As I said before, orthodoxy must be constantly and rigorously tested. In the case of the Reformers, the Protesters, they appealed not only to the Spirit who was guiding them but also to the "Fathers" and early church documents, i.e. the "original orthodoxy". Fortunately, we have the benefit of having access to sources telling us what the earliest Christians believed and confessed. From there, we simply trace the development of "orthodoxy" through the ages and see who (e.g. the Roman Catholic Churches) veered off the path and where. But such testing, again, must not presume that it has high ground. It must prove itself. The Protestant understanding of the nature of faith and grace over against works in salvation has proven itself not to be some fanatical, fringe view. At the very worst, it has simultaneously debunked Catholicism and Protestantism, but that is not necessarily the case. When compared side by side, strengths and weaknesses accounted for, Protestantism wins the test of authenticity to the true understanding of the Bible... but not flawlessly. Nevertheless, going back to the roots of the earliest Church along with careful and thorough exegesis, the orthodox Protestant understanding of God and man is the best we have, and it will take a radical new reformation to change doctrines so elemental as a real, eternal hell.
I see this verse as Jesus talking to these people saying,"You thought you had it figured out who God loves and who he curses. Those who have real bad things happen to them - he curses. And because you haven't had any tragedies happen to you then you are loved. You don't realize that you can't make surface judgments. You, yourself, are in danger of perishing if you don't repent.
Just because the words "heaven", "hell", or "eternity" aren't mentioned doesn't mean that Jesus wasn't thinking of these. I don't think you always have to use those words in order to communicate to others the reality that there will come a time where some will perish (in some sort of hell from what I read in verses like those that say those not mentioned in the book of life being thrown in the lake of fire). Jesus often spoke using illustrations and comparisons without using strict vocabulary to convey a point. [YOu think those guys were perishing... you aren't so safe yourself]
"unless you ask forgiveness, you will die, just like those kiled by the tower collapse." I don't see how that could be correct. Jesus is threatening death unless they repent? Why would he give this threat?
I just read this verse and it tells me that there will come a time when those who have rejected God will perish. I feel like this is important information that I hope gets passed to close ones who don't know Christ, whether through me or some other way. Am I reading this verse wrong? If so how? I know I don't always understand everything about salvation.
Beloved-
First you say that orthodoxy and tradition should be gingerly tested, then you say it should be rigorously tested. But in each case, scripture is the standard. This is exactly what I feel RLP has in mind. Although his bias is obvious, I believe his commitment to scripture as the standard is also clear.
Caleb-
When doing a study of scripture, we need to recognize that the further a statement ventures out into poetry, symbolism, or allegory, the less dogmatic we can be about its absolute meaning. If your argument is that we are supposed to read between the lines of Jesus' words, then you can take that meaning to heart for yourself, but you'd have trouble making a strong case about it to someone else.
You say you don't understand why Jesus would make the threat of death... then why would he make the threat of eternal death, as you suppose? Yes, there is a richness and depth to scripture, but the further you venture out onto the limb, the less likely it is to hold your weight.
Don't take this as an attack but purely my way of discussing this issue.
Revelations 20 and 21 mention two eternal homes: lake of fire and dwelling with God (in some place that I don't quite understand but it seems like a pretty nice place). This sounds like perishing to me. I admit this is loose. Jesus constantly called people to repent. It was an important step in coming to Him. Now can you divide who goes to the lake of fire and who dwells with God by if they repented and came to Christ? I would assume but I can't find scripture linking it up. My assumption would be very understandable. However, after reading what you said, I don't think I will be so strict in my interpretation. However, I still need to know what Jesus was talking about when he was perishing.
I gave my reasoning why Jesus told these guys to repent or they would perish for eternity. What's your reasoning that he would tell them to repent or they will physically die?
By the way, that was me above. I wanted to add, before I accidently posted early, that this has really peaked my interest and I will be heading over to check out the blog you mentioned on hell.
Another thought on tradition... many, many Christians consider C.S. Lewis' teachings to be part of Christian tradition, and yet he states in Mere Christianity that we really have no way of knowing the exact arrangement God has with those who have never heard the gospel.
That is not my argument... just another installment of devil's advocate.
And Caleb- I'm not really trying to get into a comprehensive debate for or against hell. In all honesty, I believe it exists, and that some people go there. I'm just not sure it's the exact group of people that Christianity has always believed it to be.
And as for the Luke passage, I've only concluded that Jesus is warning his audience that if they don't repent, they will AT LEAST die physically. My point is not that they WON'T go to hell, it's just that we can't infer MORE than mere physical death from the simple word "perish".
I am begining to understand why you are questioning that idea.
In any case, this discussion means something to me because I have been concerned about SOME of those who would die and go to such a place without hope (divine comedy ideology). It is what motivates me to pray, and be an influence on, SOME of those who don't know Christ. It would also be great if I had sympathy as they suffer without Christ in the present. Predestination might help clear up this whole discussion - the whole "I am not God so I can't say who he is sending to hell. He is the best one to make such a decision." So we have only to trust Him when it comes to those we care about and their eternal home???
I like the idea that the whole discussion is based on things such as what scripture has to say, and what type of Person we know God to be.
Yeah, I don't expect a response from anyone unless I specifically ask for one, which I did in the above posts. I just thought I'd throw out my struggles on this topic.
I have several issues with what's being said here in the comments.
1 - Caleb is correct in interpreting that Jesus is speaking more than just the physical death when he mentions the word "perish". Luke 12:4 is when Jesus is speaking to this same crowd. He says to not be afraid of those who can only kill the body and do nothing more, but to fear the One, who after being killed, can cast you into hell. Why then would Jesus be telling this same group minutes later that unless they repent they will also perish and be only concerned with their physical bodies? To believe that "perish" means to "simply die" is believing that Jesus told a crowd to not fear physical death and then later told the same crowd that if they didn't repent that they would die and that they should, in turn, be afraid of that.
Coreman, you say that Caleb is "inferring MORE" to the word "perish", but I find that you missed Jesus' meaning when you inferred that He was merely a lowly OSHA employee who was concerned for the people's safety. Why would Jesus care about their physical death? Luke 12:4 doesn't reveal any of Jesus' concerns for a physical death. What point could Jesus be possibly making if he only meant that they would simply "die"?
Furthermore, I'm disappointed to read your take on his opinion as "going out on a limb". If going out on a limb means reading the context and not just the verse alone, then I sure hope that you, too, venture out once in a while to where the fruit is. You say that you didn't see eternity mentioned anywhere in the verse and you're right, but the message given to this group of people in its entirety very clearly speaks of eternity.
2 - I think that a blog can be a fine place for discussion. Its almost anonymous feel really allows people to open up and share where they might be reluctant to otherwise, so I do agree with Coreman when he argues Beloved's concerns on the issue. However, this opening up can not be taken lightly. It seems to me that Beloved is concerned for what people might take away with them from these kinds of discussions. And that is a valid concern. It also seems that Coreman is not concerned with this aspect and possibly foolishly believing that only good can come from this kind of conversation.
I find that the majority of people can walk away from a discussion group with a better understanding of their own beliefs than when they arrived, but what about the minority? There are those who will even leave this comments section believing differently than before they started reading them. It's these people that concern me. It's been said that Jesus was the Shepherd of Men. That makes men the sheep. And, while some may have the ability to discuss openly the arguments for and against a belief, some do not. Some will get lost, and blood will be shed.
Don't be so quick to recommend all your readers to RLP who may or may not be operating in the best interests of the readers in whom you are sending.
3 - Devil's advocacy. Really? There is a reason that Jesus never used this method in getting people to see things His way. Be more careful, Coreman.
Of course, I still enjoy your blogs and I respect your ministry. Please, don't take my interjections as as attacks. I simply feel that our words are more powerful than what most people give them credit for. And we should therefore take these discussions more seriously than we do. Just as God's words have the power to create and destroy, ours also have power and should not be thrown around advocating argument.
Believe me, I take the power of words pretty seriously.
One thing I should point out though, is that this blog is a forum for making people think, and doesn't serve well as a bible teaching resource.
That being said, let me re-iterate that my supreme goal is to know God's true message to us, and a big part of this is understanding exactly how God intends us to understand the Bible.
I do give my readers the benefit of the doubt, assuming that I can make them think without "leading them astray". Maybe I am assuming too much, but you can't live your life in constant fear that somebody, somewhere may be misconstruing your words.
Thanks all, for your input.
I agree with that. However, just because this blog is a forum for making people think doesn't mean that RLP's blog is the same. Reading through the comments, there are a lot of people eagerly awaiting RLP's compiled response. And sense it is based on scripture (by his own rules) I believe that it then falls under the category in most people's minds as a bible teaching.
Again, I've read your blog "religiously" (hee hee) for some time and I enjoy your making-people-think entries. Keep it up.
I have a small question...How can you question if there is a hell, when it is so clearly taught in Gods Word? The Lord Jesus was clear with a vivid discription of what hell will be like, throughout the gospels. Worms that don't die, fire that is not quenched, outer darkness, weeping and wailing and nashing of teeth...whether symbolic, or literal, it is not a place I would want to spend my afterlife. (I believe it is literal personally).
Also... Hell IS in fact a place for people who fail to join a certain group...those who reject The Lord Jesus Christ, just as you said. Those who accept the salvation of God through faith in Jesus Christ actually are in a exclusive group..and they are called.... Christians. and Christianity is very exclusive. John chapter 10 makes that very clear... As for those who never heard the gospel in some obscure land, God will deal with them as he sees fit...there are lost people right here in our own city that we should be worrying about. right at our doorstep. We need to be concerned for them...
I actually don't know too many people, taking the Word seriously, who believe there is NO hell. Most of the Bible-believers I know who question hell, rather, are questioning its nature, and its entrance requirements. There are moments in scripture where these things seem to be taught clearly, but other moments that seem contradictory to the first. On top of that, so much hell language refers to specific places on earth, or makes reference to familiar worldly concepts, that if nothing else, it is worth questioning.
And ultimately the goal is to hone in on a unified perception of God. If scripture is correct that his anger lasts but a moment, but his favor lasts for a lifetime, then how could he punish anyone eternally?
This is not my argument against hell, it is just to express the point that my goal is not to write off the scriptures I don't like. Quite the opposite... it is to gain an understanding of the totality of scripture that is unified and consistent.
Thanks for jumping in, Dorian... good to see you here!
Are rigor and care at odds? Put them together and you have Berean-like scruple. Semper Reformanda. Always test tradition according to Scripture... and other tradition (the earlier the better), in that order.
After thinking a bit more, I think we need to take one step back and look at what we have overlooked because of its blatancy. I'm going to admit from go that this doesn't settle easily with me—never has. But here it is. The entire Gospel mission given to the apostles and ultimately the Church is contingent upon the simple conviction that those who have never heard of Jesus stand condemned to "perish" and suffer the wrath of God. The whole point of Christ's mission, and the Church's mission, was and is to rescue those in danger of perishing. It is not simply that the whole world may be enlightened with a fuller understanding of God. It is that this fuller understanding of God in Christ is the very thing—the only thing—that can bring dead men to life.
I hope you get what I'm saying, even if my words lack the precision they might have if I were writing something for publication. ;-)
Just a thought: What if there was a place that was completely separate from God? We understand that God is in all things and that he is around us at all times, but let's take the "Eternal Separation from God" literally for a second and think about it. What if there was a place that not even God could hear your screams? Wouldn't it then be possible for God to "eternally punish" someone? Like Ron Popeil is so known for saying, "Set it and forget it."? Out of sight, out of mind?
I think that God isn't watching the damned writhe in hell like He watches us on Earth. I believe that a literal complete separation from God is what it is. God is the Light, right? Then the outer darkness is where God is not.
By questioning either the existence or entry rules of hell are we not questioning Jesus' purpose for dying for our sins? Would God have sent his only Son to die for us if there were any other way? Did Jesus not say, " I am the Way"?
I think that maybe we should view hell in this complete separation sense and it seems to start making more sense to us. It's easy to think that there is some sort or contradiction happening when God is so loving and merciful and also so judging and strict, but we were told that he is the Lion and the Lamb. Which one he is to us is determined by us. We choose Life or Death. It's a scary choice with an obvious "right" answer, but it's not always seen this way. And questioning these "policies" leads people to believe that the criteria may not be as straight-forward as the Bible may have led us to believe. And, no offense to anyone for I too have had these questions before, this line of questioning is frighteningly close to when the serpent led Eve to question what had been told to her by God himself about the fruit on the tree in the center of the garden.
We have a real enemy and he started this whole questioning of God's Word long before we did. God made it very clear not to eat the fruit of the tree and Eve and Adam did it anyway when prompted by a little doubt and a devious little question. My concern is that we're not learning from our past mistakes and that we're still allowing the serpent to whisper in our ears his doubt about something that God is making very clear.
If you look through the parables of Jesus you see a lot of references to hell and "eternal punishment" All of the parables list two eternal destinations:
somewhere with God
and
eternal punishment/hell.
Many of the parables that talk about the eternal punishment describe it as a place that is not very enjoyable. There is not mention of a third place.
Could Jesus have not come out to say plainly "If you don't come to God then you will go to hell" because this idea was obvious to the Jews he spoke to? He simply had to let them know that He was the way to God. Kinda like how Jesus doesn't mention that sex before marriage is wrong because the Jewish community that he talked to was very strict about saving sex for marriage. So Jesus didn't feel the need to teach on this.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home