4 Reasons to Rethink Hell

In order to resist making terrible puns about eternal punishment, I’m going to dive right into this rather short blog post. Several others have already made some observations and I don’t claim to have read their posts. If there is overlap, that’s pretty cool actually. So here are 4 reasons why you should rethink hell.

1. The Bible does not teach the traditional doctrine of eternal conscious punishment. I feel like I could drop the mic and walk away from the computer now, but I should clarify. A great think the Reformation did was fan the flames and push us all back to Scripture. The problem is, well, we didn’t consistently adopt the mentality of “Scripture alone” and “always reforming.” So, Scripture does not teach the doctrine known to us as ECT.
   
2. You should rethink hell because other people are rethinking hell. They do this in the form of point 1, and are offering sophisticated arguments in favor of various interpretations of hell i.e., universalism. You should rethink hell in order to further nuance your perspective, or change your mind, or settle yourself more firmly. There is a veritable library of resources available to you. Either way, always be in the process of reforming yourself.
    
3. The mainstream media is in on the game, and this is a good thing. People are interested in hell. Think about it: that’s like getting kids being excited to eat their veggies. An example of this is Edward Fudge being interviewed by the New York Times. This could be a great opportunity to engage culture. Especially if one is into apologetics. Think about it: death is on the mind, we are in the midst of global unrest. Why not rethink hell and also heaven?
    
4. You should rethink hell because, as a Christian, you claim to speak for God. We speak about his character and we are to act accordingly. So, in the spirit of humility and Christian charity, you should rethink it afresh in order to determine what God has said in his word.

There’s also a really cool conference in Pasadena that I am helping to put on. Its called the Rethinking Hell Conference. Its about hell (obviously), and challenging universalism. Its under $100 to attend the three-day event (June 18-20), with some variety in prices and some incredible speakers: Oliver Crisp, Jerry Walls, David Instone-Brewer, and others. Please come rethink hell with us!

As an aside, I’m almost positive that someone has already used this title, or some form of it. But after a brief Google search, I couldn’t find much of anything related. So, I guess I’m ahead of the Internet curve for once? Either way, thanks for clicking the link.

NQ

John Locke & Eternal Punishment

Locke made it known that many considered the doctrine of eternal torment to be of “little consistent with the justice or goodness of the great and infinite God…thereby doing violence to the whole tenour of the New Testament.”[1] Far from post-modernism and the emergent movement, Locke nevertheless considered such the doctrine of eternal torment to be inconsistent with justice and goodness of God. This should not be dismissed as sentimentalism, but rather an acute awareness of the world around him and possibly reflects the heart of a man who had the potential for being a powerful preacher. One wonders to what extent his influence would’ve increased or decreased had he chosen to pursue the clergy. Locke says, “this [mortality] is so clear in these cited places, and so much the current of the New Testament, that nobody can deny, but that the doctrine of the gospel is, that death came on all men by Adam’s sin; only they differ about the signification of the word death: for some will have it to be a state of guilt, wherein not only [Adam], but all his posterity was so involved, that every one descended of him deserves endless torment, in hell-fire.”[2] The debate about ‘death’ and ‘immortality’ has apparently been raging since Locke’s day, and modern annihilationists may rest in comfort that we may indeed continue to be misunderstood as Locke was.[3]

Locke continues, “I shall say nothing more here, how far, in the apprehensions of men, this consists with the justice and goodness of God, having mentioned it above: but it seems a strange way of understanding a law, which requires the plainest and directest words, that by death should be meant eternal life in misery. Could anyone be supposed, by a law, that says, “For felony thou shalt die,” not that he should lose his life; but be kept alive in perpetual, exquisite torments? And would anyone think himself fairly dealt with, that was so used?”[4] While one may simply and silently concur with such an acute observation, there are arguments made against Locke and he takes it upon himself to clarify his remarks. 

The rejoinder deserves to be quoted in full: 

“To this, they would have it be also a state of necessary sinning, and provoking God in every action that men do: a yet harder sense of the word death than the other. God says, that “in the day that thou eatest of the forbidden fruit, thou shalt die;” i. e. thou and thy posterity shall be, ever after, incapable of doing any thing, but what shall be sinful and provoking to me and shall justly deserve my wrath and indignation. Could a worthy man be supposed to put such terms upon the obedience of his subjects? Much less can the righteous God be supposed, as a punishment of one sin, wherewith he is displeased, to put man under the necessity of sinning continually, and so multiplying the provocation. The reason of this strange interpretation, we shall perhaps find, in some mistaken places of the New Testament. I must confess, by death here, I can understand nothing but a ceasing to be, the losing of all actions of life and sense. Such a death came on Adam, and all his posterity, by his first disobedience in paradise; under which death they should have lain for ever, had it not been for the redemption by Jesus Christ. If by death, threatened to Adam, were meant the corruption of human nature in his posterity, ’tis strange, that the New Testament should not any-where take notice of it, and tell us, that corruption seized on all, because of Adam’s transgression, as well as it tells us so of death. But, as I remember, every one’s sin is charged upon himself only.”[5]  

Locke even takes up the challenge of the issue of the unevangelized, offering several thoughts. One being the promise of God to Israel, to persuade people to embrace what was revealed to them.[6] The more interesting is that Locke didn’t believe that all men had to have perfect doctrine, suggesting, “I desire those who tell us, that God will not (nay, some go so far as to say, cannot) accept any, who do not believe every article of their particular creeds and systems, to consider, why God, out of his infinite mercy, cannot as well justify men now, for believing Jesus of Nazareth to be the promised Messiah, the King and Deliverer.”[7] While he was not a systematic theologian[8], he was acutely aware that each idea was built upon each other. To remove one isn’t to devolve the other argument; each argument is independent, but yet related to the other argument. Therefore, Locke’s views were reciprocal with each other, never exclusive. Immortality and resurrection are married, and this appears in the shadow of the eschatological cross.

NQ

---

[1] The Reasonableness of Christianity, 8.

[2] Ibid, 9

[3] Modern Annihilationists may also take comfort in the knowledge that with an advocate as articulate as Locke, he was surely not alone in expressing his views.

[4] The Reasonableness of Christianity, 9.

[5] Ibid, 9.

[6] The Reasonableness of Christianity, 81. Locke appears to embrace a view of ‘limited’ knowledge for those who haven’t heard. To believe in a little, or what has been revealed to them, is enough for God. God doesn’t expect more than what he has given.

[7] Ibid,  81.

[8] Similarly, some scholars and theologians have claimed that Paul wasn’t a systematic theologian either. C.f. E.P. Sanders, Paul. This does not diminish the brilliance of Paul and John Locke; it merely showcases that perhaps they were closer aligned than many have assumed.

Eschatology Decompressing: Some of the Best Books on Hell

There is something of an inner-family debate going amongst the evangelical family. At the moment, the traditionalist father is somewhat uneasily passing the potatoes to the conditionalist mothers, who is eying both the father and the kids, who are patiently waiting for the aforementioned potatoes because, well, it will get to the end eventually.

You see, the debate has become far more interesting and respectable as of late, what with the father being will to pass the now cooling potatoes to the mother and all. The mother, bless her strong heart, is happy to pass the dish either way, but she is more likely to double check with the father because...

Okay this analogy has become significantly less funny to me so I shall move on. Thanks for humoring me. Anyway.

There is an abundance of materials out now concerning the evangelical debate on the nature and duration of final punishment. While it is easy to simply google the various phrases (and if you did and ended up here, welcome!), I figured it would be helpful to simply list the various texts that have some significant pull in the world between the Church and the Academy.

I shall start with universalism, mostly because Universalism hasn't gotten a fair shake amongst many evangelicals. For good reason or not, one ought to engage with the best texts on the topic and I have listed them below:

Thomas Talbott's The Inescapable Love of God has just been released and has been quite influential in some parts of the evangelical world. It even has some traditionalist scholars praising it such as Jerry Walls.

For a broader view of the family dynamic, see Universal Salvation: The Current Debate. Reasonably respectful, though there is some sniping as to be expected, since the potatoes by this time have gotten quite cold.

Robin Parry, who is a lovely fellow, has written a book on the topic that I find quite attractive--though not enough to be an Evangelical Universalist (again). I found it far more persuasive than Talbott's and it merits some consideration.

For the traditionalist side of the family table, there are many books and a few of them are helpful. That may sound like a bit of a snipe, and it is. Unlike God, I'm allowed to not play favorites.

The singular best text that was written to explicitly defend the traditional doctrine of eternal conscious torment is Hell Under Fire. That said, there are issues within and the best chapter is Douglas Moo's contribution on Paul. The chapters that object to annihilationism and universalism likely won't change the mind of either party, and we're inclined to keep those potatoes at our end of the table thank you very much.

However, if one is a philosophy nerd, Jerry Walls' Hell: The Logic of Damnation is helpful. It is not the kind of book you break out at the dinner table (none of these are), but if one is partial to C.S. Lewis, one might find it attractive.

Judith Gundry-Volf's contribution (entitled "Universalism" pgs956-961) in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters directly tackles the topic of Pauline Universalism. She concludes that, “universalism may perhaps be best defended as an implication of some statements in Paul.” I found her case remarkably compelling. 

For those of us who prefer large books that are heavy enough to beat a goat to death with, Edward Fudge's The Fire that Consumes (edited by Robin Parry) is the standard weapon of choice. He tackles both Testaments and does so in a persuasive manner. Richard Bauckham notes that the book "is likely to remain a standard work to which everyone engaged with this issue will constantly return."

Hans Schwarz, Eschatology, is a helpful survey of the relevant biblical, scientific and theological terrain of the current landscape. Some may bristle at his rejections of both AN and UR, and many Dispensationalists will take offense as well, but its a great text. I reviewed and praised it here.

Samuele Bacchiocchi is a 7th Day Adventist (and pretty shockingly conservative, even for many conservatives) and he defends a synthesis of physicalism and annihilationism. I find some of his work a bit too general but his larger arguments are helpful and its a free pdf. Enjoy.

Oscar Cullmann is always awesome. I recommend him highly too, even for such a slim book its quite potent. Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection from the Dead?

For a great site dedicated to the topic of final punishment, enjoy the Rethinking Hell site.

I write this post mostly due to the fact that I just finished a research paper for Dr. Oliver Crisp, and I'm so full of hell that I need to write this to decompress. Now, where are those potatoes?

NQ

A Review of Hans Schwarz's "Eschatology"

This is my second assignment for ST503 and Dr. Crisp. Its an early draft so be nice. Its my second paper to ever make it to the graduate level.  Enjoy!

A highly recommended book.

In the multifaceted world we inhabit, eschatology can encompass a multitude of disciplines: philosophy, science and theology. Hans Schwarz has offered the world an exceptionally readable volume that attempts to synthesize the best of all the aforementioned disciplines into a broad survey of the last things. He treads where many systematic theologies do not, especially in exploring various secular and progressive worldviews, seeking the truth in all of them. He largely succeeds and offers the reader his findings in three major parts.

Part one engages with the diversity and unity of both Testaments as they relate to eschatology. The historical background of the Old Testament “…was basically a death-driven culture” (32). As is often the case, existentialism and the knowledge of death are never far from each other where “…the living know that they will die but the dead know nothing” (Eccl. 9:5). Schwarz notes the heightened “emphasis on the this-worldly aspect of life” (36) and because of this reality, to live seventy or even eighty years was desired above all else (Ps. 90:9-10), though these years were still a breath. Though his survey is expansive, Schwarz could have shown that the Old Testament attests to a longing for justice and that punishment of the wicked (Ps. 110:6; 139:18-20) does not happen in this life (Job 21:7; Jer. 12:1). Because of the lack of justice in this earthly existence, YHWH will act in the next life to bring judgment upon Israel’s oppressors, thus suggesting Israel and the world’s need for cosmic justice and the possibility of resurrection of the righteous and the wicked (Dan. 12:2; Isaiah 66:15-24).

Based off Schwarz’s findings in the Old Testament, he moves on to show that the New Testament has a more developed outlook on the question of eschatology with special attention placed on fulfillment in Christ. For example, Matthew “wants to show that the Old Testament promises have found their fulfillment in Jesus” (84). Schwarz then rightly insists upon continuity between the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament as both Testaments testify to Jesus and his mission and exaltation, though this was not as developed because the importance of Second Temple Judaism is left largely unmentioned. In regards to Jesus’ messianic understanding, Schwarz correctly claims that, “[Jesus] never delineated a chronology of life eternal nor a geography of the beyond” (80); this biblical obscurity has resulted in over two thousand years of speculation on the part of the Church, and it is indeed the most troubling aspect of Christian eschatology; especially since it lacks any sort of future details and relies on fragments to paint a broader picture. In sum, the biblical portraits are fractured and leave us to gather up the various portions. However, for Schwarz the biblical tensions are less worrisome because “Christ anticipates the resurrection of the dead through his own resurrection, thus providing us with a foundation for hope” (96). The resurrection of Jesus is paradigmatic of our future experience and this is congruent with Paul and John’s teachings regarding this matter (1 Cor. 15; John 5:29).

The End.

Part two reflects the larger debate between science, secularism and philosophy as they all relate to eschatology. Schwarz covers discussions over various theologies including process, feminist, liberationist and pluralism: the advocates comprise Wolfhart Pannenberg, John Cobb, Jürgen Moltmann and Leonardo Boff among others. Each theologian’s perspective is examined and given a place at the table for a fair exchange, though not without critique. Process theology is specifically singled out and one must ask to what extent Christian doctrine is maintained amongst a pluralistic worldview—a point of view decidedly not shared by the New Testament. Because of this, Schwarz notes “Cobb’s proposal seems more akin to the Hellenistic striving for oneness as demonstrated by Platonic and Aristotelian ontologically grounded philosophy. The Christian faith, however, is characterized by individuality in unity” (169-170). This is a successful critique and could be pressed further to include the imagery of incorporation of human beings into Christ’s body, his Church (1 Cor. 12:12-28), illustrating the necessity of all Christians, American and other, citizen and immigrant, and male and female, to be one in status in Christ (Gal. 3:28). Individuality is maintained and corporatized, allowing personality to thrive within community. It is also worthy to note the claim that Scripture appears soteriologically exclusive rather than pluralistic, as the famous Shema  (Deut. 6:4) proclaims a strict Jewish monotheism. Paul also affirms (and expands) this famous text in 1 Cor. 8:4-6 to include Jesus (see Gordon Fee, Pauline Christology, Hendrickson, 2007, 88-94), making pluralism (and subsequent process thought) difficult to accept on the basis of biblical texts as the exclusive divinity of Christ is attested above all other faiths (John 14:6).

With his mind tuned to environmental concerns, Schwarz adds to the discussion concerning the ecological crisis, where “life is sustained only be exploiting the inanimate world” (195). Life feeds on life, and this appears to be an apocalyptic outcome of consumerist exploitation (196), which compounds the problem of the greenhouse effect (196-199) and overpopulation (201-202). The issue is that “humanity elevated itself into God’s place…and ‘for the glory of God’ was replaced by the glorification and deification of humanity” (205). We live in a seemingly limited creation and this brings up an ominous question: was earth meant to sustain human life forever? Human progress has taken a left turn in the dark and Schwarz thankfully recognizes that without hope, humankind has nothing left for itself: “…what can we, as Christians, actually offer in terms of the content of hope?” (243). Schwarz does not despair, and pushes on with the task of offering hope to a dying world.

In the final part of his work, Schwarz covers four controversial areas of Christian eschatology: setting an actual date for the end of all things, the millennium and its various flavors, universal salvation and purgatory. Schwarz flatly rejects any attempt to place a time to the coming of Christ as “not about outguessing the Lord but being faithful to the call” (321), and like many church fathers (Luther, Augustine) he discards the timetable method and opts for hope. In doing so, his points stands well under scrutiny as the New Testament never set a date to the return of Christ. As regards the millennium, He takes the greatest exception with dispensationalism and concurs with Dale Moody; “we could simply discard these [end times] theories as ‘undue speculation over highly symbolic teachings’” (335). The damage done by this apocalyptic teaching is not glossed over by Schwarz and it has no doubt “been misused for political and religious purposes” (336), especially within the context of modern fundamentalism which misses the purpose of apocalyptic imagery: to bring hope to those who are oppressed, “not…in a triumphalistic manner, but as a pastoral comfort” (337). Schwarz is certainly on point with this admonition, and those of us who have come out of fundamentalism will resonate because of the entrenched emphasis on the rapture and fighting culture wars instead of the necessity of justice for widows and orphans (James 1:27).

Oh Camping.

Considering the doctrine of universal salvation, Schwarz pointedly concludes “we have little biblical ground to go on for a universal homecoming or a restoration of all things to God” (337). In light of the numerous judgment texts in Scripture (Isaiah 66:24; Matt. 10:28; 25:41-46; Jude 7), one would concur that universal salvation is indeed a difficult theological proposition to embrace. However, Schwarz does not engage the strongest Universalist arguments from the basic proof texts (Rom. 5:18, Col. 1:20; Eph. 1:10). This reveals a missed chance to answer lingering questions in the minds of many evangelicals who opt for universalism on the basis of such verses.

Because of his his rejection of universalism, Schwarz is committed to the two-fold outcome of human destiny. Unfortunately, Schwarz leaves himself open to criticism from another side in the Christian debate as Annihilationists (or Conditionalists) would affirm the twofold outcome of eternal judgment and share his views of an eternal punishment. However, Schwarz rejects annihilationism in favor of eternal conscious torment (395-97; 402) by means of a question: “how can there be an annihilation of anybody if there is no escape from God, since God is everywhere, even in death and beyond death?” (396). The question is a non sequitur and one could answer it this way: as it took a divine act of creation to impute life into that which was lifeless (Gen. 2:7), so it is also a divine act of destruction when God destroys both body and soul (Matt. 10:28). Human finitude is evident in that only God is immortal (1 Tim. 6:16) and any life given to us is derived from the Creator, a sentiment that Schwarz explicitly affirms (257). Thus any eternal life, a phrase that seems restricted solely to the elect (e.g. Matt 19:16; 25:46; John 3:15-16, 36; 10:28; Rom. 2:7; 5:21; 6:23; Gal. 6:8), is denied to those not in Christ.

Curiously, while Schwarz mentions Oscar Cullmann several times throughout his book (73n, 119, 140), he betrays no awareness of the annihilationist arguments in Cullmann’s Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead? (Wipf & Stock, reprinted 2000). Cullmann’s words are powerful: “For Christian (and Jewish) thinking the death of the body is also destruction of God-created life. No distinction is made: even the life of our body is true life; death is the destruction of all life created by God” (Immortality, 11). Scripture seems to suggest death (Ps. 68:2; Is. 66:24; Luke 13:3,5; John 3:16; Rom. 6:23) and eternal destruction (2 Thess. 1:9) as the end result of the wicked—not their eternal torment.  To suggest the traditional doctrine of eternal torment seems to promote a vision of final eschatological dualism, one that does not seem to fit comfortably into Schwarz’s theological vision of “the completion of the universe” (404).

@thenakedpastor. Wonderful art.

Eschatology must be seen not as despair, but as hope. Proleptic anticipation, which views the resurrection of Jesus Christ as the commencement of the event of new creation, is the operative lens by which Schwarz concludes his volume. We see everything in light of Christ, and we “anticipate proleptically this future along the avenue which the Christ event provides” (407). Schwarz has written a truly magisterial book and there is much to commend. His depth is illustrated by his familiarity of diverse theologians and his ability to faithfully represent their perspectives even though he may passionately disagree is a model of charity. The chapters relating to science, ecology and scientific reason were especially insightful, bringing material to light to readers who otherwise would not have known about external worldly developments. Because of this inclusion, theologians will now be able to further benefit the church, allowing us to both engage and learn more as we progress in mutual respect towards the future. While a reader may dispute his interpretation on certain doctrines (such as his lack of engagement with annihilationism and universalism), his irenic tone epitomizes Saint Paul’s admonition in Rom. 12:9-21, especially since we are called to “love one another with mutual affection” and we “extend hospitality to strangers.” 

It took everything in me to not jump back to old habits by giving this 4.5 stars. 

Rethinking Hell: A Review

Edward Fudge’s book “The Fire That Consumes” is a very strong case for conditional immortality (or annihilationism). Fudge's work has the bonus of also being the most comprehensive text on the subject, one that actually includes the relevant Old Testament backgrounds. This is missing from much of the debate on eternal punishment and it is to be commended.

This book has moved into the top tier in regards to the literature on the nature and duration of final punishment. The list of contributors Chris Date, Greg Stump and Josh Anderson have assembled is impressive, ranging from the ancient of days (early 20th century) to present day. They include:

E. Earle Ellis. Clark Pinnock. John Stott. John Wenham. Anthony Thiselton. There are plenty more, but this should wet your appetite. 

I will get the negatives out of the way first.

NEGATIVES:

There is some overlap, as is to be expected when you are dealing with biblical texts. Some may find this difficult to wade through, but perhaps a better way to see it as through and exhaustive. Almost every text is examined and every argument at least considered. This repetition illustrates the consistency of annihilationist exegesis.

This doesn’t reflect the book, but I would’ve enjoyed more interaction with universalism, especially within its current more evangelical form. But, safe to say, the book does just fine on it's own.

POSITIVES:

• The positives, I more or less mentioned in the beginning.
• It is exhaustive (E. Earle Ellis include early church fathers and the OT).
• It takes into account the Old Testament imagery and literature in a way that unites the testaments instead of dividing them (Ellis for example, including Fudge's JETS article).
• It presents a robust evangelical engagement with Scripture and esteems the authority of God’s word (most of the authors and contributors would be described under the umbrella of a generous orthodoxy).
• It is charitable (but certainly passionate c.f. Pinnock) in its disagreements with traditionalism. Too often we are prone to shrieks and scratching. Not so with this work.
• It includes scholars from around the spectrum: Pinnock (open theist), Swinburne (Orthodox), Philip E. Hughes (Reformed), Christopher Marshall (Pacifist), and British (ACUTE).
• And I’m mentioned in the acknowledgements. So that’s pretty cool too.

Stand out essays for me are E. Earle Ellis, "New Testament Teaching on Hell"; Ralph G. Bowles, "Does Revelation 14:11 Teach Eternal Torment?" (hint, no it doesn't); Kim G. Papaioannou, "The Development of Gehenna between the Old and New Testaments." All of the essays are helpful, but the level of exegetical and historical detail in these essays is above and beyond. 

For an ongoing review, see Scot McKnight's review of our book.

Rethink Hell. Start with Fudge and this. If you prefer the kindle version, we have that too.

4.5 out of 5.

--Nick

Marriage, Hell & Sunflower Seeds

The Inner Library (Wikipedia) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ee/Interior_Library.JPG

Its been a while since I've graced you with my presence. I trust you are well. Its been an odd couple of months. Allison has a new job that takes her away for 50 hours a week, and I'm working full-time as well. As I was making her dinner tonight, I was struck by how fun it can be, living this way. While I could certainly do without her being gone for such a long time per day, it gives me a chance to decompress and plan out the various items that need…decompression. With Fuller on the horizon (I will be attending the Fall quarter) for both of us (Allison got accepted into the PhD program at Fuller, so that's exciting!), its been a time of great anticipation.

On the hell front, I will be attending a theological conference in Houston, Texas at the Lanier Theological Library. This is the first time I've ever in a place hotter than the topic under discussion. I've submitted two papers to the conference and will be informed whether or not they've been accepted for reading. Since I've got the hook up (being a member of the team), I think I stand a good chance of being accepted. One of my papers is a historical survey of a famous philosopher and the other is on Paul. So, either way, I will be hanging out with Greg, Joey, Chris, Glenn, John Stackhouse, Ed Fudge and Sara Faye. So should be fun!

On the sunflower seed front, I've developed a crippling addiction. So nothing new to really report, except in the case of of the apocalypse, my body may be mined for new plant life.

Blessings. Thanks for reading. I'll try to keep my blog updated, and all that.

--Nick

Origen of Alexandria on the Purification of Man

On First Principles, Chap. X, Sec. 6. Page 146-47.

6. There are many other matters too, which are hidden from us, and are known only to him who is the physician of our souls. For if in regard to bodily health we occasionally find it necessary to take some very unpleasant and bitter medicine as a cure for the ills we have brought on through eating and drinking, and sometimes, if the character of the ill demands it, we need the severe treatment of the knife and a painful operation, yes, and should the disease have extended beyond the reach even of these remedies, in the last resort the lilies burnt out by fire, how much more should we realize that God our physician, in his desire to wash away the ills of our souls, which they have brought on themselves through a variety of sins and chimes, makes us of penal remedies of a similar sort, even to the infliction of a punishment of fire on those who have lost their soul's health.

Allusions to this are found also in the holy scriptures. For instance, in Deuteronomy the divine word threatens that sinners are to be punished with 'fevers and cold and pallor', and tortured with 'feebleness of eyes and insanity and paralysis and blindness and weakness of the reigns' (Deut. 28:22, 28-29). And so if anyone will gather at his leisure from the whole of scripture all the references to sufferings which in threats against sinners are called by the names of bodily sicknesses, he will find that through them allusion is being made to either the ills of the punishments of souls. And to help us understand that as physicians supply aids to sufferers with the object of restoring them to health through careful treatment, so with the same motive God acts towards those who have lapsed and fallen into sin, there is proof in that passage in which, through the prophet Jeremiah, God's 'cup of fury' is commanded 'to be set before all nations' that 'they may drink it and become mad and spew it out' (Jerem. 25:15,16,27). In this passage there is a threat which says, 'if anyone refuses to drink, he shall not be cleansed' (Jerem. 25:28,29); from which certainly we understand that the fury of God's vengeance ministers to the purification of souls.

Isaiah teaches that even the punishments which are said to be inflicted by fire are meant to be applied as a help, when he speaks thus about Israel: 'The Lord will wash away the filth of the sons and daughters of Sion, and will purge away the blood from the midst of them by the spirit of burning' (Is. 4:4). And of the Chaldaeans he speaks thus: ' Thou hast coals of fire, sit upon them; they shall be to thee for a help' (Is. 47:14,15: LXX), and in other places he says: "The Lord shall sanctify them in burning fire' (Is. 66:16,17), and in the prophet Malachi it speaks as follows: 'The Lord shall sift and refine his people as gold and silver; he shall refine and purify and pour forth purified the sons of Judah' (Mal. 3:3).

--Nick

The Pseudo-Apocalypse of Saint Paul

This is taken from The Writings of St. Paul. Excerpts are presented, and the brackets indicate my own thoughts, likely alluding to intertextual echoes. The writing takes place from Saint Paul's POV, so any 'I' is indicative of his "own" voice.
"CH22. And I [Paul] looked around upon that land, and I saw a river flowing with milk and honey [a typical description of the holy land; Ex. 3:8; Deut. 6:3], and there were tress planted by the bank of that river, full of fruit...

"And then he took me up from that place where I saw these things and behold, a river [Acheron, a river of Hades] and its waters were much whiter than milk, and I said to the angel, 'What is this?" And he said to me, 'This is the Acherusian Lake where is the City of Christ, but not every man is permitted to enter that city; for this is the journey which leads to God, and if anyone is a fornicator and impious, and is converted and shall repent and bear fruits worthy of repentance, at first when he has gone out of the body, he is brought and worships God..."

The implication is likely drawn from the eschatological denouement in Revelation 21-22. Apparently salvation is possible post-mortem in this pseudo-apocalyptic writing.

"CH33. When I heard this, I wept and groaned [contrast with John of Patmos, who never weeps over those who suffer in his literature, Meeks/Fitzgerald] over the human race. The angel answered and said to me, 'Why do you weep? Are you more merciful than God? For though God is good, he knows that there are punishments, and he patiently bears with the human race, allowing each one to do his own will in the time in which he dwells on the earth...'"

"Ch37. And I saw another multitude of pits in the same place, and in the midst of it a river full of a multitude of men and women, and worms consumed them [Isaiah 66:24; Sirach 7:17, 10:11, 19:3; Judith 16:17]. But I lamented, and sighing asked the angel and said, 'Sir, who are these?' And he said to me, 'These are those who exacted interest on interest and trusted in their riches [Prov. 11:28; The Book of Tobit; Sir. 5:1; Matt. 25:31-46] and did not hope in God that he was their helper [possibly a reference to Gen. 2:18].'

The punishment of fire and worms and the 'pit' are firmly indebted to the First Testament and even maybe Second Temple Judaism.

"And I saw other men and women covered with dust, and their countenance was like blood, and they were in a pit of pitch [often a reference to final destruction i.e. Isaiah 34:9; 2 Esdras 2:9] and sulfur running in a fiery river, and I asked, 'Sir, who are these?' And he said to me, 'These are they who committed the iniquity of Sodom and Gomorrah [interestingly, another post-NT reference in the third century where Sodom is indicted for the sin of homosexuality], the male with the male, for which reason they unceasingly pay the penalties.'

The writer is certainly in turn with various biblical texts involving death and destruction, co-opting them for his own message of taking us through a manifest pit of shame and torture.

"And their infants addressed the Lord God and the angels who were set over the punishments [of the mothers and fathers who defiled the image of God; Gen. 1:26-27], saying, 'Avenge us of our parents, for they defiled the image of God, having the name of God but not observing his precepts; they gave us for food to dogs and to be trodden on by swine; others they threw into the river." But the infants were handed over to the angels of Tartarus who were set over the punishments, that they might lead them to a spacious place of mercy; but their fathers and mothers were tortured in a perpetual punishment."

Interestingly, the infants are not bound by the sin of their parents. In fact, it seems to suggest the opposite. The view of original sin has likely not come about, as Augustine isn't here yet. Very interesting and very different it seems from what the New Testament teaches on this topic.

The finale is God finally coming down to the hellish place at the behest of Paul and the wailing of everyone there. He is moved by their repentance and offers them a "night and a day of refreshment forever."

Apparently Saint Paul has inspired greater fan fiction than Dante.

--Nick

Translated by J.K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993). Cited in W.A. Meeks and J.F. Fitzgerald, The Writings of St. Paul.

Pulse: Hell (A Regular Post by Nick Ahern)

1. What important topic do you think our Christian generation (20s) has to deal with the most? 'Why' must we deal with this issue?

I'm inclined to agree with many of my fellow contributors on their selected topics. These are marvelously difficult topics to resolve, but for me its now become interesting to step back and think of another issue. One that covers Scripture, tradition, systematics and the character of God.

Simply put, we need to talk about hell. Mainly because this effects how we evangelize, how we talk about God and even how we consider where we all fall within the contours of Orthodox Christian faith.

Rob Bell seemed to expose a rift within evangelicalism, mainly that we tend to avoid the topic. So, like many topics, talking about it is a plus in of itself. However, it does beg the question what falls within Orthodoxy.

Why do we need to talk about hell? Because it exists and if what Bell went through is any indication of evangelicalism, things won't get any easier for ideas to be exegetes and systematized. Best to talk now before the hammer comes down.

2. In what (positive or negative) ways has our generation already engaged with this issue?

Rob Bell.

Okay, you probably want a little more. Positively, we've begun a major shift in discussion. Universalism is now begin given a fairer treatment due to various works (1) and evangelicals are now needing to rethink hell. On another front, you have annihilationism being reconsidered. The names behind the theology are impressive (2) and they have experiences a resurgence, especially in conservative circles. This is a positive development as their case is made through exegesis, thus offering biblical concepts to a curious audience.

Negatively, you have entire denominations reaffirming the traditional view of hell (Southern Baptist Convention), therefore shutting off dialogue. From a personal point of view, I've experienced some pretty absurd private messages on the topic, as have close friends of mine. Tradition is sometimes blindly enforced without taking into account exegesis.

However, as a side note, I think a negative example would be that some would jump ship at the slightest new idea without consideration for the evidence. Our generation needs to further weigh the evidence before jumping ship.

3. What can we do to improve our relationship with addressing this issue? Or can things be improved?

Things have already improved. The fact that some are talking and engaging with their brothers and sisters is indicative that goods things may come from this. The debate has also become mainstream(3). No matter what some people think or say, the dialogue is happening. It is general irenic but that has never stopped exceptions from occurring.

This offers the world a new image of evangelicalism. We are willing to rethink and provide evidence for our belief systems. We are willing to be wrong and to simply pursue truth, where ever this truth leads us.

The debate within evangelicalism is a bit more difficult to measure, especially since it is new. But, I have high hopes that the discussion will rage onwards and upwards. In a good way.

Nick Ahern is probably the reason you are reading this. He is a Biola grad, a future Fuller Seminary MA Student and engaged to marry the lovely Allison Quient. You can find him on Twitter.

Footnotes:

1. Hellbound directed by Kevin Miller. For literature, Gregory Macdonald (Robin Parry) released the 2nd Edition of the Evangelical Universalist and David Congdon is releasing his systematic take on the idea in the next few years, The God That Saves: A Dogmatic Sketch.

2. Richard Bauckham, E. Earle Ellis, I. Howard Marshall, Glenn Peoples, Gregory Boyd. See also ReThinking Hell.

3. Time Magazine, circa 2011.

Hell and the Nature of Being Built to Last: A Rebuttal to J.I. Packer

"Second, belief in the outright annihilation of nonbelievers after final judgment (as opposed to an eternal punishment) seems to me biblically illegitimate. I suspect some Christians whose loved ones die without accepting Christ are tempted to embrace the annihilationist view. Scripture, however, seems to show that one aspect of human dignity is that we are built to last. Whether for joy or for sorrow, our souls are eternal."

J.I. Packer, known as a capable theologian, has gravely misunderstood and mischaracterized the annihilationist position. There are multiple issues within this section, but I do not have the time (or patience) to sift through each one. Since this is a popular retread on twitter and the Internet, allow me to offer a brief rebuttal. I had thought about responding to the entire article, but time limits me.

One, Packer gives us no reason to see annihilationism as biblically illegitimate. By tying it with the "annihilationists are emotional" argument, he ceases to give any respectable response as a straw man is easier to beat up than the annihilationist argument is to genuinely refute. He doesn't offer the consideration that those who hold to the view do so because of exegesis and a high view of Scripture.

Two, I have no moral qualms with eternal conscious torment (though I do -- now --  because I think it is false). Frankly, this is insulting. Several of my friends and relatives have passed on, and this had no prompt in my abandoning of the traditional view of hell. God's justice would be satisfied in eternal conscious torment, if such a view were true. In fact, the idea that I would never see them again is tragic and one that I wish I wouldn't have to experience.

Three, a central aspect of human dignity is that we are created, not that we are built to last. Packer seems to place a high view of humanity in his comment, whereas the annihilationist (Reformed or otherwise) would simply shrug and say that YWHW is the only Creator and thus has the final say over the created. If I were a Calvinist, and had such a view of YHWH, very little would change since I am utterly dependent on YHWH as my very source and existence.

As someone who leans towards Weslyanism, I find this coordinate as well.

Four, Packer offers a detached assertion that our souls are eternal. This is nowhere stated in Scripture and it simply assumed on his part. He doesn't address that Paul spoke of those who seek "immortality" (Romans 2), that Jesus offers "eternal life" (Synoptics especially Matthew and John) and that only YHWH is immortal (Romans 1:23, 1 Timothy 1:17; 6:16; see also Wisdom Literature and Sriach 17:30 which states that human beings are not immortal).

I think much more could be said, but I'm out of time and need to rush off. Thanks for reading.

For the source, enjoy it here.

For a comprehensive examination of the biblical data (one that I find compelling and moderately persuasive, see Edward Fudge "The Fire that Consumes" and Andrew Perriman "The Coming of the Son of Man."

--Nick

Talking with Christopher Hitchens, or an issue with Christianity

To terrify children with the image of hell, to consider women an inferior creation—is that good for the world?”

Beyond this being a pretty strong rhetorical power play, I do think it gets to the heart of two big issues within Christendom and how we are seen by others.

I was talking to a friend of mine at work, and as is usual with my life, the topic quickly turned to religion. My friend is a lapsed catholic, but he mentioned the two topics that seem to be the biggest turn off to Christianity.

Hell and the mistreatment of women.

Bertrand Russell said in his Sceptical Essays, "the infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists. That is why they invented Hell."

I'm not in favor of getting rid of 'noxious' doctrines just for the sake of pleasing the living and the dead, but I frankly agree with the sentiment of Hitchen's quote. When I was a kid, the notion of an eternal conscious fire that awaited me (and anyone else who didn't go to my church) terrified me. Only recently, I've changed my mind on the role of women in the church and it has been a major paradigm shift to see how this changes most everything.

So in many ways, this quote struck home for me. When my friend pointed out that Christians (I suppose specifically Protestants) seem to have a low view of women, I wasn't sure about what I should say. I mentioned that they view the issue as complicated, but I think he found that unhelpful when he laughed and rolled his eyes. I guess I agree with him in that the answer I would've given to both questions is strikingly unsatisfying.

Which doesn't mean one who would defend a traditionalist view of hell or women's rights is incorrect. But I and my friend didn't find the arguments compelling and went on to talk about what people believe about them and why.

Interestingly, my friend was surprised to discover that I don't believe in the very things Hitchen's and others decry about Christianity. I've found that the opinions I respond with are always met with a "really?" The conversation then turns immediately positive and, frankly, far more personal. So there is that.

Challenges like these force me to rediscover the Christian faith and take seriously why people object to much of Christianity. And Hitchens just makes me happy.

--Nick

"So, are you a Universalist?"

A good friend of mine asked me point blank if I was a Universalist. At first, I floundered around, trying to figure out a politically advantageous answer. I mentioned a few bits about philosophy, the background of the entire debate and just stopped when it hit me:

"I don't know."

Let me both explain and qualify.

I think Scripture contains many things that are both grandly clear and sublimely ambiguous. I think the debate over libertarian free will, compatibility and determinism is one maybe that we aren't privy to. At a glance, the Old Testament seems to advance a form of openness and the New Testament counters that with much of what Paul writes, particularly in Romans(1). That does not mean we can't choose a valid option (or that they don't all have something going for them), but it does mean that I'm not convinced that Scripture all that entirely consistent in giving us one way to look at that one example. Maybe so for this doctrine of hell as well.

I don't know if everyone who isn't elect and/or chooses to reject God will be burned forever or will be eventually irreversibly destroyed. I just don't know.

Maybe the Bible doesn't want us to know, or even more dramatically, maybe God doesn't want us to know. G.K. Beale in his commentary on the Apocalypse of John seems aware of the possibility of universalism at the end of the letter being possible and he does his best to counter this. Universalist theologian Robin Parry does the same, concurring that there is indeed tension between open city gates and a lake of fire, opting for his legitimate hermeneutical bias in favor of the restoration of all things(3).

I remember a biblical scholar speaking on Origen and Universalism and to paraphrase from memory, the scholar concluded that both "Paul and Origen seemed both particularly exclusive and strongly universalistic." In other words, Origen and Paul mentioned the beauty of universal salvation in one context (specific churches e.g. Colossae) and the terrifying possibility of complete destruction in his first letter to the Thessalonians. This isn't to say I agree with the scholar, but I definitely see the tension exhibited.

Maybe God doesn't want us to know.

Knowing many of us, to know everyone will be saved could to lead to laziness. On the other hand, knowing many of us in the same way, we are very quick to use metaphorical fire to frighten "belief" into an endangered soul that ultimately leads to the possibility of apostasy or hostility towards the church. The wonderful conditionalists at ReThinking Hell have been irenic in their many conversations with me on this most difficult doctrine.

I just don't know.

I would resonate most strongly with Thomas Johnson who says,

"The case for universalism is stronger than is usually realized. God's saving love for the world is a prominent biblical theme from Genesis through Revelation. God is the Lord and Savior of all and does not want any to perish but all to be saved. God provided salvation, forgiveness, justification, and reconciliation for all, indeed for all creation. Eventually, everyone will confess Jesus Christ as Lord. Yet, we do not know how God's judgment works out with respect to individuals." (2).

I suppose it boils down to faith. Faith in the power of the Spirit to bring forth salvation and that, somehow, all would eventually reach their telos. The justification for hope that "all would be saved" is indeed something many theologians of the past and present have embraced (Balthazar, Moltmann, Volf, Walls and others).

The God who saves assures us that that He is loving and just, no one escapes from his justice and that He will be "ta panta en pasin" in 1 Cor. 15:28. I tend to take solace in this, and Scot McKnight is generous to include those that are"eschatologically agnostic" into the fold of simply not being able to at this current time fix a tension seen in Sacred Scripture. There is indeed hope beyond this life. I take great comfort in that.

--Nick

Sources:

1). Incidentally, open theism is a budding research project for me. Consider a possible thought change on this one. Maybe?

2). T.F. Johnson, "Universal Salvation? The Current Debate" pg97. In spite of his comment, Johnson is not a universalist, instead suggesting that annihilationism is the best option based on the data.

3). Gregory MacDonald aka Robin Parry, "The Evangelical Universalist" pg133-34. This remains the best case for universalism that I have read, and I'm impressed with some of his exegesis on the Apocalypse of John.

30 Days of Thanks: Day 29

Today is a more somber affair.

I'm thankful for the defeat of death. In reading 1 Corinthians 15 (one of my favorite chapters in Scripture), everything seems to become clear. In thinking that the first words spoken of the risen God were assuaging the fear of the dead one. Do not be afraid.

The fear of death is something I have struggled with my entire life and I doubt that fear will ever truly fade. But, joyfully, maybe there is yet hope.

You?

--Nick

Three Views on Hell: A Universalist Response to Annihilationism

Jason Pratt:

Chris doesn't mention the goats' narrative and thematic contexts in Matt 25's judgment. But I did as evidence for universalism!

The goats are explicitly part of the Shepherd's flock. Jesus in John 10 insists that none of His flock shall be lost, contrasting this (10:10) to the brigand who comes to {apolesê}. Does the Shepherd hopelessly apollum His flock?! Flattering Jesus as a brigand gets one of Jesus' servants thrown outside with the goats (by application) in another Matt 25 parable!

Jer 7:32-33 (echoed at Jer 17:27) refers to God's wrath poured on Jerusalem that (per 7:17) won't be quenched. The wrath didn't continue, but Jerusalem wasn't annihilated: God often promises, including in Jeremiah, to restore her!

Isaiah 30:27-33: Israel has been shattered by YHWH such that no human could remake them, and aren't penitent yet when the Assyrians overrun them (vv.15-17). God still promises they shall eventually repent and be restored with great blessings. YHWH smites the invading Assyrians to death in Gehenna valley; but calling it "Topheth" indicates YHWH rejects what happens there.

Sodom suffering "eternal fire" doesn't count as evidence for annihilation, since YHWH prophecies Sodom shall be at least resurrected (Matt 10:15, 11:24 par) and apparently restored to friendship with Israel (Ezekiel 16).

Chris affirms general resurrection, so even the bodies at Isaiah 66 (much moreso their souls) aren't annihilated. Those who feel shame are the people, who had themselves been rebelling against God again, going out to give the corpses a proper burial: sacrificial mercy to fallen enemies.

Jesus explains the unquenchable fire's spiritual purpose in Mark 9:49-50: the fire salts into peace (both ancient treatments for infection), so maggots consume a person's corruption (nasty though the treatment may seem to the person.) Jesus ends Matt 18 by warning apostles to have mercy on enemies!

Matt 5:30 warns believers, amid contexts about loving our enemies; not hating lest we go to Gehenna; and being sent to prison for refusing reconciliation. Torment isn't annihilation; and release involves reconciliation.

Christ scours the chaff off each grain in Matt 3:12 / Luke 3:17; the imagery fits tough-love salvation from sin. In JohnBapt's Malachi 4:1-3 reference, "every evildoer" burned like chaff, whose roots and branches will be set ablaze, includes the rebel Israelite leaders (to whom JohnBapt was specifically speaking) from Mal 3:1-7: but there it's a refining fire that surely will save them from sin!

Jesus says the wheat and the weeds are the "sons of the kingdom" and sinners respectively. But Jesus also warns "sons of the kingdom" who don't expect those outside the kingdom to be saved, with a related threat (Matt 8:12)!

As for Paul's "vengeance" ("justice" in Greek, which shall come to be value/honored by those who experience it) of flaming fire at 2 Thess 1:7-8, why doesn't it refer even more directly to Isaiah 2 and its extended prophecy where (unlike Isaiah 66) there are specific parallel phrases?--and which predicts the punished people will eventually serve God loyally in peace with their former enemies!

The prodigal son's father draws an explicit parallel between being lost (a cognate of {apollumi}) and being dead.

Jesus doesn't say at Matt 10:28 (or Luke's parallel) that God will destroy body and soul in Gehenna, only that God can do so. Jesus instantly follows this (in Luke as well) by talking about God's concern even for small birds. This thematically parallels another saying about God valuing people much more than birds. Jesus shortly afterward (6:27-28, Matt 6:28-30) draws a similar analogy about God's provision for flowers which, explicitly unlike even people of little faith, are effectively annihilated with fiery furnace imagery! God values people more than to annihilate them.

Annihilation happens in the Day of YHWH, the Great Sabbath when God rests from finishing His work. But Jesus challenges regarding the sabbath (Luke 6:6-11 and parallels): "Is it allowed on the sabbath to do good or to do evil, to save a soul or to destroy?" GosMark uses "kill" instead of "destroy": "kill" is the meaning of {apollumi} in mind. Matthew directly connects this (via Isaiah 42) to Jesus' mission to save those whom God's people aren't expecting.

"Restless" people (Chris' description) aren't annihilated. The term for refining gold fits more with Malachi 3 than Isaiah 34. The Temple imagery parallels sacrifices being cleaned and offered to God as a pleasing incense. The verses after Isaiah 34:10 reveal animals living safely in the area, and God healing the region along with its people. When St. Paul cites Malachi 1:2 at Romans 9:13, he indicates the result of "Esau" (Edom) being "hated": "'The older will serve the younger'". This, not annihilation, fits Jacob's prophecy: Esau shall be blessed in Jacob.

Tyre wasn't permanently destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, nor even by Alexander later: Jesus evangelized many people from Tyre, and prophesied Tyre (and Sodom) would find judgment day more tolerable than Galilee! Annihilation isn't more tolerable than annihilation.

Chris thinks God overcomes death by sentencing sinners to permanent death!

If stopping an abstract kingdom's dominion parallels annihilation, God must annihilate every sinner along with our rebel dominion.

Daniel 2:44: God did not simply destroy the Roman kingdom but transformed and incorporated it into Christ's new kingdom.

Dan 7:27 refers to a king (not a kingdom) whose kingdom and dominion shall not be annihilated (in the sense required).

The false prophet and the devil are thrown into the lake of fire along with the beast to be tormented into the eons of the eons: but annihilation cannot involve continuing "torment", and the beast cannot be tormented if the beast is only an abstract kingdom.

Rev 19:20: Christ slays the final rebel kings in language directly echoing the salvific 23rd Psalm! The "kings of the earth" (same phrase) show up in chapter 21 following Christ into the New Jerusalem, bringing the nations' glories with them; echoing Ezekiel's similar prophecy that even the kings of Israel's enemies will reconcile with her in the day of YHWH.

Editor:

The original post.
The longer critical response.

Three Views on Hell: A Universalist response to Eternal Torment

Jason Pratt:

Num 16:30: if the "literal" fire killing the same rebels in verse 35 isn't literally hell (and I agree it isn't), why is the pit in verse 30?

Matt 3:12: the verse 11 fire Christ baptizes with, is regarded as salvific. The threat and the result parallel Christ's explanation for the unquenchable fire at Mark 9:49-50.

Matt 5:22: important contexts include a get-out-of-prison clause (v.26) and the rationales for each punishment (hating, and not reconciling with one's brother).

Matt 5:29-30 parallels a saying from Matt 18/Mark 9. In GosMark Christ explains everyone will be salted by the fire into peace. GosMatt includes a repeat of the 100th sheep, and a warning (to the apostles!) against insisting on hopeless punishment (yet with a get-out clause: be merciful!)

Matt 8:12 warns the kingdom's sons (Matt 13:38) who don't want others saved. Christ admonishes someone for asking if only few are saved (Luke 13:29); and punishes someone trying to flatter the king as a thuggish tyrant (Matt 25:30). Christ also warns His chief followers who abuse others (Matt 24:51).

(Ditto Matt 25, per my own essay.)

I take such warnings seriously!--they affect how I interpret material such as the wheat and the weeds!

Jude 7 doesn't end the scriptural story, or there would be no judgment for those spirits later, much less a resurrection for at least the human sinners.

Rev 14:9-11 verbally involves refining gold (scripturally tough but saving love), so long as people continue (per the Greek grammar) worshiping the beast and accepting the mark. John afterward (15:1-4) reports a time when everyone gratefully glorifies God (which rebels cannot acceptably do). Loyal souls have (per the Greek) come out from the beast and from his image and from his number, so were in those things before; to stand on the fiery sea of glass before the throne (which in Temple typology was for cleaning sacrifices to be a pleasing burnt aroma to God). Being victorious over sin elsewhere in RevJohn involves sinners ceasing to sin.

Rev 20:15 doesn't indicate the lake of fire and brimstone is hopeless. (Fire and brimstone were ancient remedies to save a person from infection, as were maggots, not-incidentally.) Subsequent chapters show people after the lake of fire judgment being seriously and successfully evangelized by the sanctified Church (cooperating with God). Another flashforward (21:1-4) reveals there will be total success, even though impenitents must suffer.

Luke 16:19-31 doesn't say the rich man will never repent; it only shows him not penitent for his sins. The chasm isn't "broad" enough to prevent communication, and certainly cannot be "broad" enough to prevent God's omnipresence: especially if the fire, per other scriptural evidence, is the Holy Spirit Himself! RevJohn's final chapters show the Church evangelizing and bringing to salvation such people after the fiery judgment; and 1 Peter 3 & 4 arguably indicate Christ Himself doing the same in hades. "Then who can be saved!?" "With God all things are possible!"

What does TKJ suggest in place of annihilation's "one size fits all" punishment?--any hopeless punishment is still equally hopeless for everyone being so punished! Neither Chris nor I am suggesting impenitent sinners ever escape: even annihilation may follow ages of punishment. How does ECT avoid TKJ's appeal to the punishment being proportionate to the crime? Anyway, universalists don't regard sin's severity as being greater than the omnicompetent God's grace: where sin exceeds grace hyperexceeds, for not as the sin is the grace.

I certainly agree that 2 Thess 1:9's referential context indicates St. Paul isn't talking about annihilation; but I find the grammar and referential contexts do indicate Paul is talking about eventual salvation of those so punished.

"If all will be saved, why not just do what I want because even though the punishment will hurt, it will stop eventually and I’ll be in bliss?" No one primarily concerned with salvation from their sins, instead of only from inconvenient results, would ask such a question. Until such people seek salvation from sin, God will lead and teach them, by punishment as necessary, even into the eons of the eons.

Are universalists mistaken that retribution means bringing rebels back under loyal tribute to proper authority? I think non-universalists have the greatest challenge to show Godly retribution means making sure rebels never return to loyal tribute to God!

If (as I agree) Romans 1 represents a free, informed decision about rejecting God, I think TKJ will have a difficult time showing support that even God's presence wouldn't be enough for such people (namely all of us) to change their minds; since then God would be impotent to save any sinner at all. I routinely find in the scriptures that God can save sinners despite sinners already having a perverse view of God. Calvinists and universalists typically agree that God is competent enough to save sinners no matter how perverse they are. (Sometimes Arminians, too, at least rhetorically in evangelism.)

As to Satan and rebel angels, my soteriology isn't based on what rebels insist on (although as a rebel and chief of sinners myself, like St. Peter, St. Paul and the publican, I am well aware of how people sin against what light they can see); but rather on what God does and is capable of.

Moreover, any argument hinging on God insistently respecting creaturely free will, has basically refuted itself if God allows creatures to permanently lose, or never to have, freedom to repent (much less freedom to ever do righteousness).

Last, I'm amazed that TKJ thinks God only reconciles with "His people" (never saying to those who are not His people "You are My people" for example); and even more amazed that TKJ thinks God only reconciles with repentant people (instead of loving us first to send Christ to reconcile us through the blood of the cross while we are still God's enemies.)

I have usually found Calvinists and Arminians both agree with me (and St. Paul in Romans for that matter) on this!

Editor:

For the longer responses, enjoy them here.
For Kurt's original post.