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.
Showing posts with label Three Views on Hell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Three Views on Hell. Show all posts
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Three Views on Hell: An Annihilationist Response to Universalism
Joseph Dear:
This post is my condensed response to the case for Universalism by Jason Pratt. For a more comprehensive response, please visit ReThinking Hell.
Surprised by Hell
Pratt’s overarching theme is that passages traditionally used to refute universalism actually help prove the doctrine. The exegesis of three key passages/groups of passages make up most of Pratt's essay. I will thus spend most of my response explaining why they do help to refute universalism after all.
Paying Justice (2 Thessalonians 1:6-10)
Pratt’s first two points are dependent on Isaiah 2-5 teaching universalism. But even a cursory reading of the chapters shows that this is not the case. A lot of emphasis is put on hope, but that hope is explicitly for only a remnant who survive (Isaiah 4:2-3). Chapter 5 follows suit. There is no universal reconciliation there to begin with.
Furthermore, translating the verse as ‘pay the justice” doesn’t change the meaning. Nothing inherent in the Greek or context makes it mean they value their destruction. To pay the justice to one who seeks “vengeance” is suffer a penalty (such as annihilation), which they do because Christ comes in “vengeance.”
Point #3 is more substantial, although there is ambiguity regarding the use of olethros (“destruction”) in 1 Corinthians 5:5 (only one of several uses of olethros). Paul says that the man’s “flesh” will be destroyed. If “flesh” is a metaphor for sinfulness, which is what Paul often means by “flesh,” then Paul really is talking about destroying it completely (as Paul’s ultimate aim is to destroy sinfulness, not just reduce it). If literal flesh is in view, then it really depends on what was to happen when the man was excommunicated. Ultimately, we have some ambiguity, but while that helps universalism some, it doesn’t do much for it.
The Unforgivable Sin
Even if we grant that Jesus was saying that that generation was worse than it was before in Matthew 12:43-45, that doesn’t change what Jesus said in Verse 32! It simply isn't mutually exclusive from the interpretation that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven.
The whole thrust of this section is this: As evil as they were, “such a state was not beyond Jesus’ salvation--or there wouldn’t have been a controversy at all.” No explanation of how the existence of controversy proves universalism is given at all, and the rest is not exegesis, but philosophy.
Pratt also argues that Jesus says He will forgive all sins in Mark 3:28, which reads “Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter;” However, the sentence continues: “but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.” I almost shouldn’t have to even address this. To take the first half of the sentence as being so literal that the second half, which qualifies the first, cannot mean anything like what it says, is just not how you treat language.
Once again, it comes down to this:: “Is our sin superior to God’s grace?--or does God’s grace hyper-exceed our sins?” We already know what the answer must be, so why should we even bother studying that the Bible has to say?
The Sheep and the Goats (Matt 25:31-46)
The reference to a shepherd and his flock is not as telling it seems. Matt 25:31-46 is not a story about a shepherd that is symbolic of what will happen at the judgment. It’s a straightforward description of future events (albeit probably with some figurative language). Jesus was just saying that he’ll separate the two sides, and appealed to a common profession where things are distinguished. It was just an analogy made in passing. There’s nothing that suggests it was meant to be a key part of what Jesus was saying.
Secondly, even if the mention of sheep and goats was some key metaphor, it wouldn’t be very fitting to Pratt’s universalist interpretation. Indeed, the goats are specifically baby goats, but that does not mean that they will grow spiritually and end up like the sheep. No matter how much a goat grows, it will never be a sheep. Sorry if that sounds pedantic, but if this is a key metaphor, than it matters what the parts are. They aren’t just separated by development and age. They are two different kinds of animals. A goat will never become a sheep.
The Positive Case
- Isaiah 25, Isaiah 45, or Hosea 13-14: I invite the reader to examine these passages and see that they don’t say what Pratt says.
- 1 Corinthians 15:20-28. So long as annihilationists include the devil among those destroyed, God is all-in-all at the end of time just as universalists believe. All that opposes Him is destroyed, so there is nothing in existence for which He is not “all-in-all.” And although there is reference to “all men” in 1 Corinthians 15:22, “all” doesn’t always mean literally every person who has ever lived. Firstly, Paul only mentions believers among the resurrected in the very next verse. Secondly, those who Paul is speaking of rise in “glory” and “power” in Verse 43. This clearly does not include the unsaved, who rise to shame and damnation (Daniel 12:2; John 5:28-29).
- Philippians 2:14: If God destroys all that opposed Him, all that is left will be those that bow before Him.
- “Eonion/aionios.” The readers of our essays will have to investigate the issue for themselves, which they should do, as it quite fundamental to the question of universalism.
Conclusion
The passages that appeared to go against universalism still do so. Pointing out elements of the context without addressing the central claim doesn’t change that. Appealing to God’s grace doesn’t change that, at least not if we are to let the Bible guide our theology. I don’t know why God saves only some when He certainly has the power to save everyone, and having so many loved ones who do not believe, this isn’t just a lofty, theoretical problem for me. Nevertheless, the Bible teaches what the Bible teaches.
This post is my condensed response to the case for Universalism by Jason Pratt. For a more comprehensive response, please visit ReThinking Hell.
Surprised by Hell
Pratt’s overarching theme is that passages traditionally used to refute universalism actually help prove the doctrine. The exegesis of three key passages/groups of passages make up most of Pratt's essay. I will thus spend most of my response explaining why they do help to refute universalism after all.
Paying Justice (2 Thessalonians 1:6-10)
Pratt’s first two points are dependent on Isaiah 2-5 teaching universalism. But even a cursory reading of the chapters shows that this is not the case. A lot of emphasis is put on hope, but that hope is explicitly for only a remnant who survive (Isaiah 4:2-3). Chapter 5 follows suit. There is no universal reconciliation there to begin with.
Furthermore, translating the verse as ‘pay the justice” doesn’t change the meaning. Nothing inherent in the Greek or context makes it mean they value their destruction. To pay the justice to one who seeks “vengeance” is suffer a penalty (such as annihilation), which they do because Christ comes in “vengeance.”
Point #3 is more substantial, although there is ambiguity regarding the use of olethros (“destruction”) in 1 Corinthians 5:5 (only one of several uses of olethros). Paul says that the man’s “flesh” will be destroyed. If “flesh” is a metaphor for sinfulness, which is what Paul often means by “flesh,” then Paul really is talking about destroying it completely (as Paul’s ultimate aim is to destroy sinfulness, not just reduce it). If literal flesh is in view, then it really depends on what was to happen when the man was excommunicated. Ultimately, we have some ambiguity, but while that helps universalism some, it doesn’t do much for it.
The Unforgivable Sin
Even if we grant that Jesus was saying that that generation was worse than it was before in Matthew 12:43-45, that doesn’t change what Jesus said in Verse 32! It simply isn't mutually exclusive from the interpretation that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven.
The whole thrust of this section is this: As evil as they were, “such a state was not beyond Jesus’ salvation--or there wouldn’t have been a controversy at all.” No explanation of how the existence of controversy proves universalism is given at all, and the rest is not exegesis, but philosophy.
Pratt also argues that Jesus says He will forgive all sins in Mark 3:28, which reads “Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter;” However, the sentence continues: “but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.” I almost shouldn’t have to even address this. To take the first half of the sentence as being so literal that the second half, which qualifies the first, cannot mean anything like what it says, is just not how you treat language.
Once again, it comes down to this:: “Is our sin superior to God’s grace?--or does God’s grace hyper-exceed our sins?” We already know what the answer must be, so why should we even bother studying that the Bible has to say?
The Sheep and the Goats (Matt 25:31-46)
The reference to a shepherd and his flock is not as telling it seems. Matt 25:31-46 is not a story about a shepherd that is symbolic of what will happen at the judgment. It’s a straightforward description of future events (albeit probably with some figurative language). Jesus was just saying that he’ll separate the two sides, and appealed to a common profession where things are distinguished. It was just an analogy made in passing. There’s nothing that suggests it was meant to be a key part of what Jesus was saying.
Secondly, even if the mention of sheep and goats was some key metaphor, it wouldn’t be very fitting to Pratt’s universalist interpretation. Indeed, the goats are specifically baby goats, but that does not mean that they will grow spiritually and end up like the sheep. No matter how much a goat grows, it will never be a sheep. Sorry if that sounds pedantic, but if this is a key metaphor, than it matters what the parts are. They aren’t just separated by development and age. They are two different kinds of animals. A goat will never become a sheep.
The Positive Case
- Isaiah 25, Isaiah 45, or Hosea 13-14: I invite the reader to examine these passages and see that they don’t say what Pratt says.
- 1 Corinthians 15:20-28. So long as annihilationists include the devil among those destroyed, God is all-in-all at the end of time just as universalists believe. All that opposes Him is destroyed, so there is nothing in existence for which He is not “all-in-all.” And although there is reference to “all men” in 1 Corinthians 15:22, “all” doesn’t always mean literally every person who has ever lived. Firstly, Paul only mentions believers among the resurrected in the very next verse. Secondly, those who Paul is speaking of rise in “glory” and “power” in Verse 43. This clearly does not include the unsaved, who rise to shame and damnation (Daniel 12:2; John 5:28-29).
- Philippians 2:14: If God destroys all that opposed Him, all that is left will be those that bow before Him.
- “Eonion/aionios.” The readers of our essays will have to investigate the issue for themselves, which they should do, as it quite fundamental to the question of universalism.
Conclusion
The passages that appeared to go against universalism still do so. Pointing out elements of the context without addressing the central claim doesn’t change that. Appealing to God’s grace doesn’t change that, at least not if we are to let the Bible guide our theology. I don’t know why God saves only some when He certainly has the power to save everyone, and having so many loved ones who do not believe, this isn’t just a lofty, theoretical problem for me. Nevertheless, the Bible teaches what the Bible teaches.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Three Views on Hell: An Annihilationist Response to Eternal Torment
Chris Date:
What follows is a point-by-point response to my esteemed debate opponent, T. Kurt Jaros, whose essay affirmed the traditional view of hell as a place of eternal, conscious separation from God. Each text or issue responded to appears in bold.
A more comprehensive response can be found here at Rethinking Hell.
INTRODUCTION
Jaros cites John 10:26-30 as a metaphorical use of fire, but fire and burning are not mentioned. The text indicates that only those who follow Jesus will be granted eternal life, and that those who do not will perish. Traditionalists, contrary to this text, teach that unbelievers will live forever and never die.
A REAL HELL
Numbers 16:30 is irrelevant. The ground opened up and the men fell alive into Sheol—the grave, the pit, or perhaps the conscious intermediate state of the dead. All mankind will one day come out of Sheol (or Hades), and Revelation 20:13-15 says it will be thrown empty into hell.
In Matthew 3:12 “unquenchable fire” means what it always does in the Bible: a fire which cannot be extinguished, and hence will irresistibly and completely consume (Eze. 20:47; Jer. 17:27). Jesus uses the word katakaiō, translated “burn up” by the NASB, which means to burn down completely. He says that unbelievers will be completely destroyed by a fire which cannot be prematurely put out.
Matthew 13:41-42 and 50 also use katakaiō, and Jesus says that as the chaff is burned down completely in a furnace of fire—hearkening to Malachi 4:1-3 in which the wicked are reduced to ashes—so, too, will the wicked.
Matthew 5:22 and 29-30 use the word Gehenna to refer to hell, which referred to the valley of the sons of Hinnom, otherwise known as Topheth, which was “the valley of slaughter” where scavenging creatures cannot be prevented from fully consuming dead corpses (Jer. 7:32). Isaiah 30:33 likens it to a funeral pyre. This in stark contrast with Jaros’ position which is that the bodies of the risen wicked will never die.
Matthew 18:8-9 refers to the place of “eternal fire” as Gehenna, and Jude 7 uses “eternal fire” to refer to the fire which came down from heaven and destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, destroying them. Hence the parallel in 2 Peter 2:6 says Sodom and Gomorrah were reduced to ashes. Though perhaps a type or prefigure of hell, in Jaros’ metaphorical view, the anti-type that is hell, being neither brief nor involving fire, is in no way like the type. Eternal fire, therefore, refers to the fire of the eternal God which destroys, not to fire in which the wicked will consciously burn forever.
Matthew 25:41-46 says that “eternal punishment” is punishment by “eternal fire,” so we know what eternal punishment is: being destroyed, never to live again. The duration of capital punishment is measured, not in the time it takes to die, but in the time during which a criminal is no longer part of the living. Annihilation—the ultimate capital punishment—qualifies as an eternal punishment, as even Jonathan Edwards admitted.
Matthew 8:12 does not tell us how long the unredeemed will weep and gnash. Matthew 13 does, which, as we’ve seen, says the wicked will be completely destroyed. Weeping and gnashing will last only until the unsaved die in hell.
Revelation 14:9-11 is symbolic, apocalyptic imagery. It hearkens to Isaiah 34:8-10 which prophesies the destruction of Edom, whose buildings no one expects to burn forever. Though the harlot of Revelation 18 is tormented (vs. 7, 10, 15), and smoke rises forever from her torment (Rev. 19:3), the interpreting angel says in Revelation 18:21 that the city she represents will be destroyed. Smoke rising forever, then, hearkening to the smoke Abraham saw rising from the remains of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:28), symbolizes permanent destruction.
Revelation 20:10-15 is, again, imagery which symbolizes permanent destruction. Like the beast of Daniel 7, the fate of the beast in Revelation symbolizes the destruction of the city it represents. Death and Hades, despite being abstractions incapable of torment, are thrown into the fire, representing their permanent end. John interprets the imagery for us in Revelation 20:14, telling us plainly that it symbolizes the second death of the wicked. In Revelation 21:8, God also tells us that the lake of fire symbolizes the second death.
Finally, the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man is virtually irrelevant. It doesn’t speak of hell at all, but of Hades, the intermediate state.
ETERNAL DESTRUCTION
2 Peter 2:6 likens the destruction of the wicked to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah; 2 Peter 3:7 likens the destruction of ungodly men to the destruction of the ungodly by Noah’s flood. The inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, and those who perished in the flood, were all killed.
In the verses leading up to 2 Thessalonians 1:9, Paul refers back to Isaiah 66:15, whose chapter ends with the lifeless, stinking, rotting corpses of the wicked. This is the “eternal destruction” Paul says awaits the unsaved: being destroyed and rendered completely lifeless, never to live again.
Capital punishment is the penalty reserved for the most heinous of crimes, and therefore annihilation accounts for the severity of sin. Degrees of punishment can be accounted for either by degrees of shame in the wake of one’s annihilation, or in varying degrees of suffering during it.
CONCLUSION
Jaros introduced his essay by pointing to a passage which strongly implies that the wicked will not receive eternal life, and will instead perish. All but two of the texts he cites proved to be far better support for the final annihilation of the wicked, and the two which remain have nothing to do with final punishment in the first place. Jaros claimed that annihilationism is inconsistent with the character of God, and doesn’t account for the severity of sin or for degrees of punishment, none of which hold up to scrutiny. And when he very briefly addresses passages indicating that the risen wicked face destruction, he dismisses them by arbitrarily selecting one of a Greek’s words meanings from its semantic range and applying it where it doesn’t fit the context.
What follows is a point-by-point response to my esteemed debate opponent, T. Kurt Jaros, whose essay affirmed the traditional view of hell as a place of eternal, conscious separation from God. Each text or issue responded to appears in bold.
A more comprehensive response can be found here at Rethinking Hell.
INTRODUCTION
Jaros cites John 10:26-30 as a metaphorical use of fire, but fire and burning are not mentioned. The text indicates that only those who follow Jesus will be granted eternal life, and that those who do not will perish. Traditionalists, contrary to this text, teach that unbelievers will live forever and never die.
A REAL HELL
Numbers 16:30 is irrelevant. The ground opened up and the men fell alive into Sheol—the grave, the pit, or perhaps the conscious intermediate state of the dead. All mankind will one day come out of Sheol (or Hades), and Revelation 20:13-15 says it will be thrown empty into hell.
In Matthew 3:12 “unquenchable fire” means what it always does in the Bible: a fire which cannot be extinguished, and hence will irresistibly and completely consume (Eze. 20:47; Jer. 17:27). Jesus uses the word katakaiō, translated “burn up” by the NASB, which means to burn down completely. He says that unbelievers will be completely destroyed by a fire which cannot be prematurely put out.
Matthew 13:41-42 and 50 also use katakaiō, and Jesus says that as the chaff is burned down completely in a furnace of fire—hearkening to Malachi 4:1-3 in which the wicked are reduced to ashes—so, too, will the wicked.
Matthew 5:22 and 29-30 use the word Gehenna to refer to hell, which referred to the valley of the sons of Hinnom, otherwise known as Topheth, which was “the valley of slaughter” where scavenging creatures cannot be prevented from fully consuming dead corpses (Jer. 7:32). Isaiah 30:33 likens it to a funeral pyre. This in stark contrast with Jaros’ position which is that the bodies of the risen wicked will never die.
Matthew 18:8-9 refers to the place of “eternal fire” as Gehenna, and Jude 7 uses “eternal fire” to refer to the fire which came down from heaven and destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, destroying them. Hence the parallel in 2 Peter 2:6 says Sodom and Gomorrah were reduced to ashes. Though perhaps a type or prefigure of hell, in Jaros’ metaphorical view, the anti-type that is hell, being neither brief nor involving fire, is in no way like the type. Eternal fire, therefore, refers to the fire of the eternal God which destroys, not to fire in which the wicked will consciously burn forever.
Matthew 25:41-46 says that “eternal punishment” is punishment by “eternal fire,” so we know what eternal punishment is: being destroyed, never to live again. The duration of capital punishment is measured, not in the time it takes to die, but in the time during which a criminal is no longer part of the living. Annihilation—the ultimate capital punishment—qualifies as an eternal punishment, as even Jonathan Edwards admitted.
Matthew 8:12 does not tell us how long the unredeemed will weep and gnash. Matthew 13 does, which, as we’ve seen, says the wicked will be completely destroyed. Weeping and gnashing will last only until the unsaved die in hell.
Revelation 14:9-11 is symbolic, apocalyptic imagery. It hearkens to Isaiah 34:8-10 which prophesies the destruction of Edom, whose buildings no one expects to burn forever. Though the harlot of Revelation 18 is tormented (vs. 7, 10, 15), and smoke rises forever from her torment (Rev. 19:3), the interpreting angel says in Revelation 18:21 that the city she represents will be destroyed. Smoke rising forever, then, hearkening to the smoke Abraham saw rising from the remains of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:28), symbolizes permanent destruction.
Revelation 20:10-15 is, again, imagery which symbolizes permanent destruction. Like the beast of Daniel 7, the fate of the beast in Revelation symbolizes the destruction of the city it represents. Death and Hades, despite being abstractions incapable of torment, are thrown into the fire, representing their permanent end. John interprets the imagery for us in Revelation 20:14, telling us plainly that it symbolizes the second death of the wicked. In Revelation 21:8, God also tells us that the lake of fire symbolizes the second death.
Finally, the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man is virtually irrelevant. It doesn’t speak of hell at all, but of Hades, the intermediate state.
ETERNAL DESTRUCTION
2 Peter 2:6 likens the destruction of the wicked to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah; 2 Peter 3:7 likens the destruction of ungodly men to the destruction of the ungodly by Noah’s flood. The inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, and those who perished in the flood, were all killed.
In the verses leading up to 2 Thessalonians 1:9, Paul refers back to Isaiah 66:15, whose chapter ends with the lifeless, stinking, rotting corpses of the wicked. This is the “eternal destruction” Paul says awaits the unsaved: being destroyed and rendered completely lifeless, never to live again.
Capital punishment is the penalty reserved for the most heinous of crimes, and therefore annihilation accounts for the severity of sin. Degrees of punishment can be accounted for either by degrees of shame in the wake of one’s annihilation, or in varying degrees of suffering during it.
CONCLUSION
Jaros introduced his essay by pointing to a passage which strongly implies that the wicked will not receive eternal life, and will instead perish. All but two of the texts he cites proved to be far better support for the final annihilation of the wicked, and the two which remain have nothing to do with final punishment in the first place. Jaros claimed that annihilationism is inconsistent with the character of God, and doesn’t account for the severity of sin or for degrees of punishment, none of which hold up to scrutiny. And when he very briefly addresses passages indicating that the risen wicked face destruction, he dismisses them by arbitrarily selecting one of a Greek’s words meanings from its semantic range and applying it where it doesn’t fit the context.
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Three Views on Hell: Universalism
INTRODUCTION
In early 2000, thanks to my studies affirming trinitarian theism, I came to expect God to persist in acting toward saving all sinners from sin. I began searching the scriptures to see if such things could be true; and as I studied the details and contexts more thoroughly, I learned to my surprise that many sets of scripture commonly quoted against Christian universalism featured strong evidence in favor of it instead! Here are three examples.
PAYING JUSTICE (2 THESSALONIANS 1:6-10)
A) Paul references Isaiah 2:10,21 “from/before the terror of JEHOVAH and the splendor of His majesty”. But this ruination, in the whole prophecy of chapters 2-5, eventually shows the unrighteous being cleaned by fire, and reconciling with the righteous. And the prophecy reveals that the scope of this salvation will be total.
B) Different bibles will say the sinners “pay the penalty” or “incur the punishment”. But literally verse 9 reads that they shall come to “pay the justice”, using a cognate for positively valuing something. And Paul’s citation from Isaiah shows sinners eventually coming to value Jehovah’s justice, paying true homage.
C) Paul declares that sinners shall be wholly destroyed. But despite the strength of the compound verb, Paul uses the same word in 1 Cor 5:5 to describe the punishment of a man he expects to be saved, after this punishment, in the same day of Jehovah that Paul is speaking of here in 2 Thessalonians.
THE UNFORGIVABLE SIN
A) First, this incident is based around the problem of a man previously exorcised by Jesus (Matthew 9:32-34 and notice the flashforward topical connection there) who must be exorcised again because, by his own fault, his latter state is worse than his first. Jesus warns that some people will be the same in the day of judgment (and 2 Peter 2:20 uses the exact same phrase to talk of teachers who abuse the people). But such a state was not beyond Jesus’ salvation--or there wouldn’t have been a controversy at all!
B) The teachers opposing Jesus’ salvation of this man are contradicting their own principles in order call such a salvation the work of the devil and not of God. (Matt 12:22-37)
C) When Jesus warns these teachers about the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, He emphasizes even more strongly (Mark 3:28) that every sin whatever will be forgiven men. Is our sin superior to God’s grace?--or does God’s grace hyper-exceed our sins?
THE SHEEP AND THE GOATS (MATT 25:31-46)
A) In Greek the ones being punished are baby-goats. Since they are specifically included among the flock of Christ (v.32), they are literally the least of Christ’s flock.
B) They will be hungry, thirsty, outside, dirty, imprisoned and sick now. (Rev 22:14-17) This is their punishment for refusing to cooperate with Christ in helping to save such people.
C) The narrative and thematic contexts of this final judgment declaration, critique my interpretations of any other judgment statements in the scriptures: including how I should interpret what ‘eonian’ and ‘kolasis’ mean here for the baby-goats. Do the Good Shepherd and His mature flock start acting like baby-goats to the baby-goats now? Or shall He and they continue seeking to save the least of His flock?--inviting them to slake their thirst and wash clean in the water of life flowing out of the never-closed gates, inviting them in to eat of the tree of life and be healed, freeing them from their imprisonment?
CONCLUSION
It’s fairly easy to make a positive argument from the three sets of St. Paul’s testimony most commonly appealed to by universalists: Philippians 2:10-11 in context of Isaiah 45:23 (indicating the utter scope and final result of post-mortem salvation); 1 Corinthians 15:20-28 + vv.54-58 in context of Isaiah 25 and Hosea chapters 13-14 (indicating the utter scope and persistence of post-mortem salvation); and a deduction from the implications of Colossians 1:16-22 (indicating the utter scope of God’s action in reconciliation) plus Romans 5:6-11 (indicating the utter assurance of eventual salvation for those whom God acts to reconcile).
But when evidence against God’s salvation of all sinners from sin turned out to be for it? That really impressed me.
AUTHOR
Jason Pratt is a guest author for the Evangelical Universalist forum. His epic fantasy novel CRY OF JUSTICE won the 2008 retailer poll for Novel of the Year from the Christian Small Publishers Association.
OTHER ESSAYS
Eternal Conscious Torment
Annihilationism
CRITICAL RESPONSE
Annihilationism
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
Gregory MacDonald, "The Evangelical Universalist."
Thomas Talbott, "The Inescapable Love of God."
The Evangelical Universalist Forum
In early 2000, thanks to my studies affirming trinitarian theism, I came to expect God to persist in acting toward saving all sinners from sin. I began searching the scriptures to see if such things could be true; and as I studied the details and contexts more thoroughly, I learned to my surprise that many sets of scripture commonly quoted against Christian universalism featured strong evidence in favor of it instead! Here are three examples.
PAYING JUSTICE (2 THESSALONIANS 1:6-10)
A) Paul references Isaiah 2:10,21 “from/before the terror of JEHOVAH and the splendor of His majesty”. But this ruination, in the whole prophecy of chapters 2-5, eventually shows the unrighteous being cleaned by fire, and reconciling with the righteous. And the prophecy reveals that the scope of this salvation will be total.
B) Different bibles will say the sinners “pay the penalty” or “incur the punishment”. But literally verse 9 reads that they shall come to “pay the justice”, using a cognate for positively valuing something. And Paul’s citation from Isaiah shows sinners eventually coming to value Jehovah’s justice, paying true homage.
C) Paul declares that sinners shall be wholly destroyed. But despite the strength of the compound verb, Paul uses the same word in 1 Cor 5:5 to describe the punishment of a man he expects to be saved, after this punishment, in the same day of Jehovah that Paul is speaking of here in 2 Thessalonians.
THE UNFORGIVABLE SIN
A) First, this incident is based around the problem of a man previously exorcised by Jesus (Matthew 9:32-34 and notice the flashforward topical connection there) who must be exorcised again because, by his own fault, his latter state is worse than his first. Jesus warns that some people will be the same in the day of judgment (and 2 Peter 2:20 uses the exact same phrase to talk of teachers who abuse the people). But such a state was not beyond Jesus’ salvation--or there wouldn’t have been a controversy at all!
B) The teachers opposing Jesus’ salvation of this man are contradicting their own principles in order call such a salvation the work of the devil and not of God. (Matt 12:22-37)
C) When Jesus warns these teachers about the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, He emphasizes even more strongly (Mark 3:28) that every sin whatever will be forgiven men. Is our sin superior to God’s grace?--or does God’s grace hyper-exceed our sins?
THE SHEEP AND THE GOATS (MATT 25:31-46)
A) In Greek the ones being punished are baby-goats. Since they are specifically included among the flock of Christ (v.32), they are literally the least of Christ’s flock.
B) They will be hungry, thirsty, outside, dirty, imprisoned and sick now. (Rev 22:14-17) This is their punishment for refusing to cooperate with Christ in helping to save such people.
C) The narrative and thematic contexts of this final judgment declaration, critique my interpretations of any other judgment statements in the scriptures: including how I should interpret what ‘eonian’ and ‘kolasis’ mean here for the baby-goats. Do the Good Shepherd and His mature flock start acting like baby-goats to the baby-goats now? Or shall He and they continue seeking to save the least of His flock?--inviting them to slake their thirst and wash clean in the water of life flowing out of the never-closed gates, inviting them in to eat of the tree of life and be healed, freeing them from their imprisonment?
CONCLUSION
It’s fairly easy to make a positive argument from the three sets of St. Paul’s testimony most commonly appealed to by universalists: Philippians 2:10-11 in context of Isaiah 45:23 (indicating the utter scope and final result of post-mortem salvation); 1 Corinthians 15:20-28 + vv.54-58 in context of Isaiah 25 and Hosea chapters 13-14 (indicating the utter scope and persistence of post-mortem salvation); and a deduction from the implications of Colossians 1:16-22 (indicating the utter scope of God’s action in reconciliation) plus Romans 5:6-11 (indicating the utter assurance of eventual salvation for those whom God acts to reconcile).
But when evidence against God’s salvation of all sinners from sin turned out to be for it? That really impressed me.
AUTHOR
Jason Pratt is a guest author for the Evangelical Universalist forum. His epic fantasy novel CRY OF JUSTICE won the 2008 retailer poll for Novel of the Year from the Christian Small Publishers Association.
OTHER ESSAYS
Eternal Conscious Torment
Annihilationism
CRITICAL RESPONSE
Annihilationism
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
Gregory MacDonald, "The Evangelical Universalist."
Thomas Talbott, "The Inescapable Love of God."
The Evangelical Universalist Forum
Three Views on Hell: Annihilationism
INTRODUCTION
There are three major views of final punishment. Eternal conscious suffering and universalism are based upon tenuous, inconsistent interpretations of passages divorced from context, interpreted through unfounded philosophical claims and flimsy extrapolations drawn from irrelevant texts. Annihilationism, on the other hand, or conditional immortality, is based upon relevant texts which actually speak of final punishment, and understands them in their contexts, allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture. Annihilationism contends that all the dead will rise from their graves, and the wicked will be irreversibly executed, leaving behind lifeless remains, never to live again.
ETERNAL FIRE
A) Matt. 25:46’s “eternal punishment” is the everlasting outcome of being executed. It is by means of verse 41’s “eternal fire,” a phrase Jesus uses in Matt. 18:8, paralleled in Mark 9:47 and Matt. 5:30. In each of these three texts Jesus refers to Gehenna, “the valley of Slaughter” where scavengers consume corpses (Jer. 7:32-33), likened unto a funeral pyre for burning up corpses (Isa. 30:27-33). Jude 7 says Sodom and Gomorrah suffered “the punishment of eternal fire,” the parallel in 2 Peter 2:6 saying they were reduced to ashes.
B) In Mark 9:48 Jesus quotes Isa. 66:24 which describes piles of lifeless, smoldering, rotting corpses. Unquenchable fire irresistibly consumes (Jer. 17:27, Ezek. 20:47). Undying worms consume corpses (Isa. 14:11) and communicate the same thing as scavengers which can’t be driven away (Deut. 28:26, Jer. 7:33): shame and irresistible consumption of corpses.
C) Jesus says the wicked will be burned up—katakaiō meaning “burn down completely”—like chaff (Matt. 3:12, Luke 3:17), including when He interprets the parable of the wheat and the tares beginning in Matt. 13:40, saying that as the chaff is burned up, so will His angels will throw sinners into a furnace of fire. This hearkens to Mal. 4:1-3 where sinners are set ablaze like a furnace, reduced to ashes beneath the feet of the righteous.
D) Paul’s “vengeance” and “flaming fire” of 2 Thess. 1:7-8 come from Isa. 66:15, that chapter ending with a pile of lifeless corpses. Paul’s “eternal destruction” in verse 9 is the everlasting outcome of being destroyed: executed and reduced to lifeless remains.
BODY AND SOUL
A) People can render only bodies lifeless, but Jesus says God will destroy body and soul in Gehenna (Matt. 10:28). With no demonstrable exception, when "destroy" (apollymi) describes what one person does to another in the synoptic gospels, it always means "slay" or "kill." That’s why James says “he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death.”
TORMENTED FOREVER AND EVER
A) Apocalyptic imagery of smoke rising from torment forever symbolizes permanent destruction. In Rev. 14:9-11 John sees imagery of smoke rising forever from the torment of restless beast-worshippers. This hearkens to Isa. 34:10's smoke rising forever from the remains of Edom, like the smoke Abraham saw rising from the remains of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:27-28). The smoke of the harlot is seen rising forever (Rev. 18:21), and though she is tormented (Rev. 18:7, 10, 15) the city she symbolizes is destroyed (Rev. 18:21) using language describing the end of Tyre (Ezek. 26:21).
B) The imagery of eternal torment in the lake of fire also symbolizes permanent destruction. After being emptied in the resurrection, death and Hades—abstractions unable to be tormented in reality—are thrown into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:14), symbolizing their permanent end (cf. 1 Cor. 15:26). The beast is the fourth beast of Daniel 7, symbolizing the same final kingdom represented by the statue in Daniel 2. In both places what happens to the symbol represents the permanent end to the kingdom’s dominion (Dan. 2:44, 7:26), succeeded in all three visions by the dominion of the reigning saints (Dan. 2:44, 7:27, Rev. 19:20 cf. 20:4). The resurrected wicked are thrown into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:15), as are the devil and false prophet (Rev. 20:10). Consistent application of the imagery demands that all will, in the reality represented by the symbolism, come to a permanent end.
CONCLUSION
Despite the historical consensus when it comes to final punishment, the Bible is clear: All the dead will rise from their graves: the redeemed will be granted immortality, and the unredeemed will be judged and punished by being irreversibly executed, leaving behind only lifeless remains.
AUTHOR
Chris Date is the host the Theopologetics podcast, as well as a contributor to ReThinking Hell. He is also a software engineer by trade and has participated in multiple debates on the topic of hell.
OTHER ESSAYS
Universalism
Eternal Conscious Torment
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
Edward Fudge, "The Fire that Consumes"
My appearance on the "Unbelievable?" radio program with Justin Brierley, defending annihilationism.
The Theopologetics podcast and blog on annihilationism.
ReThinking Hell
There are three major views of final punishment. Eternal conscious suffering and universalism are based upon tenuous, inconsistent interpretations of passages divorced from context, interpreted through unfounded philosophical claims and flimsy extrapolations drawn from irrelevant texts. Annihilationism, on the other hand, or conditional immortality, is based upon relevant texts which actually speak of final punishment, and understands them in their contexts, allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture. Annihilationism contends that all the dead will rise from their graves, and the wicked will be irreversibly executed, leaving behind lifeless remains, never to live again.
ETERNAL FIRE
A) Matt. 25:46’s “eternal punishment” is the everlasting outcome of being executed. It is by means of verse 41’s “eternal fire,” a phrase Jesus uses in Matt. 18:8, paralleled in Mark 9:47 and Matt. 5:30. In each of these three texts Jesus refers to Gehenna, “the valley of Slaughter” where scavengers consume corpses (Jer. 7:32-33), likened unto a funeral pyre for burning up corpses (Isa. 30:27-33). Jude 7 says Sodom and Gomorrah suffered “the punishment of eternal fire,” the parallel in 2 Peter 2:6 saying they were reduced to ashes.
B) In Mark 9:48 Jesus quotes Isa. 66:24 which describes piles of lifeless, smoldering, rotting corpses. Unquenchable fire irresistibly consumes (Jer. 17:27, Ezek. 20:47). Undying worms consume corpses (Isa. 14:11) and communicate the same thing as scavengers which can’t be driven away (Deut. 28:26, Jer. 7:33): shame and irresistible consumption of corpses.
C) Jesus says the wicked will be burned up—katakaiō meaning “burn down completely”—like chaff (Matt. 3:12, Luke 3:17), including when He interprets the parable of the wheat and the tares beginning in Matt. 13:40, saying that as the chaff is burned up, so will His angels will throw sinners into a furnace of fire. This hearkens to Mal. 4:1-3 where sinners are set ablaze like a furnace, reduced to ashes beneath the feet of the righteous.
D) Paul’s “vengeance” and “flaming fire” of 2 Thess. 1:7-8 come from Isa. 66:15, that chapter ending with a pile of lifeless corpses. Paul’s “eternal destruction” in verse 9 is the everlasting outcome of being destroyed: executed and reduced to lifeless remains.
BODY AND SOUL
A) People can render only bodies lifeless, but Jesus says God will destroy body and soul in Gehenna (Matt. 10:28). With no demonstrable exception, when "destroy" (apollymi) describes what one person does to another in the synoptic gospels, it always means "slay" or "kill." That’s why James says “he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death.”
TORMENTED FOREVER AND EVER
A) Apocalyptic imagery of smoke rising from torment forever symbolizes permanent destruction. In Rev. 14:9-11 John sees imagery of smoke rising forever from the torment of restless beast-worshippers. This hearkens to Isa. 34:10's smoke rising forever from the remains of Edom, like the smoke Abraham saw rising from the remains of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:27-28). The smoke of the harlot is seen rising forever (Rev. 18:21), and though she is tormented (Rev. 18:7, 10, 15) the city she symbolizes is destroyed (Rev. 18:21) using language describing the end of Tyre (Ezek. 26:21).
B) The imagery of eternal torment in the lake of fire also symbolizes permanent destruction. After being emptied in the resurrection, death and Hades—abstractions unable to be tormented in reality—are thrown into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:14), symbolizing their permanent end (cf. 1 Cor. 15:26). The beast is the fourth beast of Daniel 7, symbolizing the same final kingdom represented by the statue in Daniel 2. In both places what happens to the symbol represents the permanent end to the kingdom’s dominion (Dan. 2:44, 7:26), succeeded in all three visions by the dominion of the reigning saints (Dan. 2:44, 7:27, Rev. 19:20 cf. 20:4). The resurrected wicked are thrown into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:15), as are the devil and false prophet (Rev. 20:10). Consistent application of the imagery demands that all will, in the reality represented by the symbolism, come to a permanent end.
CONCLUSION
Despite the historical consensus when it comes to final punishment, the Bible is clear: All the dead will rise from their graves: the redeemed will be granted immortality, and the unredeemed will be judged and punished by being irreversibly executed, leaving behind only lifeless remains.
AUTHOR
Chris Date is the host the Theopologetics podcast, as well as a contributor to ReThinking Hell. He is also a software engineer by trade and has participated in multiple debates on the topic of hell.
OTHER ESSAYS
Universalism
Eternal Conscious Torment
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
Edward Fudge, "The Fire that Consumes"
My appearance on the "Unbelievable?" radio program with Justin Brierley, defending annihilationism.
The Theopologetics podcast and blog on annihilationism.
ReThinking Hell
Three Views on Hell: Eternal Conscious Torment
INTRODUCTION
I don’t believe that Hell will have literal fire. I side with the Eastern Orthodox Church on this issue. Hell is a place where either separation from God or the power of his presence is punishment. The way to understand biblical passages on hellfire is to understand them in a metaphorical manner (given that there are other instances of fire where literal fire is not meant [Exodus 15:7, Isaiah 42:25, Zephaniah 1:18, John 15:6, 10:26-30, 1 Corinthians 3:12-15]).
A REAL HELL
A). The Scriptures say eternal conscious punishment is real, and that it is a place you really don’t want to be in. This is the data supporting hell as a real place: Numbers 16:30, Matthew 3:12, 5:22, 29-30, 8:12, 13:41-42, 50, 18:8-9, 25:41, 46, Jude 7 Revelation 14:9-11, 20:15, 21:8 and Luke 16:19-31. Luke 16:19-31 is perhaps the most detailed account of hell. It is the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Jesus’s teaching here is that all men have enough knowledge accessible (the Law and the Prophet) to be held accountable for their eternal residence. Interestingly enough, the rich man is in Hades is conscious, and is holding conversation (contrary to what we might think happens when we are in excruciating pain) with Abraham, who is in paradise.
ETERNAL DESTRUCTION
A) Annihilationism doesn’t make sense of the biblical data or seem consistent with our knowledge of the character of God. Verses used to support annihilationism such as Philippians 3:19 and 2 Peter 2:7 don’t refer to the cessation of existence, but rather the wasting of a thing (the same word is used in Matthew 26:8 but refers not to the cessation of existence). 1 Thessalonians 5:3 and 2 Thessalonians 1:9 are also used in support, but it seems the conclusion must be presupposed to gather that Paul is referring to the ceasing of existence. Aside from the biblical data, annihilationists must show they have a full understanding of the severity of sin. Annihilationists believe that the soul ceases to exist. But how do we really know that annihilatoinism will be a punishment that fits the crime? It seems that very evil men like Hitler and Stalin will get off the hook here, and perhaps men who were unrepentant, but not sinful to such an extreme (perhaps like Ghandi) would be given a punishment they didn’t deserve. This one-size-fits-all punishment also seems to deny Paul’s words that God will judge “each man according to his deeds” (Romans 2:6).
NO SECOND CHANCES
A) Universalism has, I think, the greatest challenge of the three views. It faces a large task to reconcile the biblical data on eternal punishment. It faces the challenge of the Gospel, in the sense that ‘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?’ I think universalists are mistaken on the difference between retribution and reconciliation.
B) It is often that universalists want to show verses to illustrate God’s reconciliation with his people (both in the OT and NT). However, this is to miss the point: reconciliation is with God’s people. These people are already repentant; the lost are unrepentant and not considered part of God’s people. Last, universalism faces the difficulty of human freedom. If it is true that humans are free, and also true that some humans reject God on sufficient knowledge (Romans 1), then they are making a free, informed decision about what they think of their Creator. And if the mind and heart has rejected God, then it will already have a perverse view of who God is. The universalist must show enough support that God’s presence would be enough for people to change their minds. And if Satan and his demons can continue in their rebellion, having a better-than-human knowledge of who God is, then I don’t see why humans might be any different once we see more fully.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, I believe eternal conscious punishment is the best view that fits with the biblical data both explicitly and implicitly (meaning, compatibility with our biblical knowledge of the character of God).
AUTHOR
T. Kurt Jaros is the Founder of Real Clear Apologetics and a Master’s student at King’s College London studying Systematic Theology
OTHER ESSAYS
Annihilationism
Universalism
CRITICAL RESPONSE
Annihilationism
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Christian_theology#Concept_of_Hell
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, “Hell,” (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), pgs. 1148-1153.
Murray Vasser, http://murrayvasser.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/biblical-view-of-hell.html
I don’t believe that Hell will have literal fire. I side with the Eastern Orthodox Church on this issue. Hell is a place where either separation from God or the power of his presence is punishment. The way to understand biblical passages on hellfire is to understand them in a metaphorical manner (given that there are other instances of fire where literal fire is not meant [Exodus 15:7, Isaiah 42:25, Zephaniah 1:18, John 15:6, 10:26-30, 1 Corinthians 3:12-15]).
A REAL HELL
A). The Scriptures say eternal conscious punishment is real, and that it is a place you really don’t want to be in. This is the data supporting hell as a real place: Numbers 16:30, Matthew 3:12, 5:22, 29-30, 8:12, 13:41-42, 50, 18:8-9, 25:41, 46, Jude 7 Revelation 14:9-11, 20:15, 21:8 and Luke 16:19-31. Luke 16:19-31 is perhaps the most detailed account of hell. It is the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Jesus’s teaching here is that all men have enough knowledge accessible (the Law and the Prophet) to be held accountable for their eternal residence. Interestingly enough, the rich man is in Hades is conscious, and is holding conversation (contrary to what we might think happens when we are in excruciating pain) with Abraham, who is in paradise.
ETERNAL DESTRUCTION
A) Annihilationism doesn’t make sense of the biblical data or seem consistent with our knowledge of the character of God. Verses used to support annihilationism such as Philippians 3:19 and 2 Peter 2:7 don’t refer to the cessation of existence, but rather the wasting of a thing (the same word is used in Matthew 26:8 but refers not to the cessation of existence). 1 Thessalonians 5:3 and 2 Thessalonians 1:9 are also used in support, but it seems the conclusion must be presupposed to gather that Paul is referring to the ceasing of existence. Aside from the biblical data, annihilationists must show they have a full understanding of the severity of sin. Annihilationists believe that the soul ceases to exist. But how do we really know that annihilatoinism will be a punishment that fits the crime? It seems that very evil men like Hitler and Stalin will get off the hook here, and perhaps men who were unrepentant, but not sinful to such an extreme (perhaps like Ghandi) would be given a punishment they didn’t deserve. This one-size-fits-all punishment also seems to deny Paul’s words that God will judge “each man according to his deeds” (Romans 2:6).
NO SECOND CHANCES
A) Universalism has, I think, the greatest challenge of the three views. It faces a large task to reconcile the biblical data on eternal punishment. It faces the challenge of the Gospel, in the sense that ‘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?’ I think universalists are mistaken on the difference between retribution and reconciliation.
B) It is often that universalists want to show verses to illustrate God’s reconciliation with his people (both in the OT and NT). However, this is to miss the point: reconciliation is with God’s people. These people are already repentant; the lost are unrepentant and not considered part of God’s people. Last, universalism faces the difficulty of human freedom. If it is true that humans are free, and also true that some humans reject God on sufficient knowledge (Romans 1), then they are making a free, informed decision about what they think of their Creator. And if the mind and heart has rejected God, then it will already have a perverse view of who God is. The universalist must show enough support that God’s presence would be enough for people to change their minds. And if Satan and his demons can continue in their rebellion, having a better-than-human knowledge of who God is, then I don’t see why humans might be any different once we see more fully.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, I believe eternal conscious punishment is the best view that fits with the biblical data both explicitly and implicitly (meaning, compatibility with our biblical knowledge of the character of God).
AUTHOR
T. Kurt Jaros is the Founder of Real Clear Apologetics and a Master’s student at King’s College London studying Systematic Theology
OTHER ESSAYS
Annihilationism
Universalism
CRITICAL RESPONSE
Annihilationism
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Christian_theology#Concept_of_Hell
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, “Hell,” (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), pgs. 1148-1153.
Murray Vasser, http://murrayvasser.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/biblical-view-of-hell.html
Three Views on Hell: Introduction
 |
| http://www.rethinkinghell.com/ |
A few things first.
COMMUNITY
All three essays are written by professing Christians, and as such, I expect the utmost respect to be shown to one another. Disagreement is encouraged, but condescension and a lack of charity are discouraged.
FORMAT
The goal isn't to provide an exhaustive commentary on all bible passages or philosophical arguments. Instead, this is more an attempt to boil things down to bite-size chunks that are more easily expanded upon.
Each writer has 700 words to make their case. Their responses may be as long as they would like, but since I am moderating this series, I have the right to delete a comment or request a rewrite.
Likely, since we are all good boys and girls, this shouldn't happen.
FINAL THOUGHTS
I may add a follow up post to this series, offering links to various responses by the contributors. I know the annihilationist contributor plans on offering a response or two.
Thanks to each author!
THE ESSAYS
Annihilationism
Universalism
Eternal Conscious Torment
THE RESPONSES
These responses are much longer than the actual essays. Which is nice. Enjoy.
Annihilationist response to Universalism.
Universalist response to Annihilationism.
Annihilationist response to Eternal Conscious Torment.
May this debate continue in far greater respect than has been conducted elsewhere. Please engage and enjoy. May He be glorified.
--Nick
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)