In my study and conversations one of the biggest misunderstandings on the subject of hell is the idea that some Christians want to erase it. This is a myth (with few exceptions). To recap, the main views on hell alphabetically are:
Conditionalism - The belief that the unrepentant will experience a second death of both body and soul in hell passing out of being.
Traditionalism - The belief that the unrepentant will experience conscious torment of both body and soul in hell for all eternity
Universalism.- The belief that the unrepentant will experience conscious torment of both body and soul in hell until they repent and are saved.
As you can see by the bold underlined words above, each view believes in hell. Of course, if you insist on defining hell narrowly as eternal conscious torment as a traditionalist would I suppose you could try to perpetuate this false assertion, which is precisely what has been happening in that camp. However, if we define hell as the place that the 'unrepentant' are sent after being judged then each of the three main positions believe quite strongly in this place we call hell.
I find this definition to be preferable, not only because this is the normal understanding of the word, but because altering it to use this myth is a big distraction. A red herring. A mere rhetorical move. It does nothing to get at the heart of the actual differences of opinion and creates confusion through false accusation. It may be effective in driving an audience away from a particular view to your own temporarily, but this will only work as long as the wool is pulled over their eyes. This kind of deception should be completely unnecessary if one actually thinks they know the truth and have a strong case for their position. I think it's time to lay down the mythology and get to the heart of the matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment