Brand New Counterpoints Book on Hell by Zondervan - Interview witth Editor Preston Sprinkle

A brand new edition of the Zondervan 'Counterpoints' series is being released and they have put out some promotional interviews from the contributors as well as this one by the editor, Preston Sprinkle.

A Doctrine that Time Forgot

A few weeks ago I wrote a summary of my notes from plenary speaker, David Instone-Brewer, at the 2015 Rethinking Hell conference. I recently came across an article he wrote on the same line of thought from that session, though it is more focused on the teaching of Jesus and not so much comparing it to the other Jewish modes of thinking in his day. You can read what he thinks in his own words in that article here: Proportional Punishment in Hell: Doctrines that time forgot.

Christian Particularism - Oliver Crisp

When the 2015 Rethinking Hell conference was nearing a close, I decided I would rather go home earlier than planned. I jogged back to my hotel, checked out early, and started looking for a ride to LAX airport for that afternoon to change my flight and spend Father's Day with my family. I managed to procure a a vehicle with none other than plenary speaker Oliver Crisp who was taking Robin Parry to the airport after the roundtable.

Although I wasn't able to change my flight ($$$) the drive was one that I doubt I will ever forget. It was an absolute pleasure to sit with two Brits and hear them discuss several topics of interest and chimed in when it wouldn't diminish the conversation. We did, of course, discuss the subject of the conference as well as how incredibly well it went. Being with a Traditionalist and a Universalist, and having primarily studied Conditionalism in my rethinking of hell, I was able to offer reflections and clarifications from this perspective. 

Oliver Crisp, as a speaker and roundtable presence, was a highlight of the conference for me. His sense of humour and demeanour about himself and his interests may have been slightly lost on some American hearers, but for this Canadian it was pure gold. His constant refrain of, "Peace be upon him" after every utterance of Jonathan Edwards' name was my personal favourite. When they introduced him with the biographical note about painting pictures of Edwards as a favoured recreational activity, I leaned over to Chris Date and whispered, "I guess it's pretty clear which camp he's in."

Here is what Traditionalist Oliver Crisp had to say (according to my notes):

Christian Particularism - A particular number of humanity will be saved. God holds the total redemption of a particular number of human beings. It could be a remnant of people or it could be all people. Usually it entails less than all persons, but it could be all.  

There are two versions:

Hopeful Universalism (Balthasar and Barth)- This is not really universalism, because it doesn’t affirm all will be saved or deny that it’s true either. It hopes, but doesn’t know.

Optimistic Particularism  (made up by Oliver) - Someone hopeful about the scope of salvation, but believes God will eventually damn some to exclusion.

Difference: The hopeful person says: I don’t know, but I hope and pray God will save everyone and have sufficient reason to think so. The Optimistic person says: I know the reasons are sufficient in principle, but think that God won’t on the basis of scripture.

The concern in this paper is not the mechanism of how fallen human beings are saved by the work of Jesus Christ, but how man fallen human beings are saved by Jesus Christ. The number of the saved could be incredibly large based on God’s grace through near death experience moments, those who die under the age of accountability, etc.

Should a Christian Particularist be a Hopeful Universalist or an Optimistic Particularist?

Four Objections to Hopeful Universalism:

1. Why hold the historic majority view? Ecclesial authority is not as valued by protestants, but it is valuable regardless. Most Christians through history have not thought universalism is the truth of scripture. Has God allowed people to be wrong for so long?

2. Why not just adopt universalism? As a reformed theologian, why not jump in? If God desires it and is able to, why not?God desires to have love and justice, but what if God has a reason that is veiled or hidden from us? Divine hiddenness is what we find biblically.Job is a sort of divine test where he has no idea what is going on and God comes at the end and still doesn’t give an answer.

3. Optimistic Particularism is more faithful to the Bible over Hopeful Universalism. 

4. Conditionalism is consistent with Christian Particularism, but Crisp is not convinced it is a better or more optimal way to explain it.

It’s not clear that the scope of salvation is an issue over which we should divide.

A Seat at the Table: An Appeal for Dialogue and Fellowship - Chris Date

I'm in L.A. at the Rethinking Hell Conference and so far we've had one plenary session with Chris Date. I had the pleasure of going for dinner afterward with several people including Chris and he's a great guy. We discovered a common love for 'Lost' and 'Survivor' so we got to geek out on something other than the fate of every human being who has ever lived.  Theologians don't agree on everything, but it is a fact that the best characters of 'Lost' are Locke, Faraday, and Desmond (And to those who deny this, let them be anathema).

As it turns out, Chris' talk was right along the same lines as the one I'll be giving. Here are some of his talking points (Based on my notes):

He issued a three pronged challenge to Traditionalists:

1. To interact honestly with the actual arguments of the other positions. Traditionalists, for the most part, simply do not deal with the exegesis and arguments that Conditionalists and Universalists are making (For example, evangelical universalists are not liberal pluralists). For people who are convinced of the other views based on the arguments they actually hold, the Traditionalist approach thus far is of little use or help. If traditionalists actually care about changing the minds of the people who hold the other views then they haven't tried hard to do so. Traditionalists are actually pushing people further into the other views and even unwittingly giving support to Universalism through their definition of words such as 'destruction'.

2. To allow conditional immortality a place at the table in order to pull Universalists to a view that aligns with their concept of the beatific vision of the afterlife. They think that in the end there will be no sin or pain or evil or suffering. That there won't be some place on the earth or some corner of the universe where evil sinners writhe in torment. This view is shared by conditionalists, except they think this will be achieve by the destruction of evil.

3. To seek unity for the sake of fellowship and ministry. Even Christian Universalists should be included even if one strongly disagrees with them. We disagree on many issues like atonement, eschatology, the age of the earth, etc. yet keep fellowship. Why is this so different when all  universalists are saying is that the atonement is for everyone, salvation by grace through faith is something that everyone will choose, and that when Jesus searches for the lost sheep he never stops looking until he was found every last one.

He ended challenging conditionalists and universalists to exemplify the same charity and unity in their church context.

It's been a good start to the conference. I'll be posting more summaries over the next week including some of my talking points, which pick up right where Chris left off.

Welcome to Hell

The word "hell" in the more recent English bibles is translated from one word, Gehenna, which means "Valley of Hinnom." It is outside of Jerusalem and the end scene of an apocalyptic battle in Isa 66. Gehenna was a place of sacrifice to Molech and where they burned bodies after battles. There is no evidence that it was a garbage dump as often claimed (with no reference). 

Jesus uses the word Gehenna more than anyone else (while speaking in Jerusalem, not in Galilee!!), but he didn't talk about what we think of as "hell" more than anyone else. That was Paul by most counts. 

My Trip to Rethink Hell

I've launched an Indigogo campaign and here's why:

The Opportunity

For over two years I've been studying all about the nature of Hell and Final Punishment. Lately, I've been blogging a lot about it and there has been great support and interest from friends, colleagues, and abroad.

Recently, I was approached by a member of rethinkinghell.com to join their Facebook group because he had found my blog and enjoyed it. Within minutes of joining, another member offered to pay my fee for their upcoming conference if I could make it. I am honoured to have this recognition and endorsement and want to accept the offer.

As far as I know, this conference is unprecedented in the history of the church. The theme is 'Conditional Immortality and the Challenge of Universal Salvation.' It will be held at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena California June 18-20 and include speakers from each of the three major views on hell.

The goal is to raise $500 CAD to cover the cost of my flight and accommodation. In return, I will be writing blog posts about each plenary session, breakout session, and the conference as a whole. It is an amazing opportunity and I hope you can contribute to help me get there.

The Blog and The Book

As many of you know, I have been blogging a lot about the subject and plan to continue to do so. But what you may not realize is how far reaching my blog actually is. Although my primary readership is from Canada and the USA, in last month I have had readers from the UK, Russia, France, and Mexico as well as occasional hits from Malaysia, Australia, Indonesia, and India. By blogging about the conference many people will have access and feedback they may not otherwise have had.

What I also hope to achieve in attending this conference is to find inspiration, further material, and networking for the book I plan to write and have published on the nature of hell. The working title is 'Hell and Ice Cream: The Current Flavours of the Last Judgement." The theme and tone will be light and disarming to help readers engage the difficult and often controversial subject. My plan is to present the topic and all three views clearly, without rebuttal, and with as little bias as possible. Meeting key thinkers, writers, and speakers on the subject is invaluable in accomplishing my goal of getting this book printed and in your hands.

Your Support and Your Help

Any financial contribution you can make is appreciated, but I can also use help getting the word out. Send emails, tweet, share on Facebook, and more using this link:

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/jason-s-trip-to-rethink-hell/x/8769300

Thank you so much for your support and for taking the time to read about this campaign.

Comparing the 3 Views: The Hell Triangle

Now that we have looked at each of the three views in brief, we can begin to compare and contrast them. One of the best aids to do so is the above diagram by Ronnie Demler of rethinkinghell.com. I hope you will find it as useful as I have. Here is a brief explanation to help navigate it.

Each point is a placeholder for a view with a description of the nature of the 'fire of hell'. Traditionalism thinks the fire causes suffering, Conditionalists think it is destruction, and Universalists think it purifies.

Written on each line connecting each point is a shared belief of the two  in contrast with the view that is opposite. In contrast to Traditionalism, the other two believe that suffering will end and that evil will be eradicated. In contrast to Universalism, the other two believe that the judgement is final and the punishment is eternal. In contrast to Conditionalism, the other two believe in universal immortality.

In the centre we see what God will do with evil according to each view. It will be restrained, converted, or destroyed accordingly.

There are also a few nuanced views with arrows coming from Traditionalism and Conditionalism which I have touched on in part. Each will need a full blog post in the future.

• Partial Conditionalism is the belief that human beings will be destroyed but that Satan beings will be tormented forever.
• Dehumanization is a growing view held by N. T. Wright and others who think human beings will become mere 'creatures' and no longer bear the image of God. A sort of 'un-creation'.
• Reconciliationism holds that sin will cease and torment will end yet the lost will never enter the new Creation/Heaven.
• Separationsim I have written about a lot. It holds that people choose hell apart from God.

Universalism in Church History

I have written previously about the views of hell in Christian history when we looked at conditionalism in the early church. I didn't do a post for early traditionalists for two reasons. First, it is self evident that there have been adherents throughout church history. Second, I already had enough to write about that I thought would advance the conversation in more helpful ways. However, I think it would be good to do at a later date since many traditionalists assume far too much support when the reality is that there was not a constantly held tradition on hell until after Augustine in the late 4th - early 5th century.

Today I will cover some key figures and movements who held to universalism through the whole of church history. As with traditionalism and conditionalism, we have to look for statements by authors that do not simply quote scripture since the passages of Scripture are said to be compatible with each view. The following are recognized by multiple scholars (not just universalists) as christian thinkers and leaders who held to some form of universalism:

• Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215) though heavily disputed
• Origin (c. 185-254)
• Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335-390's)
• Peter Bohler (1712-1775) claimed by G. Whitefield in a letter to J. Wesley
• Friedrich Schleiemacher (1768-1834)
• John Murray (1741-1815)
• George MacDonald (1824-1905)
• Hannah Whitall Smith (1832-1911)
• William Barclay (1907-1978)

This is not an exhaustive list and even more are modestly claimed to seemingly teach universalism. An interesting study by Richard Baukham cover the subject with commentary and additional information such as this:

"Origen's universalism was involved in the group of doctrines known as 'Origenism', about which there were long controversies in the East. A Council at Constantinople in 543 condemned a list of Origenist errors including Apokatastasis, but whether this condemnation was endorsed by the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553) seems in doubt. At any rate the condemnation of Origenism discredited universalism in the theological tradition of the East. In the West, not only Origen's heretical reputation but also Augustine's enormous influence ensured that the Augustinian version of the doctrine of hell prevailed almost without question for many centuries."

A Modern Day Universalist: Thomas Talbott

Just as Edward Fudge is heralded in conditionalist circles as the foremost thinker, the same can be said about Thomas Talbott in universalist circles. The following are quotes from his introductory chapters in one of the best books discussing universalism available today, Universal Salvation? The Current Debate.

"Consider the following inconsistent set of propositions:  

1. God's redemptive love extends to all human sinners equally in the sense that he sincerely wills or desires the redemption of each one of them. 

2. Because no one can finally defeat God's redemptive love or resist it forever, God will triumph in the end and successfully accomplish the redemption of everyone whose redemption he sincerely wills or desires.  

3. Some human sinners will never be redeemed but will instead be separated from God forever."  

If the above set of propositions is logically inconsistent, and it surely is, then at least one of the above propositions is false. But which one? Because Christian universalists accept both proposition (1) and proposition (2), they reason deductively that proposition (3) is false."

"Because Western theology includes, moreover, two respectably orthodox traditions, one of which holds....that proposition (1) is a clear teaching of Scripture and the other of which holds...that proposition (2) is a clear teaching of Scripture, we are entitled to conclude, I think, that the case for universalism is not nearly as `palpably weak' as [some] would have us believe. For if it were so 'palpably weak', you would expect that the respectably orthodox among us would at least agree on which part of the case is `palpably weak'. So which is it, proposition (1) or proposition (2)? Should we limit the scope of God's love, as the Augustinians do? Or should we insist that God's loving will suffers an ultimate defeat, as the Arminians do? If neither of these options seems acceptable, then one is left with the belief that God loves all equally and that his loving will cannot be thwarted forever. And that is universalism."

"...our task in what follows will be to examine two prominent New Testament themes: that of Christ's ultimate victory and triumph, on the one hand, and that of divine judgement, on the other."

"Unlike those who believe that God will never destroy sin completely, but will instead keep it alive throughout an eternity of hell, universalists and annihilationists agree that God will utterly destroy sin in the end and destroy it forever. But whereas the annihilationists believe that God will do this by annihilating some of his own loved ones, the universalists believe that God will do it in the only way possible short of annihilating the objects of his love: by saving them from their sins."

"Paul clearly taught that Christ will destroy death and a host of other cosmic forces inimical to the interest of humankind. So how should we understand this? Universalists believe that the same God who commands us to love our enemies loves his own enemies as well. But God does not love sin or death or anything that separates us from him, and Paul also referred to these as enemies. So here we must distinguish carefully between the sense in which such personified evils as Sin and Death and various cosmic forces are enemies and the sense in which real people under the power of such evils are enemies. Christ destroys enemies of the first kind (non-persons) by obliterating them, that is, by eliminating them from his creation entirely." When he does destroy sin and death and various cosmic forces, he likewise destroys enemies of the second kind (sinful persons) in the only way possible short of annihilating them: by redeeming them while they are yet enemies. For only enemies of the second kind (persons) are possible objects of God's redemptive love."

"So herein lies the Christian universalist's understanding of God's ultimate victory, which is also a key to a proper understanding of divine judgement. God is too pure (read `too loving') to allow evil of any kind to survive forever in his creation. He will not, therefore, merely quarantine evil in hell, but will instead destroy it altogether even as he regenerates the evil ones themselves."

"As Paul himself predicted, the `last enemy to be destroyed is death' (1 Cor. 15:26); and at the end of Revelation 20 we thus see death itself being consumed or destroyed in the lake of fire. This is also called `the second death', which is simply the death of death: the time when Death itself dies everlastingly. But in Pauline theology death is more than a physical process; it is also a spiritual condition and includes everything that separates us from God. Accordingly, the final destruction of death must also include a final destruction of everything that separates us from God. Those who endure the second death will, for reasons of a kind already given, suffer a great loss and will no doubt experience the final destruction of their sinful nature as if it were the very destruction of themselves. Still, like those failed Christian leaders whose false works must also be consumed, they themselves `will be saved, but only as through fire' (1 Cor. 3:15)."

"If you impose upon the Bible the faulty idea that God's justice and mercy are in conflict," you will inevitably conclude that punishment is a matter of justice, not mercy, and forgiveness a matter of mercy, not justice. You will then take the biblical warnings concerning future punishment as proof that God could not possibly be merciful to all, despite what Paul explicitly said. You will also conclude that Jesus came to save us not from our sin, but from the terrible justice of God. As I see it, however, the Christian message is just the opposite of that. God sent his Son into the world not for the purpose of saving us from the justice of God, but for the purpose of establishing that very justice, which is also altogether merciful, in us. When every evil is finally destroyed, every wrong finally set right, and every opposing will finally transformed, then and only then will the scales of justice finally balance; then and only then will God truly be all in all."

The Basics of Universalism

Over the last two weeks I started going into more detail on each of the three views held by christians historically on the nature of hell by covering the basics of conditionalism and traditionalism. This week we'll look at universalism.

The three main views historically held on the subject alphabetically:

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.

Conditionalism may the least known of the three views, but Universalism is, in my estimation, the most misunderstood. Christian Universalism (also called Universal Reconciliation or simply Universalism) is most often thought to teach that everyone simply goes to heaven after death (no one goes to hell ever) and/or is mistakenly equated with 'pluralism.' Pluralism is the belief that all paths/religions lead to God and that Jesus is only one of the ways. However, this is most definitely not what these christians believe. They believe that salvation is found only through repentance and faith in Jesus.

The key distinction of universalists is that they believe there will be unlimited time and opportunities for repentance after death, resurrection, and judgement. Furthermore, they hold that everyone will eventually do so and that all creation will be redeemed and restored with nothing lost. Yes, there will be people sent to hell at the last judgement, but those same people will turn to Jesus and be restored.

One common criticism of Universalists is that they ignore the Scripture and use emotional arguments. However, this is not really the case as there are a number of texts cited to support their position. These are some key ones taken from a post by Scot McKnight:

John 12:32: And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” 

Acts 3:21: Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets. 

Romans 5:18: Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 

Romans 11:32: For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. 

1 Cor 15:22-28:  For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.  But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.  Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.  The last enemy to be destroyed is death.  For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.  When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. 

2 Cor 5:19: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 

Phil 2:9-11:  Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father. 

1 Tim 2:4: who [God] wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 

Titus 2:11: For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people. 

Heb 2:9: But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. 

1 John 2:2: He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. 

2 Peter 3:9: The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

I think the most interesting argument for universalism has been proposed by Thomas Talbott who puts forward three propositions, one of which we must logically reject (As articulated by Richard Beck).

1. God’s redemptive love extends to all human sinners equally in the sense that he sincerely wills or desires the redemption of each one of them. 

2. Because no one can finally defeat God’s redemptive love or resist it forever, God will triumph in the end and successfully accomplish the redemption of everyone whose redemption he sincerely wills or desires. 

3. Some human sinners will never be redeemed but will instead be separated from God forever.

And here are the propositions accepted/rejected by three groups:

Calvinism/Augustinianism: Adopt #2 and #3. God will accomplish his plans and some will be separated from God forever. This implies a rejection of #1, that God wills to save all humanity. This conclusion is captured in the doctrine of election and double predestination (i.e., God predestines some to be saved and some to be lost). 

Arminianism: Adopt #1 and #3. God loves all people and some people will be separated from God forever. This implies that God's desires--for example, to save everyone--can be thwarted and unfulfilled. This is usually explained by an appeal to human choice. Due to free will people can resist/reject God. Thus, where a Calvinist puts the "blame" on God for someone going to hell (election) Arminians place the blame on people (free will). 

Universalism: Adopt #1 and #2. God loves all people and will accomplish his purposes. This implies a rejection of #3. The implication is that God will continue his salvific work in some postmortem fashion. Note that this postmortem salvific work can, and often does, involve a strong vision of hell and can be Christocentric.

From this he goes on to ask that if both calvinists and arminians are considered christian and within orthodoxy, then why aren't universalists?

Lastly, here are the two most compelling texts, Eph 1:10 and Col 1:20, in context:

Eph 1:2-10 NIV: "Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and understanding, he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ."

Col 1:15-20 NIV: "The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross."

The Torment of Hell in the Presence of God?

This week I have tried to outline the basics of traditionalism, but have also noted where I think there has been an adjustment in its self understanding and reading of Scripture. I do not think that 'mere separationism' (being separated from God) is the 'traditional' traditionalism. I think it is something new within the broader title of 'eternal conscious torment' (ECT). I think that given the omnipresence of God (that he is everywhere), and that if Revelation 14 is used to support ECT where the torment is happening in the presence of Jesus, the lamb, then it seems inescapable that Jesus is present in hell or that hell is present with Jesus. I did some searching to see if there were good rebuttals to this and what I found was, instead, support::

"Is God present in Hell? We have to say that he is. ...Hell is not spatial separation from God, it cannot be because God is omnipresent. No, Hell is separation from the comfortable presence of God. It is the unshielded experience of the presence of God in his holiness and just wrath, and the absence of his mercy and grace."

"Therefore to summarize: God is present in every part of his creation--hell included--yet God acts according to circumstances of each particular place. Most of the time God is present to bless when His presence is spoken of in Scripture, but this is not true in every case, for clearly He is present to sustain as well as punish if needs be."

"In summary, the presence of God is everywhere in some sense of his being even in Hell. "

"Ultimately, it appears that God is indeed "present" in hell, or hell is in His presence, depending on how one looks at it. God is and will forever be omnipresent. He will forever know what is happening in hell."

John Piper:

"[Rev 14] simply says the angels and the Lamb will be attending this punishment. They will be present."
So the meaning of away from the presence of the Lord does not mean that God is absent in every sense, but in those senses. God will be terribly present in another sense. All reality continues to say: In him we live and move and have our being. And it is still in hell that no one can hide from the Lord or escape the terrible countenance of his anger. So God’s power is present in hell as the one who sustains our being and the one who enforces justice and the one who maintains suffering. He is present in all the ways men do not want him to be present and none of the ways that believers enjoy his presence.

RC Sproul:

A breath of relief is usually heard when someone declares, “Hell is a symbol for separation from God.” To be separated from God for eternity is no great threat to the impenitent person. The ungodly want nothing more than to be separated from God. Their problem in hell will not be separation from God, it will be the presence of God that will torment them. In hell, God will be present in the fullness of His divine wrath. He will be there to exercise His just punishment of the damned. They will know Him as an all-consuming fire.

A sort of non-answer:
https://carm.org/can-heaven-and-hell-coexist

https://carm.org/hell

So despite the surface indicators and language of 'mere separationism', it appears that most adherents, when pressed, acknowledge the oversimplification of this popular level understanding. The concept of the presence of God is described and used in different ways and the meaning of separation from God in hell has to do with the benefits experienced by those in Christ being revoked. In every other sense, however, he is very present, even in wrath and judgement and torment.

The Presence of God is the Orthodox's Hell

Over the last couple of days I've been writing about the traditional view of hell and how it now seems to be the norm to think of hell as separation from God rather than a blazing inferno. A friend of mine had posted a link to my blog on facebook and a friend of her's shared a link in the comments about the Orthodox Church's view of hell and how it stands in stark contrast to this notion of separation.

I personally really like the Orthodox church's take on a lot of issues. Although I don't always agree with everything exclusively, I do think that most of the time their perspective is insightful and near the heart of an issue if not its solution. Essentially the Orthodox's position is that hell is your experience or perception of the presence of God.  They serve as a good commentary because, for them, the notion that one can be separated from God's presence is absurd since God is everywhere. You can read the entire article, but here are a few quotes and some reflections:

"Paradise and hell are not two different places. Such an idea is an idolatrous concept. Rather they signify two different conditions [ways or states of being], which originate from the same uncreated source, and are perceived by man as two, differing experiences. More precisely, they are the same experience, except that they are perceived differently by man, depending on his internal state."

"Consequently, paradise and hell are not a reward or a punishment (condemnation), but the way that we individually experience the sight of Christ, depending on the condition of our heart. God doesn't punish in essence, although, for educative purposes, the Scripture does mention punishment. The more spiritual that one becomes, the better he can comprehend the language of the Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Man's condition (clean-unclean, repentant-unrepentant) is the factor that determines the acceptance of the Light as "paradise" or "hell"." 

"The anthropological issue in Orthodoxy is [to provide] that man will eternally look upon Christ as paradise and not as hell; that man will partake of His heavenly and eternal "kingdom". This is where we see the difference between Christianity as Orthodoxy and the various other religions. The other religions promise a certain "blissful" state, even after death. Orthodoxy however is not a quest for bliss, but a cure from the illness of religion..."

The way the Orthodox understand salvation is a huge part of what is at work here. Salvation for them is being healed from a condition. In their minds, the end goal of the Christian faith is for man to become god. Now before you cry 'blasphemy' it is important to understand their distinction between God's essence and energies. They do not think we become God in his essence. That is reserved for the Trinity. What they are saying is that we participate in the divine nature (as Peter put it) and are one with god as the father and son are one (as John put it). Through the indwelling of the holy spirit we are glorified and become more than human through our union with Christ. Luther had similar views as have many other major Christian leaders, the early church fathers, etc. Evangelicals tend to shy away from this to avoid confusion that we are gods like God is god, but this is our heritage and tradition not to mention the very words of Scripture.

"The experience of paradise or hell is beyond words or the senses. It is an uncreated reality, and not a created one. The Latins invented the myth that paradise and hell are both created realities. It is a myth that the damned will not be able to look upon God; just as the "absence of God" is equally a myth."

"...there is no such thing as "God's absence," only His presence."

 I think that this last quote is a huge challenge to the notion of hell as separation. I mentioned how evangelicals avoid the language of becoming like god (or gods or participation with the divine or the term 'theosis') because they don't want to create confusion. However , in trying to articulate what someone has quipped "mere separationism", it becomes difficult to reconcile with God's omnipresence. If God is everywhere, how can he not be in hell? Articulating a final state that involves God not being somewhere rather than being 'all in all' breeds confusion.

"More often than not, we strive to secure a place in "paradise", instead of striving to be healed. "

"Orthodoxy doesn't make any promises to send mankind to any sort of paradise or hell; but it does have the power...to prepare man, so that he may forever look upon the Uncreated Grace and the Kingdom of Christ as Paradise, and not as Hell."

Contemporary Conditionalists

Conditionalism is the lesser known of the three views and there have been several reasons suggested as to why that is the case. I think that it could simply be because it is a minority view and less controversial than universalism. However, that doesn't mean there hasn't been negative reactions against it or that there aren't significant conditionalist christian leaders and thinkers.

Perhaps the most prominent conditionalist in this past century was John Stott, an Anglican evangelical leader in England. He is considered one of the central figures of the global evangelical movement of the last century and famously 'came out' as a conditionalist in a debate book called "Evangelical Essentials: A Liberal Evangelical Dialogue." You can read his entire portion of the chapter on hell here for free.

Stott wasn't the only prominent thinker to voice his conditionalist view. Many of his contemporaries also came forward to state their position regardless of the potential backlash from their churches or loss of their jobs such as: Phillip Hughes, Clark Pinnock, Dale Moodey, RT France, and John Wenham. The most significant book on the subject, "The fire that consumes," by Edward Fudge was also published in the 80's with a foreword by FF Bruce.

Significant present day leaders and thinkers who are conditionalists:

• Richard Bauckham
• Richard Forster
• John Franke
• Richard Swinburne
• Michael Green
• John Stackhouse
• Anthony Thisleton
• Greg Boyd
• I Howard Marshall

The Basics of Conditionalism

In the coming weeks I'll be going into more detail on each of the three views held by christians historically on the nature of hell. This week we'll look at conditionalism.

The three main views historically held on the subject alphabetically:

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.

The view most frequently called 'conditionalism' goes by two other names: annihilationism and conditional immortality. Many other suggestions have been made but, as with many things in this post, it's probably best to leave it for another day and not get bogged down. They are basically synonymous terms, but they are actually describing two different realities. Annihilation refers to what happens to the lost who do not receive Christ, whereas conditionalism or conditional immortality refers to what is given to the saved.

I think the most important thing to understand about this view is that it presents a drastically different anthropology than the other two views. Those who hold this view do not believe that all human beings are immortal inherently, by nature, or through God's unwavering sustaining of life or existence. They argue that the only people who are immortal are those who receive it through faith in Jesus and thereby through union with him. This immortality, which they take as basically equivocal with 'eternal life', is something that is only given to the saved and therefore 'conditional' as apposed to the other views which hold that all humans are immortal or live forever unconditionally.

They get this from texts such as

Rom 2:7 NIV, "To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life." 

2 Tim 1:10 NIV, "but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel." 

1 Tim 6:15b-16 NIV, "...God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen."

They would also point to the fall of man and the punishment described there as proof positive, because when Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden, the punishment was clearly that they would no longer have access to the tree of life.

"And the Lord God said, 'The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.'" (Gen 3:22 NIV)

This is the same tree of life said to be in the New Jerusalem/heaven/renewed earth in Rev 22:2. Something only the redeemed will have access to. What is disputed is what the tree of life provides and what the words mean.

Much is dependent on the definition of terms such as 'immortality', 'eternal life', 'death', 'perish', 'destroy' 'destruction', etc., which they claim to be taking in the most normative sense and, when found in Scripture, the most plain sense and meaning in context. They would ask how it is possible that when the Bible uses these terms they can never mean what we normally think of when we use these words in any other context. Something that perishes remains forever? Something that is destroyed remains intact? Something that dies continues on for all eternity? Eternal life never means living forever? A lot of linguistic debate is had between the three views on a variety of words and these are the ones the conditionalist pushes most often.

But what about those who do not receive this eternal life? What happens to them? There are a few ways conditionalists have put it and they often struggle to use language not already found in Scripture: Cease to be, cease to exist, cease to live or have life in any sense, die a second time, cease to be conscious, be no more, be annihilated, etc.. Some of these ways of describing what happens to the lost may be problematic if pressed, but the result in mind is clearly that the lost will not eventually be saved, nor will they be tormented for all eternity, but that they will experience nothing in any way. Life, in any sense, will be over.

The amount of places they draw from Scripture on this point is staggering and hard to choose from, but here are a few.

Mt 10:28 NIV "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. " 

Jn 3:16 NIV "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. " 

Rom 6:23 NIV "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." 

Jude 7 NIV "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."

In combination with their view of immortality being conditional, it is clear how they read these texts and come to their conclusions about the fate of the unrepentant. They think that it is a very poor assumption to hold that all human beings will live forever when not a single scripture states it anywhere in the entire bible. They grant that some texts could imply the immortality of the lost if read a certain way, but they argue that this puts the cart before the horse.

The last reason they give that I will cover today, is the atoning death of Jesus. This is an argument that has gained a lot of traction recently. I have noticed the frequency of its use increase to the point where there is scarcely a time where it isn't brought up in debates or online articles. The reason should be immediately clear: Jesus died for us. He didn't just suffer, he died and the primary focus in scripture is his death. Even when it mentions his suffering it is in conjunction with his death. The argument basically says that since Jesus died for us, then those who do not receive this substitute have to bear that punishment themselves.

Conditionalists believe that all human beings are mortal. That we all die once. That Jesus died and was raised back to life defeating death for us. That we are all resurrected and will face judgment. That those in Christ will be given immortality and that those who are not will die a second time and be lost forever.

Is hell the primary motive for Christian mission?

One of the common objections given by traditionalists against conditionalism and universalism is that if there is no hell, there would be no incentive to tell people the gospel; the good news about Jesus. What then would drive people to be missionaries overseas and seek out 'unreached people groups', etc.?

I think the basic answer can be drawn from my last post. Neither of the other views categorically denies that there is a hell in the first place. The traditionalist equates the word 'hell' with their view, but the dispute really lies in what the nature of hell is. All three views still think there is a hell to be avoided regardless. Conditionalists can still be motivated to have people avoid an eternal death and Universalists to avoid an indeterminate period of torment, suffering, or purging.

However, I think the more troubling thing is that this is even thought to be the primary motive at all as if avoiding something were the goal or aim of the Christian message. No. This is not the case. The good news is that we are renewed, restored, reconciled, and given life through Jesus. It is about what we enter into more than what we turn from. And it is about the present life and transforming the world through our selfless acts of service, grace, justice, truth, peace, and love. Perhaps this is why Christians in Western society are looked on so poorly by so many. We come off as judgmental, when we are not the judge. We are fixated on hell, when we are supposed to be setting our eyes on Jesus who was a friend of the outcasts and rejects of religion and society.

I think that there is undue weight placed on the doctrine of hell in our context. What to do you think?