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.

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.

Burning Love: The Theological Hermeneutics of Hell - Robin Parry

One of the best parts of being at the 2015 Rethinking Hell conference as apposed to watching the Youtube videos as I did for 2014, is the personal interactions. And I don't just mean shaking a speaker's hand (I did) or getting them to sign a book (I didn't bring any). I'm talking about asking them your own questions and interacting with them about subjects other than the final state of human beings.

Not only did I get to have some great interactions about the philosophical merits of universalism with Robin Parry during the third break out session, I got to 'geek out' with a proper Englishman about one of my favourite television programs: BBC's Doctor Who. We mainly spoke of the modern era debating the merits of David Tennant, Matt Smith, and Peter Capaldi, lamenting the Slitheen, and expounding the great writing of showrunner, Stephen Moffet, including the eerily-brilliant-must-watch-episode, Blink, and another where no one dies causing the doctor to exclaim, "Just this once, everybody lives!"

And everybody living as part of a universally reconciled creation is exactly what Robin Parry believes will happen. He has written about it in detail in The Evangelical Universalist, where he makes an evangelical case: from the text of the Bible. His paper, however, was primarily concerned with our theology as Christians: What makes the best ending to the story and whether it fits with the who God is. Here's what he said (based on my notes):

There have been many 'rediscoveries' of universalism throughout history, which were built up from whole clothe and unconnected to other movements. This suggests Universalism feels like a better fit than other views. This happens when other aspects of theology (God, Creation, and Narrative) push the traditional view of hell out.

If we think of the Narrative of Scripture as a puzzle, the usual hell piece doesn't quite fit..There is a spot there for a judgement piece, that much is clear. But the one most use doesn’t quite match up and energy is spent to ‘make it fit’. Everlasting Hell is a troublesome jigsaw piece with more problems than a hedgehog has spikes. The logic of the Christian narrative leads to Universalism. A traditional view of hell forces us to colour other aspects of theology to make the piece fit.  For example, one must affirm that some people were created to burn forever. 

It effects our doctrine of God; our view of God. Really, everything starts and ends with God. 
Colossians 1 says that all things are from him and for him. Don't other views of hell muck up the goal of reaching the potential end and completion in God?

Humans are made in God’s image, but not made complete. We have a goal and purpose of which we are moving towards. We are intended to move toward theosis. Other views of hell makes it impossible to reach this destination toward God. Everyone is a universalist when it comes to sin; that all have fallen short. We deserve divine punishment, but not rescue. If every human is beloved and made in God’s image, then what are we saying about God?  Is God the great iconoclast? Is he the destroyer of the images he created? 

Those views of hell make God’s victory out to be something of a damp squid:

Where sin abounds Grace abounds…quite a lot!

Satan 5, God 1 - Hooray! God won!

God desires the redemption of all people and has acted through Jesus to achieve that. The resurrection of Jesus is the breaking in of new creation. All Christian eschatology must be grounded in this event. The story of humanity does not end on a cross, but passes through the tomb, rises, and ascends to God. To be an 'Evangelical Universalist' is to say ‘Christ is risen’; That every tongue will confess Jesus as Lord . Parry don’t see it as presumptuous to say that in Christ all are raised and return to God. That is the ending he would expect of the Christian story.

Parry likens the three views of hell to: the Prison, the Guillotine, and the Hospital.

The Prison: I don’t want to risk mucking up my doctrine of God just to hold onto a doctrine of eternal torment. 

The Guillotine: Annihilationism is like winning an election by getting 100% of the vote, but only by killing off everyone who would have voted differently.

The Hospital: Evil must be eradicated, and since it is not a force in and of itself, God will do so when every will is turned to him and there will no longer be any existing embodiment for said evil.

Jesus' Rejection of Universal Jewish Salvation: The background of rabbinic theology about hell and forgiveness - David Instone-Brewer

I'm back home after several days in L.A. for the Rethinking Hell Conference 2015. I've taken notes on all of the plenary speakers and today's post will cover the paper presented by David Instone-Brewer titled, 'Jesus' Rejection of Universal Jewish Salvation: The background of rabbinic theology about hell and forgiveness.' 

David is strictly a biblical scholar and as such he states his findings and refuses to answer questions that go beyond them. I know this, because I tried and his answer was, "I don't know because that information isn't available to us." This was refreshing, but also seemed nearly paradoxical after his apparent agreement with the claim that he never knowingly doesn't have an opinion on anything. 

The closing remark he chose to give after the roundtable was to echo the words of the German composer Johannes Brahms saying, "If there is anyone here whom I haven't offended, I apologize." Paradoxical or polarizing, here is what he said (based on my notes):

He covered four Jewish views: Traditional, Qumran, Rabbinic, and Jesus.

Teachings on Hell from intertestamental literature

Heaven for Jews

Hell for Gentiles

Imagery/Description: Eternal Fire, Darkness, Torment, Destruction (except angels), Worms

They called it: the Valley, Gehenna, Sheol, Tartars

Qumran

Heaven for Qumran Jews

Hell for Gentiles and other Jews

Imagery/Description: Eternal Fire, Darkness, Destruction (total, no escape)

They called it:  Sheol.

Rabbinics

Heaven for Good Jews

Novel "Third Way" for Middling Jews (a holding place before possibly going to heaven)

Hell for Gentiles and Evil Jews

Imagery/Description: Eternal Fire, Torment, Destruction (Body and Soul)

They called it: Gehenna, Sheol

'Hell' was 12 months for some, but 'eternal torment' for the really bad Jews in some writings

The Gehenna tradition already existed in Jesus’ day.

Some thought the 'Middling Jews' went to heaven, but faced rebuke

Jesus has a stark contrast to this teaching (eg: Yohanan as recorded in the Talmud).

Jesus' stories most like Yohanan are in Matthew: parable of the virgins, in Luke: man with servants, and in Matthew: parable of the king’s banquet.

Yohanan’s early career was in Galilee.  He and Jesus were contemporaries and probably heard each other teaching. Jesus regularly contradicted their claims through altering the story in the parables.

Jesus' teachings on hell in the Gospels:

Those who go to hell have no hope of escape

Taught there were only two ways therefore rejecting the third way.

Heaven for the Repentant (even Roman soldiers)

Hell for the Unrepentant (even law abiding Jews)

Imagery/Description: Eternal Fire, Darkness, Torment, Destruction (body and soul), Worms

He called it: Gehenna/Hades

Jesus never says 'Eternal Torment'.

Mt 25:46 could mean torment, destruction, or torment leading to destruction.

Jesus deliberately decided to use terminology that his audience was familiar with.

He upset the Jews by including Gentiles and excluding some Jews.

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.

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.

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 Catholic View of Hell

Since I had a post on the Orthodox view of hell, I thought I ought to include a post on the Catholic view. I won't comment other than to say that I find it interesting that the official catechism could be read to affirm the separationism of the evangelical protestants (Although...read my next post later today). I took these excepts directly from the Vatican's website.

1033 "We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren. To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."" (1 Jn 3:14-15., Mt 25:31-46)

1034 "Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna" of "the unquenchable fire" reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost. Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire," and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!""  (Mt 5:22,29; 10:28; 13:42,50; Mk 9:43-48., Mt 13:41-42, Mt 25:41)

1035 "...The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs."

1057 Hell's principal punishment consists of eternal separation from God in whom alone man can have the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

How the World Views Jesus

Traditionalism is the dominant position of Christians today and for most of Christian history. This view holds that all those who are unrepentant will be tortured forever after the last judgement without end. I have tried to show how it is difficult to hold to a traditionalism that separates people from the presence of God and do not see it as historical traditionalism at all. I think the nail in the coffin is one of the key texts use to support traditionalism if not the key text. It is found in Revelation 14:9-11 NIV:

A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives its mark on their forehead or on their hand,  they, too, will drink the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. They will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb.  And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name.”

The view that this verse teaches eternal torment is one of the greatest sources of fodder in attempting a debunking of Christianity. It is not only that non-believers see an injustice in an eternal duration. It is not only that they are apposed to torment or torture. It is not only that they think it is difficult to see how anyone could be joyful in heaven/paradise/newcreation even though their sibling or loved one is being tortured. It is that they are aghast that this is being carried out by Jesus (the lamb)...in his very presence.

Traditionalists hold to this because it is what they believe the Bible teaches. They don't find this easy to take or nuance at all. They simply feel obligated to accept it and justify it in one of two ways:

1. They say that God is infinite and so any offence or sin committed against him is therefore infinite and requires and infinite punishment
2. They say that the unrepentant in hell continue to sin without repenting perpetually thereby incurring more and more punishment for all eternity

And here are a couple of videos on the same line of thinking:

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."

Keller on Hell...er

In yesterday's post I mentioned that the normal way of articulating hell by traditionalists involves making the unrepentant go there by choice rather than God sending them there. In my estimation it is a move to try and help God's public image. No one likes to think of their God as a 'big meanie' (Or in this case the 'biggest meanie') and it's not like traditionalists have nothing to work with. The Christian god who sends people to hell is also said to be merciful, just, compassionate, gracious, and not just loving, but that God is love. A loving god sending sinners to eternal torment seems like a contradiction.

As an example of what I'm referring to, here are a few excepts from a lengthier quote by Tim Keller a well respected leader in America:

"Hell and heaven essentially are our freely chosen identities going on forever."

"Hell is a self-centered ego going on for a billion years"

"Hell is God giving you the life you want, on into eternity."

"Therefore, in a sense, nobody ever goes to hell in the Christian understanding unless they want to. "

"In some ways, the fairest understanding of the afterlife is the Christian one, which says God gives you what you want. If you want to live with God forever, that’s heaven, and you get it. If you want to be your own person, your own savior, your own lord, that’s hell, and you get that – and you stay wanting it; you do not suddenly change your mind."

The Basics of Traditionalism

Last week 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. This week we'll look at traditionalism.

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.

Traditionalism gleans its name from the fact that for most of Christian history it has been the majority view held by the church. It is the official position of the Catholic, Orthodox, and various Protestant branches as well as prominent Christian leaders presently and historically. Many evangelical traditionalists lament the name because it can be misunderstood to mean they hold this view because it is tradition whereas they think it is the clear view of Scripture. To clarify their position succinctly, they most often use the shorthand of 'eternal conscious torment'.

Here are some of the key texts they use for support:

Dan 12:2 NIV "Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt."

Mt 25:41-46 NIV "41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”"

Mk 9: 47-48 NIV "And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where 

“‘the worms that eat them do not die,and the fire is not quenched.’"

2 Thess 1:9 NIV "They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might "

Rev 14:9-11 NIV " A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives its mark on their forehead or on their hand, they, too, will drink the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. They will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name.”"

Rev 21:10-15 NIV "And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever. Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire."

Traditionalists (aka most interpreters) have concluded that these texts imply immortality (or at least ongoing existence) for the unrepentant on the basis of these texts' terminology such as eternal, everlasting, and forever and ever in relation to aspects of the punishment. It is said that the lost will experience ongoing contempt for God and the saved, perpetual punishment, that their torment will go on forever and ever, that they will have no rest, and will be shut out from the presence of the Lord. In order to assemble these various statements into a coherent whole, they have used various approaches. Historically, the traditional view held that there was a literal lake/place of fire where the lost would burn forever in a fire that could never be quenched or put out, but would last forever. In this model the darkness and sometimes the undying worm were taken as analogies.

More recently, however, there has a been a major shift in which nearly all texts are taken as figurative analogies describing the agony of eternal separation from God. This has come to be known as the metaphorical view as apposed to the literal view. Unsurprisingly there are many variations within this mode of expression ranging from God actively tormenting people to their being full of remorse for their self exclusion by rejecting the gospel. The move is significant in that it allows for a wider range of views within the scope of eternal conscious torment while still holding what many consider the core aspects of the traditional view. This change isn't without it's detractors (most often the literalists), however, who say it isn't right to replace God's active wrath with a sinner's self exclusion, 'torture' with torment, etc.

I think part of the reason for this shift has been the evangelical emphasis on personal repentance and belief in the gospel to achieve personal salvation by key figures such as Billy Graham. He articulated a view of hell that was essentially based being separated from God forever; having no personal relationship vs having a personal relationship with God.  C.S. Lewis also articulates something of this sort in his writings going so far as to say that hell is a place "locked from the inside." However, I think that a larger reason for this shift could have to do with cultural pressure to square the justice of God with the love of God. Answering the question of 'How could a loving God send people to an eternity in hell"' lead to many people coming to the same conclusion: Hell is a ultimately not a place God vindictively tortures people, but a choice made by those who reject him which he reluctantly honours by separating them from himself.

Regardless of whether one takes the  texts about fire, worms, and darkness literally or metaphorically, all traditionalists defend their view of endless torment by appealing to the God's infinite nature, or man's total depravity, or both. Man has sinned against an infinitely holy God of infinite worth, which deserves an infinite punishment.  Man, being totally depraved (incapable of not sinning without divine intervention), will continue to sin in hell thereby incurring more wrath and punishment so that the amount of torment 'due' is never exhausted; payment will be in perpetuity. The good news is that Jesus has paid this in full on the cross in our place and we can receive forgiveness through him because of it. How is this possible since he never went to hell forever? It is because he, being God, is infinite and his suffering is of infinite worth and therefore an infinite payment.

Traditionalists believe that the unrepentant will be tormented in hell and remain conscious and aware of their state without end. They believe this to be a just punishment for sinning against an infinitely holy God. 

The Myth of Erasing Hell

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.

The First Post on the Last Judgement

Where does one begin to speak of the fate of those who are lost? No one likes hell. Most usually don't even want to think about it let alone speak of it. However, I've been thinking about this subject on and off for over two years and have decided start writing and dialoguing on it. There are a few reasons for this, but I suppose the biggest reason is because there is a lot of fear and misinformation surrounding the subject. I want to be fair, clear, and help bring a charitable dialogue for those who have, are, and will ask questions about it. You can leave a comment, send me a message, or speak to me in person. I am aware that for many this subject is sensitive. For others it's quite controversial. For this first post, I want to simply give a brief overview and introduction.

The subject is commonly called the Christian doctrine of hell or final punishment. I have purposely referred to it in the title of this post as the 'last judgement' to be even more neutral. This series is not intended to push the reader into a particular belief, but to uncover, explore, and explain the various beliefs Christians have historically held regarding the fate of everyone who is not 'in Christ' or 'saved' through Jesus when they die.

Historically there have been three main views on the subject. Here they are 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.

These are extremely short summaries of the three views and I'm sure some adherents of these views would cringe at the oversimplification and lack of nuance. This is precisely the point of covering this subject, however, and there will be plenty of time to cover each in-depth. For the time being this is enough since some people may not have even heard of all three perspectives. Some may not even have realized what their perspective has actually been for their whole lives until they saw it just now in black and white.

For the majority of Christians, the traditional view is the norm. Many will have heard of universalism and some hold that position even if they do not fully understand it. Even less will hold to or have heard of conditionalism. I hope to help create a healthier dialogue on this controversial subject of hell by surveying what people actually believe and why. I hope to bring light, particularly on the lesser held views, in order that we may understand what each person actually believes rather than a caricature. I hope to eliminate the fear based reactions and careless dismissals that usually accompany the subject.

I welcome feedback, questions, suggestions, etc.