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.

Why write about Hell?

If nothing else, can we agree that this is a pretty awesome wallpaper? I mean, look at it. It's a ghost ship from hell sailing toward a lava waterfall. Maybe there's pirates. I don't know...

I've heard through the grapevine and been approached by a few people this week who are concerned about my views on hell and where they are headed. So far it has been based in confusion and misunderstanding so I thought it would be good to remind everyone why I'm writing about this subject in the first place. Here is an excerpt from my first post on it:

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.

You can read the entire post here: The First Post on the Last Judgement

I've thought about this.... a lot. I've studied most of the relevant verses in the Bible and read plenty of the books written on the subject. I've searched the web and listened to hours of podcasts. And after doing all of this I'm convinced that one of the biggest problems on this subject is misinformation and misrepresentation. I think the church needs to have a conversation about hell and the vast majority have not yet had it in an open and honest way that takes the challenge of conditionalism and/or universalism seriously or examines the relevant texts from all angles. It simply doesn't happen.

What I'm attempting to do is present all three views clearly, fairly, and without bias. I completely understand why some would get confused and think that I am endorsing a particular view. But please don't misunderstand where I'm coming from. It should read as if I hold whatever view I'm writing about on any post you read because I've taken the time to understand that perspective and to present it fairly and accurately.

I trust that most readers have understood this and hope that this post has clarified any confusion. If not, There are plenty of ways to contact me. Feel free to leave a comment below. Tweet me @jm_schroeder or email me: jasonschroeder@gmail.com

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."

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?

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.