The traditional doctrine of hell is both immoral & unintelligible

I’m doing a series on hell in my college ministry called “Hell No, Hell Yes?” and will be giving a short lecture on hell to our 30 plus ministry staff at church. So hell is something I continue to reflect on a fresh. I’ve begun to read a fascinating book on hell (Scot McKnight recommended it to me) from the standpoint of philosophical theology. Jerry Walls has tackled this contemporary critique of hell in his book Hell: The Logic Of Damnation.

The book deals with the dilemma created by the juxtaposition of the necessity of a doctrine of hell for Christianity to make sense on the one hand and the morality and absurdity of such a doctrine on the other. Perhaps the weightiest question raised against the most popular presentations of hell (represented even by the recent book by Chan and Sprinkle) is one of morality: what kind of a God creates a world where the vast majority of its human inhabitants will end up in hell?

The book argues that there are traditional (and orthodox) views on hell that avoid the logical and moral pitfalls often leveled at a traditional doctrine of hell.

Pingback: Joel Willitts
Pingback: dbgooglereader
Jonathan Shumate

Doesn’t this strike at the heart of the mystery between human culpability and divine sovereignty? God did not “create a world where the vast majority of its human inhabitants will end up in hell.” God created a world overflowing in everything human beings needed for life and happiness–it is they, who by their sin make themselves culpable, who are the reason for the necessity of hell. To say God created a world wherein the vast majority of its inhabitants would go to hell is to conflate creation and fall. The sheer absurdity of sin in light of God’s created world is what adds so much weight to it and to its consequences. Only arrogant humans could see in the existence of hell a moral problem with God. The real moral dilemma lies with human beings: How could human beings reject such a good and awesome and amazing God, and even more, how could they do so when the consequences is hell?
Jonathan Shumate

Doesn’t this strike at the heart of the mystery between human culpability and divine sovereignty? God did not “create a world where the vast majority of its human inhabitants will end up in hell.” God created a world overflowing in everything human beings needed for life and happiness–it is they, who by their sin make themselves culpable, who are the reason for the necessity of hell. To say God created a world wherein the vast majority of its inhabitants would go to hell is to conflate creation and fall. The sheer absurdity of sin in light of God’s created world is what adds so much weight to it and to its consequences. Only arrogant humans could see in the existence of hell a moral problem with God. The real moral dilemma lies with human beings: How could human beings reject such a good and awesome and amazing God, and even more, how could they do so when the consequences is hell?