This post is by Jeff Cook, someone well known to readers of the Jesus Creed blog. Jeff is weighing on the Francis Chan promotional video on his new book, a book responding to Rob Bell’s book. Jeff is a pastor-philosopher and has done some serious thinking on the issues of new creation and judgment.
Another well-known pastor has thrown his hat into the ring regarding hell.
Francis Chan recently posted an ad for his book Erasing Hell: What God Said about Eternity, and the Things We Made Up which is set to release in July. I have deep respect and love for Chan, his heart and his work. As one who will probably disagree with Chan’s conclusions in his upcoming book, let me affirm a handful of worthy aspects of his ad which the church collectively can continue to celebrate in one voice. I affirm the need for humility when talking about God, theology, and points of contention within the church. I affirm the need to be hyperaware of our tone when speaking about hell (as Chan said, “We are talking about real people here.”) I affirm that “everything” needs to be on the table and that it is paramount to not misrepresent God. And I affirm that for those of us who are truly invested in this conversation—“Confess, pray, fast, and study diligently, because we can’t afford to be wrong on this issue”—is an outstanding pastoral affirmation.
Now I’m not a theologian; I’m a philosopher, and in Chan’s presentation are a handful of very important philosophic claims. I am in no way critiquing Chan’s book (which again hasn’t been released yet). I am only critiquing the arguments he puts forward in this preview.
At the crux of his presentation, Chan says, “I’m a piece of clay trying to explain to other pieces of clay what the potter is like. It’s silly to think we are experts on him. Our only hope is that he would reveal to us what he is like, and then we repeat those things.” This is the starting point and it’s a claim about what can and cannot be known about God.
In this spirit Chan cites Isaiah 55 (“Your thoughts are not like my thoughts. Your ways not like my way.”) and then he begins to critique an argument which (I think it’s safe to assume) is a reason he has heard for rejecting hell as eternal conscious torment. He says,
“So when we begin an argument with, “Well, I wouldn’t believe in a God who would…” Who would what? Do something that you wouldn’t do? Or think in a way that’s different than the way you think? Do you ever even consider the possibility that maybe the creator’s sense of justice is actually more developed than yours? And that maybe his love and his mercy are perfect, and that you could be the one that is flawed? See when we make statements like, “Well God wouldn’t do this would he?” Do you understand that at that moment you are actually putting God’s actions in submission to your reasoning?”
It seems to me, the central point Chan wishes to make in the ad flows from these claims and questions and I would like to advance and defend the following three critiques outlined in bold.
(1) In contrast to Chan’s claim, we need to rationally wrestle with our views about who God is and what he does, and to fail to do so is sloth. Scripturally speaking God invites us to use our minds when engaging who he is and what he does (Isa 1:18, Rm 12:2, among many others). In fact, we put God’s actions “in submission to our reasoning” every time we say that what God does is praise-worthy, loving, good, just, wise, self-sacrificial, etc, These are all rational assessments of God’s nature, actions, and character—and they should not be avoided. I can bring into this discussion two quotations from those who have pondered Job — one from C.S. Lewis and one from Robert Gordis.
C.S. Lewis: “The point [of Job] is that the man who accepts our ordinary standard of good and by it hotly criticizes divine justice receives the divine approval: the orthodox, pious people who palter with that standard in the attempt to justify God are condemned. Apparently the way to advance from our imperfect apprehension of justice to the absolute justice is not to throw our imperfect apprehensions aside but boldly to go on applying them” (“De Futilitate,” in Christian Reflections, 70).
“Faced with the tragic dilemma of a righteous man’s suffering in an immoral world created by a righteous God, Job is nevertheless unwilling to surrender his ideal of rectitude ” (R. Gordis, Book of God and Man: A Study of Job , 153).
(2) There’s a real problem with criticizing all claims that begin with, “I wouldn’t believe in a God who would….” We should choose not to believe in a God who would … repeatedly torture 3 year olds for fun. We should choose not to believe in a God who would …. command cowardice, betrayal, abuse, and ignorance? “Belief in God” implies trust and devotion, and it seems to me *some* pictures of God are not worthy of either trust or devotion.
Now, if I say, “I wouldn’t believe in a God who would … create a few billion people, knowing that they will never believe in him and are irreversibly destined to suffer in unending isolation and fire,” that *can be* an appropriate move. I can make that move while acknowledging that my course of action “might be the one flawed.” I can make that move while acknowledging that God’s “sense of justice” is superior to mine, and that God thinks about things in a different way than I do. What those who defend the traditional view of hell must do is showcase why a good God *could* think unending conscious torment is the best option for the damned. Otherwise, it seems appropriate for a reasonable person (if they believe a “good” being by definition will not create conditions in which a person will experience torment for countless lifetimes) to either reject that picture of God or reject that view of hell.
(3) The idea of “justice” must be the same for God and for us, otherwise the term lacks linguistic value. Chan asks, “Do you ever even consider the possibility that maybe the creator’s sense of justice is actually more developed than yours?” Of course it is in one sense, but if God’s concept of justice is radically different than ours then it makes no sense for us to call God “just” any more. If we are to talk about “justice” at all, the definition must hold for ants as well as deities, otherwise we are talking of apples and oranges and all such language breaks down.
Regarding hell, what Chan and others must do is show how the traditional view of hell is in any way “just,” and philosophically speaking I have not seen this done well in either academic or popular Christian literature. Many who reject the traditional view of hell (or the Christian God because of it) hold to a principle — “There is no state of affairs in which it is appropriate to incarcerate a human being in a state of eternal, conscious torment.” As I suggested before, this requires a response from those who hold the traditional view of hell; they must show that it is in fact “just” to do so. The response that, “God knows things we don’t” or “God does things we wouldn’t do” is insufficient here (In philosophical jargon, this is a “phantom argument”). Some kind of story needs to be told that makes initiating eternal conscious torment morally praise-worthy and in accord with what we mean (or should mean) by “justice.”
On one hand I applaud Chan’s ad. It moves the discussion on hell forward in the church at large. However, it seems to me that those who affirm the traditional view of hell need to do more than say “this is what the Bible says and we’re just repeating it.” Everyone involved in the debate about hell right now is saying “the Bible says”. What those who affirm the traditional view must show is why that view is worthy of devotion.
+1. Jeff Cook well expressed my dis-ease with Chan’s video promo better than I ever could.
“I am in no way critiquing Chan’s book (which again hasn’t been released yet). I am only critiquing the arguments he puts forward in this preview.”
I then am a little surprised Jeff and Scot are posting this.
Scot wrote in his Relevant Magazine post:
“When the next controversial book comes out, I hope we pause long enough to read the book, ask the author for clarifications and only then go public with our concerns and criticisms.”
Perhaps Chan’s book is not “controversial”, but does this not go against that idea to “read the book”?
Great post! I’ve never understood this particular reasoning. Abraham, Moses and others wrestled with God. The great heroes of the OT were, in part, great because they did not accept mindless religious reasoning and stood in the gate between God and His people.
Rick, Jeff completely kept his comments to the video promo — and made no comments about the book. Fair enough, it seems to me.
I’ve heard the Isaiah 55 cite in other forums used to justify the idea that hell is just, …. other things that seem evil to us are to be accepted.
Does anyone actually read Isaiah 55? Doesn’t this chapter refer to the fact that God’s mercy is great, his abundance overwhelming? That any who seek him will find mercy. His goodness, mercy, and free pardon are based in something that is “higher than your ways.”
This great mercy and undeserved pardon is why “You will go out in joy and be led forth in peace; the mountains and hills will burst into song before you,and all the trees of the field will clap their hands.”
How in the world can anyone root the justness of ECT for billions in this passage?
What am I missing in Isaiah 55?
Thanks Jeff. I’d like to press one more major inconsistency in Chan’s whole argument. For Chan to highlight the notion of mystery is not helpful here unless he intends to apply it to himself, which it would seem he does not because surely in his book he is going to offer a positive proposal arguing for the traditional doctrine of hell. Apparently then, he can understand God’s character on these issues in a way that those who view hell in a non-traditional way cannot. What if in fact it is the traditionalists who have gotten God’s character wrong and who are anthropomorphizing? What if their notion of the love and justice of God is actually the wrong one? What if Chan is placing God in his submission to his own reasoning?
You astutely point out in your post that it must move the level of exegesis and theological and philosophical discussion over against simply regurgitating traditional arguments as if they were clear for all to see. Obviously they are not or we wouldn’t be having this discussion! Jamie Smith has recently attempted to make a similar move in undercutting universalism by arguing that it is based on emotive reasoning and not Scripture; these arguments are question begging and facile and could easily be turned around on Smith and Chan. I hope that we as evangelicals begin to dig deeper and discuss these matters on the terms that matter most, beginning with Scripture and exegesis.
Thanks, Jeff. You put forth some of the conundrums that I personally wrestle with on the issue of hell as God’s “perfect justice.” I don’t get it — and I’m not afraid to say that I *hope* it turns out different than a lot of people believe. The way I see it, it’s not about Chan’s new book, or Bell’s earlier one, or our weighing in with a book review/critique. This is a subject (hell) that we need to be able to talk about openly. And not just theologians and scholars; I think that many “real (lay)people” that were acknowledged in this post are either attempting to figure this out on their own or have swept it under the rug, so to speak, in order to avoid a major crisis of faith. Not being able to speak about such things without being labeled a heretic or an idiot isn’t helpful. I can empathize with an atheist or agnostic who wonders why a God who creates people for hell is worthy of our worship…? Thanks again for addressing this topic with courage and wisdom.
I’m not sure Chan is saying we shouldn’t wrestle with God. Perhaps he’s simply saying we should allow the scripture to shape our perspective?
I appreciate his humility as he seems to be seeking to discover what scripture teaches not what he simply desires God to be.
After all the nonsense revolving around the “Young, Restkess and Reformed” crowd, in regards to Bell’s book, I’m truly disappointed to see this post here. I really don’t see this as being wholly different from what Justin Taylor did.
Scot #4-
“Jeff completely kept his comments to the video promo”
Although that line between video and book review can be thin (at least one comment has already crossed that line), I understand that is how you see it.
However, you recently wrote:
“I don’t trust blurbs or excerpts. Nor do I trust my own judgment of watching a provocative promo video and think I know where he’s going.”
That may be a difference of opinion between you and Jeff, but I think posting it here is walking real close to that line.
I’m not saying….I’m just saying. :^)
Alan, I’m surprised you don’t see the difference. Jeff Cook has limited all of his observations to what Chan said on the video and makes no speculations on what he will say in his book. With no book at all, this post stands as a stand-alone response to Chan.
Rick, my last comment on the appropriateness of this post since Cook responds only to the video.
The big point you make: Jeff is not speculating about the book. Nor do I think any promo should be used to speculate about what will appear in the book. JeffCook responds to the video and what is said there and to nothing else. That’s fair game.
Presumably, just like Bell’s video, Chan’s is a reflection of the book. It’s highly unlikely that either author puts a video out to advertise a book, then writes a completely different book. So, Jeff and Justin both make preemptive attacks in writing articles like these. The only real—and very good difference—is that Jeff’s tone is much more charitable. I certainly appreciate that.
“we need to rationally wrestle with our views about who God is and what he does, and to fail to do so is sloth.”
This was one of my reactions to the video, as well. The Bible uses anthropomorphic language to help us understand God and we Christians frequently copy it, so it’s not clear why it is inappropriate to at least explore God’s character using our human reasoning. If God is so unknowable that we can’t even get a glimpse of his character using human logic and reasoning, then I’m not sure what the point is of even trying. “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it” doesn’t cut it any more.
I have long been troubled by the kind of argument in Chan’s video, and found this post really helpful. Thanks.
I especially liked the quotes from Lewis and Gordis.
Here are a couple more quotes on a similar theme which have helped me:
“Do not try to believe anything that affects you as darkness. Even if you mistake and refuse something true thereby, you will do less wrong to Christ by such a refusal than you would by accepting as His what you can only see as darkness.”
(George MacDonald)
“Given the complexities of any interpretation of the Bible as a whole… the facade of bowing humbly before the Scriptures is no excuse for accepting, in opposition to your own deep-rooted moral convictions, a seemingly blasphemous picture of God”
(Thomas Talbott)
Thx Jeff, here’s a little pushback even though I agree with most of your perspective.
#2. Agree with the spirit of what you said. But what do you mean by “believe in a God”? If you mean His existence, then we might well be faced with an evil, cruel, capricious God and if so you may as well believe in His existence, if He’s really there. If you mean “follow and worship that God”, then I’m right with you.
#3 Agree with your linguistic point. The language becomes nonsense. However, the linguistic point is not ontology, right? He really might not be just by our standards, or He might be “just-er”. That’s an abstract possibility, although a position I don’t hold.
This becomes a “first principles” argument pretty quickly doesn’t it! View of inspiration and Scripture, image of God, revelation and reason, etc. Thank you for the post!
Just saw this video this morning and I’m glad someone is responding to it. In contrast to the Bell “reactions”, this post isn’t writing Chan off or leaping to conclusions about what his book might or might not say. This is a response to the video alone and the shockingly weak statements Chan makes in that video. Even the metaphor he uses to begin – we are clay, He is the potter – is stretched beyond it’s boundaries as “clay” is only one of the metaphors scripture uses to describe our relationship with God. Yes, clay may struggle to describe the Potter to other clay but sure sons and daughters have the capacity to describe their father to his other children! I love the passion with which Chan communicates in this video, I just wish on a philosophical/theological subject like this he thought through his points to see what Jeff so clearly critiques above.
@ Rick #10 & Alan #9 Did you just read the same post from Jeff Cook that I did? It was gracious and very thoughtful.
Jeff says, “I have deep respect and love for Chan, his heart and his work.” Why do you doubt what Jeff is saying here? Is it that you just can’t have an honest discussion on this topic?
Alan, this is NOTHING like how Bell was treated bty Piper and Taylor.
Wow, after reading Jeff’s response to Chan and seeing all the responses, I must be the only one that actually find some merit in what Chan was saying rather than trying to logically draw his conclusions to the end that I for one doubt Francis Chan would say truly represents what he trying to say. Sheesh, if people find the doctrine of Hell from what the church has taught throughout the ages morally and philosophically incomprehsnible in todays culture, so be it. There is alot about Hell I don’t understand and I am more a Wrightian when it comes to God’s concern for how we live our life here on earth now, not the details of the afterlife. After saying that, I hope people will actually read Chan’s book and give him a fair hearing. Rob Bell never got one, I hope we can do better with Chan? Here’s one for starters, people could look at Bell’s and Chan’s interpretations of the Biblical texts they use for starters and see if one does any better than the other.
Taylor #19-
“It was gracious and very thoughtful.”
He certainly was, and I have not said anything otherwise. That is not the issue.
I would not say that we should mindlessly agree with whatever we think the Bible says about God. We should engage our minds, wrestle with what it says, wrestle with God himself, and try to make it work in our minds as best as possible. However, in the end, our posture should be one of submission, rather than judgment, toward God and what he has said about himself (i.e., his Word). I guess that’s where I start. I make no assumption that I can describe God better than he has described himself. The good news is that he hasn’t suggested that he enjoys torturing 3-year olds for fun, so we don’t need to worry about that.
We can’t too easily dismiss what God has said about himself simply because it doesn’t seem “just” to us. We should stop short and ask, Why did previous generations think this was just? Why doesn’t it seem just to us anymore? Perhaps there is something we don’t understand yet (or anymore). I might suggest that this something may, in fact, be the gravity of even our most “petty” sins. What if the traditional view of hell is just simply because our sin is that bad?
I might recommend, Michael Wittmer’s response to Bell’s book, Christ Alone (www.christalonebook.com). He takes a pretty good shot at explaining why eternal conscious punishment is just. Not the final authority, but worth considering.
I found Chan’s video to be very ambiguous so that almost anyone could receive it in whatever fashion they want.
“So when we begin an argument with, “Well, I wouldn’t believe in a God who would…” Who would what? Do something that you wouldn’t do? Or think in a way that’s different than the way you think?”
When Chan asks this question, both sides can be the target. For example: “I wouldn’t believe in a God who would torture people.” or maybe “I wouldn’t believe in a God who would forgive everyone on earth regardless of their belief.”
I think my real issue was the last line of the video. “..because we can’t afford to be wrong on this issue.” Are we sure we can even be right? If we are clay pieces talking to clay pieces what makes us think we have enough information to be definitive on this subject?
1. As Christians we ought to consider who God is within what he has revealed. Were not at liberty to ‘reason’ outside of this revelation.
2. It is quite in order for a non-Christian to say ‘I couldn’t believe in the God the Bible reveals’. If a Christian takes this position he is no longer a Christian… or well on the way to so being. A Christian is a ‘believer’.
3. From a Christian point of view (and to other professing Christians) their is no obligation to demonstrate the justice of hell, all that needs to be demonstrated is that this is what the Bible teaches. Christians do not pretend they understand all that God does and why he does it. They are people who have learned to trust him in who he is and what he says even when they don’t understand (Abraham and the promise). There is no need to prove the view is worthy of devotion, only that it is biblical. See #2 above.
4. There may be a need to seek to persuade an unbeliever that hell is just (though we must remember the Bible never so does). My argument would be an infinite sin demands an infinite punishment. I would further argue that a sin against an infinite being is infinite in enormity. Of course this may not be accepted, but then, a) our sense of justice is affected by the fall and none values God even remotely as he ought b) the heart has reason to reject that the reason knows nothing about.
I think Jeff makes an excellent point at the end when he says: “However, it seems to me that those who affirm the traditional view of hell need to do more than say ‘this is what the Bible says and we’re just repeating it.’ Everyone involved in the debate about hell right now is saying ‘the Bible says.’” This seems to come up often in responses to Love Wins, and it seems to sometimes be overlooked, or perhaps even not understood, that this is what Rob Bell thinks the Bible says, not just what Rob Bell says.
Adam, I have to admit I liked that clay pieces talking to clay pieces. We ought to be humble in our discussion of an issue like this, and we ought to listen to one another.
Every person that I have ever known who hold to the traditional view of hell, which usually entails a lake of fiery eternal torment, always say that God is just. And, that’s just the way it is. The Bible isn’t clear on this and now the burden rests upon them to prove to us why or how eternal torment can possibly be just. Not even sinful humans torment those they have judged guilty in a court of law. How can a perfect, holy, and loving God torment those whom He has created? It makes no logical sense. Love does NOT torment. Love does NOT kill. Love does NOT torture. Love is NOT conditional. Love does NOT maim. Love does NOT condemn. Love does NOT abandon. As Rob Bell so magnificently proclaims, Love Wins!
Great post Scot (and Jeff).
In a critique I wrote yesterday, I followed a similar path regarding Isa. 55 and God’s ways being higher than our own. Essentially, my sinful nature doesn’t want the world to be saved. I want to save myself and those I love. To hell with everyone else.
I’m thankful God’s ways are higher than my own.
http://chadholtz.net/2011/05/24/francis-chans-erasing-hell/
From this point on I will delete any comments on the appropriateness of Jeff Cook’s response to (only) a video — that protest has now been stated, registered, and we can move on — and any comments that speculate on what Francis Chan will say in his book.
Let’s keep the discussion to the video and Jeff Cook’s response. Watch the video, read Jeff’s response, engage on what Jeff engages on. Could be a good discussion.
Is it virtuous and justifiable to protest to God, to wrestle with God on these sorts of issues, to apply our sense of justice to God, etc..?
This is excellent, Scot. Thanks!
Moses protested to God regarding his sense of justice. So yes, I think God is waiting, even expecting, us to stand in the gap for everyone.
This is an altogether reasonable push back based on what Francis Chan says in his video. I read it similarly: reason is not opposed to faith.
Looking forward to the book anyway.
Thanks Scot! Would still love some comeback on #16 above.
Chad, good point that people on both sides of this debate are quoting the Bible. I agree that Rob is expressing what he believes the Bible says. So, if we can shift the debate to how well are we reading the text, rather than appeals to emotion (like Watchman just above), the debate could be really productive. Who is reading the text most faithfully? Who is reading their assumption (and desires) into the text? Who is overlooking key texts that must speak into the debate?
By the way, I’m not an avid fan of Chan. I can take him or leave him. I did appreciate elements of his video. It felt like a good check in the conversation. But, in some ways, critiquing the philosophical assumption behind a promotional video feels a little silly to me. Videos like this are intended to tweak, provoke, and sell books. That’s probably the most important philosophical assumption to notice. This was true of Rob’s video as well. Let’s wait for the book.
Guys,
No need to be upset about Scot and Jeff posting this (very respectful, even honoring) discussion of Chan’s video. I agree with the other reasons given above, but the best reason to go ahead and dialogue with the video is that it is clearly Chan’s hope that people will dialogue with it in anticipation of the book. The key, of course, is not to be limit our comments to the video’s content and/or Chan’s other public statements, and to do so with the respect and charity that is fitting for Christians.
That said, I find merit in both Chan’s and Jeff’s arguments regarding God’s uniqueness and superiority and how we should use our reason. And, with others, I question (look forward to finding out) what Chan means with the “we can’t afford to be wrong on this issue” line. Does he mean a certain level of certainty about the next life is either biblically or missionally required? How much certainty, exactly, I wonder, and how much detail? Or does he mean that we can’t afford to overstep what the bible says on this issue and must be careful to recognize the limits of our ability to draw specifics from metaphorical language?
In any event, good post. I hope the book does move the conversation thoughtfully forward and doesn’t merely inspire pep rallies.
Jeff- Bravo!
Here is a thought… Even if ECT were the case, which I am not convinced of, in no way would we be wrong to continue to wrestle with God in hoping Scripture is actaully alluding to something else. Abraham wrestled with God to save sodom talking God down on his punishment if only to find 10 righteous men. I wonder if Abraham would have been more bold he could have talked God down even less, even to a point of not destroying them. God seems to give us logic and reason for a purpose; seemingly because it represents part of what it means to be made in God’s image. Scripture is filled with stories of people who question God and people who actually change God’s mind on things God said would pass. We even see David doing this after he finds out his child of Bethsheba is going to die- he fast, puts on sack cloth, and prays for God to change God’s mind. Even if people who question ETC are wrong; God still may honor their attempts of mercy on those who do not deserve it. Chan is right in that God’s ways are higher than ours; so if we long for a mercy that goes beyond our understanding who is to say that God may not long for such a mercy too? It seems he has already displayed such mercies in the past; why not in the future too?
sry; should read “the key, of course, is to limit our comments . . .”
As much as I can feel the clay/Potter metaphor the “my ways are not your ways” can’t become the excuse for God behaving badly. We aren’t just clay, we have been given the gift of reason and should be using it. We’re called into relationship which is never passive. And we’re not just wrestling with God, we’re wrestling with the text and those two are NOT the same thing.
“Is it virtuous and justifiable to protest to God, to wrestle with God on these sorts of issues, to apply our sense of justice to God, etc..?”
Well, golly, if God already knows our “heart” (thoughts, feelings, etc.), we would have to either never have any questions or doubts, or be lying to ourselves, to say that we don’t wrestle with God — presuming, of course, that we acknowledge our relationship with God in the first place.
The bigger controversy seems to be speaking aloud of one’s own wrestling with God…If you don’t know what you’re talking about, keep quiet, or at least don’t speak from a position of authority on a matter. Especially if it differs from the traditional understanding.
I think we (ordinary mortals) need “safe” space to talk openly about these things. The debate is often so intense that it can feel anything but safe to talk freely of one’s thoughts. Wouldn’t our faith be stronger if we could face these hard topics together, and give one another time and space to live in a place of not fully knowing and admitting it to ourselves and each other? Would that diminish our faith in the Person of Christ, or dilute God’s holiness?
Jacob wrestled with God. He came away from the encounter with a permanent limp, but he knew his identity and purpose and was the better for it. That example comforts me.
I have to push back on your second point.
2) There’s a real problem with criticizing all claims that begin with, “I wouldn’t believe in a God who would….” We should choose not to believe in a God who would … repeatedly torture 3 year olds for fun. We should choose not to believe in a God who would …. command cowardice, betrayal, abuse, and ignorance? “Belief in God” implies trust and devotion, and it seems to me *some* pictures of God are not worthy of either trust or devotion.
While in NO way do I believe the real God would torture children, support abuse and betrayal, I think you miss Chan’s valid point. Say we knew absolutely that the only God who did exist actually did permit these things. Say the one true God was Zeus and he was petty, vindictive, and spiteful, saying you would not believe in him or not, would not change his existence.
It is like living in Florida and saying, “I do not like hurricanes if they are destructive so I choose not to believe in them.” Your willingness to believe or not believe does not in any way change their objective existence.
Chan is simply making the point that even if someone(s) happen to find an attribute, behavior, plan of God’s to be to their disliking, will not change the reality of if he exists or not. Basically, subjective belief does not shape reality.
This is the point that Chan is making and I think a pretty valid one. As sinful people, we will inevitably meet God and find things not to our liking, in fact if we don’t I would argue we probably have not met the real God and instead just made one in our own image. Don’t let your objective understanding of who God is be based off of what you subjectively prefer.
Ryan,
The point, I think, is that if we did know this God was objectively that way, it would not be a God worthy of my love and devotion. It’s a sadistic God who calls for his peons to love and pray for their enemies while he is waiting in the wings to torture them for eternity.
If that is the “objective reality” behind the God revealed to us in Jesus Christ, paint me an atheist.
#39 I think you’re both using “believe” in different ways. Normally I think as Christians we don’t use believe to merely mean we acknowledge the existence of…
Brianmpei (#37) I think makes a crucial point: “And we’re not just wrestling with God, we’re wrestling with the text and those two are NOT the same thing.” I agree, but it seems to me that Chan’s working assumption is that they are the same. And this fundamental difference in presuppositions makes fruitful dialogue between the two camps very difficult.
If there is a strong Roman Catholic listening in on this I’m super curious what you’re thoughts on this discussion are.
#1. the first contrast made is a rather silly interpretation of what Chan said and believes. David, you really think Chan does not want us to use our minds? He’s talking about getting to presuppositions!! Very important philosophically and biblically speaking.
#2,3 OBVIOUSLY Chan wasn’t categorically affirming that it is wrong to state ” I wouldn’t believe in a god who…”. Seriously??…that is a very lazy deduction of what Chan was saying. Again he’s getting to presuppositions. Related to #3 – Chan is reminding us God is not on trial…We are the ones that are finite and depraved and just maybe our lense by which we see and think about God is blurred, if not distorted at times. We get our very definition of Just from who God is…God did not give job the kind of answers about evil and suffering that we expect…instead chapter after chapter God reminded Job who is the creator and thus Judge.
This was not that different of a response than SOME (again, some) of what Bell received.
After watching Chan’s video, his argument seems to be “None of us can really know God, so everybody should just agree with me about what He’s like”. At best his argument is nihilistic, and he doesn’t seem to realize that it is a two edged sword, one able to be used against the arguments he uses as well. He denigrates reason and exalts scripture, but we understand scripture only through using our reason. Finally, his insistence that we should only believe what the Bible says strongly implies that he doesn’t think those who disagree with him believe what the Bible says, even though some of them undoubtedly read and study it at least as much as he does. Overall, very weak, while we do always need to keep in mind that God is the wholly “other”, this fact does not help either side in a debate.
(Also, reading apocalyptic literature “literally”, really?)
Chan’s defence of the eternal conscious torture of the vast majority of God-created humanity is predictable and expected. Evangelicals will fight like hell to defend the concept of hell against the likes of Rob Bell. Their main argument can be summed up in these words, “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”
Hey all, I’ll start at the beginning (1-10)
(2) Ryan. Seems a worthy thing to discuss don’t you think?
(5) rjs. Love this thought. Seems we *could* use Isaiah 55 to justify any horrendous thing we thought God wanted us to do. I suppose one could argue that though the rest of Isaiah 55 isn’t about Hell, the principle holds. Yet, as with Chan, this means you are going to have to agnostic on many things about God.
(6) Randy. I think this is right. I think Chan’s argument could be turned around. There is for example a lot being said about who God is and what God does in that ad, and given the way Chan is using the terms could be considered “submitting” God to his own reasoning.
(7) Susan. Very well put. Bell said something along the same lines, that he was not willing to die on the hill of his view of hell, but willing to die on the hill of open frank discussion about hell.
(8) David. I agree that’s what he is saying. But everyone in the debate is saying the Bible is authoritative. His argument moves into suggesting things we can and cannot know about God, the nature of God’s perspective on justice, and what kinds of arguments are worth voicing. These are interpretations of the Bible at best and worthy of our critique.
(9) It’s different cause I am discussing what is clearly stated on the screen alone. I am commenting only on the argument given. That is a good thing don’t you think. Would you disagree with (1) we need to rationally wrestle with our views about who God is and what he does, and to fail to do so is sloth?
(10) (and (9) again kinda). It seems to me, Bell doesn’t really give arguments in his video. He gives a lot of questions. Chan however does give some answers to really important questions. Those answers are worthy of our consideration. They might be persuasive, ya? We might watch Chan’s video and say, “I had never thought about that before. I now am satisfied.” Because there is substance there. And substance—on the flip side—can be critically assessed.
Metaphorical or not, we have to admit that Jesus’ sayings introduce the concept of ECT. There has to be a good reason why Jesus taught this way. We cannot escape the high stakes involved in entering or not entering the kingdom of God made possible by Jesus. If the kingdom of God deals in eternal realities, then what other concepts would we expect? Spouting “love wins” does not in any way lessen Chan’s challenge to us to get our hearts and minds wrapped around the concept of hell as best we can with the revelation we have. I think Paul was confessing something tremendously horrendous and loving at the same time in Romans 9:1-4. Eternal life, eternal death–somehow these realities factored into the missional and courageous expansion of the early church. We cannot lamely blame the religious art of the Middle Ages for the idea of ECT.
@Scot McKnight,
You say that Jeff’s words are charitable. I would agree with you on this point. However, I think it is much easier to find charity in cautious words you agree with rather than in cautious words you disagree with. For instance, his post here is much more charitable than “Farewell Rob Bell,” is it not? Or are they? Is charity determined by tone or truth? Obviously, Jeff has presented a philosophical point and not a direct attack on anything that has been read. That being said, it is a moving of the goalpost in a way. If we “move the argument to this plane” then people will avoid the hard fact that we’re no longer arguing the same way or even about the same thing. This is not to say there is no overlap between the discipline of philosophy and the discipline of theology, but it is to say they are different enterprises, theology often making philosophy subservient to its own causes, not the other way around.
But, the fact is, the major problem with Christian publishing is that you already know where its going based on personality of the author, publisher, previous writings, etc. As a reviewer of Christian literature–both fiction and non-fiction–it is very easy to figure out where this or that author stands pretty quickly. These video previews only help to “build controversy” or “get people talking” about things we already know. As much as we hate labels, we know that Chan comes from a more Reformed evangelical background. That comes loaded with expectations and you know that he is going to hold the line in regards to a traditional interpretation of the doctrine of hell. Bell, while operating in the Reformed enclave of Grandville, MI, is more of the emergent/missional (“liberal”) school of thought that I think many of the commenters here seem to lean towards. This essentially makes conversation nearly impossible. The former party holds that monologue not dialogue is paramount and that we stand BENEATH Scripture’s authority. The latter party holds that dialogue not monologue is paramount and agree with the statement that “post-nineteenth century liberals in the Protestant churches think that human reason is either equal to or supersedes the ancient foundational texts of the Christian church, which is what the Bible claims to be.” (Catherwood, THE EVANGELICALS, 17). These are, of course, sweeping generalizations, but not so sweeping as to be easily dismissed.
The bottom line of what I am trying to get at is that this post isn’t necessarily “charitable” so much as it is a thoughtful “shot across the bow.” I’ve spoken with Jeff, so I know his character to a degree. I know he has a pastoral heart, just like Chan. But, when you come from vastly different schools of theological interpretation, your pastoral heart is inevitably going to come from that place, also. Even Chan’s video is a subtle response to Bell’s video and book, a gentle rebuke if you will. And this is where I think Biblical language must come into play. We are in a conversation but all conversations must eventually come to a close. There comes a time to correct erring thought and rebuke. This is not to say that we should not keep talking about different tenets of the faith. But, even the early church realized it was important to come to a consensus about matters of faith and practice. This walk DOES, in fact, become problematic if brothers and sisters do not have unity of belief. A person who does not believe in hell can certainly work side by side with a person who does to help victims of a disaster. But, they cannot work side by side long term, because they’re ultimately going to tell two contradictory stories to the person who eventually asks, “What happens to me when I die?” or “Who is Jesus and how can I know him?” or “What must I do to inherit eternal life?”
This response places philosophy above theology. Chan’s entire outlook is one of theology standing above philosophy. When you switch the two, communication breaks down. I think that’s what is happening here to a degree. It’s a nice discussion, but it’s the difference of discussing The Detroit Red Wings (hockey) and The Detroit Tigers (baseball). They’re both sports, but they’re vastly different.
Blessings
C.E. Moore
http://www.CogitoCredo.com
Twitter.com/CogitoCredo
We could most likely blame Zoroastrian influence as well (in response to #48′s concluding remark).
I would direct anyone wishing to hash out “justice” to George MacDonald’s treatment of it in his “Unspoken Sermons” series. Most likely Chan will find that at the end of the day, he still doesn’t have his watch…
Darrell #33 – Appealing to human emotion vs expressing human emotion are two different things my friend. We are emotional creatures. After all, Jeremiah was a weeping prophet and Jesus wept. It’s inevitable that some human emotion will occur in any discussion regarding the eternal fate of mankind. Be careful not to judge too quickly.
(13) Alan. It seems to me a pre-emptive attack would be criticizing what is not yet said. Chan’s video is in the can, processed, and online, friend. It could stand alone as a worthy argument don’t you think? As such, let’s mark it down as an argument. It is 9 minutes long. He is actually saying something. Of course his book will develop these thoughts, but I assume he thinks he’s making valid, worthy points here. As such, let’s talk…
(14) Joe. I think we could go further and say that if we can’t understand God’s character at all, we can’t call him good, just or loving.
(16) Dru . I think this is great pushback. On #2, “belief” in my mind does mean “following” or “devotion” not affirmation of existence. If a wholly-evil god exists than I think it would (by definition) be good to reject that being, his claims , priorities, and work. I would believe in him like I believe in the devil—it’s a fact in the inventory of my universe, but in no way affects how I behave. Now—personally—I am presently wrestling with whether or not I would “believe” in the Biblical God if in fact I thought the Biblical God was initiating and would sustain eternal conscious torment for billions of human souls. At one point in my life this moved me away from Christian belief. Now, I think I would still believe because I find Jesus trustworthy, but it would affect how I saw God’s character and priorities in a very negative way. (Thankfully for me, I think the Bible clearly teaches that hell is a place where the soul of the damned is destroyed).
On #3, I think there might be a way to understand “justice” with more depth (“just-er”), but justice would need to become more clear, more just, not less like what we mean by “justice.”
(17). Brianmpei. I love the move here to suggesting that there are other metaphors for our cognitive position in regard to God—children, (and we might likewise include) fellow-workers, co-heirs, etc. Well played!
(19) Chris. I fully plan on going down that road. Peace.
John (48),
I think you are right here. Jesus himself (and Paul) paint pictures of what happens to those who do not enter God’s kingdom (or are tossed out), and those pictures are intentionally horrific. ECT is one very plausible (if not most obvious) inference from those pictures.
I, for one, though, hope that Chan doesn’t end up defending ECT as some kind of certainty. We’ll have to see, but I’m not encouraged by the comment above that says that the school he helped found has ECT in their statement of faith. I think the evidence is certainly there for reasonable people to believe in ECT. I don’t think the evidence justifies the level of certainty that I would hope would be required to put it in a statement of faith for an institution of learning.
Thanks for the article Jeff! On Point 1, I think you’re missing the point. It’s not Chan’s claim at all. Rather, it seems to me Chan is simply making the claim that our rationality is limited compared to God’s. Not that we are to be unreasonable or nonrational.
“In contrast to Chan’s claim, we need to rationally wrestle with our views about who God is and what he does, and to fail to do so is sloth.”
Fantastic post! I had never heard that Lewis quote before. It definitely helps me to read Job in a new light that I hadn’t previously considered.
I would affirm the points Jeff made in this post. I think they are excellent. I still would maintain that Chan has a valid point when he wants to strive to allow God’s revelation to inform his understanding of justice. Of course it shouldn’t happen in a dismissal of our own limited understanding of what justice looks like or exalting God beyond the realm of reason. ANYTHING could be justified that way, even the most immoral and horrendous acts. At the same time, we gotta admit that some very common notions of justice are turned upside down by the Scriptures. Our usual focus frames justice in terms of fair reward and fair punishment. It seems to me that the redemptive justice of God often subverts this kind of thinking. it doesn’t make it UNreasonable but also doesn’t subject God to a trial where He has to be evaluated by the definitions of terms that WE decide are appropriate.
Hmmm, interesting post. To Jeff’s premises:
1. How is studying the Scriptures to see what is taught about hell sloth? I would say using human beings’ quotes as your basis of truth might be more on the sloth side of things. I know you state that everyone is “claiming the Bible’s authority” but Bell did so without any reference point to his interpretations. It actually seemed, well, slothful.
2. I kind of understand your second point, but there is still not the presupposition of Scripture. Scripture doesn’t say God tortures 3 year olds for pleasure. But it does say that those whose names are not written in the Lamb’s book of life will suffer eternal punishment (as they will also continue to go on sinning for eternity).
3. Justice is absolutely the same for God and us. But God gets to define it, not us. If you have children, do they get to define what is just in your home or do you?
I thought the video was perfectly fair in saying, “Hold on. Let’s take a look at Scripture and talk more.” I feel like this whole post is a “Here’s a dose of your own medicine but done in a ‘nicer’ way” that just seems to fall short.
Somehow this post makes me feel like we are creating controversy out of something that is not.
Guess that’s what philosophers are supposed to do though- create doubt. As in: “Everyone who doubts is a philosopher.”
(Comments on 21-30)
(21) Darrell. If you actually thought the God of the Bible was wicked, would you submit?
(22) Adam. I think that expose the inconsistency here: (1) we cant afford to be wrong and (2) we can’t know because we are just clay-lumps, is exactly right. You have to pick one or the other.
(23) John. (1) It seems what the Bible says isn’t at issue. How what the Bible says *should be interpreted* is what is at issue and this will require us to employ something that is not the Bible to establish how the Bible will be read. Otherwise we will have no starting point. We need to select glasses by which we read the Bible that simply cannot be given by the Bible itself. It seems “reason” is a good place to start. (2) The claim some embrace is, “I couldn’t believe in a God who establishes eternal conscious torment”. The question then is, is this the best way to understand hell? Or secondly is this the best way to understand God (if God exists)? Many Christians are asking the first question, not the latter. (3) You do need to defend the justice of eternal conscious torment to Christians because eternal conscious torment, on the face of it constitutes a great reason for rejecting their own Christianity. We need reasons to trust God. The traditional view of hell makes God untrustworthy in the eyes of many of us, and we need an answer if we are to hold it. (4) I think this argument is flawed. Consider the following argument that uses the same form. If I sin against the state of Colorado by not paying taxes, and sin against the US government by not paying taxes, my sin against the US is not “bigger” because the US government is bigger. Just because God is “infinite” does not mean our sins are therefore “infinite.” The weigfht, power, worthiness of the one sinned against, doesn not make the sin itself more or less potent. (a) If our senses are fundamentally flawed because of sin than of course all readings of the bible, experiences of grace, statements of faith are likewise flawed and we can’t trust anything. (b) re-read pascal here. He’s not going where you are going. Much Love John.
(24) Chad. Exactly. Lots of footnotes in Love Wins.
(25) Scot. It seems that Chan is using this passage to advocate an agnosticism about God’s priorities, methods, and means of judging. I agree with humility in Theological discourse. But doesn’t he step too far?
(I have a meeting and will hit comments 30 and on between 1:30-2:30 MST)
I find it very interesting that, in demanding that God be just, we never question the existence of heaven.
If ECT is unjust, so’s ECJ (Eternal Conscious Joy). Isn’t it?
Or maybe we’d better get out definition of justice more in line with God’s and less in line with a modern definition of “everyone gets exactly what they deserve.” The Gospel does not violate God’s justice. “The just shall live by faith,” remember?
#44/54/57—Yes!!
It seems like this response was a preemptive shot across the bow of what he thinks Chan is trying to say. I hate to say Jeff misunderstood, but it seems like this whole post is replying to statments taken the wrong way, whereas, we can easily see what Chan was trying to say about US having to play by God’s rules, not the other way around.
Clarification on my first point:
I’m just saying that the problem with so many of these comments and your post is that they are void of biblical references and well done hermeneutics. Why are there not biblical passages that affirm the philosophical arguments being made if they are truth to be used in that manner?
Take the Isaiah 55 passage for example (the only passage discussed? Why isn’t the Revelation passage being discussed?). I don’t think Chan would disagree that God’s love and mercy are beyond our thoughts and ways. But so is his justice and wrath. “I will have mercy on whom and I will have mercy and compassion on whom I will have compassion.” (Exodus 33 and Romans 9) The point is humanity does not get to determine these things. Isn’t that what God was saying to Job chapter after chapter after chapter? To try and twist a few interpretations based on uncredited research that does not jive with the whole counsel of God seems to be the slothful position.
Jeff, I think Chan’s point is a humility that says “That’s what it says; I trust God; it doesn’t make sense to me; I trust God anyway.” I don’t think he wants that clay comment to go in the direction of epistemology, but it can be used that way.
Jeff Cook #58-
“Exactly. Lots of footnotes in Love Wins.”
Really? The lack of footnotes has been one of the criticisms about the book.
Hopefully Chan will do more footnoting than Bell
#64
I see what you’re saying.
The issue for me, at least, is that if God is a cruel monster who tortures people for eternity, I may have to play by his rules but I am not going to love him.
Some people will worship a tyrant in order to get favorable treatment from that tyrant. Others will not. Which is the more principled stand?
To use the parent / child analogy, if I tell my daughter it is wrong for her to hit her classmates but it is just and right for me to hit her mom, my daughter *should* question my sense of justice and my fitness as a parent.
I knew Chan was gonna get grief for this video. I just figured that the opening salvo would be from the Bell critics he scolded. Silly me.
“(1) In contrast to Chan’s claim…”
Since I can’t speak for Chan, I can only assert what I believe and what I think Chan is saying, and it’s about 179 degrees from what you state definitely that Chan is saying. The point is not that we should not use our God-given reason or that we should not wrestle with God. The point is the arrogance that says definitively that we are going to get it before we have even entered the ring. A little reasoning, a little wrestling, eh, I’ve got this stuff down. Baloney!
Further, Chan *does* specifically appeal to our reason when he says that he wants to present the points in the Bible and then “let you decide; not sway you”. This is in direct contrast with 99% of the Bell criticism out there.
“(2) There’s a real problem with criticizing all claims that begin with, ‘I wouldn’t believe in a God who would…’”
Chan says “When we begin an argument with ‘I wouldn’t believe…’” That “begin” word is vital to his statement. Too many people *begin* the argument (where one generally lays out one’s “given’s”) with “I wouldn’t believe…” In other words, their *primary* source of evidence is their own reason, and if what they find in the Bible syncs with that, well, groovy.
“(3) The idea of “justice” must be the same for God and for us”
Really? I won’t appeal to the Isaiah passage, since it’s already been dismissed as inapplicable — and as we all know, every verse in the Bible only has one application (insert eye roll here). But I don’t need Isaiah 55 to come to the conclusion that I can’t fit God’s brain inside mine.
Now I’m wondering whether Jeff Cook was being sarcastic in his #58 response to Chad, about the footnotes in Love Wins – or if he got a different version than the widely-published one that is completely sans notes.
—umm, I meant to say “#63–I see what you’re saying,” Scot.
#unnecessarycorrection
If you believe what Francis Chan is saying, and what the Bible says, that God’s way are higher than our ways, then no amount of philosophical explanation can possibly tell us what God is actually capable of doing because our human philosophy is flawed and incomplete. For example, on Jeff’s third critique he says that “The idea of “justice” must be the same for God and for us, otherwise the term lacks linguistic value”. Here is 1 Corinthians 13:12 “Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.” To me, our justice may just be a piece of what God’s justice is. We may have a little bit. But we don’t have it all, nor do we know all that we need to know to make correct judgments, which is why we aren’t the final judge. I understand what he is saying, about justice lacking linguistic value if it isn’t the same, but once again he is lowering God’s sense of justice to our meager philosophical understanding.
My point is this: In some way Cook did the exact same thing Bell did – he started evaluating what God can do based on what we believe to be true. This is exactly what Chan is speaking out against. Who are we, that we should dare to lower God to our standards?
Now, I don’t mind the extra thoughts on this struggle between heaven and hell. It is good to think through. And I always appreciate Scot’s blog posts for this reason. Thanks for sharing!
What does this mean: “What those who defend the traditional view of hell must do is showcase why a good God *could* think unending conscious torment is the best option for the damned” (emphasis mine). I hope this means “for dealing with the damned” rather than “for the benefit of the damned.” But I’m not sure.
Jeff, on the justice of hell, you ought to get a copy of Oliver Crisp’s article “Divine Retribution: A Defence,” Sophia 42.2 (2003), 35–52. If nothing else, it’s a philosophical defense and so you might like it’s method.
It strike me as a touch over-confident and perhaps even naive to say, “There is no state of affairs in which it is appropriate to incarcerate a human being in a state of eternal, conscious torment.” It seems to me that defendants rarely make good jurors in their own trials.
Critics of eternal conscious punishment could save themselves a lot of trouble if they would simply say, “We don’t think sin is infinitely serious” rather than always saying, “We don’t think it’s right to punish someone for eternity.” Let’s be clear, there is only injustice in the traditional view of hell if the punishment does not fit the crime. And so the question is, what is the crime? Of course, the next step is to ask, how Holy is God really? As H. Richard Niebuhr admitted about Jonathan Edwards, “We will concede perhaps that man is as wicked as Edwards said. What we do not know — or do not yet know — is that God is as holy as Edwards knew him to be.”
And so we might frame the question this way: will we concede that man really is as wicked as the Bible says and will we concede that God is as holy as the Bible says?
Let’s at least admit that if eternal conscious punishment is no more and no less than perfectly just, we are much more wicked and God is much more holy than we tend to think.
Lex Talionis has already done the job of “lowering” God…It is not “higher” for man to believe God will violate even that (meaning infinite punishment for finite sin) and call it “justice.”
My heart has gone beyond man’s text. No looking back for me (and I make no apologies for it).
@Jeff (#59): “The weight, power, worthiness of the one sinned against, doesn’t make the sin itself more or less potent.” Perhaps not in a democracy. But God is a monarch not an elected president. But then, even in our democratic society, we distinguish between threatening the president and threatening the guy down the street.
In any case, surely the value of the offended party contributes to the seriousness of the offense. If I hack off a tree branch nobody gets worked up. But if I hack off my wife’s left arm people start to take notice. The nature and value of the offended party most certainly do affect the severity of the offense. And in God’s case he is of a different nature and value than us. So yes, offending the Creator is rightfully both qualitatively and quantitatively different than offending a creature.
The offensiveness of sinning against God is tied very closely in Scripture to the very god-ness of God. Note carefully that David found his sin against God the most serious part of his affair with Bathsheba. In Ps 51:4 he prays “Against you and you only have I sinned.” David most certainly thought it was more serious to offend God than to offend Uriah’s family. Likewise, immediately after telling Potiphar’s wife about her husband’s prerogatives, Joseph adds “How then can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?” (Gen 39:9). Sin is always first against God before it is anything else. This is where modern philosophy desperately needs to be informed by good theology.
Perhaps where many of us are disagreeing with each other is whether or not our sin is really “finite.” Finite in years, sure, but finite in significance? What if sinning against an infinite God is infinitely wicked, and we just underestimate it? We don’t think it’s all that bad.
Peter G., this is a brilliant line! “Defendants rarely make good jurors in their own trials.”
“What if sinning against an infinite God is infinitely wicked, and we just underestimate it?”
Lets apply this logic to pork. If sin is infinitely wicked, I would suspect that it would never be OK to eat pork, correct?
#71 Peter G.,
You say, “Let’s at least admit that if eternal conscious punishment is no more and no less than perfectly just, we are much more wicked and God is much more holy than we tend to think.”
I am not sure exactly where you are coming from, but it sounds like you make God out to be very angry with everyone because he is soo Holy and we are soooooo sinfull. I agree that God hates sin, but does he hate the sinner? Didn’t Christ die for the ‘whole world’-everyone? Or did God just send his son to die for a select few? Just because God is sooo Holy does not mean that God loves people any less due to their sins. There are plenty of Christians who committ terrible sins right? God is the one who came to dwell with us and why would he be willing to do that if he can’t handle being around sin? Hell seems to be more of thing we choose based on if we choose that kind of life now. We live into the reallity that will come; and if someone wants to live a life apart from God now they should expect consequences, even if we are not sure exactly what that will look like.
Wow. This has really stirred up the discussion! Personally I find myself on the side of Wright in the discussion: There is something there that is Hell–it’s hard to get away from it in the text. There are people who will consciously choose to reject God and God will respect their choices. This is very different from a vindictive ogre smashing helpless creatures.
However, this does not answer the question of the nature of Hell. Is it ECT or something else?
I don’t know who half-jokingly suggested that Heaven is also Hell. After all, the last place a person who has rejected God would want to be is in his presence! Now that would be an interesting proposition, wouldn’t it?
The problem I have with the C.S. Lewis “loophole” (as much as I like Lewis) is that it is no more faithful to the text than a UR position (or an ECT position, for that matter). It’s benefit for most evangelicals is that it gives them an “out” – they don’t to make God into a monster, because it boils down to human free will: God doesn’t send anyone to hell, we choose it ourselves.
I’ll put my faith in God’s will over my will any day.
Chad #79,
How is this a ‘loophole’. Every other occurence in life has meant a consequence of some sort. Why shouldn’t there be some sort of consequence for a life lived? I am not advocating ECT, but it seems there has to be something there to the whole Hell thing-even if it is something different than what we are thinking of it as. If we choose to reject God and live into a reallity that we do whatever we like is God going to look the other way? I believe strongly that God has greater mercy than we imagine, but I won’t diminish that every act has a consequence here and now and for the life to come. Christ dying for the whole world gave an opportunity for all to receive this forgiveness that was for-given—given in advance of our response. But even when I for-give a person the weight is off my shoulder, but if they do not accept my forgiveness that is their perogative. It does not negate I forgave them, it is only they have chosen to reject that which I gave. It is a two way process, not one sided right?
No, I don’t believe God will “look the other way.” I believe God will look even HARDER and more INTENTLY at the one running the other way.
He’s the shepherd that keeps looking, not the absent-tee father.
Chad 81,
My point wasn’t so much that God will need to ‘look the other way’, it was that forgiveness is something someone was wronged offers. If the person who has done the wrong rejects the forgiveness offered then that person has made their choice. The other person still forgave them, and their rejection does not negate that, but the fact is that unless that person accepts it they are still under the weight of the wrong. My point is it has to be a two way street because forgiveness is something that is relational and requires a person accept it in order for it to be lived out; Otherwise you are left with a forgiver and a denyer. Do you agree with this?
Kaleb,
I agree on a human level, sure.
But to quote Francis Chan (and Isaiah), Gods ways are higher than our ways
Jeff, regarding your assertion: “The idea of ‘justice’ must be the same for God and for us, otherwise the term lacks linguistic value,” I would assert that a great many attributes of God are radically different than our cultural definitions of them. God’s jealousy is radically different than ours. God’s love (see 1 Cor. 13) is radically different than ours. Our courts let murderers and rapists go free on technicalities. In some primitive cultures, violent conquest, deception, and betrayal are supreme virtues. Their definition of justice has no remote resemblance to the God of the Bible’s definition. Does that linguistic gap give them an excuse, or exempt them from God’s perfect justice? I don’t believe so. People today view themselves as alive, while God says they are dead (Eph. 2:1). What greater linguistic gap is there than that?
Also, I have heard very reasonable, cogent arguments regarding why a good God *could* think unending conscious torment is the best option for the damned. But it is only entertained by those who have embraced a God-centric, rather than anthropocentric view of the universe.
Our culture has largely created a god in its own image, radically different from the God revealed in Scripture. God condemns this: “You thought I was just like you” (Psalm 50:21). I, too, appreciate the debate, but I’m compelled to support Chan’s cautions and concerns in this matter.
Chad,
Well played sir… I agree.
I hope God’s mercy is bigger than my own too. I was just trying to point out that is what we are given to expereince in relationships when we are wronged or in the wrong. If God operates in a way outside of what God gave us to expereince in relationships that will be God’s choice, and we will have no clue. I hope for something more, but it goes against my expereince as a forgiver and being forgiven; but we can still hope for more.
Excellent response to Chan’s ad, Jeff! I agree with you entirely. I would also add that, following Chan’s reasoning and call to deep humility, he should be questioning his certainty that everything in the Bible is God’s own, literal, infallible word. Otherwise, Chan is making God’s agency a subset of human belief.
Actually, Kaleb, I would push back on the idea that it goes against our experience, or that God is something wholly different.
I have witnessed marriages that were dead due to adultery and deceit – love completely gone – turned around because of the sacrifice of one party. I believe God has all eternity to woo back even those who are the most obstinate and rebellious and is far better at courting his creation than even a sinful, human husband or wife who sacrifices everything to win back their spouse.
my point of the Lewis Loophole is that it isn’t Scriptural. If there is a hell, then Scripture is quite clear that God sends/casts the offender into it. It’s not something willfully and freely chosen. Scripture gives no hint of a God wringing his hands at Judgment asking the judged, “Is that your final answer?”
Even the sacrifice of an adulterous husband/wife to win back a marriage has a response. It may start one sided, but the act is so compelling that the other is drawn in. I agree that God is much more compelling than most make God out to be and the same for the Gospel. It is the ultimate act that compells us to respond in wanting to know more of this God. That doesn’t change the fact a response has to happen from the other party to make it work or else there would still be a failed marriage.
On the ‘loophole’ I would say I agree with your representation. Although I would add, like you had earlier on your blog, that God does not want anyone to perish. So it is not God’s will for anyone to get ‘hell’. If it is not God’s will then I would assume that we stand in the way of that will, not God.
“Our courts let murderers and rapists go free on technicalities.”
Our courts regularly convict the innocent. Our courts have no ability to raise the dead.
“But it is only entertained by those who have embraced a God-centric, rather than anthropocentric view of the universe.”
That’s subjective judgment. Who decides what is God-centered, and anthropocentric? I would say that any definition of God as ego-centric is already anthropocentric. Of course an ego-centric entity would require/need appeasement, worship, recognition, etc.
And again I’ll use my standard argument: Isn’t stating that someone will be in heaven without absolute knowledge just as judgmental as stating that somebody will be in hell? Isn’t that putting ourselves in the place of God? Why is it graceful and Christlike to preach people into heaven, but disgraceful and “mean” to say that a person is in hell?
It’s almost as if you’re saying that we should not judge by appearances, but judge with a right judgment, as opposed to not judging at all..but I think that applies to who will be in hell and who will be in heaven equally.
I’ll also ask a question: Do you personally believe that you are deserving of eternal conscious torment without the intervening love and grace of God? I think your answer to that question will make a definitive statement on this matter.
I agree with you about the reconciliation part. That’s why I don’t think God will “force” anyone into heaven. Through whatever redemptive process/judgment God has in store for us, there will come a point where every knee and tongue confess (willingly and joyfully) that Christ is Lord.
Yes, we, not God, stand in the way – but more than that, it’s sin. Sin will be taken care of completely. I believe that once all the obstacles to grace are erased, our only response will be like that of Thomas: “My Lord and my God.”
“Who decides what is God-centered, and anthropocentric? I would say that any definition of God as ego-centric is already anthropocentric. Of course an ego-centric entity would require/need appeasement, worship, recognition, etc”
So there’s no difference between a perfect being demanding worship and a fallen, marred, iniquitous human being demanding worship? The difference between God asking me to worship Him and, say, a human asking me to worship Him is that a human will not ultimately satisfy my heart’s longing. If God is truly the reason for our being, then the most loving, self-sacrificial thing He could do would be to open a way into relationship with Him, and require us to engage in the true path to joy and fulfillment. To tell his Sons that worshiping another god is just as good a path to ultimate joy would be hateful, not loving.
For a human to demand that I worship him as the true path to happiness and joy, it would take a tremendous sinful ego. For God to demand the same is the most loving act in the universe.
The fact that you pit human demands for worship against God’s demand tells me that you start the equation with humanity, not with God.
When we are admonished to give without expecting return, to give secretly, to pray secretly, to LOVE those who don’t love us back; does this begin to clue us into the character of God?
Jesus asks us to be perfect, as His Father is perfect (and tells us how to do it). We are to be imitators of God (according to scripture). Jesus has told us that by loving others (humans) we ARE, in fact, loving Him. It’s not so bad to be a human…
I’m sure most people in this discussion would agree that God’s justice is higher and greater and purer than anything we can conceive (as has been repeatedly asserted).
The problem comes if we suggest that the word “justice” when applied to God may mean what we would normally describe as “injustice” or “cruelty.” Then we’ve entered a strange, insane, amoral world where words have no meaning and we may as well just shut up. There has to be some correlation between out limited (but God-given) sense of justice, and God’s perfect expression of justice. Otherwise we can’t think or talk about God at all – and we certainly can’t love him.
The movie THE RAPTURE with Mimi Rogers deals with the question of whether one can or should love a God who acts contrary to what one believes is right.
Caveat: Some nudity and adult themes.
“Jesus has told us that by loving others (humans) we ARE, in fact, loving Him.”
Correction: Jesus has told us that by loving other Believers we are, in fact loving Him. Just as Paul was persecuting “Him” when he was persecuting the early Believers. Matthew 25:31-46 is a very specific word to the family of Believers. Not that it takes away from Jesus’ character, but it throws a wrench in a lot of my friends’ conceptions of “the least of these”.
If we can’t handle the tension between being “fallen” and the imago dei, then we’re going to come up with some whacky interpretations. That’s the primary issue I see on this blog…progressives overemphasize the image of God and reduce the sin-nature, conservatives overemphasize sin and reduce the image. Embrace the tension, don’t exploit it!
“When we are admonished to give without expecting return, to give secretly, to pray secretly, to LOVE those who don’t love us back; does this begin to clue us into the character of God?”
Yes. He is perfect and the answer to everything. But it would take a tremendous ego to assume that we were fully capable of living out the Sermon on the Mount in this lifetime.
There’s more in the admonition to “be perfect” than loving others too. Read the entire Sermon on the Mount as the lead-up to that command. How are we doing?
@Kaleb (#77), yes, God does hate sinners. “The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers” (Psalm 5:5). “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him” (John 3:36). It’s often too simplistic to say that God hates the sin but loves the sinner. If God can so separate sin from sinner, then we would not have needed a personal Mediator in Jesus Christ.
Since this goes against a very common cliche, it needs more explanation than I can give here, so I would simply refer you here for some more help.
(Response to CPM): An anthropocentric worldview would (consciously or unconsciously) place man’s personal well-being as the highest priority in the universe. A God-centered worldview would (at minimum) allow for the possibility that God could have a different, highest priority (such as the praise of the glory of His grace in the doctrine of election), which is actually explicitly stated in Ephesians 1:6, 12, and 14.
Regarding your implied dislike of a supposed ego-centric God, this quote should suffice: “For God to fail or refuse to value Himself preeminently would implicate Him in the sin of idolatry. Idolatry is honoring anyone or anything as god, instead of God. If God were ever to act in such a way that He did not seek His own glory, He would be saying that something more valuable than Himself exists, and that is a lie. Worse still, it is idolatrous.” – Sam Storms
Peter G. #98,
I don’t think God hates anyone as you seem to think. Yes, God does hate it when God’s creation persist in sin and lets that define them; instead of letting the Living God define them. I think you have all sorts of problems you will run into when you start saying that God hates sinners; including a ton of Biblical passages if we want to start quoting them back and forth to one another. That God ‘so loved the world’ would be a good start. There was no univerisal atonement up to that point available for all, yet God still seemed to love all of us, including the sinner. What you are saying flies directly in the face of everything Jesus taught- especially the whole loving your enemey thing! Was Jesus just teaching us to love our enemey without taking His own advice?
The glory of God would be characterized in love, God is love. On that, I hang my hat…
Where does the idea that God is love come from?
1) Job’s confession is that “Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know.” This sounds a lot more like Francis Chan than it does C.S. Lewis.
2) Obviously we are supposed to be rational, test the spirits, etc… Chan’s point isn’t that we should just believe whatever about God; his point is that we should allow God’s self-disclosure through revelation to shape our understanding of justice and love and God, even above our own intuitions.
3) This argument could lead down a long rabbit trail on the nature of God’s justice. But really it just begs the question here by asserting that we should trust our own intuitions of justice above the Bible.
The center of my being.
To CPM: “Lets apply this logic to pork. If sin is infinitely wicked, I would suspect that it would never be OK to eat pork, correct?”
I’m certain you’re joking. If not, I think you missed my point. I didn’t mean to suggest that a specific command (don’t eat pork) is infinite. I meant that the significance of sinning against an infinite God, and the consequences of of our sin, might by necessity be infinite. The point is that when we think God is unjust for ECT, perhaps we don’t understand the significance of our own sin. We’re saying, “Come on, God. We’re not that bad.”
I wonder if the Israelites said this when God used Babylon to burn down Jerusalem because they worshiped other gods. Using the logic of Love Wins, was the complete destruction of a city, such that mothers ate their own children (Lam. 4.10), appropriate for the crime? Does it seem over the top to us today? It does sort of to me. And yet, that’s clearly what the text says happened. Frightful thought. I conclude that the significance of sin is sometimes greater than I realize.
PaulE
“This argument could lead down a long rabbit trail on the nature of God’s justice. But really it just begs the question here by asserting that we should trust our own intuitions of justice above the Bible”
I’m assuming that Jeff Cook, like many people on this board, has an “evolutionary” view of God’s revelation in Scripture. This is generally based off of verses like Hebrews 1:3, and assumes that anything in the OT which seems to contradict Jesus’ character is not really a true picture of God. The unevolved desert barbarians (who still somehow managed to write incredibly intricate literary masterpieces) were merely applying their ANE views of the angry gods to the One True God.
This is very convenient, since it essentially assumes that Modern Western Culture is as “evolved” as culture can get, not to mention the fact that our intuitive sense of justice, while sometimes true and right, is completely unmarred by sin.
Then again, progressives tend to be a little bit confused about sin in the first place.
I’m feeling cranky and prickly right now, so I’ll stop.
I think that a big issue in this debate is one’s view of scripture. Are we to believe what scripture says? Are we to do what scripture says?
Saying that “I could never believe in a God that does this” in response to something revealed in God’s word is much different, in my mind, than saying “I could never believe in a God that does this” to something that is not stated in God’s word.
The challenge is is that there is clearly “something” called hell in the bible and it is not a good thing. Rejecting that idea is a different thing than rejecting the idea that God has fun torturing infants.
So while the statement “I could never believe in a God like that” can be helpful in some respects it can also be a way of denying something clearly taught in God’s word, which is not a good thing. Some people would say that about the idea that God became man and in the same breath reject God.
“The challenge is is that there is clearly “something” called hell in the bible and it is not a good thing.”
I would like to nuance this statement. I mean that it may not seem like a good thing to fallen human beings.
Luke 109,
How about the fact that we exist to begin with, or how about the fact that Scripture says God is Love, or the fact God ‘so loved the world’ that God sent Jesus, or the fact that there are rainbows, butterflies, sabbaths, sex, and penguins-because honestly who doesn’t love a penguin?
(31-40)
(33) Darrell. How do we avoid reading our assumptions into the text? That seems impossible to me, unless we trade up our assumptions. I do think consistency and use of the entirety of scripture is the goal.
(35) Kaleb. I think the response would be that there are statements about a decisive judgment that has everlasting effects. Do you have a response to those passages?
(37, 38) Brian and Susan. Good comments.
(39) Ryan. I think Chan is arguing that even when God is displayed as doing things that are on the face of things immoral, we should step in line and still trust.
You can say, I won’t believe in that God if you hold to the following 3 premises. (1) God is perfectly good. (2) A perfectly good being doesn’t create states of Eternal conscious torment. (3) God exists. If these 3 premises are true, the conclusion is: A God who creates a state of eternal conscious torment doesn’t exist.
When one says, “Well, I wouldn’t believe in a God who would… create a state of eternal conscious torment.” They are affirming the argument above and the truth of all its premises.
I would love anyone’s response to this. It seems an important argument to me.
“How about the fact that we exist to begin with, or how about the fact that Scripture says God is Love, or the fact God ’so loved the world’ that God sent Jesus, or the fact that there are rainbows, butterflies, sabbaths, sex, and penguins-because honestly who doesn’t love a penguin?”
Ah, those are all great reasons…but existence doesn’t in and of itself indicate love. For some people it would be an indication that the universe is implacable and meaningless.
Scripture says God is love, but we seem to be very confused about what exactly the authority of Scripture means, so why take that as any kind of definitive statement?
How do we know John 3:16 is authoritative by that token? Because it tweaks our heartstrings?
Rainbows are refracted light. Butterflies are insects that die in two days. Sabbath is a strange foreign word that means nothing, and it’s in the Old Testament, which is only authoritative where it confirms modern western sentiments.
Sex is an automatic urge that even dust mites engage in. No meaning there…and it causes more pain than it helps.
Penguins may be the only legitimate reason you’ve put on here.
My point is, there’s nothing inherently obvious about history or the universe that tells us “God is love”. There’s nothing in any other religion to point toward an all-loving, gracious God who is knowable in an intimate, sensory, marital fashion.
We have the Scriptures, and we can’t afford to chop them to pieces in search of a god who fits our modern ideals perfectly.
(CPM #101) Are you saying that there is no “glory of God” in His omniscience, omnipotence, holiness, humility, creation… or justice? Is His glory limited exclusively to His love? The Day of the Lord is the day when Jesus destroys the whole world by fire, and exterminates it’s sinners from it (Isaiah 13:9). Interestingly, Acts 2:20 calls that day “glorious”. Perhaps a larger hat rack is in order.
@ 97 and 102
You’re pressing a distinction between insiders and outsiders that isn’t upheld in the biblical witness when it comes to love. In Scripture, God repeatedly seeks out the outsider and welcomes them the way we do insiders (see Jonah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jesus, and Paul).
The idea, “God is love,” is verbatim from 1 John 4:16
Luke #111,
I am glad we agree at least on the validity of love based on penguins. To me you seem a little frustrated because we don’t all read Scripture in the same exact light as you. I believe in the authority of Scripture, but that does not mean your definition is my authority. It is not so much that Scripture does not hold weight, it is our understanding that does not always hold weight-even though many times it does. You can just write people off as progressives because they do not believe the exact same thing you were taught in Sunday school.
Perry @112,
some people think that “the day of the Lord” is when God, acting through human agents/soldiers, defeats the enemies of Israel, whether the Egyptians, Persians, Greeks or Romans. Some people, who try to read the Old Testament through the lenses of the Gospels, see “the day of the Lord” ultimately as the final defeat of all evil.
The OT is a Jewish book, with Jews writing their own history and commentary. Is it inspired? Certainly. But that inspiration doesn’t let us off the hook of seeking the interpretation that best comports with the NT, so that we don’t have to come to the (wrong) conclusion that there are different gods working in each sphere.
The place to begin, especially for those who claim a “high view of scripture,” is to realize that there’s a difference between the text of scripture and interpretation/s of that text. It seems to me that forgetting or denying that has led to loss of charity as well as false dichotomies. This seems obvious, but obviously it is not so obvious for some.
Otherwise, I don’t have a dog in this fight.
Dana
rjs (#5) Thanks for pointing out that Isaiah 55 describes how God’s ways differ from our ways. God is presented as being more merciful than we can imagine.
Dan (#44) I don’t agree that God is not on trial. On the contrary I see a strong thread in the Bible of God being on trial all the way from Genesis through Job and the Psalms to Revelation. Where is God? Can God be trusted? When will God come through for us? Instead of asking “Is there a God?”, we need to ask “Is this God worthy of our worship?”
K. Reux (#78) I totally agree with you here in considering the judgment through the lens of “God will respect their choices”. The main argument that ECT is justified, infinite punishment for infinite crime, relies on the concept of retributive justice, while I believe the Bible to a larger degree presents God’s justice as redemptive. I think this is a driving factor for the conflict between Jonah and God over the destiny of Niniveh. Here, God does not hold to Jonah’s standards of retributive justice. God is more merciful than Jonah can accept.
Perry P. (#112) What happens if you see the Day of the Lord through the lens of His love? It is glorious, not because of the punishment sinners get, but because the judgment leads to creation finally being restored to a state without evil and suffering.
113: “You’re pressing a distinction between insiders and outsiders that isn’t upheld in the biblical witness when it comes to love. In Scripture, God repeatedly seeks out the outsider and welcomes them the way we do insiders (see Jonah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jesus, and Paul).”
I agree partially. The distinction between insiders and outsiders is constant. The fact that all insiders were once outsiders is the thing that drives us to graceful interaction with “outsiders”. But God does make distinctions between those in Christ and those outside of Christ. His Covenant people and those outside the covenant were treated differently. The fact that the Covenant seemed to have somewhat permeable borders means that God’s conception of who could become an insider wasn’t definite. All were seemingly welcome. The first Hebrew, after all, was a Gentile technically, yes?
So there’s a difference between how God views people outside of His family prior to their becoming part of His family, and how we’re supposed to treat people outside of His family.
But there’s still a lot of “in and out” language regardless of how uncomfortable it makes us feel. There’s also no evidence in Scripture that God views all people as His children, in the sense that those indwelt by the Spirit are adopted by Him.
I was responding to a commenter who was making a blanket statement: God is love, and here’s why.
Matthew 25:31-46 is not talking about being nice to all people. It’s talking specifically to believers within the Christ’s “family”. Read the context.
“The idea, “God is love,” is verbatim from 1 John 4:16″
Yes, absolutely. But that statement is not said in a vaccuum. John says a ton about what that love looks like, and what it means for us.
On top of that, claiming that “God is love” affords authority to this passage. In that mindset, we need to afford authority to the rest of the Epistles. Then we need to afford authority to the Gospels. Then we need to afford authority to the Law and the Prophets, since Jesus apparently did. So, we’ll have to figure out how a God who is love can also be a God who kills people. Either the Scriptures are viewed through an evolutionary theological lens, or we don’t understand what it means to be loving quite as well as we think we do.
That was a long way of saying that I was meaning my questions specifically for the person I was addressing.
This is going to be great fodder for discussion. Our local ministerial association spent the last session touching on Love Wins – best conversation we’ve had in a long time. A lot of fun for all.
Luke,
I agree with you and others (see my comment at 53) that the same scriptures that tell us that God is love and many other wonderful, comforting things also give us various insights for what awaits those who do not put their trust in Christ.
That said, the case, from the scriptures, for ECT is not beyond legitimate exegetical questioning, IMO. Therefore, whatever extent we already use reason in discovering truth becomes greater as we make conclusions in this area. Is this how you see it, or is ECT the only “biblical” alternative in your mind?
“You can just write people off as progressives because they do not believe the exact same thing you were taught in Sunday school.”
Mr Bell, is that you?
Do you really think that my understanding of the Scripture has not changed from the time I was in Sunday School, assuming that I even attended Sunday School?
If that’s your understanding of everyone who interprets Scripture in a more traditional way, then I’m sorry. But it also means you need to read outside of your own system of thought as well.
I’m not upset that people aren’t reading Scripture the same way I do…we’re all ultimately doing Midrash here.
But there’s a difference between different interpretations and outright rejection. Near as I can tell, you’re not even attempting to deal with tension.
I’m more of the system of thought that says: “Let God be God and every man be a liar.” CS Lewis criticized those who put “God in the dock”. I believe that’s what so many Christians almost gleefully do. They’ll defend atheism passionately, declare the virtues of agnosticism, and then charge the God of the Bible with murder, egocentrism, and intolerance. What gives?
“Let God be God and every man be a liar.”
well, at least you have read some of Barth
read more of him!
@ 117
Is there a difference between “progressive revelation” and “evolutionary theology” in your mind? If not, and all verses are equally authoritative, how do we reconcile Jesus “you have heard it said” statements with the original commands they counter?
Jeff
Thanks for response.
‘It seems what the Bible says isn’t at issue. How what the Bible says *should be interpreted* is what is at issue and this will require us to employ something that is not the Bible to establish how the Bible will be read. Otherwise we will have no starting point. We need to select glasses by which we read the Bible that simply cannot be given by the Bible itself. It seems “reason” is a good place to start.’
Actually I think the issue is not interpretation but intent and predilection. I believe the Bible to be very clear in this matter. Clouded judgement (a reluctance to accept the obvious for other reasons) not clarity in text is the real issue.
‘The claim some embrace is, “I couldn’t believe in a God who establishes eternal conscious torment”. The question then is, is this the best way to understand hell? Or secondly is this the best way to understand God (if God exists)? Many Christians are asking the first question, not the latter.’
As to the first question, I regard ‘eternal conscious torment’ as inescapable not because I want to but because honesty with the text demands it (even after considering the counter arguments).
‘You do need to defend the justice of eternal conscious torment to Christians because eternal conscious torment, on the face of it constitutes a great reason for rejecting their own Christianity. We need reasons to trust God. The traditional view of hell makes God untrustworthy in the eyes of many of us, and we need an answer if we are to hold it.’
But that’s my point Jeff. If you do not trust in the God of eternal conscious torment you are not trusting in the God of the Bible. You may say I do not understand it, even that you struggle with it, but to say it makes God untrustworthy has gone far beyond any of the questions that godly saints asked. It is unbelief.
‘I think this argument is flawed. Consider the following argument that uses the same form. If I sin against the state of Colorado by not paying taxes, and sin against the US government by not paying taxes, my sin against the US is not “bigger” because the US government is bigger. Just because God is “infinite” does not mean our sins are therefore “infinite.” The weigfht, power, worthiness of the one sinned against, doesn not make the sin itself more or less potent.’
I disagree. Your sin is bigger if the authority against whom you rebel is bigger. Moreover, if this authority is self-evidently good then the rebellion is more wicked. If a child hits a friend it is bad, if he hits parent it is worse. The weight, power, worthiness of the one sinned against, DOES make the sin itself more or less potent.
‘If our senses are fundamentally flawed because of sin than of course all readings of the bible, experiences of grace, statements of faith are likewise flawed and we can’t trust anything.’
Now you are arguing for the sake of arguing. A completely postmodern relativism is nonesense. We are talking because we believe real communication is possible.
‘re-read pascal here. He’s not going where you are going.’
Perhaps not, though I am inclind to believe he is.
regards
Kaleb (#100), Psalm 5:5 does not say God hates it when people do evil. It says he hates evildoers.
Also, people are born defined by sin as David says in Ps 51:5, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.”
We sin because we are sinners we do not become sinners only after we persist in sin.
Our problem is deeper than mere behavior.
“read more of him”
Are you assuming that if I read Barth I would automatically agree with him? That’s not very subjective.
“Is there a difference between “progressive revelation” and “evolutionary theology” in your mind? If not, and all verses are equally authoritative, how do we reconcile Jesus “you have heard it said” statements with the original commands they counter?”
I understand that “authority” is a nuanced term. I’m a good seminarian. But I see a vast difference between saying that God chose to unveil different aspects of His covenantal faithfulness leading up to the Gospel, and saying that the “god” seen in the Old Testament is a man-made creation based on unevolved conceptions and ANE religious systems. That’s far too easy.
In regards to Jesus’ “you have heard it said” statements, I believe you’re seeing a correct interpretation of the Law, rather than an abolishing of it. If we apply the thought that Jesus is completely rewriting the Law, we can’t do anything with Matt. 5:43. Where in the Law does it say: “Love your neighbor and hate your enemy?” It seems as if Jesus is correcting false interpretations, as well as verifying the Spirit of the Law over and against the Letter. This would be clarified by 5:17-20, wherein Jesus sets up His “you have heard it said” statements by passionately defending the authority of the Law.
I’m all about wrestling with Scripture and interpreting it. I’m not about throwing parts I don’t agree with under the bus.
That’s my interpretation, anyway.
It’s not God who is in the dock, but rather the different interpretations, the Midrash you recognize, Luke. It’s actually an acknowledgement that our sense of justice is indeed marred by sin, and perhaps it is the marred sense of justice which wishes punishment rather than restoration, which is being “read back” onto God with ECT.
In both Matthew and Luke, being “perfect the way God is perfect” is the point of pericopes that feature God’s creation benefiting good and the evil people alike, and loving and forgiving one’s enemies. Neither I nor others who don’t hold to ECT believe that means evildoers will “get off Scot-free”. All this ground has been gone over on other threads at Jesus Creed.
The point is that we need to be able to discuss the issue, which Scot sees as one of the most important among Christians at the moment, and if we disagree, to do so without calling others’ standing before the Lord into question.
Dana
Jeff, wonderful.
My sin goes deep in this. After reading the article and comments I find that I am going to enjoy being on the offense much more than being on the defense.
So, here’s an honest question/thought experiment…
Some day, in the New Heaven and New Earth, will those of us on the “New” side of things ever really understand what Hell is all about for those who are (or were?) unfortunately there?
I’d hazard a guess of “no, we won’t, because to really experience it would be antithetical to God’s plan for our eternity.”
So, if we won’t understand it then, why would we be able to understand it now?
“The point is that we need to be able to discuss the issue, which Scot sees as one of the most important among Christians at the moment, and if we disagree, to do so without calling others’ standing before the Lord into question”
Have I done so? Nope. Do I believe that those who disagree with me hermeneutically are not Believers? Nope.
Do I disagree strongly with many of the hermeneutics represented on Jesus Creed. Yep.
I’m just trying to remind everyone what we’re doing here: we’re discussing the Word of God and seeking to interpret, not determining whether or not it’s valuable, or which parts of it are “true”.
If we’re not passionate about that, what are we passionate about?
Here’s the rub: if you reject a traditional view of God, you’re putting a practicioner of a traditional view’s God in the dock, and vice versa.
You’re essentially saying: God is like this, He’s not like this. Somebody’s wrong, and somebody’s right. I tend to lean away from progressives and more towards traditional understandings of Scripture. Which would mean I think they’re wrong, and somebody other than them are right. Not in every case, but in many cases.
That said, Jesus affirming that common grace is extended to all men doesn’t contradict any notions of God’s adopted Children having different status than those outside of His family. Who are Jesus’ family?
“I’m not about throwing parts I don’t agree with under the bus.”
Absolutely. That’s what’s driving this conversation for a many of us that grew up in conservative churches. We’ve been reading our bibles and portions of it don’t support the doctrines we’ve been told are “the plain meaning of the text.” For many of us, it’s the text itself that is causing many of us to question ECT, not our own emotions about the concept.
Re: Jesus countering – eye for an eye vs. turn the other cheek seems like a direct refutation; not a clarification in my opinion of the text.
“Absolutely. That’s what’s driving this conversation for a many of us that grew up in conservative churches. We’ve been reading our bibles and portions of it don’t support the doctrines we’ve been told are “the plain meaning of the text.” For many of us, it’s the text itself that is causing many of us to question ECT, not our own emotions about the concept”
And that’s perfectly valid. I believe the plain meaning teaches something like ECT. John Stott believes the plain meaning teaches Annihilationism. Either way, you’re dealing with something that modern sensibilities will find offensive.
“Jesus countering – eye for an eye vs. turn the other cheek seems like a direct refutation; not a clarification in my opinion of the text”
Unless you take into account the fact that “an eye for an eye” in the Law was not a command for vengeance, but rather a PROHIBITION of vengeance. Lev. 24 lays out the “lex talionis” law as a means of insuring fitting punishment, not retaliation. Remember Lamech in Genesis 4? He took Cain’s sin and multiplied it. So a young man who strikes him gets murdered, and Lamech claims that his own revenge would be 77-fold instead of Cain’s 7-fold vengeance. The human condition lends itself toward overretaliation. Jesus is correcting a false idea of this passage with the Spirit of the Law.
If Jesus intended to abolish the Law, He wouldn’t have told us that He did not intend to abolish the Law.
Suppose sin is infinitely meaningless to God? I find that much more just than the idea that coveting my neighbor’s lawnmower is a sin of infinite magnitude. Do you think God is infinitely angry over that? Give me a break. The whole infinite line of logic does not hold up.
“Suppose sin is infinitely meaningless to God?”
Where would you get that idea?
“I find that much more just than the idea that coveting my neighbor’s lawnmower is a sin of infinite magnitude. Do you think God is infinitely angry over that? Give me a break. The whole infinite line of logic does not hold up.”
And yet theft appears to be something God takes seriously.
But, the fact remains that the Scriptural understanding of sin hardly consists of petty little acts such as those you describe. Those are merely fruits of the bigger problem. The bigger problem that you and I share is our general tendency to move in the opposite direction of anything resembling submission to or worship of the One True God. Perhaps one of our biggest problems is that we’ve trivialized sin to the point where Hell seems downright silly?
Not at all saying you’re being uncharitable, Luke. Everyone here believes scripture is valuable and true. Indeed, we are discussing the Word of God and seeking to interpret. You’re right that we do have ideas about what is wrong interpretation and what is correct interpretation.
It’s those ideas of ours, and trying to make sense out of it all, that push us to accept one interpretation over another. That’s why I left Roman Catholicism and embraced low-church Evangelicalism; it’s also why I left Protestantism and was received into EOrthodoxy. The EO interpretation of scripture made better sense to me. (Actually, it was N.T. Wright’s interpretation of scripture to which I moved first; it turns out the vast majority of it is congruent with EO.) I believe it is “right”, or I wouldn’t be there, and if asked I will explain why I think so. However, I’m not going to limit God’s work of uniting humans with Himself to a certain intellectual understanding/interpretation of scripture, and Orthodoxy doesn’t limit God in that way, either; that’s one of the many things that drew me to it (though I have found “the whole ball of wax” of EO theology and interpretation to be seamlessly interwoven and extremely intellectually satisfying).
As Richard alluded to, what is driving the conversation is that some people find that re-reading the text from a different place in life than when first read, and because of that, having a different set of interpretive lenses than previously, seems incongruent with the “traditional” interpretation: it’s a clash of interpretations.
Dana
Jeff#110,
I hope this is not totally condemnatory of others, but isn’t the idea of following Jesus that we believe in him, really follow and believe in his message. What better person/entity to apply this to than God himself.
Here is where I am going. If the litmus test for salvation is “believing”, then isn’t the true test of believing, believing in the Jesus way at all costs? Wouldn’t then the true test of salvation be that one would even put Jesus message above the bible in regard to the Father? Believe like a child.
And that is a wonderful reply.
… a bit more. The issue reminds me of the Matthew 21 parable of the two sons, who did the father’s bidding? Does the son that says all the right things? Or the son who understands the true intent of the message?
“Wouldn’t then the true test of salvation be that one would even put Jesus message above the bible in regard to the Father? Believe like a child”
What’s Jesus’ message?
John Thomson (#23) I think the child-parent vs child-peer relationship is a useful analogy, It made me ponder a bit, and I don’t agree with where you are going here. As far as I can see the discussion of sin is here related to fitting punishment. I agree that sin against a parent may graver than sin against a peer, but not because the parent has more “weight, power, worthiness” than the child’s peer. It is graver because of the nature of the relationship between the child and its parent. A relationship that is vital for the child’s well-being and development.
If my child sins against me, I might need punish her in order for her to learn. I admit that sometimes my judgment by my experience of being offended, but that is due to my brokenness, not justice. Why would I punish my child if it didn’t have a redemptive purpose?
God is our father. His wrath is due the suffering our broken relationship with him causes to ourselves and everyone around us. Thus his dealings with a broken humanity are mainly restorative. The questions I believe we need to ask is: Will a person ever be beyond restoration, and if so, how will God deal with that person in the end?
#123John Thomas said “I disagree. Your sin is bigger if the authority against whom you rebel is bigger. Moreover, if this authority is self-evidently good then the rebellion is more wicked. If a child hits a friend it is bad, if he hits parent it is worse. The weight, power, worthiness of the one sinned against, DOES make the sin itself more or less potent.”
I could not disagree more. The child who hits another child generally does so with the intent to hurt. The child who hits the parent does so with intent to send a message. I don’t know if your analogy is just bad or that is what you are intending, but it is by far worse to sin against the weak.
Luke#131 said”If Jesus intended to abolish the Law, He wouldn’t have told us that He did not intend to abolish the Law.”
Luke, perhaps my lack of education makes me go in strange paths, but this is a terrible conclusion. Jesus intent was not to abolish the law, in other words his intention was not to go out and abolish the law (I guess that was not really other words), he may have done that, but that was not the motivation for what he did. Jesus is all about motivations, not actions. His motivation was to fulfill the law. Anyone who reads the bible will see that he did indeed *abolish* certain things in his pursuit to fulfill.
Dana (#127) I agree that our “marred sense of justice” may be a factor contributing to the doctrine of ECT, though I am glad you qualified the statement with a “perhaps”. In addition, I would like to propose that maybe a presupposition of an eternal soul is biasing our interpretation.
Luke#142 “Is anyone willing to say that God is inherently more valuable than an infant?” God is. But you can’t hurt God.
Luke#144, I agree that we have to view the OT with nuance and authority. But we also have to distinguish between the Law and the OT. They are not the same nor do they have the same authority.
The Law was good and was time appropriate. The OT is beyond the Law and is fair game, IMO, to debate more rigorously.
Luke#142 “Does that extend into, say, insects vs. a dog? I don’t think it’s right to pull the legs off an insect, but more people are going to reprimand you if you pull the legs off of a dog.”
What people think is not the point. If the situation were that an insect was sucking the puss from an infected boil on your arm (sorry about that), and you did it, versus the dog was ripping your legs off, then I question which is the right path.
“But you can’t hurt God”
Not physically. But what about the Scriptures leads you to the conclusion that He’s emotionally invulnerable? Or that the very act of rebelling against Him is itself heinous without inflicting a single ounce of physical damage to Him?
The Biblical picture of God is much more complex than the cultural ideas of Him.
“The Law was good and was time appropriate. The OT is beyond the Law and is fair game, IMO, to debate more rigorously”
Perfectly agreed. While acknowledging that we don’t get to throw any of it out.
I’m going to be raptured soon, so I’ll probably be off here for a while.
Dana @ 115: Certainly the Day of the Lord encompasses more than the destruction of the earth, however, that is consistently the dominant theme throughout its treatment in Scripture (both Old and New Testament). Yes, a new heaven and earth will follow, but the actual Day of the Lord is most vividly summed up by the earth’s destruction by fire, as clearly described in 2 Peter 3:10-12. My point in #112 was that it is described as “glorious” (in contrast to God’s love being His only source of glory.
As for the conversation on God hating the sin but loving the sinner, it’s not just people’s sins that are going to be sent to hell. It’s people.
Regarding the seriousness of sin debate: If we really want the clearest picture of how much God hates sin, may I suggest we all take a fresh look at the Passion of the Christ? If God was willing to do that to His own innocent Son whom He loves, who are we to think that He would hesitate for a moment, to condemn guilty sinners to hell for all eternity?
Christ, who had infinite life in himself, laid down his life. Though His suffering was finite in duration, it was infinite in scope. But because we are finite beings, we cannot experience the equivalent of an eternity in hell within a finite time frame. Therefore, the duration of our suffering in hell must be infinite.
“I’m going to be raptured soon, so I’ll probably be off here for a while.”
Oh no, I’m left behind!
Well Perry,
I don’t agree that the earth will be destroyed. The way I see it is that if the earth is so spoiled that it can’t be redeemed by Christ’s work, then the devil wins. I don’t believe the devil wins. God said the earth was good and he never took back that pronouncement.
In addition, many Greek experts now believe that the 2Pet3 passage does not mean that the earth will be “burnt up/dissolved,” but rather that all will be “uncovered” and laid bare to the truth in God’s presence, as fire in scripture is most closely connected with judgment and purification rather than bare destruction.
I certainly don’t insist that you see it this way; only saying that other interpretations are out there, put forth by people who trust Jesus and have a high view of scripture.
(And since I’m Orthodox, I don’t believe in hell -or heaven, for that matter- as a “place”.)
The point of the post isn’t about “whose doctrine is right”. It’s that we need to be able to discuss this very serious issue and wrestle with it, including talking about what the justice and goodness of God mean.
Dana
(41-60) I’m way behind. Sorry.
(42) Jason. I’d like to see more here on the distinction.
(45) Larry. I think this is a good assessment.
(48) John. I read “eternal punishment” as a punishment which is irreversible—it has everlasting consequences. (And the art of the middle ages does have power in shaping opinion. Ex. Dante).
(49) C.E.. Feels like an ad hominem argument. There are real points being made here which are worth unpacking and critiquing. I do like the comment about theology above philosophy. I will have to think on this. Not sure it is possible to do it.
(53) T. Good comment.
(54). James. How do we rationally wrestle with who God is and what God does without being accused of “putting God’s actions in submission to your reasoning”?
(56) Josh. Good post. I agree.
(57) Jay. 1. I would relook at Love WIns. Bell cites quite a bit of scripture in that book. 3. Assumes that Justice is a relative concept, which I would reject. Peace.
(58) Rob. Trying to find truth through dialogue.
(60) Nick. I think the claim is that if ECT is a punishment it is an earned punishment, and God is just in sending somewhere there. Entrance to Heaven is extending mercy to the undeserving and justice is being done at the cross. I would defend the idea that there is no sin which we could commit in which eternal conscious torment would be the just punishment.
On 61-69
(61) Jeff. Unpack where I miss it.
(62). Jay. I’m responding to a philosophical argument, and that seems appropriate to do. If passages help, I’ll bring em.
(63) Scot. I agree. I think that’s the problem—moving from the Romans and Isaiah passage as an encouragement of humility to making them about epistemology. Good point.
(64) Rick. Caught me. I have read Love Wins twice—through the audio book. “Lots of references in text” is what I should have said. Good correction.
(66). Fish. “I am not going to love him” is a great point.
(67) Brendt. Good thoughts. On (2), Let me re-float this argument: You can say, I won’t believe in that God if you hold to the following 3 premises. (1) If God exists, God is perfectly good. (2) A perfectly good being doesn’t create states of Eternal conscious torment. (3) God exists. If these 3 premises are true, the conclusion is: A God who creates a state of eternal conscious torment doesn’t exist. When one says, “Well, I wouldn’t believe in a God who would… create a state of eternal conscious torment.” They are affirming the argument above and the truth of all its premises.
(68) Nick. See comment on (64)
Sorry I’m behind. I will comment again tonight after 10 MST. Peace and love to all you!
Sorry to arrive late to the party but it seems rather silly to me to be critiquing a promotional video, when the book it is speaking to hasn’t been released yet. When you watch the video, what Chan says can be easily applied to any view of hell. He simply takes a cautious tone and makes some generalized statements to promote his book.
For instance, when Chan says, “So when we begin an argument with, “Well, I wouldn’t believe in a God who would…” Who would what? Do something that you wouldn’t do?” Why could that not be applied from universalist perspective over against an Evangelical ECT position. “You wouldn’t what? Be so merciful as to extend mercy to your enemies?” Which is also the context of Isaiah 55. And, lest we think we’re above wanting to see our righteous justice brought against our “enemies,” consider the response to Osama Bin Ladin’s recent demise from many Christians.
Why be so presumptious based on a label of Reformed? Just maybe Chan will surprise us all. I’m not saying that he will do anything more than attempt to defend ECT, but until we know why assume?
Jeff (#152): “I would defend the idea that there is no sin which we could commit in which eternal conscious torment would be the just punishment.”
That’s a hefty claim, Jeff. Are you prepared to tell us exactly what punishment is appropriate for every conceivable crime?
I’m a little nervous that “the Bible says” cannot be used to provide information to the discussion. If Jesus Christ, the Son of God tells a story about a man in Hades (Luke 16) then I lean toward belief that hell is real. If Revelation describes those without their names in the Lamb’s Book of Life destined to the lake of fire (Revelation 20)… same thing.
Between those and other passages that describe hell as a real place, I’m weary that the burden is to provide logic arguments where I must explain true justice that is a part of God’s character.
“Doing justice” in human sense is relative in many ways. My view of “doing justice” (even in a Biblical sense) is going to be different than many regular contributors. We all have different ideas of what “justice” means and how to carry it out to what extent, etc.
In this discussion with one very reliable and consistent view of hell (Bible) and then asking many relative sources to contribute to the debate (humans), I’m going to have to use the Biblical source — whether I understand fully God’s plan here or not.
I also don’t expect humans to have all answers through philosophy or logical reasoning.
“I’m not saying that he will do anything more than attempt to defend ECT”.
Ya, something little like ECT, that’s all.
One more and then I’ll leave it alone. But this one is worth noting.
In the parable of the unforgiving servant (Matt 18:21-35) the amount owed to the to the king is 10,000 talents which, according to Craig Keener, “probably represented more than the entire annual income of the king, and perhaps more than all the actual coinage in circulation in Egypt at the time!” (Bible Background Commentary, p. 95). Keener goes on to say that “it was thus inconceivable that one official could get so far in debt.” Inconceivable indeed. It’s as if Jesus compared one’s man debt to that of the current U.S. government. So it must have been all the more startling to Jesus’ hearers that he should close the parable by telling us that “in anger his master delivered him to the jailers [or torturers], until he should pay all his debt.”
The response would have been something like, “He’ll never repay that in one lifetime!” Indeed. The point is that we cannot repay our debt to God. It is astronomical. Dare I say, infinite. There is a direct connection in this parable with how much we have been forgiven and how much we should forgive others. If you lower one, you lower the other. It is the fact that our forgiven debt is beyond calculation that makes our attempts to calculate the cost of forgiving others both pedantic and ludicrous.
All this to say, there is a real pastoral issue at stake in our efforts to calculate how much a finite human being can offend an infinite God.
I just hope that I am never accused of a crime and find some of you on my jury!
Because if God can pass out eternal torture for the most minor of sins, it makes it very easy and excusable for sinful imperfect humans to pass out the pain.
Perhaps this is why we lead most every other country in the percent of our population in prison, along with still having the death penalty of course. A punishment-based culture.
And how could I forget waterboarding? Torture, and you don’t even have to be convicted or even formally accused to merit it. I had not ever thought about the interplay between that practice and our view of God, but there’s something there.
If God exists,
then he is the measure of all things,
and what he thinks about all things
is the measure of what we should think.
“Hell is unspeakably real, conscious, horrible and eternal—the experience in which God vindicates the worth of his glory, in holy wrath on those who would not delight in what is infinitely glorious. If infinitely valuable glory has been spurned, and the offer of eternal joy in God has been finally rejected, an indignity against God has been committed, so despicable, as to merit eternal suffering…
…Thus, Edwards says, ‘God aims at satisfying justice in the eternal damnation of sinners; which will be satisfied by their damnation, considered no otherwise than with regard to its eternal duration. But yet there will never come that particular moment, when it can be said, that now justice is satisfied.’ Of the love of God and the wrath of God, Edwards says simply, ‘Both will be unspeakable.’” – John Piper
“If it be objected, ‘You may forgive, but the man has sinned against God!’–Then it is not a part of the divine to be merciful, I return, and a man may be more merciful than his maker! A man may do that which would be too merciful in God! Then mercy is not a divine attribute, for it may exceed and be too much; it must not be infinite, therefore cannot be God’s own.” George MacDonald
“To thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy, for thou renderest to every man according to his work.” Ps. 62:12
“Those who say justice means the punishing of sin, and mercy the not punishing of sin, and attribute both to God, would make a schism in the very idea of God.” George MacDonald
“God is one; and the depth of foolishness is reached by that theology which talks of God as if he held different offices, and differed in each. It sets a contradiction in the very nature of God himself. It represents him, for instance, as having to do that as a magistrate which as a father he would not do!” George MacDonald
“To say on the authority of the Bible that God does a thing no honourable man would do, is a lie against God, not for him. God cannot be lied for. He is the truth. The truth alone is on his side.” George MacDonald
70-89
(70) Josh. “If you believe what Francis Chan is saying, and what the Bible says, that God’s way are higher than our ways, then no amount of philosophical explanation can possibly tell us what God is actually capable of doing because our human philosophy is flawed and incomplete.” This is a philosophic claim describing God’s ways and as such is self-refuting.
Josh, how do you begin evaluating descriptions of God? Do you start with things you believ are true or something else? Peace.
(71) Peter. “Dealing with the damned” is a better phrasing. Good call.
You wrote, “It strike me as a touch over-confident and perhaps even naive to say, “There is no state of affairs in which it is appropriate to incarcerate a human being in a state of eternal, conscious torment.” It seems to me that defendants rarely make good jurors in their own trials.”
Four things. One, do you think I’m going to hell? and two, name a state of affairs in which is just to eternally torment and a human soul and you will disprove my claim. Three, I think hell is an infinite (read irreversible) punishment. God does destroy the damned soul forever. Fourth, you need to display how God’s holiness *necessarily* effects his decisions upon damned souls.
(73) Peter. I like this argument. I think there is a difference between and tree and a human arm because of the cognition of the human, and the pain experienced. Hacking a tree limb off can be healthy for the tree. Hacking an arm off of man generally is not (though we can imagine situations in which it is—and as such would be moral). (I can agree with the rest and it wouldn’t affect my 3 claims above). Peace.
(74) Darrell. Show me how that works.
(84) Perry. “I would assert that a great many attributes of God are radically different than our cultural definitions of them. God’s jealousy is radically different than ours. God’s love (see 1 Cor. 13) is radically different than ours.” We can still call such passions jealousy and love. We can even get rid of our working definitions and adopt those. But to say God’s justice is altogether different is for our language to breakdown.
Do tell your argument. Not sure anyone is holding to anthropcentricism (if that’s a word.)
(86) Eric. Much love! Good to hear from you!
90-109
(91) Luke. Why would anyone be deserving of eternal conscious torment? Play your thought out.
(93) Peter. Can God both hate sinners and send his son to die for sinners?
(99) Perry. ““For God to fail or refuse to value Himself preeminently would implicate Him in the sin of idolatry.” I think this feels false because it doesn’t engage the triune nature of God which could help in the argument. As it stands here, God is a Unitarian glory hog.
(102) Luke. 1 John
(103) Paul. (1) Good quote. (2) Its not what is stated by Chan. I think he is advancing a different perspective. (3) This argument is not addressing my claim. Peace.
110-129
(123) John. Your statement on ECT proves my point about interpretation being the thing at issue. It certainly is not inescapable.
“You may say I do not understand ECT, even that you struggle with it, but to say it makes God untrustworthy has gone far beyond any of the questions that godly saints asked. It is unbelief.”
It seems to me, one can argue forcefully that ECT constitutes good grounds for thinking the one who establishes and sustains ECT is wicked. That’s the problem, and we need to hear why its false from our brothers and sisters who hold to ECT.
(I’ll pick up the rest tomorrow. Cheers!)
Quote: “Sin does to a life what shears do to a flower. A cut at the stem separates a flower from the source of life. Initially the flower is attractive, still colorful and strong. But watch that flower over a period of time, and the leaves will wilt and the petals will drop. No matter what you do, the flower will never live again. Surround it with water. Stick the stem in soil. Baptize it with fertilizer. Glue the flower back on the stem. Do what you wish. The flower is dead.
A dead soul has no life. Cut off from God, the soul withers and dies. The consequence of sin is not a bad day or a bad mood, but a dead soul. The sign of a dead soul is clear: poisoned lips and cursing mouths, feet that lead to violence and eyes that don’t see God. The finished work of sin… is to kill the soul.” – Max Lucado
Quote: Sin is held in check now, by conscience and by the government and law, and by relational ties. But in hell, there will be no checks on it. It will grow and thrive like weeds taking over a plowed field. Without restraint, sin would soon take over the entire universe, because like fire, it is never quenched or satisfied. – C.H. Spurgeon
“Punishment, I repeat, is not the thing required of God, but the absolute destruction of sin. What better is the world, what better is the sinner, what better is God, what better is the truth, that the sinner should suffer–continue suffering to all eternity? Would there be less sin in the universe? Would there be any making up for sin? Would it show God justified in doing what he knew would bring sin into the world, justified in making creatures who he knew would sin? What setting right would come of the sinner’s suffering? If justice demanded it, if suffering be the equivalent for sin, then the sinner must suffer, then God is bound to exact his suffering, and not pardon; and so the making of man was a tyrannical deed, a creative cruelty.”
“If my friend has wronged me, will it console me to see him punished? Will that be a rendering to me of my due? Will his agony be a balm to my deep wound? Should I be fit for any friendship if that were possible even in regard to my enemy?”
“Such justice as Dante’s keeps wickedness alive in it’s most terrible forms. The life of God goes forth to inform, or at least give a home to victorious evil. Is he not defeated every time that one of those lost souls defies him? All hell cannot make Vanni Fucci say, ‘I was wrong.’ God is triumphantly defeated, I say, throughout the hell of his vengeance. Although against evil, it is but the vain and wasted cruelty of tyrant. There is no destruction of evil thereby, but an enhancing of it’s horrible power in the midst of the most agonizing and disgusting tortures a divine imagination can invent.” MacDonald
Jeff (##164-65), (1) I do not know if you’re going to hell. Should I? But without question you, as I, are certainly deserving of it. You are either saved from the hell you deserve or you are not saved at all. But you are certainly not saved from a hell you don’t deserve. (2) I named a state of affairs. When a person has infinitely offended an infinitely important God, the just recompense for such a crime is infinite punishment. Said another way, a person owes God love commensurate with his loveliness (if you think love cannot be owed, reconsider the imperative in the Great Commandment. It is not the Great Suggestion). God is infinitely lovely. Any failure to love him infinitely fails by an infinite degree. You may not like it, but it is cogent, is it not? (3) Not sure how this is relevant. (4) God’s holiness is his weightiness. If his treatment of sin is not commensurate with his weightiness he is untrue to his own nature. So yes, his holiness has direct bearing on how he deals with sinners.
In my tree illustration I assumed the hacked limb was not for the trees benefit. Regardless, I am perturbed that the only difference is the presence of cognition and the amount of pain. Is it okay then to hack my wife’s limbs off if she is both sedated and severely mentally handicapped? But it’s worth noting that any illustration will ultimately fail because there is a qualitative difference between God and man that does not exist between man and tree. That Creator-creature distinction is all-important.
Finally, yes God most certainly can both hate sinners and send his son to die for sinners. God is both loving and wrathful toward his rebel creatures and so he should be. He loves because of who he is and he is angry both because of who he is and because of who they are.
Thanks for interacting with us. I appreciate your push back.
Perry (#149) “If God was willing to do that to His own innocent Son whom He loves, who are we to think that He would hesitate for a moment, to condemn guilty sinners to hell for all eternity?”
I think phrasing it like God’s Son is someone Other than God makes us miss the point here. Jesus Christ is God and it was God Himself who was crucified. The event tells us what God is willing to allow himself to suffer in order to save the other.
What kind of God would not “hesitate for a moment to condemn guilty sinners to hell” when “the duration of our suffering in hell must be infinite”? How can I live in a loving relationship with this God for all eternity while knowing that this God has condemned someone I love to eternal suffering?
CPM (#126) I think your quote from MacDonald sums it up beautifully:
“Punishment, I repeat, is not the thing required of God, but the absolute destruction of sin. What better is the world, what better is the sinner, what better is God, what better is the truth, that the sinner should suffer–continue suffering to all eternity? Would there be less sin in the universe? Would there be any making up for sin?”
That should have been CPM (#169)…
Dana (#151) Do you have some references for this interpretation of 2Pet3?
Peter G
Good observation about the parable of the unforgiving servant.
Jeff
Part of the problem of holding to account ECT is that one easily moves on to other difficulties to our C21 sensibilities. How can God send a flood that destroys all – men women and children (not to mention animals)? Is this justice? Or what about the destruction of everyone in the cities of the plain? Or the pogrom of the Canaanites? Or the slaughter by the levites? Or the plagues on Israel? Or the horror of the exile?
Very soon God is not our judge but we are his. We are questioning God. Paul’s comment in Roms 9 is who are we to question God. Questioning God soon leads to quarreling with God and finally abandoning (quiting).
Jeff
There is little room for seeing eternal punishment as simply a judgement which is irreversible. It is special pleading. Is eternal bliss referring to duration?
Rev 20:10 (ESV)
and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever…. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. Rev 20:13-15 (ESV)
Rev 21:8 (ESV)
But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
Rev 14:9-11 (ESV)
And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.”
(The smoke ascending forever and ever could imply eternal sign of destruction (as in Babylon) but that it implies the ongoing torment and the ongoing existence of the wicked in destruction is supported by the phrase ‘they had no rest day or night’and the evidence of the previous texts.
Of course I am aware we are in apocalyptic language, however, the visual image is a code and the code doesn’t seem so hard to interpret. What is more it aligns with the irreversible judgement and ongoing ECT of LK 16 (I am tormented… a great gulf fixed). Plus images of people eternally outside the city in Rev 22. None of these imply annihilation or limited suffering.
I say this with absolutely no relish. I have non-Christians in my wider family. I have a son who has rejected the faith. I would happily reject ECT if I thought there was a solid case. But I don’t, and frankly, there isn’t.
I read through most of the comments, but didn’t see anyone picking up on the possibility that Chan’s publishing company is mimicking Bell’s. It’s as if they decided, “Let’s put out a trailer for Chan’s book and see if people jump on him. Then we can ride the wave of Bell and this conversation all the way to the bank.”
What I can’t understand is why people, including Chan, insist on continuing the conversation about hell rather than the conversation about the abundant life Jesus promised. To me, that was Bell’s main point (Here Is the New There). That’s a conversation I think unbelievers would respond to.
Regarding Jeff’s post, he states that every time we claim that God is “worthy of praise”, or that he is “good”, etc, that we are subjecting God to our sense of reason, etc. In one sense, and I would suggest it’s a minor sense, this is true. What is more true, is that when I say these things, I’m simply re-stating what God testifies about himself endlessly in scripture. God is all these things not because we say he is, but because he says he is. God is not now, nor will he ever be awaiting our analysis of his person or his work. He needs nothing of me, so in His presence, I should let my words be few. What is more pressing in this life is God’s assessment of who I am. When He looks on me, will he see me through the lens of Christ, or will He see me for the rebel I once was / am now? Eternity awaits. In His presence there is fullness of joy. Apart from Him…well…I’m amazed at the day we live in. That some of our brothers and sisters in Christ not only hope there is no he’ll, but declare it to be so, is deeply disturbing. We shouldn’t trifle with a Holy God, who will not dwell in the presence of evil.
Interesting to see 176 plus posts on how a couple of American pastors and theologians disect each others arguments and counter arguments on hell. The existence of Hell is not an issue for most African believers, like me. I wonder if anyone has picked up how much of a “First World” debate this has been?
Since he brought up the “linguistic value” of words, what about the word traditional he keeps using? The traditional view of Hell. The view we have of Hell (where fire is not quenched and the worm doesn’t die) has been taught down through church history. But Cook places the burden of proof on those who hold to tradition and the ancient teachings. I’d say the burden of proof is on him. I mean, a WHOLE lot of Bible teachers have been teaching the traditional view of Hell for a very long time; why should we now listen to Cook over and above these myriad of other teachers that have gone before?
(179) Josh. Just to jump in. This is an argument from authority, and its a might makes right style argument. Because more people have believed…it makes it true. My question is valid and valuable — how can we make sense of the just-ness of ECT. The fact that some like Chan says prehaps God’s justice is different than ours acknowledges the major difficulty with the traditional view. peace.
#176 Chris, of course you are right. This video is first and foremost a marketing tool. Still, Chan presents what I think are some popular opinions and I think that the content should be taken on, not just for what is said but how it is presented. I’m glad Cook took it on. Makes me feel less crazy. But you’re right and we shouldn’t miss the bigger narrative here – we’re all helping sell this book…
@ 176 Chris – Amen, brother! I’m with you. I call it the Kingdom life, the abundant life Jesus spoke of, the shalom life the Hebrews understood but in part, unable to fully enter. In fact, I’m writing a book about it. We do tend to major in the minors, don’t we. Our challenge is that the doctrines of the Church have been so well engrained in us that it’s easy to discuss, and its ‘fashionable’ to discuss hell right now, along with what passes for deep thought here on the subject of evolution. Things we can only understand in part but will doubtful change anyone’s life. You are right, if we can develop a theology for life, as God meant for it be lived, zoe – shalom – abundant – instead of all these secondary matters, I think that would go a long way toward a renewed relevancy of the Church in a hurting culture that is without hope. I’m sure the “world” looks at us having this debate, scratches their collective heads, and says “WTF!” (What’s their faith!? but they might say it in a much more raw fashion)
@ Hannes, great point! The church is exploding in Africa, China, India, and through much of the 2/3 World, and doubt they are evening discussing this issue because they know the life and deliverance that Christ brings. In the West, we don’t have that same need so we focus on lesser matters, and debate hell. No doubt one of the reasons the Church is the U.S. is in such crisis. We have lost focus on first importance.
According to recent surveys from Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 74 % of Americans believe in heaven… but only 59% believe in hell. Why is that? Both concepts are taught in the same book (the Bible) & with the same authority. And it’s certainly not because the Bible is less clear on the subject of hell than it is on heaven. There are around 150 verses in the Bible on hell.
I think most Christians who struggle with the concept of hell, do so… not because it’s unclear. I think they struggle with it for 2 main reasons:
1) They have unsaved friends or relatives who are either alive, or who have died, and they can’t bear the thought that they may actually be in a literal hell.
2)(Most commonly)… They don’t understand the justice of God, and how any behavior in this life could possibly warrant an eternal punishment.
But the reality of hell is part of the gospel! Without it… there’s nothing we need to be saved FROM!
Quote: “Man has always treated sin as a misfortune, not a crime; as a disease, not as guilt; as a case for the physician, not for the judge. Herein lies the essential faultiness of all mere human religions or theologies.”
“The history of six thousand years of evil has been lost on man. He refuses to read its awful lesson regarding sin and God’s displeasure against the sinner, which that history records. The flood of evil that has issued forth from one single sin he has forgotten. The death, the darkness, the sorrow, the sickness, the tears, the weariness, the madness, the confusion, the bloodshed, the furious hatred between man and man, making Earth a suburb of Hell—all this is overlooked or misread. Man repels the thought that sin is crime which God hates with an infinite hate, and which he, in his righteousness, must condemn and avenge.”
- Horatius Bonar, The Everlasting Righteousness, 1874
It is a good thing to see an attempt at healthy discussion concerning these matters. There is no doubt that these matters are real and important and it would most certainly be an indictment on us to not wrestle with what the text does and does not say. In the question of linguistics, it seems to me a reasonable analogy to compare our sense of justice to God’s,(being “more developed”) to say that a four year old’s idea or sense of what a tree is, is no where close to say a botanist’s or a dendrologist’s idea or understanding of what a tree is. They both essentially know a tree is a tree, one’s understand or idea of a tree is “more developed”. Secondly, surely it is helpful to look at the crucifixion as picture or indication of what God’s justice looks like. If we consider sin to be a crime of treason (in that it is the highest in the land so to speak) against God who is undoubtedly holy, what did it take for God to justify those guilty of such a crime (sinners)? The suffering of the infinitely glorious and perfect Son of God. If this payment or exchange, or whatever, was sufficient to cover those who have faith, and pardon their crime, what do we make of what it then takes for someone who rejects the cross to make atonement for themselves? For me, this is the “some story” that needs to be told that moves toward making eternal torment “morally praise-worthy”. I have no doubt Jeff, that in your study and reading and thinking on this topic you have crossed paths with this sort of “story” and I would like to know whether in your thinking if it is sufficient or deficient and in what regards.
Perry P. 184
if you really believe what you are saying about Hell I sure hope you are on a microphone every chance you have telling people to turn to Jesus or else they will burn! Because frankly you do anything less than that with your belief about ECT for the unsaved is you not really caring about anyone. Love Jesus or else will have to be your slogan. That is my problem! Coericion is not Love! That is why not as many people do not buy into the idea I think. Your argument is perfect for a turn or burn gospel because anything less shows you don’t really care for your fellow man. And Jesus becomes or ticket to eternal bliss. This is a different Gospel from a God who so loved us in our sinfull state that he sent his son to absorb our sins and show us what it truly means to be human through life in Christ. I think I have to continue believing in the latter over the former!
Kaleb,
Why did God send his son to “absorb our sins”? Why did/would he need to? What was the purpose and what did it solve or accomplish? Was it necessary to do so, so that he could show us what it means to be human? I am not sure I understand?
Hint:
A great many of us believers have rejected, out of hand, PSA (penal substitutionary atonement) theory, (dating back to Anselm). It would be helpful to not assume one’s audience accepts all the same presuppositions that one brings to the table of discussion.
I, for one, do not believe the cross is so much a picture of God’s wrath upon the sinner, but rather man’s wrath upon the Scapegoat (and following, God’s vindication of the Scapegoat). The Sacrifice to end sacrifice, which was an invention of man in the first place.
Jon 188,
My point is that the Gospel is about New Creation and Jesus giving us a way to live out our true humanity. I agree that Sin needed to be dealt with and that is why the N.T proclaims that Jesus died for the sin of the ‘whole world’ and that through this God was reconcilling ‘all things’ to God. Jesus showed us what God had been up to all along and it was the saving process. In Jesus we can expereince eternal life or full life. The life we were meant to live out into eternity. The kind where you care about your neighbor, feed the hungry, visit the prisoner, love your enemy, and so on. That is what I think the Gospel calls us too and Sin had to be dealt with. Jesus did that in his own body for everyone, not just a few, everyone. That is why it was ‘finished’. Death does not have to have the last say nor does Sin. The point of my last post though was that if you truly believe in ECT and are not shouting it from the rooftops and presenting Jesus as your ticket out you are doing a huge injustice to all humanity that does not believe. If ETC means punishment for 1600 billion years + some then every person that holds this view is going to be very guilty for not telling every single person they run into the turn or burn message that they call good news! That is the real issue. Do you do that? Do the people that believe ECT do that? The answer is an overwhelming NO! If they really believe it out why are they not living it out with every person they ever encounter??? I would say if your actions don’t follow the belief then you probably do not really believe it deep down.
Jeff Cook at #162 responds:
(60) Nick. I think the claim is that if ECT is a punishment it is an earned punishment, and God is just in sending somewhere there. Entrance to Heaven is extending mercy to the undeserving and justice is being done at the cross. I would defend the idea that there is no sin which we could commit in which eternal conscious torment would be the just punishment.
———————————————————–
Jeff, I must admit that I’m of two minds about this. NT Wright and Edward Fudge both support their positions really well.
If Wright is correct (or, rather, if my thumbnail memory of my interpretation of Wright’s understanding of hell is correct), torment is the “natural” consequence of a person’s consistent demand to live life apart from God. From that eschatological framework, ECT is not a punishment for sin – ALL the punishment for ALL the sin of ALL time was borne by the Christ. ECT would be consequence, not punishment.
In my imaginary conversation between Wright and Fudge (who’d pay big bucks to go to THAT conference??? Me, that’s who!), Fudge would counter that that whole line of thinking rests on the Platonic concept of the eternality of the human soul. Since humans are not by nature eternal beings (my imaginary version of him would argue), the dilemma between ECT or ECJ is a false one. Furthermore, since “aionios” refers to quality rather than quantity, the destruction described as “eternal” is an irrevokable destruction, an irreversible punishment, not a constantly-occuring torment. Thus, my version of Fudge would argue that most people throughout history will experience some measure of punishment, and then cease to exist, while the elect will experience the life that is eternal.
So… either way, I’m not a supporter of the traditional ECT position, but I have serious qualms with several of the other positions offered here. Like I said, I’m torn between Wright and Fudge.
CPM, I in no way made the assumption that everyone here holds to the same presuppositions, in fact I am sure that most people here do not come to the table with the positions I start with. therein lies much of the problem of having a discussion on a topic like this because the two camps and those in between are not even in agreement on some of the tenants that define the Christian faith. furthermore, I would say that your presuppositions are necessary for your point of view in the matter of ECT and same with me. you come to the table not defending your view of the cross, but your view of hell standing on your presuppositions of what is meant by the cross, I merely have done the same, yet I am reminded that not everyone comes here with the same presuppositions? It was a kind note, don’t get me wrong, but it seems to me that I am incidentally disqualified from the discussion because my presuppositions don’t hold water with you. I know there is not room here to discuss our opinions on PSA, but really, you made no attempt to disqualify my position of the justification of hell. Surely you would feel stunted and find it unfair for me to announce that all of your positions are inherently wrong because you do not presuppose PSA.
Nick (#191) The way you describe Fudge’s position, I share his understanding entirely. I think the Conditional Immortality” is a good term for this position. The way I have understood Wright he holds something of a middle position between Eternal Conscious Torment and Conditional Immortality. If my memory serves me correctly, Wright speculates that the damned will move into some form of subhuman existence. In effect they don’t cease to exist,but I’m not sure their existence can be described as conscious torment continuing forever.
Jeff: “Why would anyone be deserving of eternal conscious torment? Play your thought out.”
For rejecting the most valuable being in the universe willingly, despite His gracious providing of Himself as a Savior. Cosmic treason deserves cosmic punishment.
Again, are we willing to say that retributive justice is always wrong? Are we willing to say that restorative justice is, well, justice? I don’t know about that.
Jeff,
Haven’t u confused God with Oprah?
Harald,
on 2Pet 3.10ff
http://bible.org/article/brief-note-textual-problem-2-peter-310
http://net.bible.org/#!bible/2+Peter+3:9
Also, N.T. Wright talks about Jewish apocalyptic language in several places in his works. He says that such language is used by Jesus and the writers of the NT to invest historical events with their true cosmic significance, in terms of Jewish understanding. So Wright would look at 2Pet 3 in a more nuanced way than the NET note writers. However, he would still say, what Peter says is going to happen – *not* the end of the space/time universe, probably God’s ultimate judgment on Rome – will nonetheless be so massively significant that only apocalyptic language will do it justice and enable its interpretation within the Jewish thought framework.
Dana
Did anyone else start laughing out loud when he started talking about all the horrible stuff and the nicey nicey music was still playing in the background? It seemed like it was a spoof to me at first.
Jon, (#192)
Nobody is disqualified, and didn’t mean to imply that. My point is that this topic widens, especially when PSA is assumed and used as proof of God’s wrath. I’ve seen a few comments with that implication, and was just addressing that it isn’t wise to assume that all the readers will fall in line when this trump card gets played.
Really, I’m under no illusion that I’ll be able to change anybody’s mind who is not sitting on the fence about this issue. If I can supply ample reasons to question it, I leave the rest to personal responsibility to search it out further. Also, I’ve no need for the validation of my views.
Kaleb #187:
“Oh, what a difference it makes when one believes in hell—with trembling and with tears. There is a seriousness over all of life, and an urgency in all our endeavors, and a flavor of blood-earnestness that seasons everything, and makes sin feel more sinful, and righteousness feel more righteous, and life feel more precious, and relationships feel more profound, and God appear more weighty.” – John Piper
“If sinners will be damned, at least let them leap to hell over our bodies. And if they will perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees, imploring them to stay. If hell must be filled, at least let it be filled in the teeth of our exertions, and let not one go there un-warned and un-prayed for.” – Charles Spurgeon
It is cosmic treason to not worship a God who rules through the fear of eternal torture?
I would suggest if there is such a thing as cosmic treason, it is worshiping a god who rules through the fear of eternal torture, because such a god is close if not the same as pure evil.
I can thing of nothing more evil than consciously torturing someone for eternity for that person’s failure to worship whatever being can do such evil.
No such being sent Christ as a savior. Such a being could only send death, destruction, pain and illness.
Does 2 Thess. 1: 6-10 describe ECT?
199 Perry P.,
I hope you live your life in accordance with your view. As for me I think there are far better reasons for being a Christian that ‘Golden Ticket Jesus’. I think I will leave Hell out of the message because I do not think it accurately describes the love relationship God is inviting us into. More like a good husband than a husband threatening beating if we don’t do the right things. More like a a good father, than a father waiting over us with a club. God is love and what freedom there is in embracing this wonderful and compelling message that the work is done and God isn’t angry with us.
(195) FDR.
No.
I am by no means a scholar or theologian, but I just had a few thoughts about a couple statements made here. For sake of being open, I am persuaded that God will forever exert His holy wrath (in accord with the “traditional view”) on those who do not honor Him as God.
Jeff made the statements under paragraphs (2) and (3):
“What those who defend the traditional view of hell must do is showcase why a good God *could* think unending conscious torment is the best option for the damned. Otherwise, it seems appropriate for a reasonable person (if they believe a ‘good’ being by definition will not create conditions in which a person will experience torment for countless lifetimes) to either reject that picture of God or reject that view of hell.”
and
“Many who reject the traditional view of hell (or the Christian God because of it) hold to a principle — ‘There is no state of affairs in which it is appropriate to incarcerate a human being in a state of eternal, conscious torment.’”
This last clause seems to restate the objection in the first quote, and its point terrifies me.
I confess that “conscious, unending torment” seems harsh, even cruel, yet I am more convinced of my rational finitude. The concept of eternal destiny is utterly apart from my experience and, thus, my natural reasoning. Because finite beings do not hold other finite beings to an infinite account, our “natural” sense of justice (that is, apart from special revelation) just does not relate to matters of eternal destiny, and I find it both skewed and unwise to allow such a voice to adjudicate my exegesis. The realm of eternal destiny is out of my rational jurisdiction; such matters deserve a hearing in the courts of Scriptural Revelation alone.
What’s more, I am reminded of the Fall and its noetic effects—to which my ability to discern justice is not immune. In the few glimpses God has granted to me of my own heart, I have found very little in the line of Isaiah 6, the seraphim to blood-curdling, foundation-shaking cries in honor of God’s earth-filling holiness. I am unsurprised, then, at my internal “traditional” view of hell, and my understanding of Scripture remains undeterred. May God’s discipline of me be all the more effective, that I am share in His holiness (Heb. 12:9).
The gravity of hell far exceeds any scientific laws; so does God’s holiness my natural taste for “justice.” Eternal punishment may boggle my mind, but He is holy.
May the Holy Spirit make us those to whom the Creator will turn His eyes (Isaiah 66:2); may we tremble, both at the Word and at the God who speaks.
david d
Minor edit:
“In the few glimpses God has granted to me of my own heart, I have found very little in the line of Isaiah 6, *where* the seraphim *are moved* to blood-curdling, foundation-shaking cries in honor of God’s earth-filling holiness.”
“God is love and what freedom there is in embracing this wonderful and compelling message that the work is done and God isn’t angry with us.”
Kaleb,
I don’t think anyone’s arguing that God is angry with believers. If you don’t recognize any difference between non-believers and believers in Scripture, then our hermeneutic is so vastly different we may as well stop talking.
God is love. Yes! But if we don’t use the Bible to then define what that love looks like, we truly haven’t progressed beyond a Sunday School level.
If we’re going to define God by 1 John 4:8, shouldn’t we at the very least look at what else this book says about God’s love? What we can’t afford to do is say “God is love”, and then go on to define love as a sort of transcendent feeling of acceptance or happiness. God is not only love, nor is love God.
But God is love.
“See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him” (1 John 3:1).
“In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another” (1 John 4:9-11)
Notice that God’s love is clearly shown in an active, engaging exemplary fashion. “God is love” is not some abstract principle. It’s definitively expressed in the Gospel, and in the subsequent adoption of us as Sons.
This is why I’m uncomfortable with using “God is love” as a “so there, then” statement. It has a context. God is love. Here’s what love looks like: The incarnate Son dying on a Tree so that we might be called children of God. All of our acts of love done in response to this Great Love should look similarly sacrificial. Love is sacrifice, not sentiment.
We either have a God who saves by grace through faith or a God who saves by works. I understand that there’s some nuance to both those terms (and they certainly aren’t mutually exclusive), but ultimately your conception of the more traditional viewpoint is muddled. I don’t believe in a God who is waiting to beat us for doing the wrong thing any more than I believe in a God who willfully overlooks sin.
What I do believe in is a God who has spoken through His Word that it was His Will that “everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” That’s good enough reason for me.
“I can thing of nothing more evil than consciously torturing someone for eternity for that person’s failure to worship whatever being can do such evil.”
Fish,
Remember, the word is “torment”. Torment doesn’t mean torture. I don’t think anyone’s implying that God will be eternally torturing anybody. Although I believe there’s plenty of evidence in this life to suggest that an eternity spent actively rebelling against the point of life will be a torment.
I was tormented for years by pornography and sexual addiction. The only thing more sure in my mind than the need to stop was the absolute conviction that I couldn’t live without it. Not only that, but that everyone who was trying to help me was really out to get me. That’s torment. And that’s torment that was completely and utterly MY FAULT.
If you don’t have room in your theology for people hating God, then I have to ask: do you have room in your theology for people crucifying God?
Also: I have a ton of friends who live their life with themselves at the center. Even their charitable acts are done as means of therapeutic self-improvement. None of them “live in fear of eternal torture”. As a matter of fact, human nature seems to scoff at the idea that somebody is watching our thoughts, words, and actions. So is God exercising His villainous rule through the inflicting of fear on all people? It seems to me He’s doing what He’s always done: transform ugliness into beauty, bringing down the proud and the haughty, destroying the wisdom of the wise, exalting the child-like, and making His name known through all the earth, one person at a time.
Luke Allison 206,
I appreciate the reply. I am interested in the best ways of thinking about God that hold the most pieces together of the narrative of Scripture. I am sure you agree there are paradoxes involved. The Bible clearly points to Christ’s redemptive work as reconciling ‘all things’, yet we also have verses that talk of the narrow road. There are many of these verses. I understand some seem to almost contradict one another at some points. I agree that we are not on the same page.
If you truly believe that God is sending everyone to Hell forever in conscious torment then if you fail to tell every person you meet today and everyday this message you will be partly responsible for not clearly proclaiming what you believe their grave circumstances to be. It is no longer about a relationship with the Living God, but about not getting spanked at the end. This is not the GOSPEL.
The Gospel is about New Creation that starts now and that is what Jesus preached about most in talking of the Kingdom- a different way of being in the world that leads to life. The Heaven/Hell Gospel is different than the New Creation/Kingdom Gospel. One highlights what will happen if we don’t believe-because it has to tell of the horrific end that awaits out of Moral Obligation. The other highlights the love that the father has for sinners because while we were all still sinfull God still sent God’s son for us, have we forgotten this? God loves sinners just as they are right now without them doing one thing! Otherwise Jesus would have never been sent for them in the first place. So you are right the whole US and THEM mentallity no longer has a place in my thinking. And it is very liberating to just love people as they are and call them to the life we were created to live, in relationship with this Lover God, and shalom on earth-all of which require us to repent of our ways and trust the Story of God. That is very good news to those that hear it and I find it a better depiction of the deliverance you and I both received
Hey Luke,
This is off topic, but could you elaborate more on this?
“Also: I have a ton of friends who live their life with themselves at the center. Even their charitable acts are done as means of therapeutic self-improvement.”
Kaleb,
“If you truly believe that God is sending everyone to Hell forever in conscious torment then if you fail to tell every person you meet today and everyday this message you will be partly responsible for not clearly proclaiming what you believe their grave circumstances to be. It is no longer about a relationship with the Living God, but about not getting spanked at the end. This is not the GOSPEL.”
I’ve long said that I’m a conservative inclusivist when it comes to the destiny of the unevangelized. I don’t claim to know who will be in Hell and who won’t. But I do know that the Gospel of God has as an intrinsic existential ingredient the forgiveness of sin and the removal of wrath. There are many more intrinsic ingredients (sociological, anthropological, teleological, etc), but the existential ingredient involves sin and punishment. I believe we are being very presumptuous to assume that restorative justice is 100 percent “right” in every situation, and that retributive justice is 100 percent wrong in every instance. We’re one of the few cultures who would view justice in this way.
The reason why people respond somewhat heatedly to those who share your view, Kaleb, is because you SEEM to be scoffing at the idea that God would ever punish. By using terms like “spanked” to describe the idea of God’s justice, you subtly introduce the idea as an absurdity. I guarantee you, if you attempt to use language that doesn’t fundamentally portray the opposing view as silly and laughable (even if the other side doesn’t offer you this same courtesy!) you’ll find yourself in more charitable conversations.
Let me give you my perspective: I came from a Word of Faith background. That means NO critical thinking about theology and life whatsoever. I read CS Lewis in my teens and early twenties. I got into Rob Bell when I was 21 or so, and then got into NT Wright shortly thereafter. I found myself unsatisfied with NT Wright’s Pauline exegesis (too much background being shoved to the foreground, as Doug Moo has argued) and so I began to get into Reformed theology. I found myself unsatisfied with Reformed theology’s adherence to Reformed theology over and above inductive interpretation of the Scriptures. I retained Reformed theology’s high view of God’s sovereignty and high view of the sinfulness of humanity. I retained NT Wright’s emphasis on the message of the Kingdom and the background of Israel in New Testament writings.
I dont approach this topic with my foot in any one camp. I’m not neutral (who is?) but I’m trying to be as honest with what I read as possible.
When you make blanket statements like ‘the Gospel is about New Creation that starts now” I agree with you partly, but recognize that this is a hermeneutical perspective. NT Wright carries an air of infallibility in progressive camps, along with Peter Enns. Have you ever read a scholar on the same level of Wright who disagrees with him? They’re out there. That’s the nature of scholarship.
I know Dr. McKnight would bring up 1 Corinthians 15 when discussing the nature of “the Gospel”. I also know that scholarship is largely divided when it comes to articulating what exactly “the gospel of the kingdom” even means.
What I’m finding is that this issue of Hell causes people to claim subjectivity when confronted with a viewpoint, but then clamor objectively when it comes to the words of their favorite scholar/teacher/exegete. If we’re all doing midrash, we need to recognize that bright minds are doing the same thing.
My problem with Love Wins from the get go was Rob’s tone, not so much his content. If you’re merely trying to converse, you don’t need to present the opposing view as a caricatured absurdity. Then you’re merely preaching to the choir instead of attempting to change minds.
Great article. I saw the Chan Video, an abvious response to RBs Love Wins, which I really enjoyed. Even though I was at one time very fundamental in my beliefs I never could believe that God would send Billions to hell for not saying a prayer or making a confession of faith in a God they never heard of. They never heard of a Christ or a Bible. It is stupid to misrepresent God like that. We are taling ahout eternity here. Billions. All Native Americans, all mongolians, most Arabs, and so on. Precisous souls whom God Loves. But for fundamentalists, Romans 1 or 10 condemns them because they are without excuse. Then why would Paul say the gospel must be preached?
Chan, just like most whom believe like he does lives in the Old Testament. When Christ came to earth and gave his life to atone for our sins, that propelled us into a different age. Is Christ God according to our beliefs? Didn’t he show us the character and nature and spirit of the creator, God? I marvel that people in the church world still hold tightly to a God that is harsh and wrathful. Christ told us to call him Father and to call Christ our brother and friend. The church loves fear, it sells it and feeds on it. Tell me I am wrong. I mean, tithe or you are under a curse!!! Chan is a good guy I am sure, and is passionate about his beliefs, but he is just repeating what he has been taught and taught himself for years.
Maybe us sheep should stop putting guys like Chan or Bell on any pedestal and get the revelation of Christ for ourselves. What does our own heart say on the matter? Jesus asked his disciple whom do you say that I am? Not, what did francis chan tell you about me.
GOD IS GOOD AND HIS MERCY ENDURES FOREVER.
In so many of the back and forth comments, whatever your take on what Chan said, implied, or referred to, I think one thing missing here which would settle the matter for anyone really concerned where it really matters, is what was in the video’s title…”We can’t afford to get this wrong”. In other words, we can philosophize over what God said, what He meant or didn’t mean, etc…but when it comes down to it, at our moment when we leave this place, while we can only lean heavily on His mercy and grace, we can certainly not “afford to get it wrong”.
My understanding is that it isn’t so much that God condemns people to hell, but rather, they condemn themselves to hell. God simply sets the standard by how that is judged.
With regard to those who are not “Christians” or of our faith around the world, Romans 2 & 3 speak to that as per how God sifts and judges that.
None of this is archaic belief, neither simply only Old Testament but it is very New Testament, and it can be found in John 3:18, right after God’s great love offering or gift of John 3:16.
Finally, while we are all God’s creation, scripture clearly points out how and who are considered in His eyes, “Children of God”. That’s in John 1:12 & 13
12But to as many as did receive and welcome Him, He gave the authority (power, privilege, right) to become the children of God, that is, to those who believe in (adhere to, trust in, and rely on) His name–(D)
13Who owe their birth neither to [c]bloods nor to the will of the flesh [that of physical impulse] nor to the will of man [that of a natural father], but to God. [They are born of God!] Amplified Bible
In all of the discussion about whether or not we can properly understand “justice” in our finite minds, there is actually a precedent from the teaching of Jesus. It’s not related to “justice”, but it relates to the goodness of God. Still, I wonder if the principle has any merit in any discussion about whether or not (or how much) we can understand the characteristics of an infinite God.
Jesus said that if we, being evil, know how to give good gifts to our children how much more would our Father give us good gifts? In other words, take our concept of “good” and realize that the Father is that and so much more.
Note that he’s not saying that the Father is different. He’s better. This resonates with Paul’s statement that God is “able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we can ask or imagine.”
The problem is when we say that perhaps God’s “justice” is not greater than ours, but different from ours. What we basically end up doing is redefining the words. I think this is getting at Jeff’s point about linguistics. It’s an important point.
Perhaps the bigger problem I have with Chan’s statements, though, is the implication that we don’t know the Father. He said something to the effect that we can only hope that God reveals something of himself to us. But what Chan fails to acknowledge is that the Father revealing himself to us is precisely what Jesus did!
We are not stuck in the Old Testament any longer. Hebrews 1 bears out the fact that we have a greater revelation. God has revealed himself to us through Jesus.
Now all that remains (I say somewhat tongue-in-cheek, as if it were just a small thing that remains!) is to figure out what Jesus was talking about when he talked about “gehenna”. Was he talking about the literal gehenna and an event coming in AD 70 (i.e., the Preterist view)? Or was he using the literal gehenna as a metaphor for something else (i.e., ECT)?
To my mind, that’s where the discussion needs to be. Start with the revelation of the Father through Jesus, and then examine what Jesus taught on the topic.
Steve Sensenig#214(!)
Thanks for this.
That is the nugget I have not articulated yet.