God is Love + Hell = Huh?

photo credit: kevin dooley via photopin cc

The following is a reaction paper I wrote for my Christian Theology class on how two theologians deal with the topic Hell. The one is Millard J. Erickson in his book Christian Theology and the other is Norman R. Gulley in his book The Truth As It Is In Jesus. Although this paper is far from exhaustive, I hope it is a blessing to you.

“The idea of hell, as popularly taught, has possibly done more, than anything else, to cause people to hate God” (Gulley 365). And yet, this is the one doctrine that Evangelical Christianity and Catholicism will defend to the death. The idea that a loving and just God will punish people in hell for the ceaseless ages of eternity shows God to be a sadist and an unjust dictator. After all, eternal torment is far worse than what Hitler did to the Jews and yet we consider Hitler evil and God good? Something is amiss. Both Gulley and Erickson take a stab at the issue of eternal torment. I will first follow Erickson’s chain of thought and then I will conclude with Gulley.

According to Erickson, “the doctrine of everlasting punishment is clearly taught in scripture” (Erickson, 1242). He quotes several Bible texts that support his view at the exclusion of others. For example, He quotes Matthew 25:41 in which Jesus says that the fires of hell are “everlasting” as evidence that hell is a place of everlasting, conscious torment for the wicked. However, he ignores Jude 1:7 which says that Sodom and Gomorrha were destroyed by “eternal fire.” This text makes it clear that “eternal” means something else because Sodom and Gomorrha are not still burning today. Erickson rejects annihilationism as un-biblical, however, Archbishop William Temple so eloquently put it, “One thing we can say with confidence: Everlasting torment is to be ruled out. If men had not imported Greek and unbiblical notion of the natural indestructibility of the individual soul, and then read the New Testament with that already in their minds, they wouldn’t have drawn from it a belief, not in everlasting torment, but in annihilation. It is the fire that is called “aeonian,” [eternal] not the life cast into it” (Gulley 365-66). While I don’t have time to analyze every aspect of Erickson’s position, Temple makes a profound observation when he states that the eternality spoken of in the Bible with reference to hell is of the flames themselves and not of the person being tormented. Erickson then attempts to defend the doctrine with three objections. The first is that sin is not finite but infinite because it is an offence against an infinite God. Therefore it must be punished infinitely. However, this line of argument suggests that sin and sinners will be eternally present when the Bible teaches that there will be “a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away…. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away” (Rev. 21:4). These texts suggest that God is going to put an end to sin and the universe will be completely cleansed from its hideous presence. How can this be if it will be eternally punished? In addition, Erickson assumes that sin is infinite because it is rebellion against an infinite God. However, this makes no sense because Gods infiniteness is that He has no beginning and no end. Are we then to say that sin has no beginning and no end? Will God live in an eternal state of anger against the wicked? Will He be eternally offended by sin to the point that He must eternally punish it? None of this makes sense at all for it suggests that God is a prisoner to sin because He can never be free of its effect on Him. He can never return to the state of peace and joy he had before sin entered the universe. It is eternally lost to Him. As I said, it makes no sense. Erickson then argues that God cannot create a creature that is meant to live forever and yet annihilate it when it sins. If the creature was created to live forever then it must by necessity live forever whether it sins or not. Here Erickson has stepped outside of the Bible, for the scriptures clearly teach that only God is immortal (1 Timothy 1:17) and never once refers to mankind as immortal. The final argument Erickson uses is that “God does not send anyone to hell” but that “[i]t is a human choice to experience the agony of hell” (Erickson, 1247). However, this argument does little to vindicate God for if God is the life giver then He alone is its source. If that is so then God would be the one to actively perpetuate the life of the wicked throughout eternity and is therefore perpetuating eternal and everlasting punishment.

While Gulley did not explore this topic as much as Erickson did he did make some interesting points. I do wish he would have been a little more exhaustive on it though for he falls into the same traps as Erickson. While Erickson quoted pro-eternal torment verses at the exclusion of pro-annihilation texts Gulley did likewise in his defense of annihilationism Gulley quotes Malachi 4:1 which states that the wicked will be consumed and “not a root or branch will be left of them.” He also quotes Ezekiel 28:18 which says that Satan will be destroyed by fire until only ashes are left. In addition, he explains how the Greek word for eternal does not always imply eternal in the way we think about it but he fails to explain how we can believe in eternal never-ending life while rejecting eternal-never ending punishment. However, Gulley’s position is at least biblically consistent. All the rationale and logic in the world will never be able to effectively unite the concept of a God of love with a God of torture. God is not interested in eternally punishing sinners. He is interested in restoring the universe to perfect harmony. God is love.

Resources:

www.rethinkinghell.com

www.helltruth.com/

Comments

  1. I have always been intrigued by the idea of a total annihilation. The wicked will be consumed and not a root or branch will be left. Alas, Satan will be destroyed that only ashes will be left. Thats not annihilation!! Real annihilation means no trace or thought of you will be left. That`s paradise in reality. Think about it: You no longer can hear, think or feel anything! Nothingness will engulf you.
    Bad news is: It is impossible! First: Nothingness does not exist and no one knows what it is. Secondly: God our Lord and creator has made man in his image and can never forget anyone`s existence even if it were possible to completely annihilate a person into non-existence. His child, although wicked, would be gone and God`s sadness that he could not save him would be eternal.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous,

    You pose an interesting challenge. First of all, allow me to state that the word "annihilation" is not in scripture. It is a theological word used to summarize a biblical concept. Therefore we must define that theological word by the biblical concept not by our concept. When you say "Thats not annihilation... Real annihilation means etc..." You proceed to define the word "annihilation" based on our own concept of what you think annihilation is and not the biblical one. The Bible simply does not tell us what God will do with the memory of the wicked but it clearly says that they will be totally destroyed and will not be tormented forever and ever without end. That is what we mean by annihilation. We define it based on the biblical concept that the wicked will not be consciously tormented forever and ever. That's all the Bible says. Anything else becomes mere speculation in which we redefine the theological term "annihilation" based on what we think it should mean and then try and read the text through that lens.

    Annihilation means that nothing will be left of the wicked. They can no longer see, hear, think, feel, or do. As far as whether other people or God will remember you we have no clue. The Bible doesn't say. And where it is silent, I am silent.

    When you say, "Nothingness does not exist and no one knows what it is" you are speaking philosophically. You have a presupposition you are bringing to the text and you interpret the text based on that presupposition. This is exactly how the idea of eternal torment was born. Early Christians began mixing Bible truth with Greek philosophy and it resulted in a myriad of heresies - eternal torment being one of them. But the Bible does teach that the wicked will be totally destroyed. They will not suffer forever and ever century after century in agony and torment. God will judge them, punish them, and destroy them. The universe will be cleansed of sin and sinners. That is what the Bible teaches. Any further speculation about the memory of the wicked etc. is beyond the Biblical witness. To try and discover what God has not revealed is to overlook what he has clearly revealed. In the end we come up with multiple theories that do nothing but muddle the simple truth God has seen fit to reveal.

    I know you will not agree with this and that's OK. We don't have to see eye to eye for me to value your spiritual journey. But if you want to chat about the issue (not argue. I refuse to argue) then that is cool. Whether or not we agree we can always learn much from one another.

    Blessings,
    Marcos

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Marcos,
      why do you write a paper using theological terms that are not in the Scripture? Surely you do not think it is without reason that Scripture says that God LONGS for the spirit he has caused to dwell in us. Forget my spirituel journey of which you do not know anything. I do not want to chat nor argue. Share your thoughts! You say. Thats what I did.

      Delete
    2. Theological terms do not need to be in the bible so long as they summarize a biblical teaching. The word theology is not in the Bible either, neither are Bible, trinity, divinity, incarnation, monotheism, rapture, unconditional love, and in our discussion "annihilationism." However, each of these words accurately summarizes a biblical concept. Therefore, it is not wrong to use them.

      I am sorry we couldn't connect on a deeper level, but on any note thanks for sharing your thoughts!

      Blessings,
      Marcos

      Delete

Post a Comment

Please feel free to share your thoughts! Just remember to keep your comments friendly and relevant. Comments that are not risk being incinerated in cyber space. Happy typing! :D