Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Overstreet

Hell and how to preach it

140 posts in this topic

What I appreciate most about Keller's teaching on Hell is the emphasis on its self-chosen nature. This is something that Christians of many theological stripes have spoken on in similar terms. Keller has already mentioned C. S. Lewis; you can find more from Keller on the subject here or in chapter 5 of The Reason for God. Let me give a few other illustrations.

Thanks for posting those quotes, I found them very interesting. FWIW, beginning to think about hell from this "self-chosen" perspective has helped me square away -- not totally but not insignificantly -- some of the issues I've had over the years attempting to reconcile God's sovereignty with mankind's free will and culpability. Again, I stress that I haven't totally squared them away, but then again, is that even possible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for those quotes, du Garbandier. The Bishop Kallistos quote in particular comes very close to the sort of thing I've heard from other Orthodox such as Fr. Thomas Hopko.

It is important to note, though, that Keller does not merely describe hell as self-chosen. The opening to the article that kicked off this thread explicitly describes hell as a place where good people go "just because they don't believe in Jesus". And it's only a short step from THAT to believing that hell is a place where good people go even though they may have believed in Jesus, because they didn't believe in Jesus THE RIGHT WAY. See, e.g., the Left Behind novels and their fantasy idea as to which Christians get to be raptured and which do not. Or, for that matter, see the bit later on in his article where Keller explicitly argues AGAINST the idea that God would never send anyone to hell "just for holding the wrong belief."

It is, indeed, in the context of that last quote that Keller cites Romans 1 without making any reference to the inclusivist elements in Romans 2 (e.g., "For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them"). And as I've already noted, Keller's apparent ignorance of these inclusivist elements in the New Testament is a major, major problem.

SDG wrote:

: Isn't the problem of hell merely a special case of theodicy? The ultimate case, in fact?

Depends on what you mean by "hell". If we're asking why God allows evil, then that's one thing (though certainly, if Knowledge + Power = Responsibility, and if God's knowledge and power are limitless, then God must be responsible, on some level, for letting bad things happen). But if the argument against Keller's brand of Christianity is that his God is abusive and explicitly perpetrates evil against people who don't deserve it, then I don't think Keller does himself any favours by saying, "It's okay, God was abusive and evil to himself, too (and then blamed the rest of us for it)."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SDG said: Isn't the problem of hell merely a special case of theodicy? The ultimate case, in fact?

And du Garbandier said: What I appreciate most about Keller's teaching on Hell is the emphasis on its self-chosen nature. As well as, “Hell is not so much a place where God imprisons man, as a place where man, by misusing his free will, chooses to imprison himself. And even in Hell the wicked are not deprived of the love of God, but by their own choice they experience as suffering what the saints experience as joy. "The love of God will be an intolerable torment for those who have not acquired it within themselves."

And Augustine said: You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you

Don't know if it is the ultimate case, but think of it. A person is in hell. Let’s say they chose it. Ultimately speaking. For whatever rationalization process or irrational reasons. At the same time, you have to say that God still sustains said person in such an existence. Even if you want to say “chooses to imprison himself” the “prison” is still sustained in existence by God.

My point is this. The Augustinian quote tells us something about the ontological and dispositional nature of persons in existence (persons are never solidified unto evil). In other words, just because someone is in hell doesn’t mean that restlessness somehow is eviscerated because God’s love is not. Its infinite. In other words, I think God has given creatures the irrevocable power and potential to not only accept God’s love but to reciprocate love back to God. In short, it's IMPOSSIBLE to TOTALLY ignore God...to absolutely and irrevocably destroy the possibility of receiving God's love. So then the question becomes:

Can a finite being (with finite strength of will unto defiance)...who has God Himself as the very ground of his deepest "self"...actively resist receiving the Infinite Love of God **every possible moment** for the rest of eternity? In other words, is it possible for a defiant finite being--no matter how strong--to OUTLAST the infinite loving will-to-patience of the Infinite God, without whom they cannot fully be "selves" at all?

I’m gonna bet on God. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Augustinian quote tells us something about the ontological and dispositional nature of persons in existence (persons are never solidified unto evil).

Does that parenthesis follow from the Augustine quotation?

Can a finite being (with finite strength of will unto defiance)...who has God Himself as the very ground of his deepest "self"...actively resist receiving the Infinite Love of God **every possible moment** for the rest of eternity? In other words, is it possible for a defiant finite being--no matter how strong--to OUTLAST the infinite loving will-to-patience of the Infinite God, without whom they cannot fully be "selves" at all?

What if hell is a matter of ceasing, perhaps progressively, to be "fully selves"?

What if hell is a long, slow slide from personhood toward something subpersonal? What if you gradually cease being a grumbler and become only a grumble (The Great Divorce)? What if in the end you make yourself something no longer something capable of receiving God's love?

What if, in a word, neither "ECT" nor annihilationism were wholly false? The New Testament contains language that supports both ... what if the truth were somewhere in between?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What if in the end you make yourself something no longer something capable of receiving God's love?

Is this even an ontological possibility? I mean, the fact that you could actually become an ontological impossibility seems like the very definition of hell to me, but I simply can't think of any precedent in biblical or theological literature for what you are suggesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What if in the end you make yourself something no longer something capable of receiving God's love?

Is this even an ontological possibility? I mean, the fact that you could actually become an ontological impossibility seems like the very definition of hell to me, but I simply can't think of any precedent in biblical or theological literature for what you are suggesting.

Does the Bible suggest that it is an ontological impossibility? Is there scriptural evidence that those in hell are loved by God?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, I don't know. I know of similar statements by Reformed folk.

Of course. But, speaking as a Reformed individual, I'm not sure I entirely buy those statements given the broader scheme of Reformed theology. There is certainly something to it, but I think it requires more nuanced expression than Keller/Packer/Palmer offer.

Edited by Ryan H.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there scriptural evidence that those in hell are loved by God?

It would be news to me if there is any.

Your comments, Stephen, beyond the echoes of Lewis' GREAT DIVORCE, remind me of N. T. Wright's comments in SURPRISED BY HOPE:

"When human beings give their heartfelt allegiance to and worship that which is not God, they progressively cease to reflect the image of God. One of the primary laws of human nature is that you become like what you worship; what's more, you
reflect
what you worship not only back to the object itself but also outward to the world around. Those who worship money increasingly define themselves in terms of it and increasingly treat other people as creditors, debtors, partners, or customers rather than as human beings. Those who worship sex define themselves in terms of it (their preferences, their practices, their past histories) and increasingly treat other people as actual or potential sexual objects. Those who worship power define themselves in terms of it and treat other people as either collaborators, competitors, or pawns. These and many other forms of idolatry combine in a thousand ways, all of them damaging to the image-bearing quality of the people concerned and of those whose lives they touch. My suggestion is that it is possible for human beings so to continue down this road, so to refuse all whisperings of good news, all glimmers of the true light, all promptings to turn and go the other way, all signposts to the love of God, that after death they become at last, by their own effective choice,
beings that once were human but now are not
, creatures that have ceased to bear the divine image at all. With the death of that body in which they inhabited God's good world, in which the flickering flame of goodness had not been completely snuffed out, they pass simultaneously not only beyond hope but also beyond pity. There is no concentration camp in the beautiful countryside, no torture chamber in the palace of delight. Those creatures that still exist in an ex-human state, no longer reflecting their maker in any meaningful sense, can no longer excite in themselves or others the natural sympathy some feel even for the hardened criminal."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the Bible suggest that it is an ontological impossibility? Is there scriptural evidence that those in hell are loved by God?

Currently not sure either way, still musing. The way you worded it ("you make yourself something no longer something capable of receiving God's love") is what raised the interesting (read: terrible) question.

Edited by M. Leary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am wondering if it is possible for these ex-human, incapable-of-being-loved, no-longer-a-grumbler-but-just-a-grumble creatures to feel pain and suffering. Without a divine spark to betray, are they capable of feeling SEPARATED from the divine any more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mean to be offensive, but merely to offer a comment from the sidelines. The language in some of these posts is reminiscent of the training of soldiers who must dehumanize their enemy in order to feel (temporarily) no reservations about killing them. Believing that human beings cease being human in order to justify the existence of hell (as the NT Wright quote would seem to indicate) seems like a very dangerous path to take. A conception of God in which He ceases loving based on a person's location - as the great philosopher Keanu would say, 'Whoa.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew, having read Tom Wright's book, I can safely say that he isn't looking for excuses to justify the existence of hell. His book is a fantastic primer for beginning to think about doctrines of the afterlife, resurrection, heaven, and hell too. The book isn't looking to argue that certain beliefs must be held, but at why certain beliefs have been held by Christians throughout history. But if he's looking to defend anything in this book, it's what many would call "orthodox" beliefs that in some cases bear little to no resemblance to the beliefs of the Evangelical masses e.g. the common beliefs surrounding hell and heaven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna try to argue that, at least for me, it doesn't make sense that one is a "self" in hell via separation from God. God is the very grounding of the self in order to make any sense of the self. Thus, there is no negation of the self because self-reference can only occur in relation to the other ie. God. To be separated from God would be to essentially annihilate oneself. In other words, there is no "contentless eternal existence" for any human being who experiences "hell." A person cannot truly be "self-centered" without being "God-centered" because God is the ABSOLUTE CENTER AND GROUND OF THE SELF. Wow. That was weird putting it that way. LOL. Just a little busy right now so I try and get on this later. Opps...but then again...Psalms 139.

Where shall I go from your Spirit?

Or where shall I flee from your presence?

If I ascend to heaven, you are there!

If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!

If I take the wings of the morning

and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,

even there your hand shall lead me,

and your right hand shall hold me.

If I say, “Surely the darkness shall cover me,

and the light about me be night,”

even the darkness is not dark to you;

the night is bright as the day,

for darkness is as light with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't mean to be offensive, but merely to offer a comment from the sidelines. The language in some of these posts is reminiscent of the training of soldiers who must dehumanize their enemy in order to feel (temporarily) no reservations about killing them. Believing that human beings cease being human in order to justify the existence of hell (as the NT Wright quote would seem to indicate) seems like a very dangerous path to take. A conception of God in which He ceases loving based on a person's location - as the great philosopher Keanu would say, 'Whoa.'

No offense taken.

Let me say from the outset that my starting point for thinking about the question of evil in all its forms, including death and hell, is my fundamental conviction that God is good. That is where I begin and end.

For the purposes of this discussion, my second premise is: As a Catholic Christian, I affirm the existence of hell. That is, those who die in a state of personal mortal sin are eternally separated from communion with God.

Part of theology entails theodicy, that is, the art of trying to articulate a coherent worldview that comprehends both the goodness of God and also the evils both of our experience and of revelation. I seek understanding on this point, but I am not trying to "justify" anything. God's goodness, and the compatibility of the existence of hell with God's goodness, do not hinge on my ability to explain it. The reality of hell is something I am absolutely content to trust God with. Whatever doubts I have had in my exploration of my faith, this isn't one of them. Cardinal Newman's dictum that "Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt" may have its limits, but with respect to this question, for me, it is the truth. If at the end of the day I cannot explain or understand how the goodness of God and the existence of hell fit together, that alters neither my fundamental commitment to premise 1 (God is good) nor my secondary commitment to premise 2 (hell exists).

Having said that, I acknowledge the difficulty -- the apparent injustice of hell. However it may hinge on our own choice, it is hard to think that anyone could actually deserve hell as it has traditionally be understood. The sum total of all human sins is finite; eternal punishment would seem to be infinite. How can anyone, even Hitler or Stalin or Judas Iscariot, deserve infinite punishment? Saying that it is freely chosen may not obviate the difficulty: Are any of our choices on earth really commensurate with eternal punishment? Wouldn't God have other options? If He loves them, wouldn't He choose to exercise them?

How might these difficulties be resolved? I can see a few ways that one might try to do so.

1. It might be that all are saved. For me as a Catholic, this proposal lurks in the wings, but cannot be embraced. Universalism, at least in most of its forms, is flatly incompatible with Catholic belief. It contradicts the plain sense of many scriptural texts as well as the weight of tradition in historical Christian belief and in magisterial teaching, in which Catholics see the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The proposal that Christian tradition has so profoundly misunderstood divine revelation is not compatible with Catholic faith in the teaching of Jesus and the work of the Holy Spirit.

2. Is there any sense in which a back door might be left open to universalism? Some have proposed that even if we can't affirm that all are saved in fact, we might possibly dare to hope that all may be saved. Catholic faith affirms definitively that hell exists -- the devil and the fallen angels are there for all eternity -- but we do not have definitive knowledge that any particular human beings go there. Can we at least hope that perhaps none do?

From a Catholic perspective, this view is, if not strictly heretical, at least proximate to heresy and gravely suspect. Proximate to heresy is nowhere that I would want to be -- but I don't go so far as to affirm as an article of faith that people are definitely in hell. The only safe view of scripture and Church teaching for me is that hell exists and people go there -- but I allow myself, if not a hope for universal salvation, at least a doubt as to the absolute reliability of the historic understanding on this point. That's as close as I can get to universalism.

3. It might be that those who are not saved are annihilated. This also is not a live possibility for me as a Catholic, even more so than universalism. The Church's teaching on this point is definitive: The soul is immortal and does not cease to exist, ever. However, as indicated previously, I wonder whether annihilationism might not contain a partial truth. Scripture does use imagery of destruction as well as of eternal suffering and exile. Is there a way that both could contribute to a larger understanding of the reality of hell?

4. It might be that the punishment of hell is not infinite. How can eternal punishment be finite? One way would be if it were progressively lessened. One can plot a curve that goes to infinity without ever crossing a certain finite threshold (e.g., halving over a given span of time, then halving again, etc.).

That would be simple enough if the punishments of hell were imposed from without, in which case one could imagine God, as it were, turning down the dial over time. But if the Catechism is right in saying that the main punishment of Hell is the inability to enjoy the Beatific Vision, then how could that be diminished over time?

One way might be if the capacity to suffer -- awareness of suffering, perhaps consciousness itself -- diminished over time. What if hell were not oblivion, but a slide toward oblivion? This proposal has for me the attractive quality of tying in both with the scriptural imagery of destruction and also the imagery of eternal suffering, while also allowing the sufferings of hell to be finite. However, it is wholly speculative, and I am aware of no precedent for this style of thinking in tradition or theology, so I don't put much weight on it. It's just an idea that I happen to like.

It seems to me at least plausible that if in Christ we become fully ourselves, then in definitive separation from God we cease to be ourselves. If in Heaven we become full or complete persons, then perhaps in hell we cease to be persons at all, and in that sense, perhaps, cease to be objects of God's love.

I don't think there is a dangerous analogy here to the depersonalizing tactics of military training. No callous or ruthless action follows from this belief. It's not like I want anyone to go to hell, or to recommend any course of action that would tend to send people there! On the contrary, the more firmly convinced we are both of God's love and the reality of hell, the more determined we should be to love our neighbor and to follow Christ's command to proclaim the gospel to all the world. It is the seemingly compassionate rejection of hell, especially in its universalist form, that robs Christ's command of its urgency and commends the path of least resistance.

5. Finally, it might be that the goodness of God and the reality of hell are part of a larger reality in other ways that we can't fathom. For example, perhaps when we understand the nature of human freedom from the other side, as it were, we will see that we are indeed capable of freely choosing eternal punishment, and that there is nothing contrary to God's justice or mercy in it.

With the catch-all addition of that last point, that about exhausts the options I can think of. There might be other possibilities worth distinguishing, but I can't think of any.

Edited by SDG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BBBCanada wrote:

: I'm gonna try to argue that, at least for me, it doesn't make sense that one is a "self" in hell via separation from God.

FWIW, I am sympathetic to this view. C.S. Lewis has some very powerful -- and, it seems to me, persuasive -- depictions of hell as a place where people lose their "self", not only in The Great Divorce but in his Screwtape works, too. (And it's sort of the flip side to Till We Have Faces, where the implication is that we who live in this fallen state have NOT YET become the "selves" -- the "faces" -- that we were meant to be.) (And this all ties in to the nature of Personhood and the Trinity and how three Persons sharing one perfect divinity are the model for we humans who need to perfect our own Personhood while drawing closer to God and to one another, etc., etc. The Screwtape Letters has some brilliant stuff on this, too.)

That being said, I am not sure how "separate" from God one can be so long as one simply exists. I mean, if it is God who creates us and sustains our existence, then hell itself -- if it is to exist at all -- must be sustained by God, yes?

Though admittedly, God sustains the existence of rocks and chairs, etc., too. The mere fact that God sustains something's existence does not, in and of itself, make that something a Person. I guess I'm just ambivalent on the question of whether a person can become a non-person and remain, in any sense, a sentient entity that is aware of its own torment etc. To say that a person becomes a non-person seems tantamount, to me, to saying that the "person" has been annihilated altogether -- and while the grumbles of that person might echo into eternity, the fact that there is no longer a grumbler would have to mean that there was no one to suffer any torment for being a grumbler.

To put this another way: When someone is brain-dead and in a coma, do they feel hunger or thirst? Of course, we might say that their body reacts on a physical or biochemical level to the absence of food and drink, but does that person "feel" the hunger and thirst? If not, then most of us would be okay with "pulling the plug". And if God DOESN'T "pull the plug", then it can't be because he wants the person in question to FEEL hunger and thirst; the ability to feel hunger and thirst no longer exists. If God DOESN'T "pull the plug", then there can be only two reasons: he either intends to resurrect that person at some point (either to save him or to torment him), or he wants to keep the body around as a sort of museum piece.

Heh. Kind of like Jabba the Hutt, now that I think of it.

Anyway. Just some rambling trains of thought here.

And, FWIW, to bring this back to Lewis, I believe he inclined towards the view that Hell and Purgatory were sort of the same thing: it was just a question of whether someone got out of there or not; it was a question of what trajectory someone was on at the point of their death. (Could the trajectory be changed AFTER their death, in his view? Not sure.)

Now, as I understand it, the Orthodox aren't particularly fond of the doctrine of Purgatory, partly because it has historically been tied to the Catholic doctrine of indulgences, etc. But I don't believe Lewis made any reference to those other doctrines, nor do I think there is necessarily anything about Purgatory itself that, in principle, would be anathema to Orthodox thought. It might be one of those speculations that we prefer not to indulge in, but... well, okay, speaking PERSONALLY, I do like to speculate, so there you go. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, I am sympathetic to this view. C.S. Lewis has some very powerful -- and, it seems to me, persuasive -- depictions of hell as a place where people lose their "self", not only in The Great Divorce but in his Screwtape works, too. (And it's sort of the flip side to Till We Have Faces, where the implication is that we who live in this fallen state have NOT YET become the "selves" -- the "faces" -- that we were meant to be.) (And this all ties in to the nature of Personhood and the Trinity and how three Persons sharing one perfect divinity are the model for we humans who need to perfect our own Personhood while drawing closer to God and to one another, etc., etc. The Screwtape Letters has some brilliant stuff on this, too.)

Yes, all of this has very much informed my own thinking on the subject.

That being said, I am not sure how "separate" from God one can be so long as one simply exists. I mean, if it is God who creates us and sustains our existence, then hell itself -- if it is to exist at all -- must be sustained by God, yes?

Though admittedly, God sustains the existence of rocks and chairs, etc., too. The mere fact that God sustains something's existence does not, in and of itself, make that something a Person. I guess I'm just ambivalent on the question of whether a person can become a non-person and remain, in any sense, a sentient entity that is aware of its own torment etc. To say that a person becomes a non-person seems tantamount, to me, to saying that the "person" has been annihilated altogether -- and while the grumbles of that person might echo into eternity, the fact that there is no longer a grumbler would have to mean that there was no one to suffer any torment for being a grumbler.

As I mentioned above, I'm drawn toward the idea that personhood is not "annihilated altogether," but degraded, in hell -- perhaps progressively (since otherwise any finite but constant amount of personhood and consciousness and suffering would suffer without limit over time). Any thoughts about that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, there is one other possibility I forgot to mention: It might be that the nature of eternity in hell is different than we suppose.

We typically imagine both heaven and hell as occupying an infinite extension of time as we know it on earth, but time in heaven and hell might be very different than what we experience here -- and time in heaven might be one thing, and time in hell something else altogether.

For example, we might liken time as we experience it on earth in Euclidean terms to a line segment, with a beginning and and end, while eternity in Heaven is like a limitless three-dimensional space. But what about eternity in hell? We can't compare it to a point without extension, because that would suggest annihilationism. But what about a very small circle? Or something non-Euclidean that would make the point better? I don't know enough math to go where I want with this, but I'm confident that someone who knew more could make some sense in this direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having said that, I acknowledge the difficulty -- the apparent injustice of hell. However it may hinge on our own choice, it is hard to think that anyone could actually deserve hell as it has traditionally be understood. The sum total of all human sins is finite; eternal punishment would seem to be infinite. How can anyone, even Hitler or Stalin or Judas Iscariot, deserve infinite punishment? Saying that it is freely chosen may not obviate the difficulty: Are any of our choices on earth really commensurate with eternal punishment? Wouldn't God have other options? If He loves them, wouldn't He choose to exercise them?

But isn't there a sense in which the punishment one receives is dependent upon the gravity of the crime that one has committed? If I speed, I get a ticket. If I steal, I get thrown in jail. If I kill a bunch of people, I get a death sentence. The graver the crime, the harsher the sentence, right? So what sort of punishment befits turning away from God, the infinite and holy source of truth, beauty, and love? Is that a serious crime, and if so, how serious?

Edited by opus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Having said that, I acknowledge the difficulty -- the apparent injustice of hell. However it may hinge on our own choice, it is hard to think that anyone could actually deserve hell as it has traditionally be understood. The sum total of all human sins is finite; eternal punishment would seem to be infinite. How can anyone, even Hitler or Stalin or Judas Iscariot, deserve infinite punishment? Saying that it is freely chosen may not obviate the difficulty: Are any of our choices on earth really commensurate with eternal punishment? Wouldn't God have other options? If He loves them, wouldn't He choose to exercise them?

But isn't there a sense in which the punishment one receives is dependent upon the gravity of the crime that one has committed? If I speed, I get a ticket. If I steal, I get thrown in jail. If I kill a bunch of people, I get a death sentence. The graver the crime, the harsher the sentence, right? So what sort of punishment befits turning away from God, the infinite and holy source of truth, beauty, and love? Is that a serious crime, and if so, how serious?

Yeah, I get that, and that may be the answer, or part of it. But doesn't it also seem plausible that while God is infinite, we are finite, and our capacity for guilt -- and therefore our capacity to merit punishment -- is finite? Even if you turn away from the infinitely good God, you're still only turning away your puny little self. That's pretty bad, but does it merit infinite punishment? Maybe. I don't know how to look at it.

And there's also the question why God would create in the first place beings he loves in order to cause them infinite suffering (here perhaps the more rigorous Calvinists have the simplest answer). I appreciate the idea that perhaps hell doesn't necessarily mean infinite punishment, even if it is eternal. Could it possibly be that existence is ultimately better than nonexistence, even for those who go to hell? This might be wrong. But I'm pretty confident it's not the dehumanizing tactic that Andrew was worried about.

Edited by SDG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is where I think Conditionalism offers some relief to the theological tension surrounding the concept of hell.

It's the presupposition of the soul's innate immortality that forces the conclusion that it must then ultimately reside in some "place" after death. Since sin cannot exist in God's manifest presence, the logic goes, then sinners must end up in some wormhole of eternal separation from His presence. This traditional view of hell gives sinners a luxury (immortality)that is not afforded them in scripture. It's no surprise then that leaping off this vantage point, debates about the exact nature of hell quickly get convoluted and problematic. People are chained to a rock in flames of fire screaming while demons and monstrous snakes torture them, black figures wander around endlessly on some barren frozen planet, or anguished souls toil in some miserable, unchanging fever-dream of existence, paying off their life debts . Either way you cut it-- whether traditional, metaphorical or puragatorial views-- they are the unnecessary result of belief in the souls natural state of immortality.

The Conditonalist perspective attributes immortality to God alone, that God gives the gift of immortality to those who receive His grace, and that those who do not will get their wish-- they will die and cease to exist, blotted out of of the community of the living. The righteous will live on in eternities sunrise, the unrighteous will wither and be consumed by the ultimate equalizer- death, irreversible cessation of being.

Edited by Greg P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is where I think Conditionalism offers some relief to the theological tension surrounding the concept of hell. It's the presupposition of the soul's innate immortality that forces the conclusion that it must then ultimately reside in some "place" after death.

The immortality of the soul is a dogma of faith for Catholics. No relief there for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Conditonalist perspective attributes immortality to God alone, that God gives the gift of immortality to those who receive His grace, and that those who do not will get their wish-- they will die and cease to exist, blotted out of of the community of the living. The righteous will live on in eternities sunrise, the unrighteous will wither and be consumed by the ultimate equalizer- death, irreversible cessation of being.

I see the attraction of Conditionalism. But two things keep me from embracing it: I have yet to be convinced of the exegetical arguments for it, and the history of Christian belief does not point in that direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see the attraction of Conditionalism. But two things keep me from embracing it: I have yet to be convinced of the exegetical arguments for it, and the history of Christian belief does not point in that direction.

Which actually overlaps, partially, with what I said. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see the attraction of Conditionalism. But two things keep me from embracing it: I have yet to be convinced of the exegetical arguments for it, and the history of Christian belief does not point in that direction.

There's no question that teaching on the soul's inherent immortality has been the majority position, but there are compelling arguments from history regarding the Greek influence on this theology. That, coupled with a lack of any clear biblical passages in support of inherent immortality, make for a very reasonable case imo.

OTOH, verses in support of the tragic finality of death and total annihilation of the wicked are legion. Eternal life is presented everywhere in the NT as a unique gift afforded earth's undeserving passengers, not just an upgrade to first class for those wanting a better view of the Everlasting.

Edited by Greg P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OTOH, verses in support of the tragic finality of death and total annihilation of the wicked are legion.

If you mean to imply a preponderance of evidence for annihilation over against eternal punishment, I dispute that. Furthermore, I suspect that efforts to defend this thesis will very quickly resort to placing more weight on warnings of physical death than such warnings would seem to bear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0