OK, let’s put a face on it. Picture someone you know and genuinely love - an appealing, compassionate person of good character (admittedly by human standards) but one who does not believe in Jesus. For me this would be my funny, honest and thoughtful brother. Now picture this person’s face as they experience maximum agony for trillions and trillions of years and beyond – for all time. Now picture yourself, during this same period, at a banquet table in Heaven with other Christians and Jesus Himself, feasting and having a wonderful time, Jesus, of course, is fully aware of your beloved brother’s everlasting torment. The same Jesus who clearly demonstrated boundless love, compassion, grace, and yes, righteousness, during His human ministry on earth and told us “He who has seen Me has seen the Father.” John 14:9
When considering the above, even the most ardent supporter of the doctrine of hell as eternal conscious punishment would have to admit their own lack of human understanding of this as justice. A perfectly legitimate and credible position for supporters of this doctrine would be to refer to Isaiah 55:8 “For My thoughts are not your thoughts neither are your ways My ways, says the Lord” and conclude that their limited human perspective prevents them from understanding how this equates to fair justice but, as they believe Scripture supports this doctrine, they accept it on faith. Perfectly legitimate.
Unfortunately this is all too often not what we communicate, either to fellow Christians or non-believers. Instead we attempt to explain the unexplainable. Dr. Albert Mohler is currently at the forefront of this effort. He has written extensively in defense of this doctrine and quotes theologian Geerhardus Vos who “warned against abstracting the love of God from His other attributes, noting that while God’s love is revealed to be His fundamental attribute, it is defined by His other attributes, as well. It is quite possible to “overemphasize this one side of truth as to bring into neglect other exceedingly important principles and demands of Christianity,” he stressed. This would lead to a loss of theological ‘equilibrium’ and balance….”.1 Humanly speaking, Vos’s words are unconvincing in that everlasting torment for temporal sins is beyond any human capacity to conceive of as “equilibrium” or “balance” - mathematically speaking, it is not equal. Dr. Mohler however purports that the challenge associated with accepting this doctrine is not our limited human understanding but rather the mindset and values of certain people. He says, “…modern persons demand that God must be a humanitarian, and He is held to human standards of righteousness and love…”.2 True enough, but the standards to which he refers are by no means arbitrary, rather they arise from our capacity for reason and logic. Implying that only “modern persons” have this limitation is incorrect.
Dr. Mohler does attempt to address the apparent lack of balance by stating, "The traditional doctrine of hell argues that an infinite penalty is just punishment for sin against the infinite holiness of God."3 But what does this mean exactly? Agree with the contrast between our sinfulness and God's perfect holiness but how does this translate into damages? Has sin during one's human lifetime somehow harmed God for all eternity? Rather than explaining the doctrine, Dr. Mohler's comparison seems more effective in suppressing any sincere questions, even from Christians who, while correctly believing that they, and all people, are undeserving of Heaven (Rom. 3:23), are made to feel that any notion they have that their unsaved loved ones may not deserve eternal torment is a sign of arrogance and unrepentance. This doesn't welcome legitimate concerns - it silences them.
Dr. Mohler does attempt to address the apparent lack of balance by stating, "The traditional doctrine of hell argues that an infinite penalty is just punishment for sin against the infinite holiness of God."3 But what does this mean exactly? Agree with the contrast between our sinfulness and God's perfect holiness but how does this translate into damages? Has sin during one's human lifetime somehow harmed God for all eternity? Rather than explaining the doctrine, Dr. Mohler's comparison seems more effective in suppressing any sincere questions, even from Christians who, while correctly believing that they, and all people, are undeserving of Heaven (Rom. 3:23), are made to feel that any notion they have that their unsaved loved ones may not deserve eternal torment is a sign of arrogance and unrepentance. This doesn't welcome legitimate concerns - it silences them.
Another point made by Dr. Mohler is that the “modern denial of hell” is a rejection of retributive justice.4 Not always true. Here he is grouping two very different alternate doctrines, Universalism and Annihilationism and addressing them as one. His premise fits the former well - if all ultimately end up in Heaven, whether redeemed by Jesus in this life or not, then there is no permanent penalty for sin – and no reason for the cross. However, Annihilationism presents a very different story. This doctrine holds that those who don’t accept Jesus as their Savior - in this life - are annihilated in the lake of fire, in keeping with the Biblical teaching that “the wages of sin is death…” (Romans 6:23). How is the death penalty not retributive? Clearly it is.
Although Dr. Mohler represents only one side of this issue as influenced by human sentiment, in actuality this applies to both sides. Ironically, viewing hell as eternal conscious punishment may itself be an attempt to hold God to human standards of justice. When considering murderers, rapists and pedophiles, who among us doesn’t feel that annihilation is too good for them? Is our sense of human justice satisfied if Hitler is ultimately allowed to merely die? Perhaps our outrage over easy treatment for this heinous group is overshadowing our compassion for the much larger group of better behaved unsaved people. As we debate our lack of understanding of God’s wrath are we in actuality just ill equipped to understand His divine mercy? Worth considering.
As Dr. Mohler says: "We must never believe that we can do a public relations job on the Gospel or on the character of God."5 Both sides must stop spinning the truth. Effective evangelism and fair debate demand an honest, clear assessment of our own position as well as that of opposing views. By communicating an understanding of a concept of punishment, the severity of which is far beyond our human comprehension, we at best damage our own credibility and at worst come off as anything but loving. Either way we put God, and other Christians, in an unappealing light.
As Dr. Mohler says: "We must never believe that we can do a public relations job on the Gospel or on the character of God."5 Both sides must stop spinning the truth. Effective evangelism and fair debate demand an honest, clear assessment of our own position as well as that of opposing views. By communicating an understanding of a concept of punishment, the severity of which is far beyond our human comprehension, we at best damage our own credibility and at worst come off as anything but loving. Either way we put God, and other Christians, in an unappealing light.
Footnotes:
1, 2: Doing Away with Hell? Part One
3, 4: Doing Away with Hell? Part Two5: We Have Seen All This Before: Rob Bell and the (Re)Emergence of Liberal Theology
No comments:
Post a Comment