Wednesday, April 18, 2012

When It Comes to Hell, We Can’t Afford to be Wrong

A response to Erasing Hell by Francis Chan & Preston Sprinkle

When sharing my annihilationist view with more traditional Christians, their responses generally fall into three broad categories:

  1. Hopeful yet cautious enthusiasm (this is wonderful, if true - I need to study it further)
  2. Complacency (interesting but not what I believe, nor is it a critical theological issue)
  3. Rejection (no way, hell is eternal conscious punishment as I’ve always been taught)

Having been in the first camp myself, always found the other two reactions puzzling. After all, whether or not we ultimately determine annihilation to be true shouldn’t we all prefer it to the traditional view? And if so, isn’t it worthy of further study?  While Francis Chan doesn’t fit neatly into any of the above buckets, his book Erasing Hell provides valuable perspective into the views of the latter two groups.

While Pastor Chan does acknowledge the possibility of annihilation, the book is primarily a defense of eternal conscious punishment, which is the focus of this essay.  Although Chan’s main concern is with universalism (and on this subject we’re in broad agreement), I’m writing this entry strictly from an annihilationist viewpoint.

From a philosophical perspective, Erasing Hell raises the following questions / issues:

Is it Safer to Err on the Side of Communicating a More Extreme Punishment?

While Pastor Chan stresses the need to understand hell correctly, the consequences he sees for getting it wrong are markedly out of balance. He writes, “If I say there is no hell, and it turns out that there is a hell, I may lead people into the very place I convinced them did not exist! If I say there is a hell, and I’m wrong, I may persuade people to spend their lives frantically warning loved ones about a terrifying place that isn’t real.” Pastor Chan’s view of the consequences of communicating a false view of hell appears to be: leading people to hell vs. wasted effort warning people about a hell that doesn’t exist. Clearly the cost of lost souls far outweighs the inconvenience of unnecessary labor. If this perspective is representative of well meaning Christians in groups 2 and 3 above, it’s no wonder they reject the notion of annihilation – it’s not worth the risk of losing people forever. However the consequences Pastor Chan presents are incorrect. Preaching eternal conscious punishment of the unsaved is itself leading people away from God as they either struggle to make logical sense of a concept that is beyond human comprehension or they perceive God’s character in an inaccurate and extremely unappealing light. Either reaction can lead people toward disbelief or more “palatable” views that are extreme in the other direction, such as universalism. We are increasingly seeing this phenomenon today with the enormous popularity of people such as Rob Bell.

Bottom line: the consequences of false doctrine in either direction are the same: lost souls vs. lost souls. Indeed, we can’t get this wrong.

God’s Ways are Infinitely Higher than Our Ways so We Must Not Hold Him to Human Standards

While Chan sees the temptation to minimize the punishment of hell as resulting from human views of justice, in actuality both the doctrines of annihilationism and eternal conscious punishment appeal to human values – albeit very different ones. When considering murderers, pedophiles and others who violently victimize people, who among us doesn’t feel that annihilation is too good for them? Is our sense of human justice satisfied if after judgment Hitler is allowed to merely die? Mine certainly isn’t. While we debate God’s divine justice are we in fact equally ill equipped to understand His divine mercy?

Please know that in no way do I believe there are Christians who thoughtfully applaud the traditional doctrine in all its gory detail but rather that they view annihilation as insufficient punishment (in some cases) and may be giving inadequate thought to the severity of eternal conscious punishment. For more on this subject, see the next point.

Does the Traditional Doctrine of Hell Make Christians Less Compassionate?

Pastor Chan writes about some Christians “who revel in the idea of wrath and punishment.” Reflecting on this observation makes me wonder if subscribing to and defending a view of eternal conscious punishment can actually make us less compassionate toward unbelievers. In our struggle to balance this view with that of a loving and compassionate God, might we unconsciously justify this by distancing ourselves from non-believers and viewing them more negatively – after all they’ve earned this horrific fate, right? Pastor Chan himself provides a case in point. While in some passages he writes of his own struggle to understand the extreme nature of this punishment, in others his words reveal a bias toward minimizing this fate. He writes, “Okay, maybe He should punish extremely wicked people-that makes some sense. But punishment in hell for seemingly good people, or those who simply chose the wrong religion? That feels a bit harsh, at least according to my sense of justice.” A bit harsh? When used to describe never ending conscious torment this is the understatement of all time – even when referring to criminals let alone the relatively well behaved among us. In our rush to defend the indefensible (at least from a human perspective) we may well lose our own balance.

From a scriptural perspective, Pastor Chan addresses verses frequently cited by traditionalists but draws some conclusions with little to no Biblical support.

The Punishment of Those Accepting the Mark of the Beast

Pastor Chan quotes Revelation 14:9-11 as “a depiction of hell”:

“If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he will also 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 in his name.”

While Chan acknowledges in his footnotes that the identity of the beast’s followers is widely disputed, he definitively states “the author here is speaking quite simply of unbelievers.”

These verses cannot be referring to eternal conscious punishment for one simple reason: the specific group referenced is said to be tormented in the presence of the Lamb. Scripture tells us clearly that the unsaved will be separated from Jesus. Jesus Himself commands the unsaved to “depart from Me…” (Matt 7:23) and Paul writes “They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord…” (2 Thes. 1:9) They cannot depart yet remain, cannot be in His presence yet shut out of His presence. Cannot – therefore these verses do not support the traditional doctrine.

A secondary point is found in Pastor Chan’s rather creative way of editing this text (immediately after quoting it directly) as “tormented with fire and sulfur … forever and ever”. A quick look back at the text shows that the descriptors “forever and ever” actually refer to the “smoke of their torment” not its duration.

The Fate of Unsaved People Cast into the Lake of Fire

Chan refers to Revelation 20 which states that the devil, the beast and the false prophet will be thrown into the lake of burning fire where they will be tormented forever and ever (v. 10), he also quotes Jesus as stating to the unsaved (goats) “Depart from me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 25:41). Chan concludes “So Jesus actually says that unbelievers share the same fate as the Devil and his demons.” This is not what Jesus actually says.  Jesus says that the unsaved are going to the same place but He does not say they share the same fate. Revelation 21:8 tells us that when unsaved people enter the lake of fire it will be the “second death.” Death is a very different fate than that described for the other three beings.

The Meaning of the Phrase “Second Death” and the Adjective “Everlasting”

When addressing the phrase “second death” (Rev. 21:8) Chan proposes the notion of the word “death” being used in a metaphorical sense as it is in other scriptures which refer to unbelievers as “dead” even though they’re physically alive. This is a stretch. Although scripture occasionally uses this term non-literally, it far more often uses it literally, most significantly in the preceding chapter where John uses the same phrase when referring to the second death of Death and Hades. Unless Chan is proposing that Death and Hades continue to exist in God’s new perfect world, second death means what it says.

Chan also spends a lot of time referring to the adjective “everlasting” as suggesting that conscious punishment is never ending, when in fact more straightforward synonyms would be “permanent” or “irreversible” – which are apt descriptions of death and destruction. This view is underscored further by the verses contrasting “life” with “punishment” beginning with John 3:16. If both the saved and unsaved receive eternal life but in different locations, why the contrast?

Bottom line: words like “perish”, “destruction” and “death” mean exactly what they say – and yes, they are indeed everlasting.

Points of Agreement

As I stated earlier, Pastor Chan’s main debate is with universalism and I agree with the majority of his points in this area. While Chan does debate annihilationism, he also acknowledges that it may be true and correctly identifies the most critical issue as the deadline for making a decision, not the duration of punishment. That said, it’s important not to minimize the negative effects of misleading others regarding the very character of our God by misunderstanding the nature of His punishment as well as His mercy. As Pastor Chan says: “When it comes to hell, we can’t afford to be wrong.”

A Final Thought…

Recently spoke with a very youthful yet discerning, budding annihilationist who posed a simple question, “Why did Jesus have to die?” My automatic response, “to pay the penalty for our sin”, to which my insightful friend replied, “Then the penalty for our sin must be death, right? Afterall, even though Jesus suffered a horrible death, He’s not being tormented for all eternity, so if eternal torment is our penalty, it hasn’t been paid.”

“Out of the mouths of babes…” (Matt. 21:16)

Thanks for reading


For a more comprehensive defense of annihilationism please see my post http://emetstone.blogspot.com/2011/12/death-life-biblically-based-exploration.html

Monday, March 19, 2012

Evangelical Universalism – A Theological House of Cards

Gregory MacDonald, a former traditional evangelical Christian, proposes in The Evangelical Universalist that “Christian Universalism” is not a major change to his previous beliefs but in fact holds key elements of the traditional view together better than traditional doctrines of hell.  He begins by outlining the following common beliefs:  the inspiration and authority of the Bible, Trinity, creation, sin, atonement, the return of Christ, salvation through Christ alone, by grace alone, through faith alone and the eschatological wrath of God-in hell.  Unlike traditionalists, MacDonald also believes:
1.        One’s eternal destiny is not fixed at death.
2.       Those in hell can repent and throw themselves upon the mercy of God in Christ and thus be saved.
3.       In the end everyone will do this.

MacDonald presents both philosophical and scriptural arguments for universalism.  He is an engaging writer however I remain unconvinced.  His philosophical stance is often one-sided and has several logical disconnects.  His scriptural support relies on complex connections between passages, knowledge of original languages offering possible alternate definitions of key terms and awareness of the cultural realities of the time.  He states that one cannot simply “read the Bible” and understand it without this type of external information.  While this sort of knowledge can enhance our understanding of Scripture, I strongly reject the notion that the essential salvation message, of which consequences are an inherent part, is not fully available to those who don’t possess this additional information.  Regarding MacDonald’s broader ideas, following are his key assumptions and points along with my responses:


He limits his debate to the traditional doctrine of hell as eternal conscious punishment.
Limiting his debate to one view of hell while two established doctrines exist, renders his arguments woefully incomplete.  Annihilationism receives only passing mentions despite MacDonald identifying himself as a former annihilationist.  This reader believes the doctrine of annihilationism effectively addresses the vast majority of MacDonald’s arguments – both philosophical and scriptural (for more detail on this doctrine see blog entry http://emetstone.blogspot.com/2011/12/death-life-biblically-based-exploration.html ).


Universalism is not an “essential” belief but rather another “option” for Christians
This is blatantly one sided.  If universalism is true, believing that one’s eternity is fixed at death is harmless – the biggest “danger” is making a decision sooner than necessary.  If on the other hand, death is the deadline for accepting Jesus, a belief in universalism may well result in missing this crucial date and suffering eternal separation from God.  Clearly this is an “essential” belief.    


Free will decisions are dependent on full information and rationality.
MacDonald holds that no fully informed, rational being would choose hell as an alternative to salvation.  Again, this holds if hell is eternal conscious punishment.  Annihilationism effectively counters this – we often see people making decisions in favor of death over life.  Furthermore, the Bible states that those making this choice are fully informed (Romans 1:19-20, 32).  Secondly, MacDonald’s view also includes the ultimate redemption of Satan.  Is Satan also ignorant of the nature of hell?


Evangelism is still critical because hell is to be avoided “at all costs.”
Here’s where MacDonald’s philosophical argument really crumbles under its own assumptions.  If indeed hell is to be avoided at all costs, it will be so avoided.  In other words, if no fully informed, rational person will choose hell, then the moment this knowledge is realized all people will make a decision to accept salvation – no one will go to hell, period.  If on the other hand, despite this knowledge people will still choose to go to hell for a period of time then in fact, hell is not to be avoided at all costs.  These assumptions cannot co-exist – either no one goes to hell or hell is much milder than MacDonald assumes.   The logical conclusion of MacDonald’s argument is that a person who has a penchant for sinful behavior can maximize his “pleasure” by indulging in sin in this life and accepting salvation after death but before punishment.  In this sense, universalism completely undermines evangelism.


If God doesn’t achieve His “will” in saving all it is not a complete victory.
Another one-sided argument.  Does God achieve victory if He seeks a free will relationship with us but designs us in such a way that we are incapable of resisting His love?  Either scenario represents a “defeat”.  So the question becomes which is the more important goal for God?  Additionally, we know from the Bible that God does not force His will (Matt. 6:10).


Jesus and Paul omitted mention of Universalism to avoid diluting the urgency of accepting salvation.
Why would this urgency be any different today?  If Jesus strategically wanted to keep us in the dark regarding the ultimate salvation of everyone, why would He be making this knowledge available at all?  Additionally, the notion that Jesus would be so willfully misleading in His message flies squarely in the face of His repeated statements that He came to testify to the truth (John 18:37) – and was in fact, Himself the truth (John 14:6).


The sheer complexity of MacDonald’s scriptural case prohibits a comprehensive response, do however want to address verses he cites as seeming to explicitly teach universalism:


Rom 5:18:  Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteousness act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.
 The word “gift” suggests something that can either be received or rejected.


 1 Cor. 15:22:  For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.
He seems to be viewing the “all” in the second phrase as equal to the “all” in the first.  The second phrase can also be viewed as, of those who accept Christ, all will be made alive.


Col. 1:20:  and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.
In explaining this verse, MacDonald uses the word “redemption” as a synonym for “reconcile”, it is no such thing.  Reconciliation suggests different outcomes for different people.  MacDonald rejects this view of reconciliation on the grounds that the verse goes on to speak of “peace” between God and all things and this peace cannot exist if people are suffering eternal conscious torment.  Again annihilationism addresses this, if those at war with God no longer exist, there will indeed be peace.


Phil 2:11:  and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
The demons also know and tremble (James 2:19).  More specifically demons confess verbally that Jesus is Lord but without asking for forgiveness or redemption (Mark 5:6-13).  The act of verbally acknowledging Jesus' Lordship always glorifyies God, but does not in and of itself result in salvation of the speaker.


MacDonald has devoted extensive thought and research to the presentation and defense of Christian Universalism.  However, neither his philosophical nor scriptural arguments stand up well to scrutiny.  Jesus spoke plainly about both salvation and consequences - He made this truth readily available to all.



Your comments are welcome.  Thanks for reading.


 
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.  John 8:32