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

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

Death ≠ Life: A Biblically based exploration of annihilationism

Brought up as an evangelical Christian I learned the prevailing doctrine of Hell as eternal, conscious punishment.  Due to my human limitations, and my love of unsaved family members, this was never an idea of justice I understood nor did it seem in keeping with the teachings regarding God’s character, but I accepted it on faith fully understanding, then and now, that God is not limited by human values.  Years later came across the doctrine of annihilationism.   This holds that after death is judgment and those who have not accepted Jesus as their Savior, during their human lifetime, will be thrown into the lake of fire and annihilated.  This seemed much more in line with a perfectly just and loving God.  That said, human emotion aside, if it’s not found in Scripture it’s not true, period.  And so began my study of the Biblical basis for both doctrines.  Good news: the Biblical support for annihilationism is extensive. 

Let’s begin at the beginning, with God’s promised consequences for man’s first sin.  God tells Adam that as a result of his sin his life will be difficult and in the end he will return to the ground from which he was taken (Gen. 3:19).  Nowhere does God tell Adam he will be suffering for all eternity as a result of his sin.  Furthermore, God then casts Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden specifically so they will be unable to eat of the tree of life and live forever in their new sinful state (Gen. 3:22-24).  All that is written here indicates that the God given penalty for sin is death. 

Fast forward to the New Testament.  Here we learn the Good News: God provided Jesus, His perfect Son, as the ultimate sacrifice for our sins.  Those who accept Him are forgiven, redeemed and no longer required to pay the permanent penalty for their sins.  That is indeed wonderful news, but has the coming of Jesus somehow also altered the original death penalty for sin?  There is very little evidence to this effect and abundant evidence to the contrary. 

Here we begin with Jesus’ own words in the quintessential Gospel verse John 3:16: “For God so loved the world He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”  Jesus does not offer two alternate locations for everlasting life, Heaven or hell, rather the choices He promises are “everlasting life” or “perishing.”  Based on Jesus own words, the penalty for sin has not changed.  The apostle Paul further confirms this by stating “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”  (Rom. 6:23).  Again, eternal life is promised for the forgiven, death for those remaining in sin.

So how does this actually play out in the end?  For that we take a look at the book of Revelation.  Here we see the judgment of all who have died.  Each person’s destination is indicated by whether or not their name is found written in the “Book of Life”.  Those not found are cast into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:15).  Again, we see an indication of life vs. fire.  To further clarify, John refers to those having “their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone” as “the second death.”  Nowhere are people described as living in this lake of fire.  Jesus Himself refers to hell as a place where both body and soul are destroyed (Matt. 10:28).  Again, there is no indication in these verses that any trace of man survives in hell, on the contrary man is specifically described as perishing, being destroyed and experiencing the second death.

Does hell provide eternal, conscious punishment for any being?  Yes, the devil, the beast and the false prophet will be “tormented day and night forever and ever” (Rev. 20:10).  This fits the original purpose of hell which Jesus Himself described as “the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 25:41) (as an interesting side note, although God promises death to Adam, death is not included in His stated penalty to the serpent (Gen. 3:14-15)).

Based on these verses hell is:

1.   An everlasting fire

2.   Prepared for the devil and his angels at least three of whom will be tormented in it for all time

3.   The second death for unsaved humans who have earned death as the penalty for sin

So where did the notion of eternal conscious punishment for unsaved people come from?  From both human sentiment as well as scripture interpretation, although this paper will address only the latter (for more detail on the former, please see my blog entry: God Doesn’t Need a PR Firm…Just the Truth).  To that end let’s turn to the actual statement of faith and associated Bible references of the Evangelical Free Church. 

The EFCA’s statement #10 states:

Response and Eternal Destiny

10. We believe that God commands everyone everywhere to believe the gospel by turning to Him in repentance and receiving the Lord Jesus Christ. We believe that God will raise the dead bodily and judge the world, assigning the unbeliever to condemnation and eternal conscious punishment and the believer to eternal blessedness and joy with the Lord in the new heaven and the new earth, to the praise of His glorious grace.

The Scripture references the EFCA cites as support for the phrase “assigning the unbeliever to condemnation and eternal conscious punishment” are: Matt. 25:46; Lk. 16:26; 2 Thess. 1:9; Rev. 14:11; 21:6, 8; 22:14, 15 an examination of each follows.

Matt. 25:46: “And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”  This is a quote from Jesus who contrasts “eternal life” with “everlasting punishment.”  The punishment is indeed described as “everlasting” but is not referred to as “life” it is in fact, contrasted with life.  Death, with no possibility of resurrection is indeed “everlasting.” 

Luke 16:26: “And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.”  This is from the story of the rich man and Lazarus which is the only passage that, in my view, offers any challenge to annihilationism.  This refers to two men in a conscious state after death, one of which is suffering and the other in comfort.  Jesus refers to the place as “Hades” (v. 23) which, as Revelation shows, is an actual place.  There are however alternate explanations for this passage.  The first is that it’s strictly a parable illustrating the ultimate lesson, stated in verse 31, that certain people will not repent despite overwhelming evidence that Jesus can save them.  The second is that Hades is an intermediate destination.  Hades is actually referred to in Rev. 20:13-14 as delivering up it’s dead for judgment and then being cast into the lake of fire, the second death, itself.  We of course cannot know for sure but in light of the preponderance of Biblical evidence for annihilationism cited elsewhere I find either of these explanations more plausible than interpreting this passage as proof of eternal conscious punishment.

2 Thess. 1:9:  These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power.     Here we again see the term “everlasting” but it’s used to describe “destruction”.  Destruction is not survival and it is not conscious.  Again, this describes a permanent ending with no chance of reversal.

Rev. 14:11:  “And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark in his name.” 
 

These verses cannot be referring to eternal conscious punishment for one simple reason: the preceding verse (v.10) tells us the group referenced is 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)

  Secondarily, the adjectives “forever and ever” here specifically refer to the ascension of smoke.  Additionally, the torment is experienced by those “who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark in his name” – this appears to refer to a specific group described in Rev. 13, not all unsaved people.  Although these people are described as having no rest, this state is not specifically described as lasting forever.   

Rev. 21:6, 8: And He said to me, “It is done!  I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End.  I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts…But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”  This is actually a strong verse in support of annihilationism, specifically referring to the lake of fire as “the second death.” 

Rev. 22:14, 15:  “Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.  But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.  Here God welcomes His redeemed into His city to again “have the right to the tree of life”, which was denied Adam after his sin.  Life is the given to the redeemed, the unsaved are outside the gates without access to the tree of life.  Although it specifies the sinners, and that they are excluded from the city, nowhere does it state they are alive. 

Based on the above, in my view the Bible strongly supports annihilation.  Happily, this view is also in keeping with a perfect, merciful, loving and just God who:

1. Provides a clear and singular path to eternal life through acceptance of His perfect Son Jesus as our Lord and Savior.
2. Extends forgiveness and salvation to all who truly repent in this life, regardless of their previous sins.
3. Gives us the free will to choose death over life along with the inevitable and just consequence of doing so.

As always, welcome your thoughts and comments.

Thanks for reading.

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.  John 3:16

God Doesn’t Need a PR Firm…Just the Truth

A reflection on Dr. Albert Mohler’s defense of eternal conscious punishment

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.

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.

Footnotes:

1, 2:  Doing Away with Hell? Part One

3, 4:  Doing Away with Hell? Part Two
5:  We Have Seen All This Before:  Rob Bell and the (Re)Emergence of Liberal Theology