 |
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/28/2001 4:30 PM (GMT -6) |   |
JohnAnthony
03/08/01 7:47 PM
Is Hell Just?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many skeptics argue that it is unjust to send someone to hell for eternity - to punish a finite amount of sin for infinite duration. Is it? I really don't know...
Is it possible that it IS perfectly just, loving, and moral to send people to hell for eternity? I think it is. And this is all that is necessary to invalidate any claim that God's justice is incompatible with Him sending people to Hell for eternity. And here are some arguments in that light:
I. Eternal Punishment for an Eternity of Sin
Perhaps finite sins deserve a finite amount of punishments. But it is possible that continuous sin IN hell, committed by a being who has grown so far from the good for so long that it is impossible to be good and hence to be in God's presence, incurs infinite sentencing time...He is in hell because he belongs there, and he stays there because he does not, and cannot change. The Christian doctrine HAS ALWAYS BEEN that we are all sinners anyway, and without Christ we cannot be washed of that sin, so why would it be ANY DIFFERENT IN HELL? Most likely, those "down there" will be blaspheming God at an exponentially greater rate. Infinite sin, infinite punishment.
II. Sin Against/Rejection of an Infinite Being has Infinite Consequences
It is also possible that all sin is ultimately sin against God, an infinite being, and is immediately a departure from that inherent moral and spiritual part of ourselves that is infinite, made in the image of God, and therefore has infinite weight. It could also be that the gravity of the sin increases with the type of being we sin against: tree, frog, person, God, etc. Rejection of Christ, which is ultimately a rejection of God's plan to reconcile man with Himself, through the sacrifice of His own Son who is a part of His very being, is a sin of a completely different order...a sin of infinite gravity...
III. Soul-Making
Michael J. Murray offers another model which touches upon something mentioned in 1.:
"It is clear from the Genesis account of creation that one of the central aims God had in creating human beings was to make creature in the "divine image." While the passage does not tell us all that this entails, it demonstrates that God was about the business of creating beings that were as much like God as they, finite and created as they were, could be. Many features of the divine nature could be replicated in creatures in characteristically finite ways: the ability to reason, to govern behavior on the basis of moral considerations, and to act freely, for example. This last feature is especially important since, because of it, humans are able to enter in to a genuinely loving relationship with God. Without it, those who professed love for God (as the first great command dictates--Matt. 22:37) and who strove to be imitators of him (Eph. 5:1), would simply be robots or parrots, spitting back words of praise and behaving in ways that are simply a matter of preprogramming. Of course, such praise and behavior are not genuine expressions of love. In addition, having the ability to behave freely in these ways allows creatures to come close to exhibiting another divine attribute: self-existence. It is traditionally held that God has the attribute of self-existence (sometimes referred to as 'a-seity' by philosophers and theologians [from the Latin phrase 'a se' meaning 'from oneself']). Of course, no created thing can be self-existent (by definition!). But God might be able to make creatures who are self-existent at least in certain respects, and maybe in the most interesting and valuable respects, the respects which define what sort of person one is, and in particular, with respect to whether or not one will be a God-lover or not. God, wanting us to be creatures made in his image, wants us to be God-lovers. But recognizing that robots or preprogrammed parrots cannot be genuine God-lovers (although they can be preprogrammed to exhibit God-loving behaviors), God also gives us freedom, freedom to be self-made in a certain (very important) respect.
"As a result, God situates us, for a time, in this earthly life. And this earthly life is to act as a time of sanctification or, as some have called it, soul-making: a time when we have powers to make free choices to be a person of one sort or another. God's aim, of course, is that all will see that being a God-lover is something to value over all else. But free creatures can, in virtue of their free powers, choose to reject this sort of life. They can instead become lovers of self and haters of God.
"Once the course of one's life is complete, and one has, through conscious decision and behavior, become one sort of person or another, what then? For those who have become lovers of God, the natural consequence would be for them to enter into the divine presence to love God and enjoy him forever. But what of the others? What of those who simply have no interest in doing that? Why not, one might wonder, just accept them into divine presence anyway? There are at least two reasons. The first is that doing this would amount to robbing the creature of the very self-determination that made their lives significant. The point of our earthly lives, on this account, is that we might be able to autonomously become creatures of one or another sort. But if we do not, after all, have that ability (because God will force the same 'end' upon all of us), then our dignity is stolen. The second reason is that if those who lived lives in which they rejected God were nonetheless forced into God's presence forever, such a life would be utterly odious to them. It would be like forcing one who hates opera to sit through Der Ring des Nibelungen for eternity. This wouldn't be eternal bliss for them. It would be an eternal nightmare. As a result, the natural consequence for cultivating such a life would be eternal separation from God. And this is what hell is."(Reason for the Hope Within 1999:295-6)
This model argues that humans are habit-forming beings...The free choices we make eventually lead to dispositions. These dispositions become firmly entrenched over time. Having to think through your choices anew every moment would not be advantageous: "We can get in and out of restaurants in less than a day because we take preferences, formed by past choices, with us to the menu, and these preferences make our decision procedure much quicker...[habits] make it possible for us to effectively navigate the world"(Ibid.297). It is argued that as we cultivate these dispositions we become a certain sort of person. The range of choices become narrower and narrower (i.e., an atheist doesn't just wake up every morning and reconsider the case for God anew, nor does the Christian do the same with the "case" against God). We become set in our ways to a degree, and "We might then think of those in heaven and hell as those who are maximally set in their ways."(Ibid. 298)
IV. My argument for Hell as ultimate deterrent from sin-
1. It is just that there should be punishment for sin.
2. God, in letting us know about this punishment, prevents much sin.
3. Concerning the duration of punishment, the difference between infinite and finite punishment is infinitely great. It is most likely *solely* this infinity of punishment that inspires the objections to hell on the part of the atheist...It is what really shocks/scares them.
4. Possible reasons for the punishment being infinite could be that promise of a finite punishment would not prevent much sin at all (I myself would DEFINITELY choose sin more often knowing punishment is only finite.), or even get the attention of complacent non-believers. It would just as well hinder the importunity and haste with which Christians preach the Gospel.
5. God abhors sin and he doesn't want us growing into the habit of it, but rather AWAY from it. He doesn't want us compromising with it here on earth AT ALL. He expects us to recognize it as wrong, by being repentant and accepting His free gift-His Son as atonement for sin, and walking in newness of life, living towards God...so that we may be in His presence for eternity.
6. When we sin, our latter state becomes worse than the former, we become servants OF sin...we become a different sort of person through developing sinful habits (soul-making)...and this ties directly into the habit response I gave in Part 2 of my posts on Hell, where it is proposed that we can grow AWAY from God so much so that we will not be able to, nor desire to, be in His presence.
7. An all-wise God would want to prevent this as effectively as possible without compromising our freedom to choose.
8. The threat of infinite punishment, as opposed to finite, is possibly one of the most effective deterrents of sin and COMPLACENCY (on the part of both believers and unbelievers) concerning the necessity of salvation in Christ (and hence growing away from God).
We can see a clear demonstration of this argument in the example of a friend of a friend of mine. In the following case, we have a person who teeters on the edge of unbelief, DESPITE *his* personal belief (which I do not share) that much of his Christian beliefs are irrational, and the doctrine of eternal punishment is the main thing that keeps him from atheism, and aided in conversion from atheism!
See: http://www.integrityonline15.com/jpholding/tekton/SM_MCN.html
From the article: "When I was an atheist many years ago, I felt that
it was inherently unjust to impose an infinite amount of punishment for a finite number of sins. It struck me as ludicrous that the "good news" was that all I had to do to escape eternal torment and receive eternal bliss was to believe that approximately 2000 years ago a man claiming to be the Son of God turned water into wine, walked on water, cast out demons, raised the dead, and somehow came back to life himself after he was killed. What sane individual wouldn't question any of this?! And yet I do believe all of it for reasons that never quite seem rational to me-- no matter how cleverly someone explains it. I wonder how zealous many Christians would be in their faith if weren't for The McNugget Factor. I wonder what I would believe if it didn't seem to come down to a choice between eternal happiness or eternal misery. It's quite possible that I would still be an atheist today." In his case we have the doctrine of hell working towards SALVATION, rather than turning him away...Note in his last sentence in the above quotation, one of the premises of my argument.
V. Anguish of Hell as Mostly Self-inflicted
1. The 'fire and worms' descriptions of hell are most likely metaphorical descriptions of suffering
2. Hell is really about seperation from God...
"Since God cannot force his love on people and coerce them to choose him, and since he cannot annihilate creatures with such high intrinsic value, then the only option available is quarantine. And that is what hell is."[Immortality: The Other Side of Death, Gary Habermas and J.P. Moreland, Nelson:1992.:164]
3. This is something atheists already experience so it is not a change in condition as regards their relationship with God, but a RECOGNITION of the true depravity of their condition in light of the reality of God that causes the anguish in hell.
Jesus says, "There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. 29 People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God." (Luke 13.28ff)
In this passage the weeping occurs "when they see" their own exclusion--it is due to the separation issue, not some torture or pain.
4. So most of the anguish will quite possibly be associated with a jealousy of those who were saved, a feeling of infinite loss, having rejected a relationship with God, a feeling of irrationality/stupidity looking back on their decision to ignore signs of God in their life/world, shame/disgrace, an anger/hatred towards God, etc. There might also be other aspects of their self-inflicted anguish such as a greed-aspect - not having been able to maintain their higher standard of living, etc. etc. 5. In this case hell would be mostly self-inflicted anguish that results from the removal/seperation and cannot be attributed to injustice on God's part AT ALL.
VI. Removal of the Wicked is Necessary
1. God is infinitely Holy and cannot be in the presence of wickedness
2. The wicked element also hinders the development and happiness of those redeemed by Christ
3. The wicked must then be removed eternally from both God and the redeemed, hence, Hell...
It might be objected that a just God would just exterminate the wicked, which leads to the next argument...
VII. Eternity of Low-quality Life is Better than Annihilation-
Life has intrinsic value, and God is actually dignifying a person to allow them to live a low-quality life, rather than annihilating them.
Moreland and Habermas argue:
"But there is a more important, fundamental consideration than the ones just listed: For the sake of argument, if we compare extinction with life in hell, it is clearly more immoral to extinguish humans with intrinsic value than to allow them to continue living in a state with a low quality of life. In fact, we do not believe the second alternative is immoral at all, but the first alternative is immoral."[Immortality: The Other Side of Death, Gary Habermas and J.P. Moreland, Nelson:1992.:173]
"In our view, annihilationism versus the traditionalists regarding hell form a precise parallel to quality-of-life versus sanctity-of-life positions regarding infanticide and euthanasia. Remember, hell is not a torture chamber, and people in hell are not howling like dogs in mind-numbing pain. There are degrees of anguish in hell. But the endlessness of existence in hell at least dignifies the people there by continuing to respect their autonomy and their intrinsic value as persons."[Ibid.174]
CONCLUSION: If ANY ONE of these arguments is even POSSIBLE, then the doctrine of hell is not inconsistent with the justice of God.
JohnAnthony
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
TGB
03/08/01 7:23 AM
RE: Is Hell Just?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yo John-
Hell is a H U G E issue. In the end I feel constrained by exegesis alone to hold to eternal conscious punishment. I know others don't.
There's my two cents!
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
pneumatika
03/13/01 6:10 PM
RE: RE: Is Hell Just?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom,
Is there any other basis upon which you are doctrinally constrained other than a consistent hermeneutic? The "best" philosophical pre-suppositions that are incompatible with Scripture must be discarded.
--that Pneumatika guy
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
CHF
03/13/01 7:02 PM
RE: Is Hell Just?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey John, great question. I would tend to think that "yes, people who don't believe on Christ will experience an infinite amount of time in Hell suffering." Why? For a couple of reasons: We are sinful and deserve to be punished...but why forever if we are finite and sin a finite number of times? People aren't punished just for individual sins in hell, rather, people will be punished because they are evil. There will be continuing rebellion in hell, and God will continue to burn wrath upon them. They have no way of getting out and will, in fact, rebel more and more and the wrath of God will become worse and worse. Evil people who will rebel forever will endure endless torment as they sin endlessly. That's my opinion.
But is it loving? Loving toward whom? The sinner? Of course not. I thought that was the point. Does a loving God refuse to punish evil? Or how about this? Is a "loving" God who doesn't punish evil a good being? I like what R.C. Sproul says when talking about the Holiness of God. The Bible never says God is love, love, love; or mercy, mercy, mercy; or wrath, wrath, wrath; He is described as Holy, Holy, Holy. How does a Holy God treat an unrepentent sinner who will sin endlessly? God fulfills His Holy character through His wrath, not His salvific love (which is a Holy love, by the way), He fulfills His Holy character in many ways....Love doesn't override God's character, it is part of His Holiness.
Craig
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
RevivalTheology
03/14/01 10:39 AM
RE: RE: Is Hell Just?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe the difficulty in considering endless punishment of sin just is because we focus on the punishment rather than the crime. Consider, once a crime has been committed, it can NEVER be uncommitted. The offense itself, and whatever consequences, is etched forever in the personalities of the victims. It can never be undone. Now, in human terms, we talk of restitution, etc., but even that goes only so far. Crimes that deal with material goods only are generally easily dealt with by brief punishment and restitution. However, how do you accomplish restitution for the rape of a woman or the abuse of child? How to you restore the sense of trust and security to someone who's been mugged? How do you bring back the dead loved one or undo the grief that murder causes? Even the pain and suffering that a harsh word, the reputation and charachter assination of gossip, etc., cannot be returned via restitution.
We consider eternal punishment unjust, or at best "difficult", because we fail to focus on the victims of sin, we take sin far too lightly, even those of us who are Christians. We all deserve eternal punishment because we have all committed crimes the consequences of which will last an eternity. We can NEVER undo them. Why is it that "He will dry every tear" from our eyes?
I agree with CHF that the sinner in hell will only heap up his sin and rebellion. He ought to repent, but he will not. I disagree, however, in that I believe God committing sinners to hell IS loving, both to God moral universe in general, and to the sinner in particular. The sinner LOVES his sin. He LOVES his rebellion. Unless God would foribly alter his personality, he would merely hate God all the more for being constrained to obey and worship Him eternally in heaven.
Unlike CHF, I believe that LOVE is the foundational principle of all that God is and does and that all other characteristics stem out of that love. Why is God holy? Because holiness is consistency to the law of love. Why is God just? Because to treat people as they deserve is an aspect of love. Why is God merciful? Because it is loving to show mercy whenever possible. Why does God committ people to hell? Because, in His love, He created them as free and responsible moral agents who have chosen to reject Him and forsake the means of pardon and redemption for crimes with eternal consequences. They have shown by their choices they prefer a eternity separated from Him yet their own "masters" to one where the mastery of their lives is surrendered to Him. They have shown that they value their own wills and being their own god to having Him as their God and submitting to His will. In short, that they prefer a hell in which they rule, then a heaven in which they are ruled.
In the Lamb
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
snowbunny222
03/14/01 6:23 PM
RE: Is Hell Just?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with the consensus that Hell is a huge issue, many dimensions and many interpretations. I want to just touch upon some of the points you made:
First of all, I will make it known that I cannot say that I believe in a Hell, not because of the severity of evil, but more because the duality is nauseating... I agree that we are habit forming creatures, and one of those habits is to decipher and interpret that to which we have little or no knowledge.
That is not the first point I want to address...you mentioned the concept of hell in connection to rejection of christ, but you do not account for those that are unsure...you mention that it is not right to fake it, meaning being a parrot to that which you do not believe, but unlike heaven and hell (very dualistic), belief and non-belief have more gray areas. I for instance do not feel that I have rejected christ, more like i have not come to the point where I can honestly call myself a christian, but this is not out of rejection, but of a self-honesty and to do otherwise for me, would be wrong. Therefore, where does that put me? in heaven? in hell?
I would also like to bring up the idea of free will that was described in your explanation,as I find an interesting connection between your arguement and the thread that greg boyd had started about free will, as it reminds me of the examples... applying that to this situation, you are saying that people have the choice to believe or not... what if I choose to believe, but sometimes it is not as simple as that.
Also, in your reference to Genesis and how god created us in his divine image, he did so before the original sin, so was the notion of heaven and hell developed before or after that sin?
Reverting back to the notion of choose, as in the statement that was made that one chooses to grow away from God...I argue that it is possible that one may not consciously make the decision to grow away from god, thereby again challenging the idea of free will. I understand what belief is and I understand faith, but I also know that belief may be under false pretense or that we as humans do not have control over all aspects of our lives. Im not claiming that we are victims subject to command, but more that one can make the concious choice to believe, but still internally not believe, and who's fault is this?
The last point I will touch upon is the comment about atheists as unhappy because they see their own exclusion. This degrades religion to nothing more than a fad, as most associate exclusion to popularity, and I guess I view this as more of a pressure to fit in, and if this is just pressure to conform to the "norm" (which can be good or bad) than God is nothing more than the result of popular choice. a better example would be the emporer's new clothes, in which the townspeople "pretended" to see his new clothes all out of fear that someone would discover differently... interesting concept...
one of the biggest reasons I question hell is precisely because of your argument as hell being the infinite punishement to sin... assuming this is true, then God would not be the God of free will, as though we have free will to choose this, god is using an arcaic method...take parenting for example (as god is seen as the Father), what kind of encouragement would your parent use to get you to do the right thing? would they use negative or positive punishment? maybe Im not making sense, but it seems to me that God would not use hell as a whip to keep us in line, (i.e. scare tactics)
Ok, I'll get off the soapbox now
sincerely,
snowbunny
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
RevivalTheology
03/15/01 9:04 AM
RE: Is Hell Just?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Snowbunny, I'm not going to deal point by point with your post, but rather postulate that you are viewing God's relationship with His creation, and interaction with moral agents, too individualisticly. When God offers forgiveness to a sinner on the condition that s/he repent and believe, it is not in isolation but within the context of His entire moral universe. God, while the Father of those who are adopted as sons (and daughters) in Christ Jesus, is also the Moral Governor of the Universe, the King, the Judge, and as such, must consider the well being of all of His moral creation as well as each individual.
Further, whether you think you are rejecting Christ or not, you are. What does God want of you? For you to love Him with all your heart, mind, soul and strength and to love your neighbor as you love yourself. How can you love God if you do not know Him? Jesus is the representation of God; the radiance; the "exegesis" of Him. The only way we can know the Father is through Christ. Redemption from the power of sin is offered only through Christ. Until you submit in repentance and faith to God through Christ you are a rebel against God's kingdom, a criminal in His moral government. If you remain as such, God has not choice but to separate you from His righteous ones.
In the Lamb
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
adamantus
03/16/01 5:47 PM
RE: RE: Is Hell Just?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TBG,
You wrote:
In the end I feel constrained by exegesis alone to hold to eternal conscious punishment.
My reply:
I believe that the Bible teaches universal reconciliation. I will post some good links that show the exegetical proof of this.
http://www.theshop.net/gjess/
The above link has some great links at the bottom, that completely cover the Biblical doctrine of universal reconciliation.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
TGB
03/16/01 11:39 PM
RE: RE: RE: Is Hell Just?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pneumatika-
Sorry to take so long in replying. No, I don't know of any basis other than Scripture upon which anybody (proponents of eternal conscious punishment or universal reconciliation, or etc.) basis their doctrine of hell. We may pull in philosophical arguments from outside to bolster the argument (as the posts on this thread do), but we'd never even be having this discussion were hell not a BIBLICAL doctrine. That's my point. It's there are we have to deal with it. As I read Scripture, all I see is eternal conscious punishment.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:46 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|