If it’s ok with everyone (hope so, cause I didn’t ask), I want to jump on the bandwagon of talking about Hell. Now I know Rob Bell ruined it for us, but I want to take a different spin if I could. You see, aside from theology, I have some things in common with Rob. We are both from the same generation, we are both Gen Xers, he is slightly older than I am. We both ask many questions, and we both question the established system. That is where we depart, I headed more towards Driscoll, he went towards McLaren.
That being said, I see the meta-narrative approach, and I understand where Bell misses it. You see, the scripture can’t be cut and parcelled into chunks, so the question comes up, how can a loving and merciful God send people to hell? Bell says He doesn’t. I say, there is mercy with Hell. Are you scratching your head a little? Think maybe I am as crazy as Rob Bell? Let me unpack it just a bit.
If you remember Isaiah chapter 6, the prophet is suddenly in the presence of God, and his reaction was overwhelming guilt and shame. He exclaimed “woe is me”. It was then when an angel came with a coal and cleansed his lips and only then was Isaiah able to hear the words of the Lord.
Once judgement comes to pass, there is no more cleansing of sin. It was done once and for all through the blood of Christ. Jesus made the atonement and we are saved through that power. Those who are not covered in the blood of Christ still carry their own sin. There is no atonement, there is no cleansing power.
I submit to you, for your discussion and input that the only thing worse that being separated from God for eternity in hell would be eternity before God bearing the weight of your sin with no hope of forgiveness. The reality of hell is knowing you are being punished and eternally atoning for your sin. Heaven with sin would be guilt and shame heaped upon remorse and unworthiness for all of eternity. Being in the presence of the Glory of God, but never able to look upon it. To look upon the face of God with sin is to bring death, so in a sense, it would be eternal death worse than the eternal punishment in hell.
If this is true, then casting the sinner into the flames of hell where they face punishment is loving and merciful, and having them suffer the crushing weight of sin for eternity in God’s presence would show no mercy. This is where I believe Rob Bell missed it, Universalism for the unsaved would be worse than hell. What do you think?
Trying to think of hell as a mercy makes my brain hurt, Dan.
But it is an interesting argument.
I was totally looking for the “our God is a consuming fire” reference. Seems like I must have seen it in the comments recently around here or something in a similar context perhaps.
One of the underlying themes in Hebrews is that Jesus’ work has made it possible for us to draw near to God in the heavenly places in the same way that sacrifices on earth allowed the worshiper to draw near and enter in the Temple here. Trying to draw near in our own way simply will not work (and results in death). We can only draw near through Jesus Christ.
I am not sure if I completely agree with the picture you draw for that reason, although I can see its genesis. If anything, a person who tried to draw near apart from Christ would come into contact with the “consuming fire” and be unable to remain there as it would be “hellish” so to speak, so in that instance hell would be more merciful than remaining in God’s presence for eternity.
Is that something like what you are saying?
Just a thought:
we have this hymn in my Church that has a line that goes:
“You shall see the Face of God and live”
The hymn is ‘Be Not Afraid’
” . . our God is a consuming fire.”
is from Hebrews 12:29
Thanks Christiane, but I think you misunderstood what I meant by that statement. I know where the verse is in Hebrews, which is why the rest of my comment is based on ideas from the book as well.
I meant that I expected him to quote that verse in the post.
I love that song by John Michael Talbot (although I’m not sure many Baptists are familiar with it given Talbot’s mix of Jesus Movement monastic Roman Catholicism). It is intended as an encouragement for the faithful, however, not the unfaithful.
Yes, that is what I am saying.
The problem with viewing hell as a “mercy” is that I don’t see any warrant for it in the Bible. If you could offer up some Scriptural references to go with your logic, maybe I could consider it better.
This is my opinion as well. Scripture does not indicate anything merciful about Hell, or that Hell is not “eternity before God bearing the weight of your sin with no hope of forgiveness.” We are tormented before God, and the weight of our sins is God’s wrath. Consider Rev. 14:9-11:
“And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.”
In my second sentence, “we” is a bad choice of words. It should be substituted by “the reprobate.”
Third sentence, I mean. I can’t seem to free myself from typos today.
Chase, for some reason people like to throw water on Revelation’s references to hell as being all smoke and mirrors.
from Hosea, chapter 6:
““Come, let us return to the LORD,
it is He who has rent, but He will heal us;
He has struck us, but He will bind our wounds.
He will revive us after two days;
on the third day He will raise us up,
to live in His Presence.”
Boy, when you say Rob Bell “missed it” that is probably the understatement of the century.
His gospel is so far removed from the gospel Jesus and the apostles preached that for anyone to mistake one for the other they would have to be either blind or just plain ig-nurnt.
However, I am glad that he has published his little attack on the true gospel, Love Wins. People who would never have admitted to believing the things that he believes have come out in support of him and his book. In contrast, all Christians recognize that Bell is a false teacher who preaches heresy.
Thank you, Rob Bell. Separating sheep from goats has never been easier.
‘Mercy’ is the theme of one of the great prayers of the earliest Christians, the ‘Kyrie Eleison’. It is a plea on behalf of the whole Church for God to have mercy on us (together).
The theme of God’s Mercy, and of our need for it, was also interwoven into the recognition of the Holiness of God in one of the earliest of Christian hymns:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHi-1taeqeo&feature=related
“Holy God
Holy and Mighty,
Holy Immortal,
Have mercy on us.”
I do understand what Dan is speaking about. I wouldn’t have chosen quite the same way to express it, but I do understand.
It goes back to this reference in Deuteronomy 30 in the Bible, I think, which gives the OT understanding that is a ‘preparation’ for the Gospel to come:
“19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day,
that I have set before thee life and death,
the blessing and the curse;
therefore choose life, that thou mayest live, thou and thy seed;
it continues with this verse:
20 to love the LORD thy God,
to hearken to His voice,
and to cleave unto Him;
for that is thy life, and the length of thy days;
that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD swore unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.”
We have been give the choice, but, in that choice, there is both ‘blessing’ and ‘curse’. We are to choose. We are commanded to ‘choose life’. But we are not forced.
And that choice is whether or not to trust Christ as Savior and repent of our sins. Anyone who trusts Christ cnsciously and repents will be saved. People from other faiths who honestly follow their religion faithfully but do not trust Christ will burn in hell eternally for their sins and won’t receive even one moment of relief or compassion.
But that is not why people should accept Christ as their Savior. It should never be to escape hell. It’s more than that. It shows our need of a Savior. It also is because we realize we are enemies of God without Christ. It should never be to escape tribulation on earth or hell. The reason to accept Christ as Savior is to see our sin for what it is, and to see Christ for who He is. Escapism leads to false conversions.
The fact is none of us knows what hell is like any more than we know what heaven is like. We should teach and preach hell, but not more than the Bible tells us.
The Gospel is that God loved us enough to send an escape from hell, Jesus Christ. He loved us that much. That is incomprehensible love.
So you believe there is a wrong reason to get saved. That’s an interesting concept.
Hell is major part of the gospel message it seems to me not just an interesting sidenote. I think it will always lead to error to emphasize one aspect of Gods character such as love and downplay another such as wrath.
This always seems to eventually ending in universalism.
I never said that is WHY they should get saved. I was provoking L’s because she believes that people of other faiths will get to heaven through Christ without ever knowing Christ. Reading is still fundamental.
Now, go back and cry into your pillow.
The way I interpret Scripture on this is that the presence of God is everywhere (even in hell) but His presence is manifested differently at different times and places. I’ve thought hell to be God actively pouring out His wrath on unbelievers and not so much them being separated from God. I mean isn’t separation from God in a sense the condition of unbelievers now? And isn’t separation from God what a rebellious heart desires?
That’s just my take…but I could be wrong.
Interesting thoughts though.
Also, I should add that I do believe there is a sense in which hell is a separation from God…but that it is a separation from the “good” presence of God but a full exposure to His wrath.
I agree with Mike as well. God is in hell or He is not omnipresent. He however withholds His mercy from hell. Hell is the same thing that Jesus experienced on the cross as He was forsaken by His Father. God withheld His mercy from Christ, His common grace at that moment, and poured out His “hell,” His 100% wrath on Christ for your sins and mine. Thus, hell is the absense of the mercy of God. He is there, only in wrath toward sin. His justice is clearly present there as a result, since sinners deserve what they receive for all eternity.
I also believe that Hell is full of the glory of God as well. His glory is revealed through the eternal torment and judgment of the wicked. They thus recognize the glory of God forevermore; for they eternally realize that they deserve what they receive. Thus, I don’t view hell as “merciful” in the least. Hell is actually the antithesis of what you argue; it’s the absense of mercy.
Also, I’m not convinced that we will ever “look upon the face of God.” God is Spirit; and doesn’t have a face. I’m not sure what you mean by this; could you explain a little more? I believe God will still be “other” than us, even in heaven. However, we will see Him as we look at Christ.
Hi JARED,
‘to look upon the Face of God and live’ is from a song often sung at funerals, and likely is related to the book of Job, chapter 19, from which our Anglican brothers also take their funeral rite.
I think this is one of the most triumphant passages in all of Sacred Scripture:
“I know that my Redeemer liveth,
and that He shall stand at the latter day upon the earth.
And though after my skin worms destroy this body,
yet in my flesh shall I see God:
whom I shall see for myself,
and mine eyes shall behold, and not another. ”
We also know from the Beatitudes, this part of the Holy Gospel of Our Lord:
““Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God”
(Matthew 5:8).
The pagans spoke of the early Christians as the ones who worshipped ‘a God with a human face’, referring to Lord Christ.
We know from Scripture that people would look upon Him whom they had pierced and it would cause them to mourn. To look upon the suffering of Our Lord brought Peter to bitter tears of repentance for his denial. Repentance is the sure sign of ‘teshuva’, the turning towards the Lord of Life.
Jared, I always think there is mercy in justice. I think that there is righteous judgement, my overarching point is that God’s mercy is displayed in His justice.
Dan, how is God’s mercy displayed in His justice toward the one receiving the torment? I agree that God is merciful to us by judging the wicked; however, how can you argue that the one receiving God’s wrath is also receiving His mercy? Also, would you say this about Satan as well?
It doesn’t apply to Satan because Satan doesn’t torment people in hell, Satan is being tormented. My point is that for the unregenerate, getting what they deserve and living in the eternal state of being punished justly is the best option. It’s not saying hell is nice and pleasant, but the alternative, for a sinner to be in Heaven with all the guilt, shame and stain of sin would be much worse than experiencing justice. He is tormented justly, he is getting what he deserves and understands that.
Dan, if the sinner was in heaven, he would be receiving grace by simply being there; even though his deeds would be exposed.
These sins however exist in hell as well. Those burning in hell know they are wicked, and are receiving what they deserve; but, if they were in heaven, they would know they were not getting what they deserved.
My point is that an unrepentant sinner, whether in heaven (hypothetically) or hell has “all the guilt, shame, and stain of sin.” The difference is that the people in hell are experiencing conscience torment forever; while those in heaven merely have the knowledge and guilt… plus, neither have the “hope of forgiveness.” I thus don’t understand why you’re arguing that there are worse alternatives; and that God is merciful in sending reprobates to hell?
Something to think about:
for all who think that God will be in Hell, please go back and read the Words of Our Lord in sacred Scripture St. Matthew 25:
“”Then He will say to those on His left,
‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”
I would think this:
that IF the end for which we were created was to be with God for all eternity:
THEN, the greatest torment a person could have, would be to be deprived of God’s Presence for all eternity.
Christiane,
You are a creating a contradiction, as Rev. 14:10 states that those in Hell will be tormented in the presence of Christ. You should reconsider what Christ means by “depart from me.”
Christiane,
You can be separated from the Presence of the Lord and God still be there. If God is omnipresent then there is no place that He is not, as the Psalmist proclaimed. But there is another sense in which being cast away from the Lord’s presence means that you are departing from the realm of His mercy.
In other words I don’t really deny anything you said, I simply believe there is another aspect to it.
Perhaps in God’s omnipresence, He can choose to not be somewhere, just like He told the Israelites he wouldn’t go with them, and Moses pleads for His presence. Because He can be everywhere doesn’t mean He is required to be.
Dan, God is necessarily everywhere by His very nature. You are speaking of an essential attribute of God: Omnipresence. I think you’re in danger of making God less than God by arguing that He has the ability to choose not be everywhere.
God however can clearly withhold His non-essential attributes (the attributes He would possess in every possible world; or the attributes He possessed while in His Trinitarian relationship prior to the creation of matter); such as mercy, wrath, justice, grace, etc. God is God without mercy, wrath, or grace for He was God before these attributes flowed from His nature.
Omnipresence however is an essential attribute of God. I don’t believe that God can choose to not be everywhere. By His very nature, He’s everywhere. He necessarily fills all of space and time; and arguably exists outside of both as well.
I would even argue that there is a sense where Christ was omnipresent in essence, while still being in one place in His physical body.
It’s not an easy subject; but, I don’t understand why you’re fighting for God not being in hell. What scriptural reason do you have? I’m definitely open to correction.
Well if I am limited God by denying his omnipresence, aren’t you limiting God by saying Hell doesn’t demonstrate love and mercy, since God is infinite loving and infinitely merciful? Reconcile how I am limiting God and you are not.
Dan, simply put, God doesn’t have to love sinners to still be God. He does not have to show mercy to them. He however has to be omnipresent in order to be God. It’s His nature.
Do you believe that God must show love to sinners?
I like Dan’s article, although I too would agree more with Mike and Jared. Hell is not the absence of God’s full presence, it is the full presence of his glory and wrath. What make hell hell is not just the darkness and flames but the utter terror of the full brunt of the holy wrath of God in the fulness of his presence, including seeing him so beautiful and realizing forever and ever what (or “Who”) the person rejected.
My entire point of this article is that Hell doesn’t contradict God’s character of love and mercy, it supports it. I would reject the view that God delights in the torture of sin. I do believe God pours out wrath, but the righteous punishment of sin is also merciful. I think we rejoice in the suffering of the wicked, and that disturbs me a great deal. God sends the sinner to eternal punishment because He loves them, and that is the best outcome for them. I think that is a concept we need to wrap our minds around, God is eternally merciful and loving in all of His nature. If that is the case, hell has aspects of mercy and love. Anything else would be a contradiction of God’s stated nature.
Dan,
I think you misunderstand God. God does not love humans more than He loves Himself. He is about primarily His own glory. You seem to be emphasizing a man-centered understanding of God. You said, “…God is eternally merciful and loving in all of His nature. If that is the case, hell has aspects of mercy and love. Anything else would be a contradiction of God’s stated nature.”
I have so many problems with this statement. First, in order to argue this, you either have to deny that God is exhaustive in His attributes or that He is more merciful than He is wrathful; because God is also exhastively wrathful as well. Thus, you have to prove what is wrathful or judgmental from God in heaven. You cannot argue that there is mercy in hell without arguing that there is judgment in heaven. Also, even if you can prove this, you have to prove how God’s wrath and mercy are 100% in both heaven and hell.
Second, “God is love” does not mean that He is forced to show mercy to the wicked. I’m not sure what keeps you from being a universalist if you believe that God must necessarily salvifically love those that deny Him and reject His Son. I agree that God loves the wicked; however, He does NOT necessarily have to love them to the point of salvation in order to still be God. God is God without the salvation of anyone.
Third, God has not always been merciful. It is not an essential attribute. How can God be merciful before the fall of Satan and humanity if no one needed mercy? Mercy thus flows from God’s holiness and love… but, justice and wrath flows from God’s holiness and love as well. God must necessarily love Himself more than humanity or humanity is god. Thus, heaven and hell are both ultimately about God’s love for Himself; not, primarily His love for humanity. I think this is where you’re missing the point of heaven and hell. It’s about God primarily; not about humanity primarily.
Hi Jared,
I think I would be a bit more cautious about a couple of statements you made, or at least clarify them some. The first is this:
“God does not love humans more than He loves Himself.”
While this may be true, I don’t think God loves us any less than he loves himself. The whole foundation of the gospel is that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten. I would think that alone shows that God loves the world enough to die for it. Jesus’ own words say that there is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for his friends. Jesus, as the God-man, fully fulfilled the second Great Commandment, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” He fulfilled it as both God and man, so God loved us as he loves himself.
The second quote is more troubling:
“He is about primarily His own glory.”
I know this is a Reformed staple, but the ultimate revelation of God is Jesus Christ, and he was certainly NOT about his own glory. Recall Paul’s words in Philippians 2. Even though Jesus had every right and privilege to behave as one equal to God, he instead chose to empty himself (not lose anything of his own divinity, but instead subtract by adding, that is, becoming human) and take on the form of a servant, and be obedient even unto a criminal’s death. God was on display in human flesh as one not magnifying himself, but as one serving others, and putting the needs of others before his own.
Now I know that God is all-powerful, but he is also triune. Could God exist as three persons if his greatest aim was to maximize his own glory? Who is glorified? Is it the Father? Or perhaps the Son or the Spirit? What would stop one person from taking the glory for himself? If maximizing personal glory is the goal, why not? No, the historic doctrine of perichoresis preserves the oneness and the threeness of God by explaining that each of the persons make room in their “relational space” (I can’t think of another way to say it) for the other two. This is how God is in eternity – always making room rather than demanding his own.
To say that God is primarily concerned with his own glory is a mistake. He is concerned about his own glory, but the whole counsel of Scripture and trinitarian theology demands that he is just as concerned with sharing his glory with others. (Isa 48:11 excepted – I don’t have the time to delve into that one right away, but I know it is there) We will be glorified as Jesus is, who in turn will be glorified with the glory he had with the Father before the world was. In the fullness of the re-creation, we share in the very glory of God. Scripture is plain there.
One last thought…I know it doesn’t prove anything, but it is just an observation. If humans are created in the image of God, why is it wrong for us to want to glorify ourselves. It is wrong both by God’s command and by the law on our hearts – the conscience. I know when I inappropriately magnify myself, my conscience (and the Spirit) convict me. It is something innately wrong for us to do, and I would submit that is how we were created. If God were one to magnify himself above all else, we would not be reflecting his character in our created state, and there would seem to me to be something lacking in the image of God in us. That is just an observation, though.
Hope this helps,
Jim G.
Jim, you wrongly assume that that when I say “God is primarily concerned with His own glory” that I’m referring to God the Father. We worship One God who exists in three persons. When One Trinitarian person is glorified, the other two are as well, since they are One Essence.
Also, I believe you are teetering close to blasphemy when you speak of God loving humanity as much as Himself. If God loves anyone or anything as much as Himself, He ceases to be God. You are erasing the “otherness” of God. He still transcends humanity.
Concerning God primarily being about His own glory; look at the two greatest commandments. The first and greatest is that we love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, and mind; and the second is to love our neighbors as ourselves. The order is intentional.
Also, what you say about Christ serving others is true; but, the reason He came ultimately was because His Father sent Him. This is clearly evident throughout the Gospel of John; and the rest of Scripture.
Finally, you argue, “One last thought…I know it doesn’t prove anything, but it is just an observation. If humans are created in the image of God, why is it wrong for us to want to glorify ourselves.”
Because God is a jealous God that doesn’t share His glory with anyone. We were created to reveal the glory of God. We are a reflection of God in some ways; but we do not possess any attribute in the same exact way that He does. We however are not God. You wrongly assume that being created in God’s image means that we are little gods. God must exalt Himself or He ceases to be God. If you exalt yourself, you are an idolater.
You also write, “If God were one to magnify himself above all else, we would not be reflecting his character in our created state, and there would seem to me to be something lacking in the image of God in us.”
You are right; there is something lacking. We are not God. I’m surprised you are arguing that since we’re not supposed to do something, God cannot do it either. So, since it’s a sin for us to exalt ourselves, it’s also a sin for God to exalt Himself? God also isn’t physical (even Christ isn’t physical in the same way we are today), but we are; God also forgives sins, and we cannot; God also judges based on Himself; and we cannot, etc. The list of things that only God can do is virtually endless.
I want to warn you brother that in making God so much like humanity; or humanity so much like God, you’re in danger of making the Creator the creature, or the creature the Creator. In doing this, you are diminishing God, and exalting humanity. It’s important to understand that God is “other” than humanity while still being with us. We however cannot sacrifice His otherness on the altar of Him being with us. Both are true.
Hi Jared,
I never assumed you meant only God the Father. I believe you to be as trinitarian as I. :0)
I appreciate your concern about me coming close to blasphemy, but I don’t think I am. Why would God cease to be God if he loved someone as much as himself? I don’t see that anywhere in Scripture. All I am saying is that Jesus loved others as he loved himself. He had to do so in order to fully keep the law. Jesus IS GOD. He loved us AS GOD (and as man, for he is both) as much as he loved himself. In fact, AS GOD (and as man) he showed the greatest love by laying down his life for us. I can’t prove that God’s love for humanity is greater than his own self-love, but I think it is as strong. Otherwise, why would Jesus say and do such things AS GOD and as man?
It is interesting that you bring up the order of the commandments. (And of course I agree how they are ordered) Jesus was asked which commandment is greatest by a teacher of the law. He answered that one should love God fully (I shortened it, but we agree here). He then without being asked volunteered the second (Love neighbor as self) unsolicited. I think that is equally instructive.
I agree about Jesus being sent by the Father. But he is still God and the ultimate revelation of God. Hebrews 1 says as much.
Jared, please do not jump to conclusions about what I am saying. Nowhere do I state we are little gods. Nor do I state that because we cannot do something, God cannot do it either. You misunderstand my point. I am not arguing at all in the last point. It is just an observation. Of course we are not God. All I am saying is that it is worth noting that we are in the image of God and we recoil from exalting ourselves (when we are doing right, at least). I just find that intriguing, that’s all.
I do understand the balance between transcendence and immanence. That is why we have Protestant Liberalism. But there is a lot of mystery involved here too. The creator became creature. How that was possible is beyond our understanding. But I do have one question, though. How is Christ not physical in the same way we are physical? Are you speaking of the earthly Jesus, or the resurrected and ascended Jesus? I’m curious on that one.
Hope this clarifies.
Jim G.
Jim,
I’m speaking of the new physical body that Christ has post-resurrection; the body He has today.
God must necessarily love Himself more than others, or He will seek their best interest above His own. If God loves everyone as much as Himself, He wouldn’t send anyone to hell. Jesus even speaks of a special love that God has for His church that is greater than His love for the lost. There are clear degrees of God’s love in Scripture, even within humanity.
Also, the fact that the greatest commandment is to love God should prove that God is ultimate, and that He must love Himself the greatest. Also, it must be noted that God has no neighbors apart from the Trinity. And, I don’t think even each Person of the Trinity can be considered each other’s neighbor since they are One in Essence.
Finally, if God loves humanity equally as He loves Himself, then He must do for humanity what He does for Himself. Why do you believe God loves humanity as much as He loves Himself? How can He do this and still remain other than humanity?
Hi Jared,
Okay, I agree with the post-resurrected glorified body. We will have one like it when he returns, but not yet.
I think God does seek the best interests of others. Why else would he (God the Son) become one of us, suffer with us, die for us, and remain one of us into eternity future? He certainly did a LOT of stooping down at his own inconvenience to save us and love us the way he did. Even if we restrict his greatest love to the church, he loves us on a level that his commensurate with his love of himself.
I happen to think that God loves all humanity like that, but not all respond to that love. (We may disagree about why others do not respond, but we surely agree that not all do.) Therefore hell exists for those who refuse to acknowledge and return his love. Surely we agree that love, if it is really love, cannot be forced. I don’t think God’s love for all humanity necessarily implies any sort of universal salvation. If love were mechanical it might, but we know love is not mechanical.
My only reasoning for believing God loves us that much is that he said so. And he backed it up with his actions. He became one of us, permanently taking up residence in human flesh, in order that we may be partakers of the divine nature by grace. We become adopted sons of God, enjoying the exact same quality of sonship Jesus enjoys. The only difference is that he is son by nature and we are sons by grace. But we are all sons nonetheless. We become members of the eternal family, though we are created beings. We are heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ. Whatever he possesses, we possess, except for those things which cannot be inherited by creation (infinity in time, space, power, and knowledge). God holds back nothing. He gives everything to us he can. If that is not a love bordering on his self-love, I don’t know what is.
God is still other than humanity because he is God. He is infinite (as I wrote above) while we are limited. BUT (and this is a big but) Jesus is not completely other than us. He became fully human and entered into our world of despair. He fought through it all and triumphed over it in the cross and the empty tomb. AND (and this is a big and) we will be, humanly speaking, exactly as his humanity is now when he returns. God is other, but he is not intelligibly other. We are created in his image, after his likeness, and pre-fall reflected his glory in creation. The fall marred that image; but Jesus came to restore and enhance it. He is (as Hebrews 1 states) the exact representation of God; and he is re-creating us to be the same. God’s love for us is so great that he is willing to share himself in us by becoming one of us and remaining so forever. That is the good, good news.
Jim G.
Jarod, You are being so one dimensional in your statement, I don’t even know where to begin. There is judgement in Heaven, otherwise Satan wouldn’t have been kicked out of Heaven. The miscommunication is you don’t understand my point at all. I didn’t say there is mercy in hell, I said God sending the unregenerate to hell is merciful, much like punishing a child you love is mercy that the child doesn’t understand (and it seems neither to you). I am not sure how to make you understand, I think you are in error.
Dan, you cannot compare us punishing children temporarily to God sending sinners to hell. We do it because we want their correction.
God however is not seeking to correct sinners in hell unless you believe hell is similar to purgatory. Hell is God’s wrath, period. They are not being corrected in hell. They are being judged and tormented to reveal God’s holiness. He is serious about His own holiness.
I think we rejoice in the suffering of the wicked, and that disturbs me a great deal. God sends the sinner to eternal punishment because He loves them, and that is the best outcome for them.
Rejoicing in the suffering of the wicked and lamenting over them, biblically, is a both/and not an either/or. On the one hand I must say one of the most disturbing sermons I’ve witnessed was in preaching class where one dude spoke about the glory of God in the damnation of sinners and smiled the whole time doing it. The prof even told him, “I agree with everything you said and it still makes me mad.” I think we see the example of Paul in Romans 9, or Jesus when looking out over Jerusalem and clearly see weeping over the lostness and eternal destruction of people.
Yet also, in Revelation 17-18 we see a picture of Babylon–the fullness of human and demonic wickedness wrapped up into one organism and at the start of 19 there is rejoicing in heaven because Babylon was judged, the blood of God’s saints avenged, and God’s wrath fully poured out upon her.
While we weep the condemnation of souls we also rejoice over the goodness and justice of God in that same act of judgment.
Now when it comes to your statement on God eternally punishing the sinner b/c he loves them, I don’t think anything could be further from the truth.
“For you are not a God who delights in wickedness; eveil may not dwell with you. The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers.”–Psalm 5:4-5
“The Lord is in his holy temple; the Lord’s throne is in heaven; his eyes see, his eyelids test the children of man. The Lord tests the righteous but hsi soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence.”–Psalm 11:4-5
and…
“‘I have loved you,’ says the Lord. But you say, ‘How have you loved us?’ ‘Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?’ declares the Lord. ‘Yet I have loved Jacob but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert.'”–Malachi 1:2-3
In those two Psalms, it doesn’t say God loves the wicked but that he hates them. In Malachi God himself says “I hate Edom” and the way he shows that hate is through judgment. Granted the picture there is not eternal judgment but temporal judgment on the nation, nonetheless Paul quotes it in Romans 9 where he speaks about the difference between God’s elect and non-elect and their eternal destiny of either wrath or mercy.
God doesn’t condemn sinners to hell out of love but out of a holy and righteous hatred for them and their sin.
If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.
Careful how you use (or abuse) scripture. You may say more than you mean too.
If you look OT and New, God’s love is inexplicably tied to his covenants. Those he “hates” are those that he separates himself from (though not in the spatial sense, as we know, but relationally) and rejects. His love is towards the ones he joins himself to and receives.
The main thrust in thought behind your quote from Luke 14 is no different than the end of Luke 9 where Jesus tells one dude that instead of going back to his father’s funeral he should let the dead bury the dead, and to the other guy who asks to go say bye to his family and friends Jesus says you aren’t fit for the kingdom if you look back.
In other words, be willing to separate yourself–i.e. hate–your family and follow me. I think in the full context of Scripture, it’s clear that the hope and desire is for the family and friends to join with us in following Jesus and be part of the new family, but if they refuse and we are left with a choice of Jesus or family, we hate our family and love Jesus. Covenant rejection.
But with God, he’s in a position we are not. He is perfectly holy and just and as part of that covenant rejection/hate towards sinners he is able to pour out a wrath and judgment we cannot (1 Corinthians 5:12-13, Romans 12:19-20, Matthew 25:41-46, Revelation 6:9-11, 20:11-15, to name a few). Thus why in God’s hatred towards Edom, as Malachi details, there is actual judgment, curse, and desolation.
So I’ll stand by my words and my use of Scripture, thank you.
Dan,
Actually, when we are with the Lord, we will certainly will rejoice at the destruction and punishment of the wicked. They are enemies of the Great King, they refused his matchless mercy of His Only Begotten Son who came and died and rose again.
I forget who said it, but on that Day there will be mothers in heaven who rejoice to see their own children thrown into hell as just punishment for their rejection of the Sovereign Lord.
However, the rejoicing is absolutely inappropriate and shameful now, in this age. We must reach the lost with the Gospel now while there is still time for them to obey God’s command to repent.
Just for everyone’s FYI, I found the quote I was thinking of. It was Spurgeon, in a sermon titled, “Heaven and Hell”. Here it s:
“There was a dreadful dream which a Christian mother once had, and she told it to her children. She dreamed the judgment day had come. The great books were opened. The people all stood before God. And Jesus Christ said, “Separate the chaff from the wheat; put the goats on the left hand, and the sheep on the right.” The mother dreamed that she and her children were standing right in the middle of the great assembly of people. And an angel came, and said, “I must take the mother, she is a sheep: she must go to the right hand. The children are goats: they must go on the left.” She thought as she went, her children clutched her, and said, “Mother, do we have to part? Must we be separated?” She then put her arms around them, and seemed to say, “My children, I would, if possible, take you with me.” But in a moment the angel touched her; the tears on her cheeks dried, and now, overcoming natural affection, being rendered supernatural and exalted, submissive to God’s will, she said, “My children, I taught you well, I trained you, and you abandoned the ways of God; and now all I have to say is, Amen to your condemnation.” They then were snatched away, and she saw them in perpetual torment, while she was in heaven.”
http://www.biblebb.com/files/spurgeon/heavhell.htm
(Dan, I apologize if I “hijacked” your post with this quote–I just thought given the boldness of the reference I made, I needed to source it for others. Please forgive me. -AR)
Dan,
I have to stand by my earlier comment: “The problem with viewing hell as a ‘mercy’ is that I don’t see any warrant for it in the Bible. If you could offer up some Scriptural references to go with your logic, maybe I could consider it better.”
The problem is that I don’t see anywhere that hell is described as an act of love or mercy. Is it possible your are trying to take passages of God’s love for the elect and transribing them to the reprobate?
Also, what are your thoughts on Revelation 6:10-11?
Hi ANDREW WENCI,
just a little history: prior to the time that we know St. John wrote Revelation on Patmos, the early Christians had already begun burying their dead, instead of cremating them in the pagan fashion of that time. For martyrs, we know that the Romans did permit family members to collect their remains, and these remains were kept in the places where the early Christians gathered for worship. Today, bones of martyrs are kept ‘under the main altar’ of many Churches. So the 9th verse of Rev. 6 which has the martyrs calling out from ‘under the altars’ makes sense in the light of early Christian practices.
9
When he broke open the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar 8 the souls of those who had been slaughtered because of the witness they bore to the word of God.
In the end, we can trust God to ‘sort out’ the sheep from the goats with more justice, and mercy, than even the best of us humans could ever muster.
The funny thing is, that in St. Matthew, a lot of goats don’t realize that they ARE goats. The Day of the Lord will bring surprises, according to St. Matthew’s Gospel.
Actually in Matthew’s gospel, Jesus said “You shall know them by their fruits”. Therefore, discerning Christians can recognize false teachers if they are careful to pay attention to what they teach. For instance, a false teacher like Rob Bell demonstrates by his false gospel, that he is not of the sheep but rather is of the goats–a true apostate if their ever was one.
Just as a clarification the “sheep and the goats” is not in the same place as judging a tree by its fruits (Matthew 25 and Matthew 7 respectively). And if you take the passage literally (either one actually), the judgment is made more by what they do than by what they say. Fruits are about results of action not about doctrine. Someone teaching good doctrine with bad fruit is certainly possible (Matthew 23).
Jeff,
‘Fruits’ clearly refers to what we say (and by extension, our doctrine) in Matthew 12. Consider verses 33-37:
‘Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.’
Also, the idea that Matthew 7 does not refer to doctrine is absurd. Christ’s statement about fruits is a test for false prophets. If he referred only to works, then we should be recognising the prophecies of anyone with good behaviour, even enemies of Christ such as Mormons and Papists.
Chase,
Please don’t try and make me say more than I said. I cited a very specific example in Matthew 23. Are you familiar with the passage? Jesus admonishes the Pharisees for teaching correctly and living wrongly. That is all I was talking about with that statement.
Fruits is about the results of a way of living (this is a Hebrew idiom and a common one, go look it up) or just back up and look at Matthew 5:16 for instance. Your hyperbole is unjustified here. You are creating a false dichotomy. It isn’t an either/or thing it is a both/and thing. False doctrine with good works isn’t acceptable, neither is good doctrine with a hypocritical life. Neither should be held up as a teacher or commended to another as an example of one to listen to or to follow. And you should really look at Matthew 7 again. It is targeted on actions as those who hear and do and those who hear and do not do are the next contrast made.
Jeff,
Jeff,
I did no such thing.
You also mentioned Matthew 7, with which I dealt.
You also stated that ‘fruits’ refers to works, not doctrine. I corrected your error from Scripture.
I have demonstrated from Matthew 12 that fruits can also mean doctrine. The meaning must be derived from the context, and the interpretation that it only means works is fallacious. You have not dealt with Matthew 12 at all.
You stated that, ‘Fruits are about results of action not about doctrine.’ If that is so, and we are to know true prophets by their fruits, then we are to accept the prophecies of anyone with good behaviour. This is a logical consequence of your statement.
Allow me to quote the relevant verses:
I have already shown how interpreting ‘fruits’ here, as works, is absurd. The next example used, in verses 21-23, refers to the Satanic doctrine of justification by works. It is not referring to those who ‘hear and do not,’ but to those who appeal to their works for salvation, and are justly cast into Hell.
Chase,
Let me try this one more time. I was citing a specific example(of fruits are a result of actions and indicated this by citing the instance I had in mind in Matthew 23) and not making a broad generalization. I further clarified my position by saying it is both/and when I am speaking beyond that one instance. And to reiterate, Matthew 7 is about both. Trying to make it just about speech is doing injustice to the text.
I don’t disagree with anything you have said, other than your complete twist of something I didn’t say to try and make it look like I am arguing that those who do good things should be listened to. I said nothing of the sort.
Jeff,
I did not mean to imply that you are ‘arguing that those who do good things should be listened to,’ but rather that this is a consequence of the comment you made about fruits:
The consequence remains whether or not you argue for it. You clearly stated that Mt. 7 does not refer to doctrine. Hopefully you can understand my response, even if you feel that I have misrepresented you. As you have since stated that “Matthew 7 is about both,” it seems that we are indeed in agreement.
Chase,
My apology because in my haste to type the first comment I left out a word that would have helped the whole thing. I was responding to Joe and was trying to correct his one-sided assertion. If I were to run that statement back through my, “what I was trying to say” filter it should probably read:
Fruits are about results of actions and not just about doctrine. Or something like that anyway. This is what happens when you are typing, talking and watching TV all at the same time. I am not a good multitasker.
Even with my poor wording though, I never asserted that someone with good doctrine but bad deeds should be listened to or followed either. In fact, Paul says something very much in this vein, “They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.”(Titus 1:16) The consequence you mention is not logical in any case as it would come from a form of affirming the consequent (a fallacy).
Jeff,
If X prophesies and has good works, then X is a true prophet.
X prophesies and has good works.
Therefore X is a true prophet.
Valid per modus ponens.
Valid, just not true.
Frank,
Of course it isn’t true. The argument should be noted in the context of my discussion with Jeff.
My bad, Chase. I read it differently the second time. I actually read your exchange but obviously didn’t read it carefully enough. Please accept my apology.
It’s not a problem, Frank.
Perhaps one should be thinking also about the ‘fruits of the Spirit’ in any context of the Holy Gospels.
I really think most of you have focused on the idea of those receiving mercy in hell. That is not the point. The point is, hell is the best for the unregenerate. I think some would argue that forgiveness would be the most merciful, but that would be forced love and devotion. I have seen many of you agree that. Universalism isn’t merciful, because a sinner can’t stand in God’s presence, and it would be disastrous. I can’t hold to annihilationism, because the soul is eternal. Of all the things that could happen to the lost soul, I believe that God chose what would give Him the most glory, would judge sinners, therefore giving them what they deserve by pouring his wrath on them is the best and most merciful. Allowing believers to depart from His presence (even if His omnipotence means He’s in Hell, even though to say God “has” to do something is arrogant), the being apart from His Glory is mercy. Hell is torturous, wrathful and torment, but it’s better than the other alternatives. There is mercy and love in Justice. This is an abstract concept, and I know many of you concrete, linear thinkers struggle with the contradiction, so I am done fighting with you. You all keep making points that miss the point.
Dan, if universalism is true, the person in heaven is cleansed, and thus is sinless. So, they can stand in the presence of God.
I also don’t think it’s arrogant to say that God has to do something, if He has said it Himself. For example, God “HAS” to tell the truth.
I’m just not convinced that “there is mercy in love and justice.” I don’t understand why you’re arguing for this? What scriptural reason do you have? To say that “hell is better than the alternatives,” is to assume that you know there are worse alternatives. The Bible however paints hell as the worst thing imagineable. I’m not aware of any Scriptural reason to argue that hell is merciful and that there is something worse.
Finally, it’s not about us struggling with a contradiction; it’s about us not seeing your argument in Scripture. Maybe we don’t understand your argument because it doesn’t make sense? Or, maybe you could explain it better? Maybe the problem is on your end instead of on our end? I do think I’m capable of understanding “abstract ideas” if they make sense. However, if they’re not scriptural or logical, but are assumed, why should I believe them?
Treat me like a 10 year old for a minute, and explain your position using Scripture; maybe I’ll better understand where you’re coming from.
A 10 year old doesn’t have the ability for abstract thought. Really, the whole thing isn’t that important, it’s a contrast to Bell’s theology. The discussion has been on the merit of the argument itself, and everyone got hung up on mercy and hell being in the same sentence.
My point is that God sending people to hell does not contradict His character of love and mercy. Love is love, and hell does not contradict His nature of love, this is in contrast to Bell’s statement that a loving God would not send people to hell. I would argue a loving God will send those who reject Christ to the eternity in which they have chosen. You can argue all these points with me, I am just saying Bell is wrong. I am not saying “hell is pleasant because God is merciful”. I am not suggesting a new theology, and like you have said “I am not sure why you are arguing the point” because you are arguing the supporting points, not the point. My point is Bell is wrong, God sends some to hell, yet God is love, therefore there is love for the world. This is the reason I reject double predestination, God calls some out, but we choose hell on our own. Let’s let this die and move on. It’s really not a substantiation enough topic to spend this much time on it.
So, you do concede that the Mercy of God extends beyond the grave?
In my faith, in our Scriptures, we have reference to that, too.
We can’t mitigate hell, whether by calling it “separation from God,” non-eternal, figurative, left alone with our sin, mercy-containing or salvation-possible. Hath God said?
Is it more powerful if God Hath said it and it’s in 19th Century English? Just wondering.
Could there be a GREATER punishment than to be separated from God, Our Creator, for all eternity?
Not in my religion.
While we’re on the subject of hell, is anybody familiar with a clear argument from the Bible that clearly shows that the reprobate will consciously experience hell? Luke 16 (rich man-Lazarus) jumps to mind, but I have a hard time accepting that Luke 16 describes the actual heaven/hell setup. I’m not saying that it doesn’t necessarily, but it’s pretty allegorical. I don’t think it could be categorized in the clear proof column.
A friend of mine pointed to Revelation 14:9-10, but that is specific to people who take the mark of the beast. I don’t think that could apply to all of the reprobate everywhere.
Concering Rob Bell’s book:
http://sacredsandwich.com/archives/8343
I can see the intellectual fun in a clever argument like a merciful hell. I just think there are too many hurdles in logic and Scripture to make it a fruitful intellectual pursuit.
Any mercy associated with hell is on this side of the grave. Hell is the opposite of mercy, and a merciful God has provided a way to escape what is the pure, unmitigated eternal experience of wrath.
I know this is not as “fun” as a clever discussion of a unique argument, but I don’t think pursuing cleverness for cleverness’s sake is something we should be doing as believers . . . UNLESS at the end of the day we have moved closer to a Biblical understanding of the matter.
I think it’s important to cover these topics in response to theologies like Rob Bell. People will come in our churches and ask us “how can God claim He loves the world, but then sends some to hell”. Can a loving God do something that is motivated by anything but love? Does a merciless hell mean that God has an area where He lacks mercy? Can we say, “God has mercy on everyone unless they don’t get saved, and then His mercy gives way to wrath”. Does God love the world, saved and unsaved, or just the saved? Does God hate those who are not predestined to Heaven? (2 point argument, have fun with that).
Dan,
Ps. 5:5; 11:5-6; 73:17-19; Pr. 3:33; 16:4; Ro. 9:22-23
I see no reason to believe that God must be merciful towards everyone at all times. “All things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose” (Ro. 8:28), but the reprobate are set in slippery places, to be cast into destruction (73:18).
Yes, but it should be qualified. God does give temporal blessings to the reprobate (Mt. 5:45), but these things work towards their eventual destruction, because they will not thank God for their blessings, or worship him as he deserves.
God loves his elect. He loves the righteous and hates the unrighteous, upon whom his wrath abides (Jn. 3:36). So yes, God hates the reprobate.
I see a bulk of your doctrine comes from the books of poetry (Psalms). Interesting.
It is no less Scripture than any book of the Bible. Either the psalmists’ statements are true, or they are lies. Perhaps the clearest instance of God’s specific hatred of the reprobate comes from Ro. 9, though:
Of course this is a reference to Mal. 1:2-3, but Paul connects God’s love and hatred to his decrees of election and reprobation.
I agree Chase, yet scripture requires exegetical study. A psalm is a psalm, not a promise, the same can be said of a proverb. History, poetry, prophecy, allegory, they are all different structures and must be viewed in their structure.
Yes, scripture requires exegetical study, but we are currently dealing with rather simple propositions. “God hates the unrighteous.” True of false? “God hates Esau.” True or false? These aren’t particularly difficult verses. Of course some would argue about the nature of the “hate” mentioned here, but I have never seen a compelling case that “hate” means anything other than “hate.”
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.” Luke 14:26
Exegete that for me please.
I referred to the use of “hate” in the context of the verses I referenced, as I called it “the nature of the ‘hate’ mentioned here”; but perhaps I was unclear. Luke 14:26, though, by necessity cannot be a literal command to hate, as John Gill notes:
In the verses referring to God’s hatred of the reprobate, there is no such necessity to interpret them as meaning “loves less” or any such things.
Dan, I don’t think Chase is understanding the point of your questions.
I did make a mistake in my earlier argument, which you might have caught. I will go ahead and remedy it, though. The statement that “God hates the unrighteous” must be qualified as “God hates the reprobate,” because while God’s elect are unrighteous prior the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to them, God did not hate us; he loved us with an everlasting love, through Christ’s covenant agreement to engage as a surety on our behalf, which was a situation antecedent to sin. As God had a guarantee of our eventual justification, he was able to work all things towards our good. So the first proposition was not as simple as I made it out to be, but after the appropriate qualification, it is.
Perhaps you can enlighten me, Christiane?
If Psalm 136 is true (KJV) and the Lord’s mercies are mentioned over a dozen times to “endure forever”, then a hell sentence cannot outlive God’s enduring mercy… could it?
“Mercies endureth forever” mentioned over and over. This is so emphatic that I don’t think it can be overlooked.
But….there’s Matthew 5:7. It’s the merciful that will be shown mercy. I believe that’s when Matthew 25:33-46 comes in.
Be merciful and be shown mercy.