Nick

Why I don’t believe in hell (and you don't either)

Comments

I long ago accepted the fact that I don't truly believe in Hell, so this comes as no surprise to me.
[this is good]
I could point out the Calvinists, who do believe in Hell, but think that God has already chosen who is going to go there, and there's not really anything they can do about it. They do seem to be a rare breed though. Very interesting post.

I do think that there's a good deal of rich meaning hidden in the doctrine of hell. But I just haven't met anyone who really accepts the standard evangelical formulation that you're tortured without reprieve if you don't consciously accept Christ in this life. I know plenty of people who say that they believe it. But unless they're wearing a sandwich board and running wild-eyed down a high street begging people to convert, I'm inclined to dispute their claim.

Thanks for reading such a slog of a post, Shush, and taking the time to comment.

Do I believe in some kind of separation from God? In an afterlife? In eternity? Absolutely, but I except the fact that my limited mortal understanding simply isn't sufficient to fully support a heaven/hell doctrine like the one I was raised with.

Hey, it was a GOOD slog of a post! :)
Interesting thoughts. I definitely believe in Hell, since Jesus himself spoke of it, but I don't know that any of our concepts of it can be called accurate. C.S. Lewis has some poignant insights in The Problem of Pain.

I've hung out in the Calvinist camp as well as with those who think we're responsible for saving everyone around us. Whether God really is setting our fates in stone all Himself or leaving it up to His mostly inept followers, I'm not sure...but I think it's not in my power to 'convert' anybody. I can share my testimony and disciple those who would be discipled by me. That's pretty much the best I can do. Crazy-in-the-street man couldn't do better.


Calvinism seems to be back in vogue, and has some really eloquent advocates in the likes of John Piper - and modern Calvinists are very keen to answer the Arminian charge that the doctrine of election renders evangelism pointless. Their answer usually draws on 'compatibilist' account of human agency. I can't say I understand it much; seems like sleight of hand to me.

Personally, I think that the Calvinist (neo-Calvinist?) idea that a doctrine of human free will detracts from the sovereignty of God is dodgy reasoning. A God who can't choose to create free beings without compromising his sovereignty isn't sovereign in the first place.

As for the idea that God has chosen a 'remnant' who'll be saved from hell - it's just not possible to square this view with ethical reasoning. It's also pretty durned hard to square it with the idea that God doesn't show favouritism.

Oh look! I'm ranting.

That's really well put, Shush.

Something you said really stood out to me: "Rob had indeed vocalised what evangelicals were supposed to accept as dogma:"

This, along with the comments on Calvanist or Armenian thought reminds me that so many people are trying to find someone to tell them what they are supposed to believe, when it is really pretty simple to sit down with your Bible and really read it from cover to cover - many times - and base my belief on that.

You are wrong to say that I do not care because I am spending time reading your blog. (Even tho I am sure that was said tongue in cheek) The truth is that I am blogging because of my passionate belief that the Bible has everything we need to live a life of influence in our generation and the next.

Since I started blogging just two months ago, and placed my devotions on a number of sites including Vox, I have had the opportunity to interact with so many individuals who are hurting and seeking for an answer, both Christians and Non Christians. The opportunity for ministry online is still holding me in awe. I have been in tears more than once over e-mails sent to me.

Yes, I do believe in Hell and I think many people are experiencing a taste of it here on earth. Jesus came to offer eternal, abundant life to those who all their lives have lived in fear of death.

Hi Charlotte - many thanks very much for taking the time to comment. I hope to address some of your concerns in the next couple of posts (which will provide something of a counterbalance).

Please don't think I'm saying that you do not care; I'm saying the exact opposite. Your blog/devotionals are proof enough that you care. What I'm saying is that if the 'standard' doctrine of hell is true, most of the people around us are in unimaginable - or, rather, infinite - peril, and this would demand a response overwhelmingly more urgent than anything I see the church engaged in. Such a response would not leave much room for other activities; and I stick by my conviction that reading my blog is of lesser importance than engaging in the evangelistic activities necessary to respond to the challenge implicit in the standard evangelical doctrine of hell.

My conclusion is that although we might accept the doctrine of hell on an intellectual level, we haven't internalised it. Of all the evangelical doctrines, this one is a 'head' belief rather than a 'heart' belief. Either we need to get it further into our hearts, so as to maximise our sense of urgency, or we should re-evaluate the doctrine so that we can better digest it.

I'm afraid I must disagree that it is an easy matter to derive doctrinal distinctives from repeatedly reading the bible. There are thousands of protestant denominations arguing over very important doctrines, and we can't simply accuse them of not reading their bibles. The Jehovah's Witnesses started as a bible study group, and defending (say) the doctrine of the Trinity against a well-versed JW's Arianism is no straightforward matter. They know their bible well, and they'll happily box you into a corner if you think your evangelical orthodoxy has been lifted straight from scripture.

Sacramentalism, the role of baptism in salvation, the deity of Christ, the nature of the Trinity, the relative importance of faith and works - if establishing the truth regarding these issues is simply a matter of reading the bible, how much reading do the different Christian factions have to do to reach a consensus? In over 2000 years they still don't seem to have read the bible enough to agree. Or is it a matter of being illuminated by the Holy Spirit? In which case, how do we establish which faction is being illuminated and which faction isn't? Or does it come down to biblical scholarship?

Yes, I do believe in Hell and I think many people are experiencing a taste of it here on earth. Jesus came to offer eternal, abundant life to those who all their lives have lived in fear of death.

I absolutely agree, and I hope that subsequent posts will demonstrate this. What I wanted to do in this post was indicate that the strength of the church's response to the doctrine of hell is massively, perhaps infinitely, disproportionate to the gravity of the implied threat. That's enough, I feel, to prompt us to ask ourselves whether we really believe it, heart and soul.

Again, many thanks for commenting - I very much appreciate your input, and I'm happy to be proved wrong in anything I write, so please continue challenging me.

[this is good]
An interesting and thought provoking post, Nick. However, there is one minor nit I'd like to pick; your assertion that simply believing that others would be tortured eternally should be enough to convince us to proselytize. Sadly, I can think of several individuals and sects that not only believe that others are going to Hell - they pray for it.

The most obvious are those chialists who are actively working to bring about the conditions that they believe are necessary for Armageddon. They hope and pray for people to be condemned to eternal torment, as if that somehow makes their eternal bliss all the better.

And then there are folks like my grandfather, who used to pray that Heaven would be free of "niggers, kikes, jews, papists, and all the other damn vermin that infest this once great country" [1]. Again, for them, an inclusive heaven seems anathema.

Taking into consideration that minor nit, you've raised some important questions. How can we resolve the problem of a deity with infinite mercy who condemns the vast majority of his children to eternal damnation? Theologians have wrestled with this problem for centuries, and have reached no good answers.

In Job, this question is phrased rhetorically:
Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker?
However, it seems to me that this is the central question of any theology. Christians have a special problem because they begin with the axiom [2, 3] of an all-powerful, all-knowing deity. Those religions which do not accept either of those assumptions (e.g., Hindus, Jainists, Buddhists, Wiccans) have a much easier time.

Some Christian sects [4] have embraced a form of Universalism to resolve the question. Given enough time, they argue, anyone may be redeemed from Hell, given the intercession of those in Heaven. Others use a lesser Hell [5] for the "virtuous pagans" who were never given the opportunity to embrace salvation. Support (and arguments against) both of these positions can be found in the Scriptures.

I don't have any answers to this problem, just questions. But it is something that is worth thinking about.

Thank you for raising the topic!

John

[1] Sorry for the language, but that is a direct quote. My childhood was sometimes interesting...
[2] This is an axiom, as it is unprovable from within the system (teleological arguments notwithstanding). Change the axioms, and a very different system emerges.
[3] Not all Christian sects hold with these axioms, most notably the Manicheans who held that there was a God of the Old testament who was capricious, and a God of the New testament who came to save us from the God of the Old Testament.
[4] That's why Mormons are so interested in genealogy; you can be baptised in this life to save an ancestor and so rescue them from Hell. They then move into a lesser heaven, where they must work to earn their way into the highest heaven.
[5] Most notably, the Roman Catholic Church's evolving views on unbaptised infants, and Dante's famous passage.

Brilliant stuff, John - all excellent points.

Thinking others will be tortured eternally 'should' convince us to proselytize, if the 'should' is understood in the moral sense. If certain people believe in hell and want to see fellow-humans sent there, their position is certainly unimpeachably self-consistent; but it is immoral. I'd say that the people you're talking about are the only people who really believe in hell; but they don't believe in the gospel.

Sadly, the idea that seeing people in hell will enhance the bliss of the saved has a strong pedigree. I think Aquinas held this view. (Alan Watts, in his Behold The Spirit, argues that the damned, convinced of the rectitude of their punishment, are compelled to praise God for their state, and experience it as bliss, too. It strikes me as a perfectly orthodox, if completely barmy, theory.)

My argument isn't just that hell is a problematic doctrine, but that it is impossible to believe in, since real belief would place us under an obligation too huge to bear - unless you accept that God has predestined most people to damnation, which is, prima facie, a straightforwardly biblical position, but is directly contrary to moral reason. (The argument that God's morality is inscrutible is massively problematic, and I'll happily fight on the beaches anyone who says otherwise.) At the same time, I think that the doctrine of hell can be derived from basic Christian axioms shared by most confessions - and is therefore impossible to discard (that's my next thrilling post). Our formulations of the doctrine have to take into account its 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' (so to speak) character - indeed, we should take the inherent impossibility of either accepting or rejecting the doctrine as our starting point (that's the thrilling post after the next thrilling post). After all, Christianity is essentially a creed that proposes solutions to impossible problems.

There's a direct parallel here with the doctrine of Christ's deity. The docetists denied his humanity; the Arians denied his divinity: both tamed the paradox of Christ’s nature - and both missed the point of the incarnation. Both approaches represent an Alexandrian solution to a Gordian problem. Universalism denies eternal hell (or empties it of occupants) in the name of morality; the standard fundamentalist doctrine puts God beyond the reach of moral reasoning. The staggering effort and ingenuity that (say) the Cappadocian fathers brought to reconciling Christ's deity with his humanity just hasn't been brought to reconciling hell with reason. What's more, it never will be, as long as Christians aren't aware that a paradox exists.

By the way, John, your background sounds like it was very interesting indeed. At any rate, it has produced a very interesting person!

Many thanks for your continued injections of erudition and insight.

Hi Mike,

I wrote a reply to you last night and it didn't post for some reason... Arg.

I agree that we need to take the doctrine of hell seriously because Jesus did. Jesus' own teachings on the subject, though, simply don't gel with the standard evangelical model. We certainly couldn't derive the popular formulation of the doctrine from the teachings of Jesus alone. The parable of the sheep and goats makes no mention of faith, never mind sola fide. Hell, for Jesus, seems to be a place you can end up in just for being rich... Nevertheless, you're absolutely right: we can't jettison the doctrine. If anything, Jesus' teachings on hell are the most terrifying of all. But they are also much less straightforward that those you'll find in most churches' statements of belief.

I also agree that we don't 'convert' anyone, although Romans 10:14 - How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? - makes it clear that human proclamation of the gospel is a necessary link in the chain. But for a person who was really struck by the infinite gravity of the threat of hell, making this proclamation would be an all-consuming priority, and I don't see that in the church (or in myself). What I'm saying is that none of us can really accommodate a belief in this doctrine; it is simply too enormous to internalise. Which doesn't mean that it isn't true - just that we need to find a special way to relate to it. In the future I'll be posting a suggestion that the bible actually offers us a way to relate to this, and other, 'impossible' doctrines.

If we deny all human responsibility in the process of converting people, we're no longer wavering between Arminian and Calvinist positions: we're placing ourselves firmly in the Calvinist camp, with all its concomitant problems regarding this issue. That's not necessarily a bad thing, if you're willing to grapple with these problems. Personally I can't see a way to resolve them, though I do think that there is deep truth in all five points of TULIP.

Many thanks for commenting, Mike - and congratulations on the Charisma article. It's incredibly important work you're doing.

but I do believe in Hell...
hahhahahahah

is that harmful?
[this is good]

Very Interesting!

It's something I've had in the back of my mind for a while too.

I think I believe in hell (somewhat the way Shushnow does) but my understanding of God is different.

Ok 3. points.

1. I had a long discussion with a friend once who had read a book by an anthropologist who effectively argued that the fire and brimstone ideology of the end times and hell was a word picture meant to evoke events that had actually happend in the time that they were written (think explosion of Etna). He argues that it was meant to evoke the pain and spontinaeity of the most recent tragedy to give them an idea of the magnatude. It was intruguing and quite convincing. The idea that hell isn't a lake of fire, but rather that is imagery meant to show the continuous torment of separation from God, is something I can buy into pretty easily.

2. The idea that the goal of us christians is to keep people from going to hell is just an adventure in missing the point. This is where I believe that your friend Wayne has really gotten the wrong picture from the people around you. I believe that My Job as a believer isn't to convert people so they go to heaven (thus putting all my focus on the 'afterlife' but instead to live in such a way that God's kingdom is here an now. In my life, in my family's life, in my church community and in my world. Jesus talked so much about this kingdom of heaven, and very little about 'salvation'. I think that if I work to bring this kingdom, that it will touch peoples hearts and minds towards God, which brings me to point 3.

3. I think our sense of time is off. I mean, God is outside of time, we are in it. Who's to say that there isn't a place between living and dying where God reveals himself to whomever, and they're heart will either line up or turn away. I completely believe that it is the state of our heart not the 'sinners prayer' we've prayed (see the separation of the sheep and the goats passage) The ones Jesus brought into his fold were the ones doing things for 'the least of these' not the ones who prayed the right prayers and tithed the right amounts. I believe that the choices we make here determine whether or not our hearts are turned towards God, and therefore whether or not we would embrace him as he's revealed to us. As we build his kingdom, and draw others along side us, we have the opportunity to help turn thier hearts.

Quite honestly I like how your friend Wayne described hell, as a test for 'christians'. He might be on to something :) not that God is out to test us, but rather that God will weigh how we respond to people who don't know him, with life building actions, or condemnation.

Ok...sorry I wrote so much, but you got me thinking,

PS Rob's comment really annoyed me, but the fact that only Wayne addressed it was interesting. Maybe you should bring that up to you biblestudy leaders, that this is something that they should have spoken to on the spot, not the hell issue, but Rob's callousness.

Hi Ginger Sister! I'm pretty sure that the the 'lake of fire' is just imagery, just as 'Gehenna' is just an image (unless Jesus meant that people actually get sent to a garbage dump near Jerusalem). 'Sheol' and 'hades' aren't even images; they just mean 'unseen' or 'hidden'. Anyway, you're right - the choice of