Debate on "hell" now available!

From the Theopologetics Blog:

Episode 70 and Episode 71 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Debate topic: "The punishment of the damned will actually be torment forever and ever." Hiram Diaz, creator of the Involuted Speculations blog and contributor at Grassroots Apologetics, affirms. Chris Date, host of the Theopologetics Podcast, denies. Moderated by Mike Felker of The Apologetic Front. 

Strangely, I had only received audience questions from the annihilationist perspective.  Therefore, I had to come up with the "audience questions" myself in challenging annihilationism.  Anyway, I hope you all enjoy this interaction and feel free to leave your comments!

What do you believe about hell?

In less than a week i'll be moderating a DEBATE on hell and I could really use some help from my readers.  At the end of the debate, there will be a Q&A period where i'll be asking each participant questions "from the audience."  That's you.  If you object to the traditional understanding of hell (conscious torment, etc.) or the conditionalist perspective (annihilationism, conditional punishment, etc.), I need questions from both sides.

If you would, please EMAIL your questions to me and perhaps you'll hear them read and answered in the debate!

I'm very excited to have been selected to moderate and I will certainly be posting the debate here on the blog once its uploaded.  Who knows, this may spark some interest on my part to delve deeper into this issue and refine my own views.

Love Wins chapter 3

Chapter 3 is simply titled, "hell."  This chapter is certainly the most theologically "meaty" so far.  Though I am regularly annoyed by Bell's neglecting of verse references (he only lists chapter numbers), I was surprised at some of the depth for which Bell was willing to go in his analysis of hell.  While Love Wins is far from a scholarly work, Bell at least provides some knowledge of concordance use.

Since the doctrine of hell is a difficult and complex subject of debate, it is not my intention to delve into any major disputes with Bell's views on whether punishment is conditional or unending.  However, I will say that Bell's analysis is naive at best.  And its not so much what Bell says is incorrect, but what he doesn't say.

While Bell isn't incorrect in how he defines the relevant biblical words (i.e. hell, sheol, etc.), I think he misses some important points in various contexts.  Luke 16 is one of these places.  While he says a few interesting things about this passage, his primary point is flawed:

"In their previous life, the rich man saw himself as better than Lazarus, and now, in hell, the rich man still sees himself as above Lazarus.  It's no wonder Abraham says there's a chasm that can't be crossed.  The chasm is the rich man's heart!  It hasn't changed, even in death and torment and agony." (p. 75)

While its quite true that the ethical aspects of this parable are there in how we should treat our neighbors; it is not the case that this is the chasm that Bell seems to imply.  Moreover, the parable goes against one of Bell's key points in this book; that there are second chances after death.  How Bell misses this aspect of the parable is beyond me.  But it is quite clear that the parable emphasizes one important thing: the rich man's request for mercy is refused.  Therefore, it is of eternal importance that we embrace the gospel and love our neighbors right now, or else it might be too late.

"Jesus did not use hell to try to compel 'heathens' and 'pagans' to believe in God, so they wouldn't burn when they die." (p. 82) 

Bell couldn't be more wrong in this admission because Jesus did this very thing in Luke 12:4-8,

“I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that have no more that they can do.“But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him!“Are not five sparrows sold for two cents? Yet not one of them is forgotten before God.“Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear; you are more valuable than many sparrows. And I say to you, everyone who confesses Me before men, the Son of Man will confess him also before the angels of God;”

Notice that Jesus, after providing the warnings of hell, compels His audience to confess Him before men.  While Bell does admit that Jesus provided stern warnings of judgment, it is not the case that the judgments are not a means by which Jesus compelled his audience to repent.

One thing seems to be clear thus far; Bell holds to some form of conditional punishment.  However, he not only seems to set himself against the traditional view of hell, but against the annihilationist who believes that the judgment of the wicked is final.

Answering a question by "free thinker" Paul Baird

Paul Baird WRITES:

Every once in a while someone posts a comment on a forum that encapsulates a viewpoint brilliantly, and in this post 'emr' says

I have asked many Christians, including people on this website, whether they believe Hitler would go to heaven if he had regretted all that he'd done and given his life to Jesus a week before his death - and whether the six million Jews he killed would go to hell for rejecting Jesus. A large number respond in the affirmative - the ones that don't tend to go around the houses a bit, or invoke a re-interpretation of scripture.

My point is that if that is the theistic concept of a loving god, one that punishes for eternity people who do not believe in him, and rewards for eternity people who commit the most terrible atrocities, then the whole concept falls flat on its face. Whatever your personal standards of love, justice, morality and goodness are, none of those standards would or could include torturing someone for eternity. If a god exists who can torture someone for eternity and still be considered 'good' then that god must be operating by completely separate standards from our own - and given that from our perspective we can have no idea what that standard is, statements like god is good, god is loving, god is just, god is moral become completely redundant and meaningless.

Well, I'd like to hear a Christian rebutt that.

The question/objection is based upon a faulty premise and interpretation of Scripture:

Crime #1: Person kills millions of people 

Crime #2: Person doesn't believe in Jesus

According to the objection, the second of the two crimes is less serious.  And in some sense, i'd agree, which is why I said that the question is built upon a faulty premise.  The questioner seems to think that because a Jew is a good, morally upright person, then they are not deserving of God's wrath.  But this is not what the Scriptures teach:

“for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; as it is written, “THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE.” “THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE, WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING,” “THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS”; “WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS”; “THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD, DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS, AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN.” “THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES.”” (Romans 3:9–18) 

Here we see that, Scripturally speaking, Jews do not incur God's wrath simply because they rejected Jesus.  Instead, they incur God's wrath because they are sinners.  Of course, the Bible is not arguing that all sinners will be equally punished, as some will receive a greater judgment (Matt. 10:15).  But it must be understood that both Hitler and the unbelieving Jew will receive their just punishment unless they repent and accept the only one who can save them from God's wrath, Jesus Christ (John 3:36).


As Paul would probably anticipate, I must raise a question: in a naturalistic worldview, why would it matter if a Jew receives a greater punishment than Hitler?  In the natural world, both "good" and "bad" people suffer.  Do you shake your fist at the universe when good people needlessly suffer?  Of course not, because the universe doesn't care.  Yes, you may object, "But I care!"  And that's the thing.  I have my worldview that is based upon God's judicial reckoning and you have your worldview that says, "Paul Baird is the judge of all things."  And if this is not the case, then who are you to say that my theological persuasion "isn't fair?"  I am one bag of cells uttering one thing and you are another bag of cells uttering something else.  Who judges who is right?  


The God of the Bible isn't simply a loving God; He is a just God and can only judge in accordance with His Holy and Righteous character.  But there is a reason why the Bible calls the gospel "foolishness" to Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:23).  The following should illustrate:

“And He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt: “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.“The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.‘I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’“But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’“I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.” (Luke 18:9–14)   

 

My study on Jehovah's Witnesses and their views of the afterlife

In the spring of 2007, as I was completing my degree in Sociology, I did a research project on the Jehovah's Witnesses. This is ultimately what led to my embarking on a 2 year study with them that also included attending meetings at various Kingdom Halls. And this further led to my interest in researching the organization as well as offering my critiques. If you would like to read the paper that started it all, click HERE.

Question for Jehovah's Witnesses: Who pays for your sins? You, Christ, or both?

I’d like to talk a little bit about sin and debt. And to illustrate what I’m going to discuss, I’d like to read a few verses from Colossians 2:13-14 in the New World Tranlsation,

“Furthermore, though YOU were dead in YOUR trespasses and in the uncircumcised state of YOUR flesh, [God] made YOU alive together with him. He kindly forgave us all our trespasses and blotted out the handwritten document against us, which consisted of decrees and which was in opposition to us; and He has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the torture stake.”

In these verses, it is clear in stating that we have a debt that we owe God because of our sins against Him. And its also clear that Christ has paid the debt for us by dying in our place. I think we’d all agree with this.

Next, I’d like to quote from a Watchtower article which talks specifically about our debt and how we as sinners are to pay for it:

*** w85 12/1 p. 9 par. 4 Declared Righteous “for Life” ***

In the Scriptures, sins are likened to debts. (See Matthew 6:12, 14; 18:21-35; Luke 11:4.) All men are sinners and are, therefore, heavily in debt before God. “The wages sin pays is death.” (Romans 6:23) Since they had been “sold under sin” by their forefather Adam, his descendants could do nothing to relieve themselves of this crushing debt. (Romans 7:14) Death of the debtor alone could wipe it out, “for he who has died has been acquitted from his sin.” (Romans 6:7) No good works done during a sinner’s lifetime could buy back what Adam lost, nor even give him a righteous standing before God.

In light of what is said in this article and the verses in Colossians, there are only two options:

1) You can pay for your debt

Or

2) Christ can pay for your debt

But let’s say you want to go with option one and you want to pay God back for the debt that you owe Him. How would you do that? Well, according to the Watchtower article, good works aren’t going to do that. So what are we left with? The answer is, physical death. That is, going to the grave. This is why the article says that the, “death of the debtor alone could wipe it out.” So again, physical death wipes away your debt.

So, this is what happens when you choose option 1. But what if you choose option 2? In this case, Christ pays for your debt with His own death. And if this happens, your debt is erased and you no longer have to pay it.

However, there’s one little problem, and that is, people die. So, whether you like it or not, if you die as a Christian who’s debt Christ paid for, then you are inevitably choosing both options. And this is why I call this, Double Jeopardy. Christ is canceling your debt, but you are having to pay it too with your own death. But how can this be? Well, here’s an illustration that I hope will make this clear.

Let’s say you go and vandalize your neighbor’s house. And after you get caught, you are given a sentence of a year of community service. That is the debt that you must pay for your crimes. But there’s a catch; your neighbor, who’s house you just vandalized, has agreed to pay your debt for you, which inevitably, wipes your slate clean; you’re a free man with no more debt! So, you have 2 options:

1) You can pay your debt by doing 1 year of community service

Or

2) Your neighbor can pay your debt for you by doing community service on your behalf.

Next, let’s apply the Watchtower’s reasoning to this example. Let’s say you choose option 2, where your neighbor graciously agrees to pay your debt by doing the community service for you. Thus, you are a free man. You have no further obligation to pay your debt. Its all done. Your slate is clean. But then, several years later, a policeman breaks down your door, handcuffs you, and drags you out to the highway where you will pick up trash for a full year.

Now, how would you react to this? Would you not be outraged? Well, I think you certainly would, and rightfully so! I mean, your neighbor already paid your debt, so why are you now being forced to do the same thing?

And similarly, if Christ paid your debt for you by dying on your behalf, then what happens when you die? Won’t you be a bit outraged?

A message of urgency: how would annihilationists respond?

I have some thoughts and questions i'd like for my annihilationist friends to think about and possibly respond to. First, does your presentation of the gospel present any urgency? Obviously, we can debate all day long with the meaning of Jesus' words when he spoke about "hell." But in my opinion, Jesus spoke with an urgency that I feel is even more sobering than what is offered in this video. What I have a hard time accepting is that all this "hell" talk simply boils down to one going to the grave. And that's it.

Just to give credit where credit is due, I think that even given the annihilationist perspective, there is much to offer in terms of eternal life. Even if there were no consequences for one's sins outside of going to the grave, I think that we should all be telling others of the good news of the Kingdom and what they must do to have eternal life.

But all this judgment and wrath stuff, it just doesn't add up with the annihilationist's perspective. Think about it this way: if the annihilationist perspective is true, then Jesus' "hell" statements are for all of us (well, unless Jesus returns in our lifetime). That is, we are all going to die. We will all experience the "weeping and gnashing of teeth" as well as all the other horrific depictions of hell that Jesus portrays, in addition to those in Revelation. But this "experience" in the annihilationist's perspective is fulfilled in one's dying and ceasing to exist, which will happen to us all. I guess the difference is, some will experience this "destruction" eternally whereas all others will have eternal life.

Its quite possible that I just don't understand the annihilationist's position. And I will certainly accept correction if offered. But it just doesn't seem like annihilationists can preach like this guy, or like Edward's famous sermon, "sinners in the hands of an angry God."

Much more could be offered in terms of my problems with the annihilationist view. But more than any of this, i'd simply like an annihilationists to think about and explain their view in light of the presentation of this YouTube video.

(ht: 21Crosscheck21)

How Willingly Do People Go to Hell?

John Piper explains a common [mis]conception of hell. That is, "hell is where sinners want to go." Personally, I thought that Piper's words were pretty sobering. I think even my annihilationist friends will get something out of this.

Calvinism and Hell

Recently, Justin Brierely of Unbelievable Radio hosted an interaction between Dr. James White and Roger and Faith Forester on the subjects of Calvinism and Hell. James White defended the Calvinist and Eternal Torment positions and the Foresters defended Arminianism and Conditionalism/Annihilationism positions. I think anyone interested in these subjects will find the interactions to be useful.

Listen to the discussion of Calvinism and Predestination HERE

Listen to the discussion of Hell HERE

Also, I highly recommend Justin Brierley's show, as it regularly hosts debates and interactions on some very interesting topics. You can podcast his show HERE

JW's at the door today

Some things happen for a reason. And today was no exception. Just as I was sitting down in front of the TV to enjoy a strawberry Sorbet, I heard a knock on the door. "Come in!" I said. The door didn't open. "Who could this be?" I thought to myself. So I went and answered the door. Lo and behold, two well dressed men in suits and ties were there with a smile on their faces. "You must be Mike," they said. "How did they know my name?" Just kidding. Earlier last week they had stopped by, but my roomate Wes told them to stop by another time when I would be around. So here they were, ready to talk to me.

The conversation didn't last long, so I'll just highlight a few things. I started the conversation by explaining how I was doing a sociology project on the afterlife beliefs of the JW's and that I was somewhat familiar with their beliefs. They seemed interested and asked me a little bit about my upbringing. I explained how I was raised in church and had been a Christian most of my life.

This is pretty much how most of the conversation went. They asked me questions and I answered. No pressure. No arguing. Just an easy conversation. Eventually they asked me if, when I was doing my research, if I noticed anything different about their beliefs. I told them that the most fundamental distinction between us was the doctrine of God. They agreed, but didn't seem to want to get into that at the moment.

Because I was obviously familiar with their beliefs on the afterlife, they began asking me about hell and what I thought. They couldn't conceive how a loving God could torment people forever. They compared it to a parent sticking their children's hand in the fire when they wanted to punish them.

I then explained that we can't always put Jehovah and His ways into human situations. Jehovah is infinitely holy and just. Therefore, if we offend Him in any way, it would take only an eternity to pay back our debt. Jehovah cannot just wink at sin. He must demonstrate His wrath on sinners. I honestly wasn't expecting the conversation to go in this direction, but they continued asking questions. "So what about the guy who has never heard of Christ? Is God going to send him to hell to if he doesn't believe?" I took it a step further. "Let's say he lived in the most remote tribe in Africa and has never heard of the Bible. Romans chapter 1:18-20 says that God reveals His invisible attributes through the Creation so that no man will be without excuse for not believing. Therefore, if they respond to the light that is given them, more light will be given. So that when judgement day comes, they will have no excuse." "But what about babies," they asked, "will they go to hell too?" "Well, the Bible says in Psalm 51:5 that we are sinful from birth, therefore God has every right to punish babies. In fact, we all deserve hell, both you and me. And that's why God sent His Son to die on the cross to pay the price that we sinners would have to pay. Therefore, because of what Christ did, sinners can have eternal life."

They only nodded. They acted interested. It may have only been an act. Or they could have been thinking, "i've never heard that before." Only God knows. But the good thing is, I gave them my number and told them that i'd love to meet with them and discuss more things in detail with them. And I knew all too well that a Jehovah's Witness will not refuse an invitation to discuss the Bible. Of course, they agreed. But I have no guarantee that I will ever see these men again. Thankfully, God gave me the opportunity to share the Gospel with them. These men now know that they are in need of a perfect Savior. They may not admit this to themselves. But in their heart of hearts, they know.

Please pray that the Lord provides this second opportunity and that He has grace on them and saves them.