I have been thinking a lot about hell lately; a joyous thought π . This has mostly been prompted by the fact that my brother is going to be reading Gregory MacDonald’s The Evangelical Universalist; and as a result of my interaction with Jackson Baer, the author of the newly released book What The Hell (for which I did a review). I came across a great little video and discussion provided by NT Wright on the topic, and I would like to share it with you:
Certainly the Medieval impact on views of hell are over-wrought (as Tetzel would have it). But, nevertheless, hell is a reality disclosed in scripture no matter how you want to slice it. You may want to slice it out, actually; but you must engage in some fanciful exegesis, in my view, in order to get there. There are clearly theological principles that a theologian or Christian might appeal to in order to use this as the inner-logic through which the Christian interprets the reality of scripture (like God’s as love, or Triune); but nevertheless, the exegete still must work down into the depth of the text (which presupposes the text) in order to get to the inner-logic. In other words, if we follow the contours of the text; then we must acknowledge, at the least, that Jesus, for example, taught and believed in a literal hell (Gehenna, what have you); that involves eternal conscious torment (cf. Mk. 9 etc.). I still don’t see any way around this; I’ll let you know if I ever do.
Hey Bobby – so what would the inner logic be to justify “ETC” in the mind of Jesus or what inner logic is he using in your opinion?
Hey Kenny,
I think the inner logic of Scripture is Jesus, or God’s triune life in Christ; so that scripture is christoformed as God’s life of love interacting with his creation in grace. So that would mean with a passage like Mk 9, which clearly speaks of hell or ETC, that it would have to be interpreted in a way that is commensurate with who we already know God in Christ to be, love. So it might come out something like this:
Or this:
I think the doctrine of hell [Trad] is an occasion where the Lord has called us to trust him; instead of trying to deduce how he ought to act based upon my perception about how I think his love and grace are most triumphant. I think, at the moment, that Christian universalism seeks to satisfy a theodicy that we aren’t required to satisfy. I don’t see this as punting to mystery, but to trust.
I like the trust position you mention against the theodicy of universalism. More specifically, how do you see the concept of hell working in the mind of Christ at the time of his ministry, do you see him inline with the Judaism of his day or do you see him with a somewhat modified view?
I love the 20th century theologian quotes on this topic and I probably agree with most, but I find it a bit troublesome to accept the thought as being honest to the reality of the time, without them referencing the conceptual world of judiasm of jesus’ day. I not saying their wrong, but it would be a bit more satisfying to see these theologians be a bit more historical. my intention isn’t to go back and forth about B.S. vs. S.T. but to try to get at jesus’ true historical mind and thoughts without doing damage to the writers of the divinely inspired (THEOLOGICAL) texts.
I’m doing a series of teachings on hell here in Norway for the church I teach at and want to have a sounding board with my fellow Evangelicals on this topic. I respect you Bobby and like the last couple of posts you have had on this topic, thanks for keeping this topic in currency.
Hi Bobby!
I wonder if the breaking out of these universalist theologies have been because of the entrenched Thomist position of the unmoved mover. Here we have a god who decides eons before persons are conceived, which is to be loved and saved, and which is to be hated and condemned, and that to eternal conscious torment. Because these theologians can not accept an individual’s (even Christ conditioned) freedom, then they must believe in decreed salvation for all, versus eternal punishment for the decreed reprobate.
Regardless, Hell is a very hard teaching. But what is not hard, in this life, is imagining eternity without God, and it being all of the hellishness of Hell, without God ever having to supply a single gallon of fuel. My knees go weak thinking about one bad moment at work, or if something bad happened to my family on the highway, or if I was ever falsely accused of something heinous. Multiply that times eternity. Eternal loneliness, sorrow, regret……..
enough for one to gnash their teeth for the relief of pain, like an animal chewing off it’s own limb. π
Since the eschatological promise is eternal union in Christ with God, God dwells in and among us and we in Him, the eternal divide seems to fall out either to being in Christ or not.
βIt is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life. 7 Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children. 8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liarsβthey will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.β Rev. 21:6-8
I am not sure what the Eastern Orthodox understanding of this would be. I will have to look into it. But it seems pretty clear that no matter how we understand the imagery there is still a divide. Some would like to see the second death here as annihilation. Torrance has written that man’s existence is contingent on God and does not have immortality in himself. Jesus warned against the one who can destroy both soul and body in hell. So I can sympathize with those who opt for annihilation, but I haven’t come to that conclusion myself. Either way, we need to prevent people from going there in the first place!
Bobby, are you familiar with a further statement from Torrance on ECT or does he not specifically address that?
Duane,
I think that you’re right; that the trad view does flow from a trad doctrine of God, whether Augustinian or Thomist. That’s why so many Barthians and Torranceans are Christian universalists, for God is love π .
Hell is a terrible thought, and one that I wish we could vitiate! I have just written a post that discusses Jesus’ teaching on the subject; I will post it as soon as WordPress is working again, it seems to be down at the moment, stay tuned.
@Jon,
Of course, the question for the Torrancean (or Barthian) is who is outside of Christ? No one! Which is why hope is left open for folks even post-mortem.
I have posted something from TFT on this here at the blog; from his book “Atonement.” I’ll look for the link to that post, and the section in Atonement from whence it comes; I’ll get that to you ASAP!
I am not a fan of annhilationism though.
@Kenny,
See my most recent post on Jesus’ teaching on hell.
How are you teaching this doctrine; exposition of scripture only, or are you also dealing with theological issues and implications as they arise through your exposition?
@Jon, I would say that yes Torrance’s position is that humanity is contingent upon God, and does not have existance in an of itself, but like Bobby said no one is outside of Christ. Via the Incarnation of the Eternal Logos, all humanity has been united to God through Christ, and therefore this is how all people will share in the resurrection. They will be ressurected because Christ was, and He is the new humanity, our humanity. I don’t think annihilationism works with an incarnational view of atonement for this very reason. It would be to somehow seperate people from Christ and the Incarnation, and then you would run into dualistic views of atonement, etc.
Bobby it’s exposition and some application. I try not to get into the theological issues beyond the text in the sunday service. I have a firm belief that the exposition of the text preached in the power of the spirit is enough for life and godliness. Good job on the latest hell post, nice work. K