For those who follow the media related to Christianity, you have probably not missed the buzz surrounding Rob Bell’s upcoming book “Love Wins.” Until someone has actually read it, it might be wise to speak with caution. However, the publisher has certainly done a good job of marketing by stirring the pot! In my opinion, though, the fact that this is getting this much attention points to an apologetic problem in our churches.1
What is that problem you ask? It is the problem that many Christians today (let alone the general public) seem to be having with the doctrine of Hell. I think it was R.C. Sproul I once heard note that nearly everything we know about Hell comes from the lips of Jesus! Maybe God realized that due to our depravity, we’d try to wiggle our way out of that one, so He told us directly, rather than leaving it up to apostles who might be doubted more easily. But if Jesus taught this doctrine, and so strongly, why are Christians having such a problem with it?
Noting that authors often do not get to pick the final title of their books, the title ‘Love Wins’ actually says a quite a bit. It immediately sets up a dichotomy between love and something. What is this other thing? Justice (ie: hell). Once one sets up such a dichotomy, a number of problems arise. First, it would seem to be setting up a misunderstanding of love. There can be no real love without justice. Second, it would make reading and understanding the Bible quite difficult. To put this really simply, and make it memorable:
You can’t have John 3:16 without Luke 3:16!2
Throughout the Bible, we clearly see demonstrations of God’s love and justice. They are not in opposition to one another. John 3:16 often gets thrown out there (in isolation and out of context) but many of the justice verses aren’t quite so familiar. If they are familiar, they are too often ignored.
As for Rob Bell, I guess we will have to wait and see. From other things I’ve been reading about him, it nearly seems we’re deciding if he is a heretic or merely heterodox at this point (universalist or annihilationist). Either view is problematic, as the first shows one doesn’t understand (or agree with) the Bible, while the latter, at least shows one isn’t thinking theologically.3
The reason I say this illustrates an apologetic problem for our church and culture, is that the very fact that such a book gains a popular hearing, shows the majority of people aren’t very informed on the subject. But, this cloud has a silver lining as well. It is brining a topic like this into general public conversation. This gives well prepared Christians a great opportunity to speak with others about a subject which might otherwise be pretty socially taboo. But, I fear that, unfortunately, few Christians have been properly equipped for such a conversation. Yet another illustration of why apologetics training is so crucial!4
Update: Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Due to some of the comments I have received, I decided I should include some things in an update.
First, I should probably apologize for my “isn’t thinking theologically” comment, as I can now see that someone could come to such a conclusion thinking the issue through theologically. Maybe a more precise way to express what I was trying to say, is that, IMO, they can’t do so AND also fully encompass the Biblical witness (data). (Note: Annihilationists generally argue that the below verses are actually taken out of context (based on O.T. background or genre) or that the eternality refers to the destruction, not to the torment and eternality of the soul. See my next ‘Update’ below for further details.)
Also, to expand a bit more into the Biblical witness:
Matt. 25:41 “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; . . . 46 “These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
(same Greek word used for ‘eternal’ in both cases)
Rev. 14:9 Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 “And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.” 12 Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.
(the duration of the torment is the same as for God’s glory, throne, dominion, etc. ‘forever and ever’ used all over the place; Eph 3:21; Phil 4:20; 1Tim 1:17; 2 Tim 4:18; Heb 1:8, 13:21; 1Pet 4:11, 5:11; Rev 1:6, 4:9, 5:13, 7:12, 10:6, 11:15, 15:7, 19:3, 20:10, 22:5; not just the English, but in the Greek too, btw)
Also, some other Biblical data to consider:
John 6:40 “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”
Acts 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.
Rom. 6:22 But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
2Th. 1:9 These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power
Rev 20:10 And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
- Matt. 18:8, 19:6, 19:29; Mark 10:17, 10:30
- Luke 10:25, 18:18, 18:30
- John 3:16, 3:36, 4:14, 4:36, 5:24, 6:27, 6:47, 6:54, 6:58, 6:68, 10:28, 12:25, 12:50
- Rom 5:21
- Gal 6:8
- 2Th. 2:16
- 1Tim. 1:16, 6:12
- 2Tim. 2:10
- Titus 1:1
- Heb. 5:9, 6:2, 7:23, 9:12, 9:15
- 1Pet. 5:10
- 1John 2:25, 5:11, 5:13
- Rev. 22:1
I admit that there is also a lot of destruction language, and language which appears as if one will cease to exist unless being upheld by God’s power, or given the gift. I agree. The soul isn’t some kind of immortal entity apart from the upholding power of God, if that is the argument going on between Greek philosophical views and Biblical ones (as pointed out by the comments below).
Also, I know it a metaphor, but: what are the worms that do not die eating? and the eternal fire consuming?
As a wise theology prof5 once told me, we need to be careful on terms like infinite and eternal. Infinite is more of a spatial or quantity/intensity type term as apposed to eternal which is more duration oriented or a quality. When speaking of God’s punishment and justice, perfect might be a better term. For example, God’s patience isn’t infinite, but perfect.
So, we can certainly say that those not covered by the blood of Christ will be perfectly judged and punished. But, does this require annihilation and if so, can that fit the Biblical witness? I’m still going to have to say no.
Update: Saturday, April 7, 2012
First, I want to reiterate what I said just above: that regardless of which view is correct (the ‘traditional’ eternal torment or the annihilationist), we need to think in terms of God’s perfect justice. We need to be focused on that aspect and that we create a ‘box’ which sets some boundaries to whatever viewpoints we consider. For example, the Bible clearly rules out universalism (that all will be saved, which seems to be where Bell headed), or that we rest our argument on the basis that a loving God wouldn’t give an eternal punishment (again, where Bell seems to head), or that everything is over at death, no judgement, no punishment beyond ceasing of existence. These are all unbiblical, and not within the camps of what we’re discussing here (though some annihilationists might go there).
Since I posted the original article and first update, I have been privileged to run across a good deal of more information (see below) on the topic, especially clarifying some of the best of the annihilationist position. I am actually finding it to be quite convincing, and have been disappointed by the response from the ‘traditional’ camp. That said: WARNING! – Whenever you consider a position which runs against the tide of historical orthodoxy, proceed with caution! While I found the arguments well laid out and quite convincing, I’ve also not put the time into studying to the other side (in this case, the ‘traditional’ view of eternal torment) with equal depth. I’m also not convinced that this resource found the best of the other side, despite the effort to do so.
My fellow apologist, Chris Date over at Theopologetics ran a series of podcasts which addressed the annihilationist position in great depth. I would recommend checking them out if you are interested in this topic. But, as warned above, this may only represent one side of the argument deeply. As I told Chris in an e-mail, however, this has greatly increased my respect for the position, correcting many misconceptions I had about it. It also, in my opinion, moves at least the views expressed in this version of annihilationism within the realm of Christian orthodoxy (something holders of this view have often not been privilege to in how they were treated).
Theopologetics podcasts on annihilationism (I found #72, #73, and #74 most helpful in understanding their view):
- Episode 54: Burn It Up
- Episode 55: Eternal Fire
- Episode 64: Consuming Fire
- Episode 65: Immortal
- Episode 70: Perish in Fire
- Episode 71: Forever the Pain
- Episode 72: Drag Me to Hell
- Episode 73: Exterminate Annihilate Destroy
- Episode 74: House of Cards
- Unbelievable debate: Hell: Annihilation or Eternal Conscious Punishment? Unbelievable? 3 Mar 2012
- Episode 80: The Unbelievable Truth
A representation of the other side on Theopologetics (apart from those as part of the above debates):
- For those out of the loop, it might be interesting to note that Rob Bell actually made it in the top 10 most mentioned topics on Twitter. Think about that for a moment. ↩
- Thanks to Greg Koukl of str.org for discussing Luke 3:16, which helped me make this connection. And, lest you be a bit too Pentecostal and misunderstand Luke 3:16 alone, be sure to keep reading v17. The baptism with fire here isn’t referring to those little tongues of fire on the apostles’ heads. ↩
- Does the Bible give us any reason to believe our souls are not eternal? If saved souls are eternal, why wouldn’t damned ones be? (Note: I may well have to give this point up, see discussion below… our souls likely aren’t eternal apart from God’s upholding power. Though, I still ask why God would treat them differently: saved/unsaved.) ↩
- Time to add to our to-do list, an article on the doctrine of hell. ↩
- Dr. Stackhouse of Regent College, though I’ll leave it up to him if he wants to take any credit for what I’ve said here.
↩
Some thoughts for discussion:
You mentioned, “From other things I’ve been reading about him, it nearly seems we’re deciding if he is a heretic or merely heterodox at this point (universalist or annihilationist). Either view is problematic, as the first shows one doesn’t understand (or agree with) the Bible, while the latter, at least shows one isn’t thinking theologically”
How is someone who is annihilist does not think theologically? It seems that he is thinking theologically and then comes to different conclusion.
Also, I am not convinced the Bible actually gives reason that souls are eternal. This seems to be more Greek thought that Jewish thinking. Only God is eternal (1 Tim 1.17). He grants eternity has a gift. Additionally, in Gen 3:22-23, immortality seems to be a “potential” possibility, but not given already… God removes the tree of life, so that Adam & Eve won’t become eternal…thus, they might not have been created eternal, but as long as they would stay in God’s presence, they would live.
Thus, If souls are not eternal, and if people refuses God’s gift of eternal life, they might just cease to exist.
On the other hand, Christianity is about bodily resurrection. So, if God punish people forever, would he create new bodies that have the potential to suffer for ever. (This raises problem of justice: How can someone who do a limited amount of sin in this life, can be punish forever…without end….this seems unbalanced).
Also, as far as the picture of “fire”. It seems that if something is thrown into fire it will be destroyed.
Probably a given based on my other comment, but agreed.
Please see my above addition to the article… hopefully it will clear many points up. I agree with you I was too strong and unclear (and frankly wrong) in how I made the statement about thinking theologically. Thanks for holding me accountable on that!
I agree that souls are not eternal apart from the upholding power of God. In other words, souls are not intrinsically eternal. And, I agree that if people reject God’s gift, they might cease to exist. I just don’t think that squares with the Biblical revelation.
re: bodies and resurrection – My *guess* is that in a similar fashion to Jesus resurrected body, ours will be different in substantial ways from our current physical bodies. I also think we need to expand our thinking of what ‘punishment’ entails… it may or may not be physical.
re: justice – The question is, if ‘cosmic treason,’ as R.C. Sproul calls the ultimate sin and our natural unregenerate state before God, is a ‘limited amount of sin.’ What we don’t know, is if God will give the unregenerate the GIFT of annihilation.
re: fire – I think it is a metaphor.
“Does the Bible give us any reason to believe our souls are not eternal? If saved souls are eternal, why wouldn’t damned ones be?”
I don’t mean to be too antagonistic here, but does the Bible give us any reason to believe our souls are eternal? Greek philosophy gives us lots of reasons, Augustine heavily influenced by Aristotle gives us lots of reasons, but does the Bible?
I can’t say authoritatively that the Bible does not give us any reason to believe that our souls are eternal, but I can say in the research I have done I see no place where the Bible does say the soul is eternal. We cannot assume either way.
If we were not living in a culture so heavily influenced by Greek philosophy, we would not have the same presuppositions about subjects that the Bible is silent on. Hypothetically let’s say we have always assumed that angel wings are tipped with gold, but the Bible does not directly refute that angel wings are tipped with gold, that does not mean that we have been right about angel wings. Unless we have that information on some great authority we cannot assume that it is so. On the subject of the innate immortality of the soul our authority is not the silence of the Bible, but is Plato’s book “The Phaedo” where Socrates goes to great length to prove the immortality of the soul (good short read, recommend it).
Now all that being said, if the Bible is silent or vague on a subject we cannot with much confidence or authority create doctrines that we hold to be true, but if the Bible is not silent, then we have to yield the Bible. Paul wrote to Timothy, “He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords,who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.” This verse alone is vague, and as I said we can’t make assumptions and create doctrines based on something that is vague. It is possible that God alone possesses immortality and without the gift of salvation we are all mortal creatures, but it is also possible that he alone possesses it, but also freely chooses to grant eternal life to the unrepentant, wicked, damned.
To that, I say turn to John 3:16: “whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” It seems that those who don’t believe, will not have eternal life. This theme comes up over and over again in John: you believe you have eternal, you don’t believe, you don’t have it. Now it is important to define eternal life. Some could argue that it means eternal existence, and those you don’t have it cannot exist eternally, and others would argue that it means a fullness of life. However the later to seems to me possible only if immortality is already assumed to be innate. That being said, it still is vague.
Later Paul wrote again to Timothy and said, “…our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel…” Given the testimony of John, and what Paul writes here, it seems that “life” and “immortality” and not innate to fallen humanity, but are a gift from God. I think it is very fair for someone to argue that the Greek word that Paul uses for “immortality” “aphtharsia”, does not mean immortal eternal existence. You could also argue that since Paul said Jesus brought, “immortality to light,” he does not mean Jesus came to give us immortality, but came to bring it to light, or came to make us aware that we already have it. That interpretation sounds a little universalist to me, but it seems the most logical way out of the conditional immortality of the soul.
In conclusion, we can’t assume because the Scriptures are silent on the immortality or eternity of the soul that it must be innate. The way I see it, the Bible is not silent on the subject. The way I see it, the Bible leans towards a conditional immortality, but I think it is vague, and we can’t really set down any hard theology and say we are certain it is one way or the other.
Correction about the eternality of the soul noted. Thanks! Actually, after thinking about what you said, we probably can answer that. Souls would have to be part of the creation, and as any created thing, being upheld by God’s power, it could cease to exist. I think that makes sense.
re: God and immortality – I think God certainly possesses a kind of immortality or being that is quite different than anything created. There are only so many words in a language, so there will probably be overlap (though I’m no Greek expert yet).
re: eternal life – I agree. I guess, though, when I see passages like Matt 25:41 or Rev 14:11, then I would lean more towards the ‘fullness of life,’ but not solely. I think it also is clearly talking about actual eternal life as well. In other words, God’s shalom would probably include both, where as the unregenerate may or may not get the eternality, but without the shalom.
Good post!
Thanks for the kind words about, and links to, my podcast!
Thanks Chris… wow, that was fast! Must have been the trackbacks, huh?
While I still might not agree (or be fully comfortable agreeing), I want to help get the information out, correct misconceptions, and encourage the type of dialog and approach you have taken on this. So, you are quite welcome.
Yeah it was the trackbacks
And I appreciate the care you’re exercising with this issue, not changing your mind too quickly.
By the way, my name isn’t “Christ”
Oh my… I need to fire my editor.
Thanks!