After years of incessant whining and pleading, my dad finally caved in on my tenth birthday. If I would agree to finally shut up about it and not tell my mother, he’d let me start drinking coffee. Thrilled to have tiptoed inside the outer realm of adult pleasures, I poured myself a big cup of Folgers, took a sip, and instantly spit it into the kitchen sink.
The stuff was nasty. Nasty and bitter.
So I added a little milk and sugar. Then I tasted, spit, and added more milk and more sugar. I continued this process until what remained tasted like the leftover liquid from the world’s worst sugary kid’s cereal (Super Sugar Coffee Puffs!).
By the time I was ten years and three days old I had forever given up being a coffee drinker. Surprisingly, though I had developed a talent for watering down and sugarcoating the bitter, I never became a hip, young evangelical pastor.
Evangelicals may not have been the first Christians to dilute doctrine to make it palatable—but we’ve refined it into a fine art.
Take, for example, the doctrine of hell. People don’t like hell. They don’t like the idea that someone they love may end up there (especially if that someone is them). Add to this our culture’s disdain for the idea that there can only be one way to truth (e.g., Jesus Christ) and you have all the makings of a bitter doctrine in need of some milk and sugar.
That is where our young evangelicals come in. In the dark ages (pre-2005) you generally needed an advanced degree in theology—or at least a pretty thorough knowledge of the Bible—before intelligent believers would take your peculiar spin on doctrine seriously. But thanks to the Internet, that’s all changed. Anyone who can use Google to learn about theological “isms” (Inclusivism! Exclusivism! Universalism!) and find a few quotes by Origen feels qualified to weigh in on an issue that most orthodox evangelical Christians have always considered to be relatively settled.
Unfortunately, the cranks and bloggers (same thing, right?) often get encouragement by people who should really know better. This past week the evangelical wing of the blogosphere has been abuzz about whether a prominent young pastor’s new book downplays the doctrine of hell. Rob Bell of Mars Hill Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan, is the kind of mostly orthodox/sorta squishy new evangelical pastor that . . . well, just watch the following video.
Notice that Bell mostly just asks leading questions, rather than stating directly what he believes. (Note: In hip evangelical circles Questions and Doubt are unquestionably good and virtuous while Clear Doctrine and Definitive Belief are, at best, worthy of suspicion and, at worst, the province of close-minded fundies like me.) Since he’s written a book on the subject, there is a chance that Bell will provide definitive answers to the questions he raises. But anyone who thinks that Bell’s book may say, “Yeah, there is a good chance that Gandhi is in hell,” doesn’t know Bell—or hip young evangelicals.
Thankfully, we still have some stodgy old evangelicals, like Albert Mohler, who are willing to defend orthodox evangelical doctrines against the gooey New Age-ish mush that is creeping into our tradition:
The pressing question of our concern is this: Whatever happened to hell? What has happened so that we now find even some who claim to be evangelicals promoting and teaching concepts such as universalism, inclusivism, postmortem evangelism, conditional immortality, and annihilationism — when those known as evangelicals in former times were known for opposing those very proposals? Many evangelicals seek to find any way out of the biblical doctrine that is marked by so much awkwardness and embarrassment.
The answer to these questions must be found in understanding the impact of cultural trends and the prevailing worldview upon Christian theology. Ever since the Enlightenment, theologians have been forced to defend the very legitimacy of their discipline and proposals. A secular worldview that denies supernatural revelation must reject Christianity as a system and truth-claim. At the same time, it seeks to transform all religious truth-claims into matters of personal choice and opinion. Christianity, stripped of its offensive theology, is reduced to one “spirituality” among others.
All the same, there are particular doctrines that are especially odious and repulsive to the modern and postmodern mind. The traditional doctrine of hell as a place of everlasting punishment bears that scandal in a particular way. The doctrine is offensive to modern sensibilities and an embarrassment to many who consider themselves to be Christians. Those Friedrich Schleiermacher called the “cultured despisers of religion” especially despise the doctrine of hell. As one observer has quipped, hell must be air-conditioned.
Mohler points out that liberal Protestantism and Catholicism have come up with their own ways of resolving the scandal of this doctrine. That’s fine. I have no beef with those traditions. My concern is with those who claim to be evangelicals while advocating or teaching a doctrine that is inconsistent with evangelical theology.
As Mohler notes, “there is no way to deny the Bible’s teaching on hell and remain genuinely evangelical.” He’s right. You don’t have to be an evangelical to believe in hell, but if you stop believing in hell then you’re probably no longer an evangelical.
March 9th, 2011 | 9:16 am
For the record, I believe in hell. But if I didn’t, and if by joe’s strictures I were no longer an evangelical, what exactly would I be expelled from?
How do evangelicals excommunicate heretical erstwhile evangelicals? what price do the heretics pay?
March 9th, 2011 | 9:32 am
“Surprisingly, though I had developed a talent for watering down and sugarcoating the bitter, I never became a hip, young evangelical pastor.”
The term “LOL” gets tossed around a lot these days, though I suspect that those doing so rarely actually “laugh out loud” at all of the things to which they attribute this omnipresent acronym.
Your line above made me LOL. Thanks for a great start to the day!
March 9th, 2011 | 9:39 am
‘My concern is with those who claim to be evangelicals while advocating or teaching a doctrine that is inconsistent with evangelical theology.’
A genuine lack of knowledge of the Scripture that evangelicals say they hold to. We don’t know our Bibles anymore, can’t quote from them, and God forbid, we should attempt to ‘memorize’ parts of it.
March 9th, 2011 | 9:52 am
Joe, while I agree with your conclusion, I would state the matter more broadly. Several months ago you and I had an exchange about the core beliefs of evangelicals. I don’t recall “belief in the doctrine of hell” as one of the things either of us included in the list. Both of us, however, included Biblical inerrancy (properly understood) in the list. The Bible says that hell is a real place. Jesus taught unambiguously that some people will go there. So we have a choice, believe Jesus or believe Bell. Thus, the broader issue is whether we take the Bible seriously (evangelicals) or not (people like Bell).
March 9th, 2011 | 9:59 am
dwl, it is not a matter of “excommunication.” It is a matter of classification. One of the key traits (perhaps the defining characteristic) of evangelicals is a high regard for scripture. Those who deny the reality of hell must deny an unambiguous teaching of scripture and therefore we must conclude they do not hold scripture in high regard. It follows logically that, by definition, they are not evangelicals.
Now, there is no “penalty” for not being an Evangelical. But it is fundamentally dishonest to try to wrap oneself in the mantle of evangelicalism when one is not. It is a matter of simple honesty.
March 9th, 2011 | 10:05 am
Barry Both of us, however, included Biblical inerrancy (properly understood) in the list.
While I certainly subscribe to inerrancy (and wish others did too), I’m not sure its absolutely necessary to be an evangelical. I think a high view of Scripture and its author, though, would be enough and would cover the problem.
However, one key element of evangelicalism is, obviously, evangelism (or as some say, conversionism). Maybe I’m missing something, but it would seem the impetus to evangelism is muted if universalism or inclusivism is true. If Christ ensures that most/everyone is going to heaven, then why does it matter if they know its by his name?
March 9th, 2011 | 10:27 am
Barry said,
‘Those who deny the reality of hell must deny an unambiguous teaching of scripture and therefore we must conclude they do not hold scripture in high regard. It follows logically that, by definition, they are not evangelicals.’
Bingo. One should call oneself something else if the doctrine of hell is ignored or discredited, but certainly not ‘evangelical’.
March 9th, 2011 | 10:49 am
Joe:
I don’t understand Mohler’s reference to Catholicism, especially given this portion of the Catechism (notes omitted):
**We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: “He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.”
Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.
To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.”
Jesus often speaks of “Gehenna” of “the unquenchable fire” reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost. Jesus solemnly proclaims that he “will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,” and that he will pronounce the condemnation: “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!”
The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.” The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.
The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: “Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.”
“Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed, we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where `men will weep and gnash their teeth.’
God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance”:
“Father, accept this offering
from your whole family.
Grant us your peace in this life,
save us from final damnation,
and count us among those you have chosen.”**
(http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm)
March 9th, 2011 | 10:57 am
I enjoyed the post, and agree that the remark on sugarcoating the bitter is a great opening.
For the record, Mohler writes, Liberal Protestantism and Roman Catholicism have modified their theological systems to remove this offense. No one is in danger of hearing a threatening “fire and brimstone” sermon in those churches. The burden of defending and debating hell now falls to the evangelicals–the last people who think it matters.
Harumph. I’ve heard hell discussed in various non-traditional Catholic churches, and while some pastors speak of it in good accordance with Mohler’s caricature, a number were direct and forthright. I know of at least one religious order that preaches fire and brimstone on the first night of their retreats. And the official Catholic position remains unambiguous; paragraphs 1033-1037 of the Catechism are clear enough.
March 9th, 2011 | 10:58 am
Joe, Have you read Bell’s book? Are you drawing some of your conclusions about Bell from a marketing blurb?
March 9th, 2011 | 10:59 am
I don’t understand Mohler’s reference to Catholicism
I may be wrong, but I read it as referring to “liberal Protestantism” and “liberal Roman Catholicism” rather than “liberal Protestantism” and “Roman Catholicism.” That seems to make more sense if he is mainly referring to the “theological systems” of people like Karl Rahner and Hans Kung.
Whatever he meant, though, that paragraph is a bit muddled and in need of revision. The way it is worded also implies that there are no conservative Protestants that are not also evangelicals. I’m quite sure Mohler doesn’t think that, so I chalk it up to a failure of clarity in his writing.
March 9th, 2011 | 11:04 am
I am one of the many you described as lacking an advanced degree in theology. I do my best to stick to the Bible to develop my faith. The problem I have run into is not what the Bible says, but how to understand it. Even among evangelicals there are huge disagreements in doctrines that put up walls between us (I say “us” assuming that I am in the group, however it seems that just depends on who you ask). This is what I experienced growing up. I saw a lot of people arguing the Bible’s message and their claim to a superior interpretation; however I didn’t see the love of Christ as much as I thought I should have. I think this is the biggest issue my generation has with religion. I appreciate Mr. Bell’s questions. They make me think and test what I know. Besides that, his message is grounded in love. I appreciate your thoughts and analogy.
March 9th, 2011 | 11:08 am
Taylor George Joe, Have you read Bell’s book? Are you drawing some of your conclusions about Bell from a marketing blurb?
No, I haven’t read Bell’s book and yes I am drawing some of my conclusion from the video. But I am reluctant to call that a “marketing blurb.”
Some people in the debate have made judgements about Bell’s views based on some marketing copy written by his book’s publisher. I think that’s unfair. But I think it is completely fair to use his own words in judging what he thinks. Pastors don’t get to say “X was said in a marketing video so I can’t be held accountable for it.” That’s not the way it works.
Now Bell may be pulling a bait-and-switch and will surprise his readers by telling them that there is indeed a hell and that those who don’t accept Christ will likely be there. But from having read Bell’s other works, I don’t think that will happen.
March 9th, 2011 | 11:12 am
[...] HellMarch 9, 2011 by Francis J. Beckwith GA_googleAddAttr("author","FrancisJBeckwith"); Share(HT: Joe Carter at First Things)In his blog, Albert Mohler, Jr., President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, addresses the [...]
March 9th, 2011 | 11:24 am
Taylor,
I should have also added that part of my impression is based on the fact that Bell’s longtime publisher, Zondervan, refused the book. As one of their reps said, “”In the end the president of Zondervan made the decision. The proposal came in and they said, ‘This proposal doesn’t fit in with our mission.’ ”
Zondervan sold 500,000 copies of Bell’s last book so they had a strong financial incentive to publish this one. The fact that they think it “doesn’t fit their mission” is a clear sign that think he is stepping outside the bounds of orthodox evangelicalism.
March 9th, 2011 | 11:54 am
Of course an evangelical can deny Hell. Evangelicals are who they say they are, there is no body that determines that. On the other hand, they forget that in a peculiar way the doctrine of Hell is comforting. It gives people a hope of someplace to put their in-laws.
March 9th, 2011 | 11:59 am
One of the more thoughtful treatments of this topic I have encountered as a layperson is that written by John Stott in Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue published in 1988. In a review of his works by David Edwards (Anglican), Stott responds to a chapter entitled “The Gospel for the World” with sections on eschatology and the kingdom, judgment and hell, and the Gospel for today. In writing about hell, he formulates responses to two questions – What is hell? and Who will go to hell? While his tentative conclusion to the first question may raise some evangelical eyebrows (he puts forth cogent arguments for the ultimate annihilation of the wicked and encourages the evangelical community to consider this possibility carefully), I find his treatment of the second to be helpful and written with his usual humility. The question posed to him is “do evangelicals believe that hell will be the fate of ‘the bulk of humanity’, in which case the gospel does not appear to be ‘good news for the mass of humanity’? His reply is comprised of four points – first, that “all human beings, apart from the intervention and mercy of God, are perishing.” Second, we are unable to save ourselves. Third, Jesus is the only Savior. On these three points, I believe all evangelicals would agree. In his fourth point, he takes on the question of the destiny of those who have not heard the Gospel (often a cry raised by those who oppose the possibility of hell) and asks if there is any way in which God might have mercy on them through Christ alone and not their own merit. He touches on the many alternatives that have been posed – the sincerity of those holding other religious views, the possibility of encountering Christ in the next life with an opportunity to respond in faith, the Matthew passage of the sheep and the goats, as well as others, and sets them aside. Turning to Jesus’ own words in Luke 13:23-24 where Jesus does not answer the question “Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?” but instead urges them to enter through the narrow door, so, too, does Stott not answer – leaving this in God’s hands, relying on the God of mercy and grace (will not the Judge of all the earth do right?). Drawing on the vision from Rev. 7:9 of a multitude that no one can number, Stott remains hopeful not for universalism, but for many, yet agnostic as to how God will bring it to pass. It is a treatment of this topic that, in my view, is well worth the time spent reading. It is encouraging, while at the same time offers a strong call to evangelism.
March 9th, 2011 | 12:18 pm
To Barry – Rob Bell not taking the Bible seriously, really? Have you read or listened to the guy? You can disagree with his interpretation or hermeneutics, but he takes the scriptures seriously.
To Joe – So publishing houses are now the real holders of the keys?
Isn’t the worst Rob Bell going to do – essentially what he did with the title of Love Wins – is say that knowing the nature of God Hell is probably something like Lewis’ Great Divorce or really old school something like Origen speculating on the Character of God. Now you might complain about speculation not being helpful…but that would get back to hurting the bottom lines of those publishing houses.
March 9th, 2011 | 12:30 pm
Mark B. So publishing houses are now the real holders of the keys?
Egads, no. My point was merely that if a publishing house like Zondervan thought they could get away with publishing the book they would have. The fact that they didn’t shows that they didn’t think it could be spun as orthodox to their audience.
Isn’t the worst Rob Bell going to do – essentially what he did with the title of Love Wins – is say that knowing the nature of God Hell is probably something like Lewis’ Great Divorce or really old school something like Origen speculating on the Character of God.
Maybe. But the reviews are finally starting to come in and people are posting excerpts. Here’s an example:
And another:
Sorta sounds like a universalist to me.
March 9th, 2011 | 12:52 pm
The idea that an all-loving God would create beings who are weak and stupid and then consign them to horrendous misery for eternity because they were weak and stupid is irreconcilable.
I’m not sure it’s even worth trying to figure out…
March 9th, 2011 | 1:21 pm
The name Rob Bell came up in this post. A relative of mine (a non-denominational Protestant) invited my wife and I to view a Rob Bell video last year when we were visiting (my wife and family are Roman Catholic). I thought Bell was an outstanding speaker despite disgreeing with most of his content. He and his partners know how to put together a presentation. However, the first thing that stood out during his presentation was the presence of a Our Lady of Guadalupe candle. I thought to myself that he was sure to get himself into trouble with Evangelicals. But as I listened to his speil I get a fairly rough understanding of his church’s theology (if you could call it that). And reading more about the Emergent Church movement within Protestantism, I thought that was either a clever if not cynical attempt at sheep stealing, or maybe there wasn’t something fundementally deficient with modern day Christianity. Rob Bell doesn’t even attempt to rationalize in a systemic way how he can meld two differgent theologies (bits of Protestantism with a dollop of Orthodoxy).
If this is the trend of Christianity, I do not hold up much hope. I’d much prefer Jack Chick over this.
March 9th, 2011 | 1:25 pm
If Joe’s excerpts capture Rev Bell’s thoughts, I can only think Rev Bell doesn’t have enough imagination. I’m Catholic and do believe in hell. My current concept of hell follows.
The Father loves us so much (I think Rev Bell has got that right) that when we pass on, He gives us exactly what we’ve prepared ourselves for. So the unrepentant murderers (to take an extreme example) are allowed to live with all the other unrepentant murderers, the (unrepentant, that word is important) thieves with the thieves, and so forth. Those who did their best to act in the image of God as they were created get to live with their like, but now that is heaven not hell. Which is why we Catholics put so much importance on Purgatory not to mention Confession, though we are out of practice there.
To attempt to clear up any possible faith versus works confusion before it starts, my image of the heaven bound are those who opened themselves fully to God’s grace. Or as my old Act of Contrition says, “I detest all my sins because of Thy just punishments, but most of all because they offend Thee, my God.”
March 9th, 2011 | 1:28 pm
All men/women have a knowledge of God that is part of their makeup and constitution (Rom. 1:18-20). The willful rejection and suppression of this knowledge, according to the Scriptures is without excuse.
March 9th, 2011 | 1:30 pm
Joe,
Father Neuhaus has something to say about this in his book, Death on a Friday Afternoon. I recommend reading it and seeing if you can reconcile any of these disparate opinions.
Surely there is a hell. It’s Biblically inaccurate to think otherwise. However, there are suggestions within scripture that indicate Hell is no match, in the end, for God ie. the kingdom of heaven, against which the gates of hell will not stand.
There are numerous verses that suggest that given who God is/who Jesus(He is the presence of God amongst sin) is and given eternity that all things will be reconciled within God.
This idea does not exclude suffering. It does not exclude expiation. It does include the idea of purgatory, where a weathered monk once indicated to me that from the vantage point of heaven, he believed even purgatory would appear heavenly. It does indicate separation.
But it also is consistent with the nature of God. How can our God be truly omnipotent, omnipresent, etc if evil can eternally stand against Him? Doesn’t that diminish him? If man can stand against him eternally? It would seem that he is a small, limited God, not a God who makes himself small/limited for the sake of those he loves.
March 9th, 2011 | 1:31 pm
BA wrote:
“The Bible says that hell is a real place. Jesus taught unambiguously that some people will go there. So we have a choice, believe Jesus or believe Bell. Thus, the broader issue is whether we take the Bible seriously (evangelicals) or not (people like Bell).”
JC wrote:
“Maybe I’m missing something, but it would seem the impetus to evangelism is muted if universalism or inclusivism is true. If Christ ensures that most/everyone is going to heaven, then why does it matter if they know its by his name?”
First, Mohler correctly identifies the Enlightenment’s influence in downplaying the doctrine of Hell. Enlightenment didn’t invent Arminianism, universalism or theological unitarianism but the “enlightened Christians” did tend to embrace these doctrines.
That said, I don’t think it’s right to identify universalism with goo goo New Ageism. Universalism does have a long distinguished history as a heresy within orthodox Christianity. Indeed, if everyone gets into Heaven, that COULD be seen as a VICTORY, indeed the ultimate victory, for the Cross. Which strikes me as quite “orthodox.”
Next, YOU say the Bible UNAMBIGUOUSLY teaches Hell. But that’s what YOU say the Bible says, not necessarily what the Bible actually says and means, properly understood and translated from its original languages. I note this because, though some universalists are “liberal” and “cafeteria” in their methods, others are QUITE biblical, arguing it is the BIBLE that teaches all will be saved.
I’ve learned about this through my studies of universalism in the mid-late 18th Cen. (as it might relate to the American Founding).
There, I’ve seen good arguments why someone MIGHT want to accept Christ ASAP while still believing in universalism: The old school universalists were quite hardcore. They didn’t believe EVERYONE immediately got into Heaven. The Trinitarian Universalists believed all men would be saved through Christ’s Universal as opposed to Limited Atonement; Unitarian Universalists of the late 18th Cen. believed the good were saved through their virtue, the bad were temporarily punished, and eventually saved. But however all men would EVENTUALLY be saved they had to spend some serious time in Protestant Purgatory. And a typical term for the old school Universalists (I’ve read) was ONE THOUSAND YEARS.
To sum up with a quotation from Benjamin Rush, a TU, which cites for authority both UUs and TUs of his era for the proposition of Biblical Universalism. From “Travels through Life,” his autobiography:
“At Dr. Finley’s school, I was more fully instructed in those principles by means of the Westminster catechism. I retained them without any affection for them until about the year 1780. I then read for the first time Fletcher’s controversy with the Calvinists, in favor of the universality of the atonement. This prepared my mind to admit the doctrine of universal salvation, which was then preached in our city by the Rev. Mr. Winchester. It embraced and reconciled my ancient Calvinistical and my newly adopted Arminian principles. From that time I have never doubted upon the subject of the salvation of all men. My conviction of the truth of this doctrine was derived from reading the works of Stonehouse, Seigvolk, White, Chauncey and Winchester, and afterwards from an attentive perusal of the Scriptures. I always admitted with each of those authors future punishment, and of long duration.”
March 9th, 2011 | 1:32 pm
SteveM’s “If I were God, I wouldn’t do it that way,” gives me great comfort that he is not God.
March 9th, 2011 | 1:42 pm
“…evangelical theology…” Does anyone even know what that is? I guess I can call myself an evangelical for now, but one of my biggest frustrations as an evangelical is that what I am supposed to believe is not well defined. Perhaps this is how evangelical theology can slide so easily away from orthodoxy.
March 9th, 2011 | 1:54 pm
Justin R Father Neuhaus has something to say about this in his book, Death on a Friday Afternoon. I recommend reading it and seeing if you can reconcile any of these disparate opinions.
I know what you’re referring to. In this article (http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/02/will-all-be-saved-30), Fr. Neuhaus mentions that his critic’s say “we cannot even hold the hope, since it clearly contradicts the revealed truth that many, if not most, will be eternally damned.” I think his critics are clearly right. Both the Bible and the history of Christian teaching show that such hope if unfounded.
the kingdom of heaven, against which the gates of hell will not stand.
I think we have to be careful not to confuse the uses of the term “hell.” When Jesus said the “gates of hell” could not overcome the church, he was referring to death. That does not mean, however, that hell is a temporary place.
Doesn’t that diminish him? If man can stand against him eternally?
But evil is not standing against him eternally. Hell was created by God as a place of punishment. It doesn’t “stand against him” because he created it for an eternal purpose.
March 9th, 2011 | 2:28 pm
Wow, what a hip, cool guy… and he asks the same kind of questions I did when I was about 17! At that time, of course, I thought I was the only person who had ever asked them. It never occurred to me that most people, including most of the smartest people who ever lived, had asked the same questions — and answered them, too. I even asked the Gandhi question! Hmm… “love wins” sounds like an Oprah answer. Yeah, love wins — AND???? I think there’s a lot more to it than that, but I’m not sure the Cool Pastor does. He might have some profound things to say. I’m guessing not, but I might be wrong. But while the possibility of Gandhi in Hell used to outrage me, now I realize that the more important thing (in my life, anyway) is the possibility of me in Hell. And “love wins” as a philosophy isn’t enough.
March 9th, 2011 | 2:30 pm
Joe, thanks for the comments.
Didn’t really think that Zondervan was the new Pope. I guess I look at it less what it says about Bell and more about the audience Zondervan can reach.
This is why. When Bell talks love, peace, forgiveness, joy I hear different Biblical metaphors for justification. This is what God wants for you and has done for you in Christ. Bell is an artful preacher and that is his message. He wants his hearer saying yes. And he’s highly in tune with the audience. I’d say in a good way and not just in a pandering way. Not that Hell doesn’t have a place, but it is a negation, something that only happens in rejection. Unless you have a warm spot in your heart for Jonathan Edwards, like many of Bell’s detractors, why talk about hell? Don’t major in the minors or assume failure of the primary proclamation of what God has done for you.
March 9th, 2011 | 2:37 pm
Mark B. Unless you have a warm spot in your heart for Jonathan Edwards, like many of Bell’s detractors, why talk about hell?
I would say that we should talk about hell for the same reason that Jonathan Edwards did: Because Jesus talked about if quite regularly.
Also, Bell’s talk about love, peace, and forgiveness is all well and good as long as he is given the clear picture. He can’t just pick and choose which attributes of God he wants to focus on because his audience might find some things—like God’s wrath—disturbing. As a preacher, he is required to preach the whole Gospel.
March 9th, 2011 | 2:41 pm
Joe,
While agree with your first point, given that I must throw myself on the mercy of God and hope He will be merciful to me, I must, by extension hope He would be merciful to all.
March 9th, 2011 | 3:18 pm
By the by, though I am an evangelical by profession, I am fascinated by Catholicism doctrine and ritual. To that end, I often attend Holy Day or midweek mass at the local parish.
In the middle of the Ash Wednesday service, a woman in the church became unresponsive and the paramedics arrived in the middle of communion. About 500 people were trying to take communion while the paramedics/firefighters performed their work in the middle aisle.
The priest, meanwhile, led prayers for her with the paramedics present with those who had finished communion.
Talk about affirming the reality of, “Dust we were and to dust we shall return”.
March 9th, 2011 | 3:37 pm
I guess if you think of hell as the place Satan and his angels retreated to at the end of the celestial battle for heaven, then we might have a problem the gates of Hell not prevailing. But the standard rendering is that God cast them into hell, a place created for them.
I believe God, in his Love, will give each of us what we reach for with the whole of our lives. He has sent his prophets and his Son as well to tell us what the choices are, cf Deuteronomy 30:15 & 19.
The father of the prodigal son did not follow him around buying his way out of trouble. He let the son be an independent man. And he welcomed the son back when he was ready to repent.
Justin, we are right to hope in His mercy, but He won’t force it on anyone.
March 9th, 2011 | 3:55 pm
Why would anyone, in his/her right mind, reject God, and “choose” Hell, over Heaven?
Clearly the notion of Hell, and its residence, has been a “hot topic” for centuries. The question arises, as to its coherence. If one believes, as I do, in a God of infinite goodness, and mercy, and, if one believes, as I do, in humans capacity for delusion and fallibility, it strikes me that, to send the latter to Hell for not accepting Christ, or never hearing of Him, is to deny God’s infinite mercy.
To choose the right, presupposes one possesses a mind, capable of doing so. If a schizophrenic chooses not to take medication, do we say he made an informed choice, when he’s lacking in the very traits necessary to make an informed choice?
Similarly, how could anyone make an informed choice to reject God, and dwell forever in Hell, when such a choice is manifestly NOT in anyone’s interest?
The Catholic theologian, Hans Urs von Balthasar, has written a book, published by Ignatius Press, called: “DARE WE NOT HOPE THAT ALL MEN SHALL BE SAVED?”
He argues that, there’s reason to HOPE for all humans salvaton. Edward Oaks,S.J., an expert on Balthasar, has written excellent books on him (e.g., THE CAMBRIDGE COMPANION TO BALTHASAR, Edward Oaks, and David Moss).
There’s also the issue of Hell’s corporality, or lack. How many, here accept the legitimacy of either the corporal or incorporal, nature of Hell, and why, or why not?
March 9th, 2011 | 4:14 pm
MM wrote:
“Justin, we are right to hope in His mercy, but He won’t force it on anyone.”
BL replied:
“Why would anyone, in his/her right mind, reject God, and ‘choose’ Hell, over Heaven?”
This is an extremely important question/reply to the “God’s love is not forced,” “the doors of Hell are locked from the inside” theological argument. It shows how, among orthodox Christians, ideas on what Hell is really like shockingly differ.
If Hell really is this horrible place where God throws our bodies into an oven or whatnot, no one chooses to be there. Everyone gets to get out. Ever see a water-boarding experiment? Does anyone “choose” to continue to get water-boarded? No. Not one person. No one does. They all choose to make it stop.
The only way Hell can be a “self chosen,” “doors locked from the inside,” “God doesn’t force His love” place is if Hell means Christopher Hitchens gets to enjoy himself drinking, smoking, fornicating and blaspheming for all eternity. I could then understand WHY Hell might be a self chosen, exclusion from the perfect happiness of being in God’s eternal presence place.
March 9th, 2011 | 4:18 pm
Bret,
Corporeal, or corporal? Synonymous?
March 9th, 2011 | 4:25 pm
Thanks for a great post, Joe. I love the opening–really well written and it pulled me into the article.
If nothing else, Rob Bell’s book has given us Evangelicals a chance to point out what the Bible says about hell. We should thank him for that.
Becky
March 9th, 2011 | 4:45 pm
Steve: Yes. According to Dictionary.com, the usage “Corporeal”, is obsolete.
Do you have any thoughts, on it?
March 9th, 2011 | 4:47 pm
John Rowe: You make a good point. But even if they do ostensibly choose the “Hitchens” approach, is this really in their BEST interests?
March 9th, 2011 | 4:57 pm
Mr. Carter,
I greatly enjoy your blogs, and have benefited from them tremendously. Your blogs are profound and winsome, and display deep thought and careful articulation.
That is why I find this one so disappointing. While I agree with you that Rob Bell’s book dispenses with an indispensable doctrine of Christian orthodoxy, the sweeping generalization that seems to infer that young evangelicals are more interested in relevance than Biblical truth is distressingly overwrought. As a young evangelical who has spent much of the last decade in good evangelical seminaries, my experience with “young evangelicals” is that they are much more interested in Biblical truth than one might suspect if their only view at them was like the one you’ve suggested here.
No doubt, there are those who subscribe to the “emergent church” paradigms, but increasingly, the emergent movement is losing adherents as it capitulates more and more of the Biblical orthodoxy that it strove so stridently to align itself with, despite the evidence to the contrary.
I look forward to continue reading your work.
March 9th, 2011 | 5:07 pm
Jesus did talk about hell, but really not that much. Gehenna 11 times, all in the synoptics, of which most are repetitions of the “if your eye causes sin…cut it off…better than hell.” If you open the metaphor up to fire you add John with the stray branch being thrown in the fire. And then you’ve got the outer darkness parables.
As a simple/simplistic comparison “blessed” shows us 55 times. Many times like in Luke 12:37-48, which does include a hell warning, but after many blessings on those who are watching and faithful.
Gross generalization warning, the place that Jesus talked about hell was with the person/disciple who kept sinning in the same way or who willfully disconnected themselves from the vine.
One mention of Hell, as we all have the law written on our hearts, goes a long way. The gospel is something we need to be constantly reminded of.
March 9th, 2011 | 5:37 pm
As Joe rightly points out, people don’t like Hell. But I also get the impression, among some (no one on this blog) that, they almost seem prideful of their accepting of this hard doctrine. “look at me, I’m willing to courageously bite the bullet, and be orthodox in my view of hell, unlike these softies, bending to the latest ideological fad”. Perhaps I’m wrong, but there does seem to be something a little smug here, among some people. Again, I haven’t detected this, among anyone here, but it does seem to be a possible interpretation, of some who, advocate for Hell.
Just as there are those who take pride in denying Hell, there are those who take pride in accepting it, as well.
March 9th, 2011 | 5:40 pm
Jon Rowe raises a good point:
“The only way Hell can be a “self chosen,” “doors locked from the inside,” “God doesn’t force His love” place is if Hell means Christopher Hitchens gets to enjoy himself drinking, smoking, fornicating and blaspheming for all eternity. I could then understand WHY Hell might be a self chosen, exclusion from the perfect happiness of being in God’s eternal presence place.”
But there are some pieces missing, as there always is in such an effort.
One assumption is that all other things would be the same. Imagine what such a place would be like with no real acts of charity. Those people would more likely be in the presence of God. Instead, all we would have are other people trying to use us in the same manner we were using them. Try The Screwtape Letters for a taste. Then there was a 1960 Twilight Zone episode that touched on the difference: “A Nice Place to Visit”.
Another assumption is that the choice is one of “The lady or the tiger” but we know what is behind the doors. Life and death are not so simple. The idea that Mr Hitchens gets a menu at the end of his life to make an immediate mental choice doesn’t match up with the descriptions in the Bible. Indeed, see Matthew 25:41-46. Self deception is strong in us humans.
Then Rowe might be saying that we, having experienced Hell, would choose differently. I think we create our own Hell and carry it with us. Even in our pain, we would know that it was all God’s fault, not our own.
I don’t think we should be picking on Mr Hitchens, let alone Ghandi, as we don’t know his heart. But, unless I’m mistaken it’s quite possible that some of his enjoyments lead to his current state. Why would such a thing be different in a self chosen Hell?
I think we spend much time deceiving ourselves as to the rightness of what we are doing at the moment. Finding our way out of that darkness is our task, recognizing that it is our reaching not our accomplishment that matters. God freely offers forgiveness through the blood of His Son (Yep, I’m a Christian.) We have to accept it but we are allowed to turn away.
March 9th, 2011 | 5:48 pm
Nick Kersten . . .the sweeping generalization that seems to infer that young evangelicals are more interested in relevance than Biblical truth is distressingly overwrought.
You’re absolutely right. I should have been more careful in how I worded that since it certainly does seem like I’m implying that this is common among “young evangelicals.” I should have been the last person to make that mistake since it annoys me to no end when people make a generalization that most young evangelicals are the squishy Emergent types.
As we noted in the print version last month, they are definitely not like that. This youngest generation is as theologically orthodox as their parents or grandparents. It doesn’t help the misunderstanding when I unwittingly promote the same false narrative.
Thanks for the correction.
March 9th, 2011 | 6:26 pm
I’m an evangelical. I mostly hang out with evangelicals. My church? Evangelical. We all know our Bible, believe in hell – in fact believe the Bible to be true, so it would be hard NOT to believe in hell. My kids are evangelical teens and know their world view and can defend it. As can their friends. I don’t live in a commune or anything… So I don’t know where all these denominational sounding evangelicals actually are…
March 9th, 2011 | 6:48 pm
I wonder if the majority of people in Rob Bell’s church give to the poor, pray, honor God, and try to lead good lives? Perhaps less hand wringing and teeth gnashing over insufficient orthodoxy, and more of an emphasis on orthopraxis, would be appropriate.
God is omnipotent, right? He knows our hearts. Let’s worry a bit more about what we do with our hands, our wallets, and our time instead of the mote in other people’s eyes.
March 9th, 2011 | 7:01 pm
Mike writes: ““The only way Hell can be a “self chosen,” “doors locked from the inside,” “God doesn’t force His love” place is if Hell means Christopher Hitchens gets to enjoy himself drinking, smoking, fornicating and blaspheming for all eternity.”
Maybe Hell is filled with people like Tertullian or Jonathan Edwards, both who wrote long, detailed descriptions of the pleasures they will have watching people being tortured for all eternity and how the suffering of others will be part of their own Heavenly “bliss”.
http://www.what-the-hell-is-hell.com/AncientHell.htm
“The fifth dungeon is the red hot oven. The little child is in the red hot oven.
Hear how it screams to come out; see how it turns and twists itself about in the fire. It beats its head against the roof of the oven. It stamps its little feet on the floor.”
(The Sight of Hell)
(Quoted from Christ Triumphant by Thomas Allin)
Such lovely sentiments! I’m wondering if even the Nazis would have tortured their victims “eternally” rather than just throwing them in fires to die painful (but comparatively quick) deaths.
March 9th, 2011 | 7:26 pm
isn’t “orthodox evangelicalism” an oxymoron? and methinks calling young evangelicals “theologically orthodox” does violence to the meaning of the term “orthodox.”
as for hell, my position is that of c. s. lewis’ in “the great divorce” and charles williams’ in “descent into hell.” hell on earth is even empirically verifiable…. but i could be dead wrong.
March 9th, 2011 | 8:43 pm
Re: Mike Melendez “SteveM’s “If I were God, I wouldn’t do it that way,” gives me great comfort that he is not God.”
Mike, no of course I am not. But I’m glad that you are so sanguine. I envy your absolute clarity.
March 9th, 2011 | 9:40 pm
I believe in Hell; the scripture teaches it: BUT I think there is a very sound case for understanding hell as a place where God cures people (with whatever means necessary – His love can be severe), with the view of reconciling all things to Himself. And that seems to fit His character as revealed in scripture.
I think that if one tries to defend, as I once did, the ‘born into sin at no fault of your own, unable to stop sinning without the grace of God, and that grace is willingly withheld by God, but for all eternity – without end, you will be punished for that which you had no control over” school, you have a tough row to how. I know I did.
DaveB
March 9th, 2011 | 11:29 pm
@SteveM: It’s called belief. It’s not unlike your own though I choose differently. I believe telling God how He should do something is a pointless exercise. We are not God, though we might fool ourselves into thinking so. Getting angry at Him for His choices is a different story, a frustration at our own limitations. I would rather try to understand Him, though I see through a glass darkly. And there our choices start.
@James: John Rowe wrote that not I. I have no idea who Thomas Allin was, though a quick search of the web suggests he wrote about Universalism. Me, I’m a Catholic. We’re the guys who invented Limbo to account for the innocent young. Though we admit we have nothing to back it up and trust them to God’s mercy. Christianity hasn’t been monolithic since the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman churches decided to part company 1,000 years ago, which distance allowed. Religious freedom took 500 years longer.
As to Tertullian and Edwards, people talk like that all the time when not talking about heaven and hell. The Germans even have a word for it, schadenfreude. Why should we humans be different when tackling the hard stuff?
March 9th, 2011 | 11:31 pm
[...] object to an article I read in First Things today. Written by Joe Carter and entitled, “Yes, Evangelicals, There Really Is a Hell,” the article pretty much outs my lies and confirms the truth of Hell. [...]
March 10th, 2011 | 12:18 am
It seems like the most important thing here is to hold onto an identification with the tribe of the evangelical over a relationship with Christ and the community of the Church.
March 10th, 2011 | 2:23 am
I like David Bagwill’s comments. I, too, have found the notion of one being in Hell, forever, to be incongruent with God’s love and healing power.
I think the notion of a Purgatory, makes sense. One is “purged” of one’s sins. this could be what Jesus is talking about, when He says one might go to “Hell”, if one doesn’t repent.
Therefore, one does justice to the scriptural statements of Jesus, vis a vis “Hell”, but also, one does justice to God’s infinite redeeming power, and mercy, by stating that one’s residence in “Hell”, is not forever. It’s a place of “remedial education”, for lack of a better phrase.
March 10th, 2011 | 2:25 am
The article is totally off the mark. It is indeed the Evangelicals who believe a little too much in hell that are the ones to be worried about. These are the very same folks who Jesus warned us all about…the new pharisees, condeming everyone else to hell while they themselves are lifted up by their ego’s into thinking they are the only ones that are “saved”…I’d much rather someone question doctrine than have the gall to think they know exactly what is meant.
March 10th, 2011 | 4:28 am
In his sermon that assesses the biblical and theological arguments for universalism, Sinclair Ferguson reminds us:
“There is a mighty sermon in Gresham Machen’s book, God Transcendent, on the text in Matthew 10:28, “Do not fear those who can kill the body; fear Him who is able to cast soul and body into hell.” And the sermon begins by the repetition of the text and with these words: “These words were not spoken by Augustine, or by George Whitefield, or by Jonathan Edwards, but by Jesus of Nazareth.”
It behooves us to listen to Jesus’ testimony; both because this is the testimony of the Savior, and because this is the testimony of the One who names himself as the living and true witness—who is the One who has come back from the dead to tell men that it is so.”
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/conference-messages/universalism-and-the-reality-of-eternal-punishment-the-biblical-basis-of-the-doctrine-of-eternal-punishment
March 10th, 2011 | 7:00 am
My first taste of coffee was also around the age of ten. I had taken lunch to my dad in the field and afterwards thought that I would be a big boy and finish off the coffee that was left over. Unfortunately, it was filled with grounds. I haven’t touched it since [except in flavored candy and ice cream].
But many comments here might have benefited from a cup along with some actual reflection.
March 10th, 2011 | 9:24 am
“Do not fear those who can kill the body; fear Him who is able to cast soul and body into hell.”
Listen. I pride myself in being civil, respectful towards those with whom I disagree. So I say the following with great caution. I understand most five points Calvinists want NOTHING to do with Fred Phelps and they wouldn’t dare do the things he and his have done.
That said, Phelps is a 5 points Calvinists and I’ve studied and listened to his theology very closely and can’t see where he, AT ALL, gets 5-points Calvinism wrong. (He does of course, add a few over the top odd ball things; but I’m talking about the essence of his message.) He just doesn’t deliver it with a smile (and I’m not sure Calvinism is meant to be delivered with a smile. :))
Jonathan Edwards is his favorite preacher after Calvin himself. And all these citations to the Bible in favor of hellfire like the above quote are Fred Phelps standards.
Perhaps someone can, like me, listen to the entire debate Phelps did with the Arminian evangelical John Rankin and tell me what Phelps gets wrong, from a 5-points TULIP perspective, about 1. whether God loves or hates the “non-elect,” the people in Hell, 2. what Hell is really like, and 3. where Jonathan Edwards would have had a problem with Phelps carrying on in his tradition.
March 10th, 2011 | 9:45 am
Agreed, you guys absolutely need hell to keep believers scared into not questioning their belief. In fact you should go further and say that mere questioning the doctrine is a one way ticket to hell. Once you question a loving God that subjects people to eternal punishment for simple unbelief then the whole house of cards comes crashing down. I speak from experience, as a former member of the faithful. Don’t abandon your fear of hell, if you do it will cause you to ask too many questions.
March 10th, 2011 | 10:09 am
The concept of hell is particularly horrible. A pit of fire where people will burn for eternity if we dont accept your god (who supposedly loves us all)? I can understand why people want to water it down. Even people who have left that faith still suffer fear from it, even though we know it’s not real.
“is if Hell means Christopher Hitchens gets to enjoy himself drinking, smoking, fornicating and blaspheming for all eternity”
Here’s hoping he keeps blaspheming here for a long, long time to come before he moves on to your hell, where he will share company with some of the brightest minds in the world, such as Darwin, Carl Sagan, Thomas Paine, and such.
March 10th, 2011 | 12:31 pm
Hello, OutandAboutAtheist,
If we have been created to joyfully spend eternity with our creator, and if our creator must genuinely respect our free will in order for us to be a “who” instead of a robotic “what,” then it must be that we are free to choose an eternal destiny other than the one our creator intended for us, and that our creator will respect that choice.
That other eternal choice, whatever its nature, will be “hell” in comparison to the one that was our true destiny. No one who regrets making that choice even though they were familiar with the biblical descriptions of Hell will be able to credibly claim, “I didn’t know it would be THIS bad.” The Scripture’s description of it as “eternal fire,” whether or not that is what it really is, was warning enough that one would regret choosing it.
God knows how much light each of us has received and if we chose to live according to it. He knows if we responded to love with love or indifference. We are free to do what we want with light and love. Persisting in the wrong choices has eternal consequences, as does doing our best to persist in the right ones. Darwin, Carl Sagan and Thomas Paine, regardless of where they currently abide, now know this to be true. One can insist that they don’t abide anywhere, and that there is nothing after death for any of us, but hoping that is so doesn’t make it so. There is no excuse for risking eternity so we can live a mere lifetime as we please.
March 10th, 2011 | 12:54 pm
Yes Jon, it certainly is the height of civility to lump all the Reformed in with the vituperative, hate-spewing, founder of a tiny fringe “church” with fewer followers than the average dog has fleas.
Nice job, really. The Phelps corollary to Godwin’s law.
What is this impulse that seems to create a desire (and willingness in some) to not only disagree with a theological point of view, but to anathematize, insult and generally degrade anyone holding that point of view? And how self-delusional does one have to be to further trumpet one’s own “civility” while make said case?
March 10th, 2011 | 12:57 pm
The mystery of iniquity.
Consider why so many teenagers engage in random vandalism, whose victims are unknown to them and so can not have injured them, in which they merely destroy and destroy and destroy and get no profit from it. (St. Augustine, in his Confessions, wisely singled out an occasion where he and some friends stole worthless pears, not for eating, as the most purely evil act he ever did.)
March 10th, 2011 | 1:06 pm
“There is no excuse for risking eternity so we can live a mere lifetime as we please.”
You are presuming that atheists reject something they know to be true. I don’t so presume. I take people at their word that, even if they turn out wrong — if God or something after really DOES exist — these folks genuinely are NOT convinced God exists. It would be like you dying and finding out that Jesus really did visit the Americas. How will you react when you meet Mormon Jesus? That you really didn’t believe Mormonism to be true. Or what about the warnings of the Muslims Allah that you choose to ignore. You likewise will have “no excuse” if that turns out to be true.
And, again, to bring up Calvinism –
“That other eternal choice, whatever its nature, will be ‘hell’ in comparison to the one that was our true destiny. No one who regrets making that choice…”
– it’s entirely debatable whether you even understand what the Bible/orthodox Christianity teaches on this matter. The Calvinist says man makes no choice on this matter. Rather God selects His elect. So to the atheist who wasn’t convinced God exists. Or to the Mormon who was confused about His attributes or to the Hindus and Muslims who were born chiefly in Hindu and Muslim lands, they were, simply, not chosen by God; they were not His Elect, so to Hell with them because they are just getting what they deserve.
March 10th, 2011 | 1:08 pm
David C,
I was asking a serious question to which I didn’t get an answer.
March 10th, 2011 | 1:16 pm
No Jon, you were making an invidious comparison disguised as a question. I made the mistake of feeding the troll. I regret it.
March 10th, 2011 | 2:01 pm
Hi, John Rowe,
You wrote:
“You are presuming that atheists reject something they know to be true. I don’t so presume.”
I am only presuming atheists, like everyone else, have a conscience. They, like everyone else, need to live according to it and know if they aren’t. God knows the light they have received and if they are living according to it or not. He also knows exactly how the Christians in their lives might have failed miserably in conveying the truth to them, and may have even hurt them greviously. I am sure He takes all that into consideration. Frankly, the atheists I have met are way too angry at something that isn’t there. How can one be angry at what one sincerely believes isn’t there? I suspect somewhere deep down inside themselves they know He is there but are holding Him responsible for some harm done to them by those associated with religion in some way. I am sure God will judge sincere, genuine atheists perfectly, as He will the Christians who became an obstacle for angry “atheists.”
Your “Mormon” example reminded me of a joke about all the Catholic bishops being called to the Vatican for an emergency meeting. The Pope tells them he has good news and bad news. The good news is that Christ is returning in a week. The bad news is that they are supposed to meet him in Salt Lake City. ;o)
The people who have “no excuse” are those who realize, be they theists or atheists, that their decisions may have eternal consequences and then live such that they are gambling eternity. There is no excuse for betting that way.
Calvinists say man has no choice in the matter, but as a Catholic, I do not believe in predestination. God intends for everyone to be saved, yet honors our free will. Those who end up in Hell got there by making choices contrary to the light they had received, not by God’s design.
March 10th, 2011 | 2:17 pm
David C,
I think you’re mistaken about Jon’s comments, which have been intelligent and fair-minded, not troll-like at all. He’s been asking good questions and has received some good answers. See especially his March 9, 1:31, post.
The last question he asked is a fair one. What exactly is the difference between Phelps and other Calvinists? Is it a difference in doctrine or something else?
Jon isn’t “lumping” Phelps in with other Calvinists. In fact, he says quite explicitly that “I understand most five points Calvinists want NOTHING to do with Fred Phelps.” He wants to know what Phelps gets wrong about Calvinism, and I, for one, would love to hear a Calvinist answer the question. I’m Methodist, so I don’t know what you all would say.
I hope you or someone else steps up to the plate.
March 10th, 2011 | 3:00 pm
Michael,
Many thanks for this. You got me completely. I did hesitate to ask this question because I knew some folks like David C. would take it the way he did. I have affection for some Calvinists, but some big problems with Calvinism.
Religion is not race. And while we should in good faith, try to be respectful of one another’s beliefs, we all draw the line somewhere and have big problems with certain theologies with which we don’t agree.
I remember reading a post by Joe Carter where he noted he respects Roman Catholicism but not atheism on these grounds.
But I’m sure he’s got some atheist friends for whom he feels affection.
I view Calvin and Calvinism not unlike Marx and Marxism. I can respect both Calvin’s and Marx’s intellectual output and the way they transformed Western Civilization, but I think both preached largely malign ideas.
And not every Marxist is a mass murdering Stalin or Mao, just as not every Calvinist is a Fred Phelps (though JC did have Michael Servetus burned at the stake for heresy).
But, whatever we think of Godwin’s law, atheists have been asked very difficult questions on distancing themselves from the mass murder of Stalin and Mao. I don’t think my question on asking Calvinists what they think Fred Phelps gets wrong about Calvinism is any lower a blow.
March 10th, 2011 | 4:58 pm
Describing Bell as a “hip young evangelical” is an indirect way for you to take shots at him and his style. If your argument is sound, there’s no need to write in this manner. Childish at best.
March 10th, 2011 | 5:48 pm
[...] Joe took a crack at the hot topic of the day, Rob Bell’s new book. Among other things, he quotes [...]
March 10th, 2011 | 6:30 pm
@KEITH PAVLISCHEK:”In his sermon that assesses the biblical and theological arguments for universalism, Sinclair Ferguson reminds us:
“There is a mighty sermon in Gresham Machen’s book, God Transcendent, on the text in Matthew 10:28, “Do not fear those who can kill the body; fear Him who is able to cast soul and body into hell.” And the sermon begins by the repetition of the text and with these words: “These words were not spoken by Augustine, or by George Whitefield, or by Jonathan Edwards, but by Jesus of Nazareth.””
Ooo, I don’t mean to be picky here, but if Jesus is the one we should listen to then we should get what he said right. That’s not what Jesus said. Jesus said, “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” There’s a big argument that could follow here about Jesus meant by “destroy”, but the only point I will make is if we are going to say we believe what Jesus said about hell, then we can’t misquote in ways that seem to support our preconceived notions.
March 10th, 2011 | 9:30 pm
Jon,
It is not the asking of questions that I object to, as I think you well know. It is the attempt to paint Reformed theology as a form of hate speech that I (not surprisingly) find objectionable.
Now to your analogy. To choose Mao or Stalin as representative of Marxism is entirely appropriate, they are both central figures in history (and in the case of Mao the ‘thought’) of that “creed”. On the other hand, the choice of Fred Phelps as somehow representative of Reformed theology in general or Cavinism in particular is to (misleadingly, in my view) treat a fringe figure (at best) as centrally representative. I think this is done tactically and purposefully — a way of tarring all Calvinists with the brush of ugly extremism. And I find it quite the opposite of “civil”.
May I suggest that if you want to have a serious, civil, discussion of the merits of Calvinism, (particularly within the broader context of Evangelical Protestantism) that you choose someone that is clearly identified with Calvinism in that context. Someone like, yes, Jonathan Edwards, or if you prefer contemporary Calvinists, someone like JI Packer, RC Sproul, or on a more popular level someone like Tim Keller or John Piper. Of course those names don’t promote the kind of visceral reaction that Phelps’ does, which I still suspect was the point.
Perhaps the next time you feel yourself hesitating, you ought to give in to the better angels of your nature and find someone a little (okay, a lot) less polarizing to use as the best exemplar of an idea (or system) with which you disagree. Unless, of course, you have some evidence that I am not aware of that Phelps really is an appropriate and typical representative of Reformed theology or 5 Points (sic) Calvinism.
March 10th, 2011 | 10:10 pm
David,
The point I was trying to make is that yes, Sproul & co. seem much nicer guys (most times) than Phelps, but that something is (as I see it) disturbingly wrong with Calvinism precisely because 5-points Calvinism (I don’t understand what’s “sic” about that term) seems to nicely “fit” with what Phelps stands for.
To move from Marxism to Nazism and yes, invoke Godwin’s Law, I’ve seen conservative critics of Nietzsche and Heidegger make the same criticism on how their philosophy paved the way for Nazism. Promoters of Nietzsche and Heidegger, it seems to me, can do better than balk and cry Godwin’s Law.
I would ask Calvinists (indeed Phelps asked these very questions):
1. Does God hate people?
2. How does one metaphysically justify hating the sin, but not the sinner?
3. Does God love or hate His non-elect?
4. Does God love the people in Hell?
5. What is the nature of Hell? And reconcile that with whether God loves the people He’s sending there.
I’d like to compare the answers between Phelps & co. and Sproul et al. and see if I can find some meaningful differences.
And I’d like to compare ALL of their answers with Edwards’ and Calvin’s recorded views on the matter.
I wouldn’t have listened to Phelps’ entire debate with Rankin were I not interested in a serious answer.
Phelps, it seems to me, gives a lot of standard 5-points Calvinist responses peppered with some oddball remarks (I won’t repeat them here) that don’t detract from the 5-points Calvinistic essence of his message.
You can read a transcript of the debate here:
http://www.mars-hill-forum.com/forumdoc/m070cont.html
March 10th, 2011 | 11:09 pm
Nick Jackson writes, “Ooo, I don’t mean to be picky here, but if Jesus is the one we should listen to then we should get what he said right. That’s not what Jesus said. Jesus said, “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”
Nice catch. Not to be picky or anything, but here goes. –LUKE 12:5.
New International Version (©1984)
But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.
New Living Translation (©2007)
But I’ll tell you whom to fear. Fear God, who has the power to kill you and then throw you into hell. Yes, he’s the one to fear.
English Standard Version (©2001)
But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him!
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
“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!
International Standard Version (©2008)
I’ll show you the one you should be afraid of. Be afraid of the one who has the authority to throw you into hell after killing you. Yes, I tell you, be afraid of him!
GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
I’ll show you the one you should be afraid of. Be afraid of the one who has the power to throw you into hell after killing you. I’m warning you to be afraid of him.
King James Bible
But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.
American King James Version
But I will forewarn you whom you shall fear: Fear him, which after he has killed has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, Fear him.
American Standard Version
But I will warn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, who after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.
Bible in Basic English
But I will make clear to you of whom you are to be in fear: of him who after death has power to send you to hell; yes, truly I say, Have fear of him.
Douay-Rheims Bible
But I will shew you whom you shall fear: fear ye him, who after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell. Yea, I say to you, fear him.
Darby Bible Translation
But I will shew you whom ye shall fear: Fear him who after he has killed has authority to cast into hell; yea, I say to you, Fear him.
English Revised Version
But I will warn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.
Webster’s Bible Translation
But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, who after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, Fear him.
Weymouth New Testament
I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who after killing has power to throw into Gehenna: yes, I say to you, fear him.
World English Bible
But I will warn you whom you should fear. Fear him, who after he has killed, has power to cast into Gehenna. Yes, I tell you, fear him.
Young’s Literal Translation
but I will show to you, whom ye may fear; Fear him who, after the killing, is having authority to cast to the gehenna; yes, I say to you, Fear ye Him.
Not to picky or anything…., the point is that this is not Augustine, or Luther, or Luther, or Whitfield or Edwards. It is JESUS OF NAZARETH.
March 10th, 2011 | 11:21 pm
Not to be picky or anything, but I meant to say, Luther and Calvin, not Luther and Luther….But while I’m on a roll I thought I’d add the following to the mix.
Matthew 5:22
New International Version (©1984)
But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
New Living Translation (©2007)
But I say, if you are even angry with someone, you are subject to judgment! If you call someone an idiot, you are in danger of being brought before the court. And if you curse someone, you are in danger of the fires of hell.
English Standard Version (©2001)
But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
“But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
International Standard Version (©2008)
But I say to you, anyone who is angry with his brother without a cause will be subject to punishment. And whoever says to his brother ‘Raka!’ will be subject to the Council. And whoever says ‘You fool!’ will be subject to hell fire.
GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
But I can guarantee that whoever is angry with another believer will answer for it in court. Whoever calls another believer an insulting name will answer for it in the highest court. Whoever calls another believer a fool will answer for it in hellfire.
King James Bible
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
American King James Version
But I say to you, That whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whoever shall say, You fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
American Standard Version
but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire.
Bible in Basic English
But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be in danger of being judged; and he who says to his brother, Raca, will be in danger from the Sanhedrin; and whoever says, You foolish one, will be in danger of the hell of fire.
Douay-Rheims Bible
But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Darby Bible Translation
But I say unto you, that every one that is lightly angry with his brother shall be subject to the judgment; but whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be subject to be called before the sanhedrim; but whosoever shall say, Fool, shall be subject to the penalty of the hell of fire.
English Revised Version
but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire.
Webster’s Bible Translation
But I say to you, That whoever is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgment: and whoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell-fire.
Weymouth New Testament
But I say to you that every one who becomes angry with his brother shall be answerable to the magistrate; that whoever says to his brother ‘Raca,’ shall be answerable to the Sanhedrin; and that whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be liable to the Gehenna of Fire.
World English Bible
But I tell you, that everyone who is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment; and whoever shall say to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council; and whoever shall say, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of the fire of Gehenna.
Young’s Literal Translation
but I — I say to you, that every one who is angry at his brother without cause, shall be in danger of the judgment, and whoever may say to his brother, Empty fellow! shall be in danger of the sanhedrim, and whoever may say, Rebel! shall be in danger of the gehenna of the fire.
March 11th, 2011 | 8:24 am
@KEITH PAVLISCHEK
Ha, double nice catch.
March 11th, 2011 | 2:10 pm
[...] Scot McKnight (here and here), Ben Witherington, and Francis Beckwith (here and here) at Patheos; Joe Carter at First Things; Brian McLaren; Albert Mohler; Mark Galli of Christianity Today, Jason Boyett [...]
March 14th, 2011 | 11:56 am
[...] [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact