the final forum

8/6/2019 The Final Forum

1/50

The Final ForumA dialogue exploring the four primary views on the natureof the final judgment and punishment of the wicked.

Or, more honestly,

Exploring and challenging the traditional

doctrine of hell.

Or, even more honestly,

A long overdue and overly amplified (for a three creditclass) collection of ramblings by an excessively introspectiveyoung man who deeply struggles with the traditional doctrine ofhell and many other topics.

Leif HansenGuided Study

Charles RingmaFinal Paper

October, 2000

1


2/50

To all who wondered, but were afraid to ask or hope otherwise

2


3/50

TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE FINAL FORUM 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................................................................3

Preface:.........................................................................................................................................................................................4

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................5

Opening statements.....................................................................................................................................................................5

Peter..........................................................................................................................................................................................5

Trevor.......................................................................................................................................................................................6

Ursula........................................................................................................................................................................................6

Andrew.....................................................................................................................................................................................7

The ground-rules established.....................................................................................................................................................7

The Role of Scripture..................................................................................................................................................................8

Trevor.......................................................................................................................................................................................8

Ursula........................................................................................................................................................................................9

Peter........................................................................................................................................................................................10

Andrew...................................................................................................................................................................................11

Justice, punishment and the nature of Christs passion........................................................................................................12

Ursula......................................................................................................................................................................................12

Andrew...................................................................................................................................................................................17

Peter........................................................................................................................................................................................19

Trevor.....................................................................................................................................................................................20

The nature of Hell, trying it all together.................................................................................................................................22

Andrew...................................................................................................................................................................................23

Peter........................................................................................................................................................................................25Trevor.....................................................................................................................................................................................28

Ursula......................................................................................................................................................................................30

The Thief....................................................................................................................................................................................41

Concluding Remarks.................................................................................................................................................................42

Ninety and Nine -a hymn..........................................................................................................................................................47

Bibliography (Giving credit where its due).............................................................................................................................48

3


4/50

Preface:

The following pages contain a somewhat biased dialogue on the nature of judgment and

hell biased because I was unable to be emotionally, intellectually or spiritually unattached to

this topic as I started my research and as I wrote down my discoveries. However, it was the

process of writing the dialogue itself that convinced me even more thoroughly in my

suspicions. Whether or not it is possible to do research without a bias is rarely debated, but I

did want to confess this openly before I received any further critiques on the matter. Where my

sympathies lie will become obvious to anyone who reads the paper. I did try and represent

each position fairly, but to do this exhaustively would have involved many more pages a

whole thesis or book as if I have not already written too many pages for a three credit class!

It is also important for you to know that each of these panelists has an unusual gift of

memoryas well as an acute case of multiple personality disorder. It seems that the stress of

being a composition of other people of similar position has created a fracture in their

personality that manifests itself in that they often somewhat unconsciously begin to quote other

authors. The audience was warned that when this happened, the tone of their voice would

change. However, you the reader, thanks to extensive editorial research, will know that this

change has happened when you see the font italicized and ending with a footnote. Otherwise,

it is, well, their own ideas with great debt to all the authors found in the bibliography.

I hope you enjoy the following dialogue and that you end up challenged and sharpened

even more as to what your position may be whether it be that of Andrew, Peter, Ursula,

Trevor or someone else who was not invited to the Final Forum.

4


5/50

Introduction

Announcer:Good evening everyone, and thank you for joining us for this hellish discussion. . No, seriously we do hope that tonights moderated discussion on the nature of hellends up proving educational and helpful for all you who have come to listen. Before we beginour discussion however, Id like to introduce you to our moderator who will in turn introduceyou to each of the participants in tonights discussion.

Leif Hansen, a soon to be graduate from Regent College, describes himself as aWanna-be Fool and modern day Bard. Leif, Im sure many of us are wondering, how on earthdoes your vocational interest relate to tonights discussion?

ModeratorThats a good question. I think there are three primary reasons. The first reason is that

I tend to be interested in everything, and this topic has all kinds of interdisciplinary implications.Second of all, I strongly believe that this topic is extremely important and that our beliefs aboutit will have a dramatic influence on how we relate to God, others and ourselves not to mentionthe spirit in which we go about our vocation. However, to be honest, the main reason I aminterested in this subject is that it has felt so urgent that I found I couldnt think about or enjoyanything else until I faced some critical fears and questions related to the nature of hell.

AnnouncerWell, now that you know a little bit about our moderator, why dont I step aside and let

you meet the rest of the panelists. Thank you again for coming, and I hope you have aheavenlyevening.

Opening statements

ModeratorThank you Sven. And yes, thank you all for joining us in this discussion. As Sven

mentioned, before we begin, we would like you the audience to hear an introduction from eachof our panelists. So, will each of you, starting from my left, please briefly state your position onthe nature of hell and maybe give us a few names of people who we may have heard of whoalso share your view. So Peter

Peter

Sure Leif. I think I was invited to this discussion basically as the token Agnostic. Its my position, as with too many others to name, that there is really no way toknow about these kinds of ultimate, post-mortem questions. So, I think my role will be tooccasionally challenge the other panelists assumptions and beliefs particularly when they aredogmatic. As a historian, I also hope to offer insights from religious history. While manyChristians choose to be agnostic about the nature of hell for a variety of reasons, I think itsimportant for you all to know that I am also a religious pluralist. This means that while I look tothe Christian faith as my unique lens into ultimate matters, I believe that each of the majorworld religions is as important and valid into revealing truth about God and other spiritualmatters. So, basically, Im here as a representative of the millions of others who find thatthere are just too many questions, too much information (much of which conflicts with othersources), and too little knowledge for us to form any kind of certain beliefs on the nature of hell

5


6/50

or most other spiritual matters. While many of us religious pluralists remain agnostic aboutthese final matters, some of us do hold to a tentative hope that is somewhat similar to Ursulas.The main difference would be that we believe that the reason for hoping that all creatures willeventually be fully reconciled to God is not primarily because of the person and passion ofJesus Christ, but because of the universal power of Absolute Love working through all people,cultures, and the worlds religions. Lets see, in the Christian academic world, John Hick isprobably the most well known advocate of religious pluralism..

ModeratorThanks Peter. Trevor

Trevor

Leif, yes, thanks for inviting me here this evening. Im here basically representing theposition that has rightly been called the traditionalist position (though perhaps not for thegreatest motives) for it has been the tradition of those holding to orthodox beliefs for most ofChristian History. This position upholds the clear biblical teaching that after death, eachperson will be judged according to their faith in Jesus Christ. Those who have had faith andbeen faithful to Him will be welcomed into eternal life in heaven. Those who do not have thisfaith will be rejected by him and cast away into a place of eternal punishment. Within my campthere is a wide range of beliefs as to what standard one will be judged by, how few or many willactually be saved, and also as to the nature of the actual experience of suffering there will bein hell. Those supporting this position are too many to number, from Augustine to the majorityof the reformers, to great thinkers today like J.I. Packer.

ModeratorThank you Trevor. Uh, Andrew, please withhold your questions or comments until we

begin the dialogue, thank you. Now, Ursula.

Ursula

Hello. Well, the position Ill be representing this evening, like all the others really, hasno patented name. However, it is most commonly referred to as Christian universalism oruniversal reconciliation. It is essentially the belief that in the fullness of time, God will reconcileall creatures to Himself He will be all in all to quote the scriptures. Some of us believe thatthis salvation happened immediately and ontologically with the person and passion of JesusChrist, while others believe that it is a long process involving choices of trust and belief that willone day result in the reconciliation of all creatures. The earliest supporters of universalreconciliation were founding fathers like Origen and Clement of Alexandria. Relatively fewheld this position during the power politics of the middle ages. However, over the past fewcenturies this position has been gaining advocates. Some of the most well known recentChristian universalists would be George McDonald, Jacques Ellul, and Madeliene LEngle.There are also a whole host of notable theologians such as Karl Barth, Karl Rahner, HansKung, Hans Urs Von Balthasar, Gabriel Fackre and Robert Jenson who seemed to either implyby the logic and flow of their theology or to explicitly state that universalism is a tenable optionand should be each Christians hope, if not their stated doctrine.1

1 One finds somewhat ambiguous statements in their writing like the following from Karl Rahner. In the doctrineof hell we maintain the possibility of eternal loss for every individual, for each one of us, because otherwise theseriousness of free history would be abolished. But in Christianity this open possibility is not necessarily thedoctrine of two parallel ways which lie before a person who stands at the crossroads. Rather the existence of thepossibility that freedom will end in eternal loss stands alongside the doctrine that the world and the history of the

6


7/50

ModeratorThank you Ursula. And you Andrew?

Andrew

Okay. Well Leif, my position is very similar to that already mentioned by Trevor,including the range of opinions on the requirements for salvation and the number of those whowill actually be saved, but we greatly differ on the nature of hell. Those of us holding theannihilationist or conditionalist position believe that the final punishment for those who refusethe gospel of Jesus is that they simply return to the dust at death without a later resurrection,or that they will be un-made/destroyed. Cast away from the source of existence, they willcease to exist. We believe that this position is not only more morally acceptable andconsistent with the themes of a God who is both just and loving, but that it is the best exegesisof the passages pertaining to hell. The primary differences within our camp is the basis forwhy and how the wicked are destroyed. Conditionalists, critiquing the Greek concept of animmortal soul and believing it unbiblical, hold that on death, all creatures cease to exist.However, those who have faith in Christ are resurrected into eternal life. Alternatively, othersbelieve that some part of a human survives death or is later resurrected and can only beannihilated by God. While there have been many who have held this position throughoutchurch history, the most recent supporters of annihilationism are people like Edward Fudge,Clarke Pinnock and, controversially, John L. Stott.

The ground-rules established

ModeratorThank you Andrew. Well there we have it, a wide range of beliefs pertaining to the

nature and meaning of hell, and that is exactly why we are here this evening. Im sure thatwhen given the opportunity, and you will be, each of you will have strong beliefs as to why yourposition is the most tenable and why it is so important for us all to hear and consider it.However, before we begin let me share the general outline for our evening, and some basicrules to help facilitate a fruitful, respectful, dialogue.

First of all, the outline for this evening. I have a list of three primary questions beforeme that I plan on asking one at a time. We will be starting with the topic of epistemology or,more specifically, what view of the scriptures each of you holds. Next we will examine whateach of you believes to be the nature of justice, punishment and the meaning of the passion ofJesus Christ. Finally, we will be ready to address and examine more specifically each of yourviews on the nature of hell. There will always be time for other panelists to then question yourresponses. Each of you will have a chance to be first to respond to one of the three questionsand then the that same question will rotate clockwise to each panelists. Of course, you arefree to pass when it comes to your turn.

Lastly, because of the seriousness and sensitivity of the subject, I would ask that eachof you show respect to the others at this table, if not to their beliefs, and also refrain from anyinappropriate stereotyping or unfair arguing like setting up straw men arguments. Are weunderstood? Good, lets begin.

world as a whole will in factenter into eternal life with God. Foundations of Christian Faith, 444. While I respectthis humble stance, I cannot but wonder if it is often taken because of a fear that need not be present once oneknows Gods loving character. Futhermore, these theologians seem to have no problem dogmatically statingother truths about theology, so why not this one as well?

7


8/50

The Role of Scripture

I thought it would be appropriate to open by asking each of you to share your views onthe nature of scripture and interpretation. While this is a huge topic and could dominate ourwhole evening, I wonder if each of you could share with us what factor the Christian Scripturesplay into your forming beliefs about the nature of hell. Peter, since we started with you for ourinitial question, why dont we start this question with Trevor.

Trevor

Sure thing Leif. This is one of my favorite topics, I love the bible. I would have to startby saying that the bible plays a majorpart in my deciding what to believe about hell. I mean,what other sources do we really have to tell us about the afterlife? Any of you out there beenthere yet? Thought so. I mean, there are the occasional near-death experiences, but theyrehard to put too much weight into and besides, many of them merely confirm what the biblealready says. The Church has always believed that the bible is the final authority in decidingmatters of faith. Thats what the reformation was all about, putting the bible back in its rightfulplace of authority and then, greatly helped by the printing-press, making that source of wisdomaccessible to everybody. I think that there are other ways that God speaks to us of course,

that is, natural revelation like through our experience and reason and such, but these meansare too subjective for a weak and sinful people like us. Thats why God brought us specialrevelation like Jesus, and like the bible. The special revelation given in the bible standsauthoritatively above the other modes of natural revelation. Also, there is some kind ofmysterious connection between Jesus, who John calls the Word of God, and the bible whichhas traditionally also been called the Word of God. So when I am wanting to know the truth onsome matter of faith, I turn to study the scriptures. Its through these writings of people whoknew Yahweh and who walked with Jesus that I have come to learn about the nature of hell.Now not everyone who shares my belief about hell also shares my belief about scripture, but Ithink that most of us at least consider that the original manuscripts were inerrant.

Peter Thats all well and good Trevor, but what do you make of the fact that so many peoplehave studied these scriptures and come to different conclusions?

TrevorThats a good question Peter, but one that is easy to answer. The bible is a collection of

many different kinds of writings by many different authors, writing out of many different timesand cultures. Add to that fact the diversity in age, background, education, and culture of itsreaders and youre gonna have lots of different readings. Not only that, I think that many of thescriptures are so packed with meaning that it cannot be fully expressed by one person oranother. So youre probably thinking, how can anyone figure out its meaning then? Well,while Im not sure if we can be scientifically certain what the author meant, I think that with thetools and methods and knowledge we have access to today, we can be confident of ouranswers. I do think therefore that each passage of scripture has one interpretation, thoughpossibly many applications, and that we can know what that interpretation is. Besides, themajor themes in the bible are clear enough that you can be sure what it is saying.

PeterAnd yet, wouldnt you agree that there are thousands of scholars with access to these

tools and methods and knowledge who still end up coming to different conclusions? I mean,

8


9/50

isnt there something like 7500 different bible-believing denominations today all with their ownunique and differing beliefs and creeds based on these scriptures?

TrevorWell perhaps, but I think that their core beliefs tend to be the same. And besides, one

also needs to be reading with the Holy Spirit. If not, it doesnt matter how much intellectualclout you carry, you just wont get it. As the scriptures themselves say,

The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for theyare foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any mans

judgment.2

PeterDoesnt that bring you back to your original critique of people relying to much on

subjective judgements? Ive heard this cyclical argument before.

Trevor

Cyclical or not, its the truth.

ModeratorOkay, moving on now. Ursula?

Ursula

First of all, lets remember that the position we each represent does not necessarily holdto the same view of scripture. To be honest, this is a topic that I am far from sure about. I doconsider our Scriptures to be inspired and authoritative, yet I also recognize that their authors,like us, were finite and imperfect. My understanding and experience of how God works withhumanity cancels out the idea that the Spirit would totally control their hearts, minds and hands

to insure no errors happened. I guess I would say that rather than viewing the scriptures asinfallible or totally authoritative in a categorical sense, I see authority being on a continuum,with God only as ultimately authoritative. Far too often I have seen a high biblical view turninto a type of idolatry biblicism I call it. I think that Jesus was critical of this type of attitude inhis time when he said to the Pharisees You diligently study the Scriptures because you thinkthat by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet yourefuse to come to me to have life.3 Christians like Trevor have traditionally taken the view thatat the table of authorities (sitting with things like experience, tradition, reason, nature, thescientific method, etc.) scripture stands above to ultimately judge all the rest. I can appreciatethis stance in that it appeals to our desire to have something infallible and certain, and perhapsGod knowing we need this security has somehow provided it, but this stance too often ignores

the fact that we always already bringour experience, reason, method, etc. into how weinterpret the scriptures. I dont think that the various modes of revelation can be separated,nor that in reality they ever have been.

Therefore, I would argue for an approach to scripture that gives it a very high place ofauthority, perhaps even the highest of the modes (seeing as the writings came from a peoplewho were intimately related in time and space to the Israel/Jesus story), yet not to be obeyedin a manner that ignores or silences the other modes of Gods revelation. Perhaps an

2 1 Corinthians 2:14-153 John 5:39-40

9


10/50

appropriate metaphor would be thinking of scripture as the eldest brother in a family of truth-tellers He is older and (ideally) wiser than the rest, yet human and thus able to makemistakes. I think that all of us here would agree that there are at least factual differences,inconsistencies, and even general mistakes in the bible (whether by the author or later editors),so why not theological mistakes as well? I understand the fears that are involved in admittingthis; basically that discerning truth would become far too subjective, yet I think that thissubjective discernment is unavoidable (as we heard earlier with Trevor and Peter) and I thinkthat a humble and vulnerable trust in God will better serve us than any other imaginedcertainty. While I am unsure of my position, it is my current belief and hope that by faithfullylistening to the Spirit through all these sources, we can have a plausible trust in how He willdeal with each of us beyond death.

ModeratorThank you Ursula. We should probably move on, Peter?

Peter

Well, I dont know how I can do after that! Um, actually my answer would be fairlysimilar to that just given by Ursula. I would say that my primary difference, as might beguessed, is that I would not hold the Christian scriptures in that higher continuum of authorityexclusively, but all the other religious scriptures as well. I would change the metaphor shegave and say that God is the only Parent, while the various religious scriptures are more likethe elder siblings at the table. However, many of them are from different countries and writtenin different languages, so the issue is very very complex. To be honest, I find myself oftenoverwhelmed by the ambiguities, complexities and mysterious within the Bible. I would simplyend by saying that I believe the Christian scriptures are a group of writings of very humanpeople who struggled and gradually developed, though at times regressed, in theirunderstanding of God and other ultimate things. So, while I am open to various doctrines ofinspiration, I mostly lean on the idea that these authors were humans all writings with varyingdegrees of inspiration. To me they are a great source of truth, and, since I am from a culture

immersed in them, they do play a unique and primary role but they are only one of manysources in our forming beliefs about the afterlife. The bible just has too many conflicting viewsabout the afterlife to say one can use it alone to decide. If there is an ultimate truth out there, itseems that some of the biblical writings must come closer to it than others. They can't all beright. Or perhaps they are all just offering differing glimpses of a much bigger truth. Anyways,If there is total consistency to what the biblical writers are saying about hell, I have yet to beconvinced.

AndrewPeter, while I can sympathize with your point of view and Ursulas as well, I must say

that it seems to me that it leaves you with some serious problems. The two primary ones that

come to mind are, first of all, how do you deal with the fact that the authors of the Bible,including Jesus himself, seemed to have a very high view of scripture. Second of all, how doyou deal with the fact that with your view it seems like the individual is the one left decidingwhat is ultimately true?

UrsulaCan I answer that first one Peter? Thanks. The words that are used in scripture about

scripture are simply words like God-breathed, useful for teaching, etc. None of the authorsuse words that are often used today like inerrant or infallible. I mean, if you think about it,

10


11/50

Adam was God-breathed and so were you and I. We have the Spirit of God living in us, andwe often refer to people or their works as inspired, but do we ever mean that they or theirworks are guaranteed to be without error or mistake, totally authoritative? I dont think so. Abrief look at the Jewish commentators shows how much more flexible, playful, even arguablethey were with the texts. They let scripture breathe. I like what George Macdonald says abouta particular story in scripture,

This story may not be just as the Lord told it, and yet may contain in its mirror as much of thetruth as we are able to receive, and as will afford us scope for a lifes discovery. The modifyinginfluence of the human channels may be essential to Gods revealing mode.4

The scriptures carry the Word of God, but we need His Spirit and all other resources as well todiscern the truth, for the authors in their writing or we in our interpretation or in our applicationmay fall short of Gods living Word.

As for your second question Andrew, how we know the truth remains a question oftrusting that God will reveal the truth, rather than pretending to have certainty from a collectionof certain bible verses. Such certainty must be found in the God to whom Scripture points, orit will not be found at all. Scripture is surely our most useful instrument in attaining such

certainty, but to confuse the form of the witness that Scripture brings with the true source ofcertainty God alonecan result only in uncertainty and the despairing attempts to combat itwhich characterize much conservative apologetics about the nature of that scriptural witness.5

I have a feeling were going to see as this discussion develops, that the bible has more thanone opinion about a number of theological topics.

PeterAnd lets not forget the history of how the books of the bible were chosen. It is not a

clean and simple story all the way up to the reformation when a few books were still beingdisputed. Lets also not forget that each of the major traditions of the Christian church havediffering canons of scripture. I think this says something as well.

ModeratorThank you. Andrew?...

Andrew

I think that my beliefs about scripture are most closely aligned to Trevors earlierstatement. And particularly, I think that on the topic of the nature of hell, the bible is clearenough. However, I wouldlike to add that I agree with you others that scriptural hermeneuticsis a complex topic, and that perhaps the bible intentionally doesnt offer us the type of certaintywe often look to it for. There is a place and a purpose for mystery of course.

PeterIt seems so.

ModeratorThank you all for your interesting comments. Hopefully our audience will now

understand and keep in mind this key factor of how each of you comes to your conclusions,though as mentioned by Ursula, there are many who come to your same conclusions but by a

4 George Macdonald, in George Macdonald, An Anthology, edited by CS Lewis, 112, #255 Paul J. Achtemeier, Inspiration and Authority, 140-141

11


12/50

differing epistemological approach. While there is much more you would probably each like tosay, we should probably move on more directly to our specific topic.

Justice, punishment and the nature of Christs passion

We now move on to the topics of justice, punishment and the nature of Christs passion.Because these topics are so intrinsically connected to the nature of hell, Im sure it will begin tosurface as well. Any remaining comments or questions about the nature of hell will beaddressed afterwards. Ursula, looks like youre first on this question.

Ursula

Im afraid youre all going to be hearing the statement Im not sure from me quite a bit.Not that there arent universalists who are more certain on these matters, but just that I am stillsomewhat boggled by it all.

Well, foundational to my answering this question is the belief that the core virtue ofGods character is love. I realize that this is not the only aspect of Gods character, but thepriority and emphasis that the scriptures give Love6 and the revelation given by John that Godis Love, leads me to believe that Love is the crown of Gods attributes. However, even if it isnot considered the crown or essence of His attributes, it is still something that cannot beseparated (though many have tried) from His other attributes. Thus Gods love is holy and hisholiness is loving; Gods love is just and his justice is loving. God is a consuming fire, but itburns with love and for a loving purpose. It might be important to point out at this point thateven hatred can be loving when it is directed against evil. Furthermore, the kind of love thatJesus commanded (and would therefore obviously uphold himself) went so far as to includeloving ones enemies. There is no excuse ever given for love to be absent towards another.

From this point perhaps it becomes clearer how Gods punishment is likewise alwaysout of love, it has a loving purpose restoration. I think a more familiar word to us thatdescribes this type of punishment is discipline. The author of Hebrews writes,

My son, do not make light of the Lords discipline,

and do not lose heart when he rebukes you,because the Lord disciplines those he loves,

and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son.7

As for justice, have you ever wondered what justice actually is? I mean, just when isjustice just? Does each sin have a specific value of punishment assigned to it that must becarried out to balance the scales? And how is that value measured in light of the offendersfamily upbringing, cultural background, varying and mixed motives, past wounds, moralignorance, mental and physical immaturity, etc? Because of this, we certainly cant be quick to

judge. But the bigger point Im making is that I dont think each sin does have a correspondingpayment that can balance it out, nor that God (or for that matter, any human) is really that

interested with that type of justice. I think that Gods justice is interested in restoration andreconciliation, and so should we be.

Any loving person, particularly if they are a perfectly loving being like God, responds tosin with the desire to bring the one who committed the evil to repentance, to purify that person,and to restore any relationships that are damaged. This is also the purpose of true justice.

6 Consider Jesus answer that the greatest command is to Love God & neighbor. Consider Pauls speech on the supremacy ofLove in 1 Corinthians. And Consider Johns definitive statement that God is love.

7 Hebrews 12:5-6

12


13/50

Punishment and mercy are simply two experiences of the same attribute of justice. Tothose who are humble and repentant, they will experience Gods loving justice as mercy. Tothose who are proud and resistant they will experience Gods loving justice as wrath. Whenrepentance happens, evil is only then truly wiped out. Both wrath and mercy are expressionsof Gods justice, which always arises out of the loving desire to bring restoration.

We could even go so far as to say that mercy is just. Jesus commanded us to forgive.This commands springs from the same moral and just law of love. When one forgives, one isacting morally and justly. If a child, say after stealing a jacket and getting caught, were toremain unrepentant and her father did not discipline her, would we not think this was unjust ofhim? Likewise, if a child were to go to her father and sincerely ask for forgiveness and hewere to refuse to be reconciled to her, would we not think that the father was acting unjustly aswell?8 With this understanding of the loving purpose of punishment and justice in mind, wecan now better approach the question of the nature of the passion of Jesus in the right Spirit.

Traditionally, the twisted gospel(is that)God in his wrath and his anger is essentiallysomeone to fear, not because he means to perfect us, but because he may reject us andtorment us forever and ever and ever. Because Jesus Christ provides a means of escape, weexperience a sense of relief, perhaps, but not a heartfelt love for the one we have learned tofear.9

It is almost as if Christ died not to effect a cure in us, but to put an end to a bad caseof schizophrenia in the Father. That may be a bit of a caricature, but it illustrates the pointthat, according toa host oftheologians, Christ died in order that God might be merciful tosinners without doing violence to his own sense of justice.10

As George Macdonald was so fond of pointing out, not one word in the New Testamentimplies that vindictiveness and wrath are ultimate facts about God, or that Christs sacrificewas required in order to appease a vindictive God. A more accurate understanding would bethat Christs death was Gods sacrifice to us, the means whereby God changes our attitudesand reconciles us to himself (see, for example, II Corinthians 5:17-19)11; it is not a meanswhereby Gods attitude towards us is changed. Gods attitude remains the same yesterday,today, and forever. For God is love; that is the rock-bottom fact about God. But the history of

organized religion, at least in the Western tradition, is a record of our human resistance to theproclamation that God is love, that his love extends to everyone, and that it is in no wayconditioned upon human obedience or faithfulness.12

Yet howexactly the passion of Christ worked this reconciliation, the metaphysics of thecross you might say, is still somewhat of a mystery to me. I think it has something to do withthe nature of self-sacrificing love, the kind of love that God has always had but that was mostclear and perfected in Jesus Christ. Consider for example: When God created the universe--He gave up being all that IS, by creating other beings; when God persevered in His love for apeople who doubted, denied, and disobeyed Him --He suffered from our sins; when God seesthe hurt of His children --He suffers with them; when God became a human --He allowed us todoubt, mock, spit on, deny and kill Jesus (crying "Forgive them Father for they know not what

8Example inspired by Thomas Talbott, The inescapable love of God, 162

9Thomas Talbott, The inescapable love of God, 37

10 Talbott, 145

11 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 18 All this is from God, whoreconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world tohimself in Christ, not counting mens sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation

12 Talbott, 37

13


14/50

they do) and he suffered a horrid crucifixion; and finally, when, according to the scriptures,Jesus went to the depths of hell to show the extent of His reach, his love, his good news --Hesuffered an unimaginable separation from Life. Furthermore (though this could be heard in awrong manner) Thomas Talbott points out that even in everyday life, when we see and hear ofinnocents suffering (particularly when it is willingly,) we are more moved to love and restorationmore than anything else. This seems to harmonize with the scriptures that say that we sharein Christs suffering, or even that we finish up what was lacking in his sufferings.13 So howmuch more so does reconciliation happen when the most Innocent being lovingly and willinglyendures the most cruel suffering?

So in summary, Universalists understand Gods punishments, justice, and self-sacrificialact of mercy in Christs passion as all flowing from the same heart of Love, and for the samepurpose restoration and reconciliation of all His creatures.

ModeratorThank you Ursula. Are there any questions or responses?

TrevorYeah I do. I think I hear what your saying Ursula, but I have a couple of serious

problems with it. First of all, is this idea that the attribute of Gods love stands above the otherattributes. We are told in the bible not only that God Is love, but also that God is holy. Itseems that you are trying to put one above the other.

UrsulaAs I said before Trevor, the point is not even so much which one stands above the

other. The point is that they cannot be separated they are inextricably woven into Godsrevealed character. Therefore his holiness will always be loving, and visa-versa.14 Even if itwere possible to separate holiness from love (as humans seem to pretend they can), we cansee from Jesus attitude towards the Pharisees holiness and Pauls emphasis that without lovewe have nothing15. In other words, you cant have one without the other. Once we know that

Love is part of Gods core being, it cannot be separated from who He is or what He does.Furthermore, I think that if one recognizes that Jesus summed up the law as Love of God andneighbor, that Paul says the greatest gift and virtue is love, and that John says that God islove, its hard to deny its centrality to God's character. But again, the point is not as much itscentrality, as its inseparability.

13 Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christs afflictions, for the

sake of his body, which is the church. Col. 1:24

14"The idea that love pulls God in one direction while holiness pulls Him in another is untrue. If it were true, we ourselves

would be in a dilemma because we are told to love as God loves and also to be holy as God is holy. Is there a point at whichlove (true, agape love) becomes unholy?? Is there a point at which holiness (true holiness) becomes unloving?? What can it

mean that God is love, that God loves, but that in some way or in some circumstances or at some point this love has to giveway to holiness? Is His love some kind of regrettable weakness? Is there something fundamentally unholy about the way thatHe loves us? Is holiness different from and opposed to love? (true agape love?) I take it that love means to will all that is goodand holy for another person, and to be willing to back up that will with whatever action is necessary to bring that good about.And I take it that holiness is the same thing. Perhaps you will say, but Justice is the problem. God is bound by Justice to hateand punish sin. How about this concept: 12:21 Justice requires that God put an end to sin and restore all to a state ofpeace/holiness/love. Punishment is a part of justice only for the purpose of bringing a sinner to the realization of his evil state.Once the sinner truly realizes the evil of evil, he can no longer love it, and so repents, and so turns to righteousness. That is all

justice has ever required: That the evil be acknowledged, and that the evil end. So love, and holiness, and justice all agree:evil must be overcome with good. Romans" -Evelyn Uyemera, a short version from her internet message board athttp://www.InsidetheWeb.com/mbs.cgi/mb1111982.

15 1 Corinthians 13:1-3

14
http://www.insidetheweb.com/mbs.cgi/mb1111982http://www.insidetheweb.com/mbs.cgi/mb1111982


15/50

TrevorWell, Ill have to think about that. But my main question is this: What about the clear

scriptural theme of Jesus being a sacrifice for our sins16, rescuing us from Gods wrath17, dyingon our behalf, etc? You seem to avoid these scriptures.

UrsulaWell, I certainly didnt mean to avoid these scriptures Trevor, though you are right that I

put my emphasis elsewhere. This is partly due to the complexity and confusion over many ofthe terms in these passages, and partly due to my own confusion! First of all, I want to remindpeople that my explanation of what happened in Christs passion and how it saved humankindis not the only Universalist explanation. Some Universalists have an understanding that is verycompatible with what I presume to be the traditionalist penal substitution perspective --that is,that the sacrifice of Christ literally paid an eternal debt for all humanity. They simply take thishypothesis to its natural conclusion if there is nothing that humans can do to pay God backthe debt owed from their sins, and if even faith is a gift from him, then his sacrificial paymentmust have be enough for all humanity. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be madealive.18 It seems very logical from this point of view that as each person inherited the sinfulnature and consequence of death from Adam without even choosing it, so also each person

inherits the grace and new life of Christ, without even choosing it.

TrevorThats an interesting position, but you still seem to be avoiding my question. How do

you, with what seems to be a moral-influence theory of the atonement, how do you view thesepassages about sacrifice and atonement?

UrsulaFirst of all, I dont know if my view is the same as the moral-influence view. Secondly, I

think I would need to know what specific passage of scripture you are referring to.

TrevorOkay. There is quite a few, but how about this one from Romans,

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his gracethrough the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice ofatonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in hisforbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished he did it to demonstratehis justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith inJesus.19

UrsulaLike I said before, this gets into some serious complexities, for it involves trying to

decipher the much debated understanding of the OT rituals of sacrifice. But Ill give it a try.First of all, when we hear the word justified we need to hear it for what it means:proved/shown right and not hear all the traditional, theological associations that are attached

16 Hebrews 10:8-13

171 Thessalonians 1:7

181 Corinthians 15:22

19 Romans 3:23-26

15


16/50

to it. So, what does this passage really say? First of all it says that each of us falls short ofGods glory/rightness but that we are given that glory/rightness FREELY by Gods grace. Sothis justifying costs us nothing. But how did this happen? It next says that it happenedthrough the liberation (from our sins) that came through Jesus Christ. But howdid Jesus dothis? Here is the key part: God presented/purposed him as a what? A sacrifice ofatonement. Yet, what does this word, also translated propitiation, mean? The Greek word ishilasterion and it means "mercy-seat." The related term in 1 John 2:2 and 4:10 is hilasmos, theterm used to describe the sin-offering of the old covenant. Whether these terms imply

propitiation depends upon how one believes the mercy-seat and sin-offering functioned. 20

Without going into further detail we can ask the following questions:Was what was offered and pleasing/satisfying to God, our sins? I dont think any of us

would say that. Was it a satisfaction that came from punishing his son, pouring out His wrathand seeing him die? This, unless I am mistaken, seems to be what the retributionist theory issaying. How about this idea; what if what was pleasing to God was the perfect life of love thatwas lived even to the point of being killed for it and for furthermore even loving those enemieswho did the killing? What if this love offering is what was offered to God, pleasing to God andsatisfied Him? If so, then faith in this blood the lifeblood that lives and loves even throughdeath, means that we are saved by the truly royal blood that flows from the self-sacrificing love

of God. This blood and body of Christ, this self-sacrificial love of God, this bread and wine ofcommunion, is the salvation and sustenance of all creatures. As C.S. Lewis and others havesuggested, the light of this revelation is hinted at and confirmed elsewhere as well; myths ofgods who die and rise; the seasons of the year; the seed planted in the ground. But now thecycle is fulfilled and broken, for Myth became Fact. The true God entered human history andwas killed by his creatures yet He rose. The humble seed was planted, sprouted, and hasbeen revealed as the Tree of Life. Fall is over, Spring has come, winter is melting, and aneternal summer is coming soon. One for all and once for ever.

ModeratorIm sure this topic will come up again later, but I think we need to move on to Andrew

for now. Okay? Thanks. Andrew

20the quote continues, attempting to explain this complex topic and critique the shortcomings of the penal substitution model:

..Were the old covenant's animal sacrifices substitutionary in nature, the animals "taking the place" of sinners, dying "insteadof" them to placate an angry deity? Is this very far removed from the legendary volcano gods who need to be placated by thedeath of virgins? Despite popular caricatures, the law of Moses never explicitly describes the old covenant sacrifices as"substitutes." For that matter, the slaying of the animals is never emphasized at all. What is emphasized is the ceremonial useof the blood in the cultic ritual. The killing of the victim was simply the necessary means of obtaining sacrificial blood. Similarly,in the New Testament, Jesus' death is not substitutionarybut sacrificial.Hence the emphasis on Christ's blood, even though

Jesus' death was not particularly bloody.In fact, Jesus' death is frequently portrayed as a sin-offering. Hence Jesus' death is expiatoryin nature. That is to

say, Jesus' sacrificial death expiates or removes our sin. This it does by fulfilling the old covenant sacrificial system, paving thewayfor God's forgiveness. Note this point. God's forgiveness is not literally "purchased"; that would be no forgiveness at all.We are frequently told that sacrifice does not automatically secure God's favor (cf. Mic. 6:6-8). Rather, it fulfills a covenantobligation which is a precondition for God's forgiveness. Once the sacrifice is made, the sinner may seek forgiveness, and ifhe or she is sincere, God will freely forgiveThere is another dimension to the Atonement that is neglected in the PenalSubstitution theory. That is the element of participation:We participatein the sacrifice of Jesus' death (cf. Heb. 13:11-16).Substitution implies an "either/or"; participation implies a "both/and." Substitution would have me say, "Jesus died, therefore Idon't have to"; participation would have me say, "Jesus died, therefore I must also." Which is more Scriptural? ConsiderRomans 6:1-14.-Taken from the internet, http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/atonement.html

16


17/50

Andrew

Yes, well, I think that in some ways these conflicts weve already encountered make theannihilationist position the most clearly viable option. On one hand, how is justice servedwhen a finite human who commits a finite number of sins is given an infinite punishment? Onthe other hand, how is justice served if sinners seem to get off scot free? Neither this lack ofpunishment nor a ridiculously excessive punishment serves the cause of justice. And as for

the meaning of the passion of Christ, we believe that Christ paid the penalty of sin death.Again, we dont deny that there is a penalty of death, nor do we believe that Christ suffers inhell for eternity. If suffering in hell for eternity is the penalty for sin than Christ would also needto endure such eternal suffering.

PeterHmmm, that last point gave me an interesting idea. It might just add some weight to the

argument of these universalists Christ being in hell for eternity that is. Sounds like that versein Psalm 139 Even if I go to the depths, you are there

AndrewWhatever Peterbut thats not my point, and besides, that scripture is talking about

Gods Omnipresence, not God suffering eternally for finite human sin in hell.

TrevorYet you forget the fact that the sin of these finite humans is against an infinite God.

AndrewThat may be the case, but this idea that the punishments for evil vary depending on who

the offense is against came from Anselm in the midst of an eleventh century feudalisticsocietys legal framework. For example, a serf who insulted a fellow serf might gounpunished. Upon insulting a lord, a serf might be jailed. Any serf who insulted the kingwould likely be beheaded. Taking his cue from such justice, Anselm reasons that God isworthy of infinite honor and that sin against God therefore deserves infinite punishmentNotonly do all civilized nations today reject such feudalistic concepts of justice, Anselms modelactually contradicts a fundamental principle of jurisprudence presented by God in the law ofMoses. God demanded that the Jews provide the same justice for every person, regardless ofthe persons rank or standing in society.21In other words, God is first of all, as seen in Christ,not as uptight about His position as most of us. Second of all, He is not a hypocrite butrather perfectly lives up to the same morality as He teaches His people. Lastly, the logic justdoesnt make sense except in the minds of the feudalistic society. Can we honestly imagineGod saying Lie to a sinner and I might forgive you. Lie to a saint and youre in mortal danger.Lie to Jesus and Ill send you to hell for eternity. It doesnt fit the picture.

TrevorDoesnt it? What about the story Jesus told of the workers who killed the servants and

then the son? Didnt the penalty increase? Or what about the warnings about those whoneglect the helpless or those who persecute Gods saints? Or what about the extreme threatabout blaspheming the Holy Spirit? Doesnt this support a punishment that varies dependingon the victim?

Andrew

21 Fudge and Peterson, Two Views of Hell, 192

17


18/50

It might, but I dont think so. Actually, I think the point youve just shown is that there isnot so much a correlation between stature and punishment, but rather perhaps a correlationbetween injury to the poor and incurring Gods punishment. Secondly, even when the son waskilled in the parable, which according to scripture we are really allguilty of, the punishment wasdeath, not eternal torture. Lastly, the warning against blaspheming the Holy Spirit is merelysaying that one cannot receive forgiveness if one rejects the Spirit that brings forgiveness.And furthermore, nothing is mentioned of eternal suffering with this warning.

UrsulaAndrew, if justice is about getting ones fair punishments, I also dont get the logic of

your argument. I have three problems with it. First of all, are you not defining death a littlenarrowly? Didnt Adam and Eve sin and as a result, instead of being instantly annihilated,experience the various pains of being more removed from a direct Edenic relationship withGod? Second of all, why is total annihilation of a being a fair or logical punishment for theirsins? Third, and most importantly, if forgiveness is free, why would God be able to forgive thedebts of some people but not everyone? Or another way of saying it is, Ifanyare forgiventheir debts, in your system, is justice then not being served to them? Would that not beunjust, according to your system? It seems to me that, like our previous case of love and

holiness being separated, you have separated mercy and justice.

AndrewOkay, let me take those one at a time. I would agree that deaths pains started as

humanity was more removed from Gods presence, but the final result of sin is eventually atotalremoval from Gods presence. Since God is the source of all being, total removal canonly mean non-existence. This is the case whether one believes in an soul that survives bodilydeath and is punished by annihilation or whether one believes that the last part of us dieswhen our body returns to the dust. So, this just reinforces my position. Second of all, the bibletells us that death is the penalty, so who am I to argue? How can we know the fair and truecost of sin? It costs Christs life. Thankfully he was stronger than death and those with faith in

Him will also be raised, those without faith in Christ will not be. Ill get more into this later.Lastly, hmmm, justice is still served because Christs death paid the price. His death was aunity of justice and mercy like nothing else in history.

UrsulaAnd yet it was only payment enough for some?

AndrewNo, it was payment enough for all. But some dont believe and receive that gift.

Ursula

I hear the argument, but it still leaves a few problems. The first is that it seems to robthe idea of Gods mercy being pure and free. Instead, we have a divine accounting systemthat needs to be balanced by the payment of Christs death (and the sense of this accountingsystem is still uncertain). Secondly, it sets a very short time limit of this life for one tovicariously (through faith, I assume) offer this payment to God (not now mentioning the multiplecomplexities involved in most of humanitys inability to know about and thus believe thegospel). The third is that it seems to imply that salvation comes from our decision to believe,this turns Gods grace into the medium and our faith into the saving agent -the opposite of

18


19/50

Ephesians 2:8-9.22 Either that or God only gives the gift of faith to some and then capriciouslydamns others. Lastly,

ModeratorUrsula, I think we should probably move on so that Peter and Trevor can answer the

question. Im sure your points will come up in our next round of questions. Peter?

Peter

The only thing Id like to throw out on this topic is the fact that the questions of justice,punishment and the meaning of Christs passion have evolved and been debated over manycenturies and in many cultures. Hebrews and Christians werent the only ones wondering how

justice would work out in the end. We have access to many documents showing that thesurrounding people groups, like the Babylonians and Egyptians or later the Greeks andRomans each struggled to answer these same questions. For example, the moral afterlife inPlato, Virgil, and Plutarch is dynamic. It judges, divides, processes, rewards, and punishes.To perform these functions it needs its categories: only the good can be rewarded; only thewicked punished. If purification is a possibility, procedures are needed that cannot be appliedat random. Method, analysis, intelligence indeed, what Plutarch himself considered divineguidance or providence are at the core of this conception. Conception, however, is not theright word, because this afterlife works. It operates, it is a system.23

Each culture had its own systems embedded in myths, visions, epics and systematicphilosophies that tried in various ways to wrestle with the apparent injustices of life. History,including biblical history, shows a gradual development of views, while not necessarilydropping older ones. In a simplified way, there are basic historical streams of dealing withdeath and how justice is worked out, though they often overlap.

The tendency to regard death as neutral reflected an effort to confine the dead instorehouses or at the limits of the world, where they could not disturb humankind. Distancingthem from the human community was more important than judging them. By contrast, themoral view, which seems to have followed but not replaced the neutral view of death,

accentuated the effects that knowledge about the dead were considered to have on the moraleand behavior of the living. This approach elicited attempts to categorize the dead andcorrelate certain fates after death with behavior in life.24

The bible, from my reading, also deeply wrestles with these questions. Job is one of theclearest examples among the biblical characters who wrestled with the apparent injustices oflife, and he didnt see how justice could be resolved by everyone returning to the dust, or goingto Sheol. Or consider the author of Ecclesiastes with his famous Meaningless, meaningless.Everything is meaningless. One of his main themes is the apparent problem of unresolvedinjustice. The new testament is replete with varying teachings, parables, visions andprophecies about how these issues would work out. Furthermore, the various and complexviews of the Christian churchs founding fathers give evidence to a people who were all

struggling with the far from simple questions of justice, punishment and the meaning of thepassion. For example, In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theologicalschools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) wereUniversalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught

22 For it is by grace that you have been saved, through faith, and this not from yourselves, but it is a gift of God,not by works, so that no one can boast.

23 Alan Bernstein, The Formation of Hell, 83

24 Bernstein, 107

19


20/50

endless punishment of the wicked.25 Even St. Basil the Great wrote during the 4 th century thatThe mass of men (Christians) say that there is to be an end of punishment to those who arepunished.26 I mention these things so that Christians dont become too exclusive or dogmaticin their assertions about these matters, assuming that the traditional perspective is all that hasever been believed. Many have wrestled before us and come to a similar variety ofconclusions.

AndrewI dont really see what this has to do with the question of truth. Many people have tried

to figure out various mathematical problems, but come out with different answers. Yet onlyone of those answers is right. You can only do so much with general revelation, thats whywhat we need, and what the bible gives us, is special revelation.

PeterI think weve tried to talk about this before Andrew and my answer is still the same.

While you may like to think that truth is that simple, that black and white, the evidence does notsupport the claim. However, I will try and make my point more clear. The non-Jewish andnon-Christian cultures I just mentioned all influenced, and were influenced by, the cultures that

wrote the writings of the Old and New Testaments. This point is agreed to by conservative andliberal scholars across the spectrum. If understood, this fact can help us to not draw such astark and distinctive line between the biblical and extra-biblical worlds, and thus it lessens thestrength of exclusivist claims. Also, the writings of the testaments (as this discussion and thewhole of church history testifies) have a complex variety of beliefs in themselves thatsometimes develop or reform, sometimes add different interpretations to, and, I believe,sometimes even contradict each other. Thats why I think that my historical comments matter.

ModeratorThank you Peter, Trevor, youre the last to go for this question, but not least of course..

TrevorHehe. Well, I hope not although I guess the last will be first right? Well, anyway. I

think my position is probably the most familiar to everybody here and, by way of beingchallenged, has come up a few times already, so Ill be short. My belief about justice first. OurGod has the total right to be, do, or say whatever He wants to be, do, or say. It is never ourright to challenge him as the ends of the books of Ecclesiastes and Job make clear. Even hisname declares this fact I AM WHO I AM or I WILL BE WHO I WILL BE. So it is not reallyour right to even question His justice or to think we can decide what is fair. In short, Goddefines what is just and what is not just. However, as the book of Job and numerous Psalmsalso make clear, there seems to be freedom for us to ask questions and struggle before God.But the beginningof wisdom is the fear of the Lord.

So, with that said, I will basically restate what has been indirectly brought up already. Iunderstand Gods justice to be the ability of God to right the wrongs of humankind, to vindicatehis Holy Name. How does He right these wrongs? By not allowing the sins of mankind to gounpunished. However, I think your question is particularly directed to whyGod punishes, so Iwill expand on the nature of this punishment at a later time. Why does God punish us? I think

25Schaff-Herzog, Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge: Vol 12, 96

26 St. Basil the Great, De Ascetics. Quoted in Gary Amirault, What the early Christians Believed,http:// www.tentmaker.org/books/EarlyChristianView.html

20


21/50

God punishes us for a number of reasons. He punishes us so that we will not continue to sin(deterrence), so that we will turn and do good (reform), and because sin is deserving ofpunishment (retribution). However, it is our core Sin of pride, not so much our specific acts ofevil, that has resulted in deserving Gods punishment. This act of pride is most clearly seen inthe passion of Christ. It is seen in how we crucified His Son and how, despite His offer offorgiveness, we continue to pridefully reject Him. The meaning of the cross is that Gods wrathfell upon His Son, instead of upon all humanity. The bible is clear that this punishment insome fashion satisfied Gods righteous laws, thus restoring justice. Those who trust in thisgood news will experience the wrath of God turned aside on their behalf. Those who do nottrust in Jesus and his good news, will not. The wrath of God remains on them.

PeterTrevor, perhaps you could explain to those of us who never quite understood it, why

exactly does Jesus being killed satisfy Gods justice and turn away his wrath?

TrevorWell, if it not already clear, I will be glad to go into more detail. Scripture presents

Christ in his death as making a substitutionary atonement for his people (Rom 3:25-26; Gal

3:13; Col. 2:13-14). This means he died in their place and bore the punishment that theydeserved When Jesus endured the wrath due sinful humanity, it was as the incarnate God-man; when by virtue of his human nature he suffered separation from his Fathers love, it wasas the eternal son of God who had become human; when he bore the penalty of our sins, itwas as the sinless substitute, whose own life merited the exact opposite to Gods wrath. Inlight of such considerations it is not surprising that Jesus could have borne on the cross whatsinful, rebellious human beings can only bear in hell forever. In other words, because of theinfinite dignity of Christs person, his sufferings, though finite in duration, were of infinite weighton the scales of divine justice (much as his righteousness, though displayed during hisincarnation over a finite period, is of infinite weight). As God incarnate, Jesus was capable ofsuffering in six hours on the cross what we can suffer only over an infinite period of time. 27

PeterSo, if I hear you correctly, youre saying that human sin and thus each human sinner

deserves an infinite punishment that God must deal with in his wrath, and that somehow Jesusendured this punishment as a substitute for those who trust him?

TrevorMore or less, yes.

PeterDo you have any explanation as to how Jesus transferred this punishment to himself?

Or how about why this transfer, which seems unjust, would satisfy justice? Does not thenature of the justice you described work out so that the person who did the wrongdeserves thepunishment? So again, why would Gods punishing someone innocent satisfy justice?Indeed, why would it satisfy a loving God to punish someone innocent at all? Thirdly, wasJesus punished by Gods wrath or by humans killing him? Lastly, as Ursula asked Andrewabout annihilation, Im wondering why finite human sin entails infinite punishment? And moreso, did Christ really suffer eternal hell? And if so, is he still there?

27 Fudge & Peterson, 175

21


22/50

AndrewYes, that last question would be my main question as well.

TrevorWell, thats a lot of complex questions youve asked Peter. It is not easy to understand

how it is that our sin can be transferred to the person of Christ, as it is likewise difficult tounderstand how it is that Christ's righteousness can be transferred to us. Some would see thisexternal formal type of transaction as a quite inappropriate solution to improving our spiritualrelationship with God. This critique would definitely have some weight if our relationship withChrist was something detached and distant. But because through conversion we are unitedwith Christ (to use Paul's language), it is through this mystical union that this exchange can beunderstood to take place. Christ and the believer become one in the eyes of God.28 It is like amarriage in which two people bring what they have together and come to share everything incommon.

As to the question ofhow can the suffering of an innocent party (Christ) be understoodto help the guilty party (Humanity)? Two responses here. One is that because Christ isstepping in voluntarily this puts him in a privileged position to be able to take the punishment.The [other] response is that because of Christ's Trinitarian relationship to the Father, there is a

sense in which God is actually punishing himself, and so this is understood to be more cogentthan the Father simply punishing something other than himself for the sin of humanity.

Who killed Jesus? Well, because of the physical aspects of the cross, Christ had tosuffer physically, and because of God's wrath towards the sin that Christ was carryingthere was a spiritual suffering on the cross as well. It is this alienation that the Sonexperienced on the cross from the Father's love that is normally understood to be far and awaythe most "painful" part of the atonement for Christ.

As for why the punishment is eternal, I still primarily hold to the position of Anselm,which we already discussed. However, anotherapproach taken by Jonathan Edwards...wouldconcede that sin is finite in the sense that a finite amount of retribution in hell would pay the

price for sin...What Edwards adds however is that for a variety of reasons, people in hell

continue to sin as they are receiving their punishment, and hence the punishment that theydeserve continues to pile up as they continue to sin to the extent that their punishmentdelivered can never catch up with the punishment owed.29

Lastly, the question of whether or not Christ descended into hell is hotly debated.Whether or not he did however, it could still not hold him captive forever, for he was eternalhimself and essentially pure from sin.

The nature of Hell, trying it all together.

ModeratorThank you, each of you, for your fascinating answers so far. As you all can see, these

questions are essential for understanding how each panelist arrives at their view of the nature

of hell. So, now we move on to our last and main question, which is sharing specifically yourunderstanding about the nature of hell. Andrew, youre first this time and Im sure thatquestions will follow.

28 Romans 6:3-4

29These answers, which were hard for me to find answers to, were provided for in an email from a friend and Regent student,

Paul Joss. I am grateful for his help on this difficult topic. His Edwards reference, he believes, comes from a book titled " OnHeaven and Hell", edited by Jonathan Gerstner.

22


23/50

Andrew

Im sure they will Leif. I think that most of my basic ideas about the topic have prettymuch been said, so I will now try and substantiate my position from scripture and othertheological, philosophical arguments.

In the beginning, God warned Adam and Eve that if they were to sin by eating from thetree of the knowledge of good and evil, they would surely die. Notice how He never said that

they would be punished eternally, but that they would die. Yet after they ate and received theirvarious punishments, they still lived about nine hundred years and then died. This plain andsimple returning to the dust is echoed in numerous places throughout scripture, though howthe author feels about it varies.

However, as the questions of justice and vindication arise, this idea becomes evenmore clear. The psalmists assure us that the wicked will die, their memory will perish, andthey will become as if they had never existed. These writers anticipate that the wicked willvanish like water that flows away, will melt like a slug as it moves along and will become like astillborn child. But God will save the righteous out of death, and they will enjoy his presenceforever (Ps 9; 21:4-10; 49:8-20; 58:7-8). The book of Proverbs repeats these promises thatthe wicked will pass away, be overthrown, be cut off from the land, be no more, have theirlamp put out (Prov. 2:21-22; 10:25; 12:7; 24:15-20).30

In addition to these passages, each of the prophets warn of Gods judgment, oftenrecalling past judgments of destruction (like Sodom and Gomorrah) as examples. Whilealmost all of these passages and more are speaking about temporal, earthly judgments, theynonetheless become the model for what any final and ultimate divine judgment will look like.

As the authors of the Old Testament wrestle with how justice will ultimately prevail, thetheme of an eschatological day of the Lord occasionally surfaces. The very few passages thatspeak of this final judgment, mostly emphasize the resurrection and blessedness of therighteous while the wicked are destroyed and their memory lives on only in shame. Of the fewpassages that have been used to support a belief in eternal punishment in the OT (Isaiah 33,66 and Daniel 12) the mention of eternal shame and images of fire and worms, so oftenconfused with pain and eternal suffering, are merely meant to portray what they say: Theirdeath is eternal irrevocable, just like the resurrected life of the righteous is eternal andirrevocable. The use of the image of fire in the Old Testament is always that which consumesand destroys. And lastly, why this isnt seen by traditionalists I still cannot figure out, wormsare what feed on dead bodies they are not supernatural creatures given to torture consciousbeings forever. This interpretation applies also to the New Testament usage of these images,even more so as Gehenna was the place of discarded deadbodies. It was a place of evil,shame, death and destruction by fire.

In the New Testament, much less is said about hell than most people imagine. Noneshould attempt to make judgments on the passages that speak of judgment or condemnationin general, but only on those that mention some kind of punishment. Of these, the majority ofpassages, which speak about destruction or that allude to the judgments of destruction fromthe Old Testament, already clearly support my position. Paul himself, while frequentlyspeaking of eternal life, never31 speaks of a punishment of eternal suffering. And though I willnot comment further, it is interesting to note that his writings are unanimously agreed to be theearliest of the New Testament writings. However, there remain two or three other passagesfrom the NT that I would like to comment on.

30 Fudge & Peterson, 2531 The authorship by Paul of this epistle is hotly debated. But leaving aside that issue, even here Paul merely speaks of aneternal destruction. Again, the destruction is irrevocable how else would one express that idea?

23


24/50

The first instance, from the synoptic gospels, involves the parable of the Rich Man andLazarus. As the story goes, the victim finds himself in Abrahams bosom after death while theoppressor finds himself in the fiery agony of Hades. Worse, there is a gulf between them thatcannot be crossed. The problem with using this parable to advance a belief in hell is that it is

just that, a parable. Even taken literally, however, the story concerns only the intermediatestate of two Jewish men who died while Jesus was still teaching on the earth. Furthermore,the context shows no connection with the topic of final punishment, and Jesus punch line inthis story is on another subject altogetherThe parable relates to its context from first to last(itfollows Jesus teaching on covetousness and stewardship)Few serious interpreters attemptto take the details of the story literally. To do so would require us to imagine the saved andthe lost conversing with each other after death, in full view of each other and at close range.We also would have to think of literal tongues that burn with literal fire and literal water thatdoes not cool them, not to mention physical bodies that can be tortured by fire but whichsomehow do not burn upEven if this story were historical narrative rather than a parable,and even if Jesus had told it in answer to a question about the afterlife (which, of course, hedid not), and even if we ought to understand all of its details literally (which no one says weshould), the parable of the rich man and Lazarus still would tell us absolutely nothing about thefinal destiny of the damned.32For it speaks of Hades, which is later thrown into the lake of fire.

The second passage that seems to many to clearly teach the eternal conscious tormentof the wicked is the parable of the sheep and the goats found in Mathew 25. In this passage,we find that those sheep who never even knew they were serving Jesus (either because oftheir great humility or perhaps because they were pagans from other nations who never hadheard of him but who nonetheless did loving acts for the oppressed, whom Jesus hereidentifies himself with), are rewarded with eternal life. On the other hand, the goats areseparated and given the judgment Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fireprepared for the devil and his angels and a few verses later this judgment is called eternalpunishment. Again we are confronted with the image of fire and the concept of eternalpunishment. And again, eternal is best interpreted as being a judgement from the eternal ageto come and as being irrevocable the punishment of fiery destruction is final.

The most explicit and popularly upheld passage supporting the horrendous doctrine ofunending conscious suffering, is from the highly complex and metaphor-laden book ofRevelations. Before we get to this passages it is important to remember that there are alsopassages from this book that describe the destruction of the wicked (ie Rev 11:18), indeedeventually the very death of death itself. Secondly, as has been my practice so far, we mustremember to bring the Jewish meanings of various symbols into our interpretation, and notmerely our various traditions and doctrines. For example, the image of the smoke of theirtorment rises for ever and ever (Rev. 14:11) upon first glance seems to strongly suggest thatthe fuel of human torment will be eternal. But when we realize that these exact words areborrowed from the prophet Isaiah (34:10) to describe the destruction and desolation of Edom,we can see that this might not be as literal as we imagine.

However, the passage towards the end of Revelations, in chapter 20, I concede isperhaps the most challenging to my position. This passage describes the final end of thewicked. It is important to note that the emphasis is on the punishment of Satan and the otherpowers. Scholars debate whether these powers, including Satan himself, are persons at all,and many conclude that they symbolize the various corrupt powers and institutions of theworld. However, whatever they may be they are thrown into what is called the lake of fire orthe second death. Next, death and Hades give up any dead that they have (which raisesmultiple questions), somewhat mysterious books are opened (the books of each persons

32 Fudge & Peterson, 41

24


25/50

lives?), and finally the book of life itself is opened. Death and Hades are then thrown into thelake of fire death and hell seem to die. At some point, each group of dead people is judgedand if anyones name in not found in the book of life, he or she is thrown into the lake of fire.The question we are wondering is, what does it mean for people to undergo a second deathwhen death and hell have just been put to death? The traditionalist will say it means toexperience the same unending torment that Satan and the powers supposedly experience.Yet how exactly God would sustains a beings consciousness so as to continue to subject himor her to torment and destruction without ever being destroyed is difficult to imagine. Ill leaveit up to the traditionalist to explain those sadistic metaphysics. On the other hand,Universalists will likely point out that we arent told whether anybody is notfound in the book oflife or that all types of death and suffering are finished in the lake of fire. Yet, while I admit it isa difficult and ambiguous passage, I must conclude (in light of the following additionaltheological themes and philosophical ideas) that this is either a further way of explaining thefinal and climactic death and destruction of all that is wicked, or perhaps that while the non-human powers are described as being tormented forever, finite humans experience just what itsimply says the second death. If these arguments are not convincing, this scripture is stillnot one that I would like to be my entire theology on at the cost of being able to trust in Godsgoodness and final victory over evil and suffering.

ModeratorAndrew, thank you for your detailed commentary on scripture. Im sure that it will

provide a framework that other panelists will want to come back to. However, for the sake oftime, Id like to move onto Peter. Im sure that your additional arguments will come up soon. Ifthey dont, I will give you a chance later to voice them.

AndrewSure thing Leif, as long as you dont forget.

Moderator

Dont worry, I wont. Okay, Peter. What would you like to tell about the nature ormeaning of hell.

PeterFirst of all, while Im thinking of it, I know you might mention this later Andrew but I was

realizing that the question of whether humans are resurrected to life or whether one has animmortal soul doesnt really matter in the long run. I mean, ultimately both camps will see thegift of everlasting life as a gift they are dependent on God for, and both camps recognize thatGod also has the power to terminate that life. Anyway, I just thought Id throw that out.

Andrew

Thanks and yes, I would pretty much agree with you on that.

Peter

Well, what I primarily want to say about the nature of hell might be guessed and that itis that it is a complex topic with no clear systematic support for any position. As Ive pointedout earlier, the bible is clearly full of a variety of perspectives on the afterlife: we all return todust; we all have a pale existence in Sheol; the wicked have the shame of a bad name andcursed progeny while the righteous have the glory of a good name and blessed progeny; there

25


26/50

is some kind of resurrection; there is destruction for the wicked and eternal life for therighteous; there may be varying levels of ongoing suffering for the unbelieving while the faithfulreceive varying levels of rewards and eternal life; and lastly, that all shall be given the sameundeserved reward, although sometimes pictured as happening after the last penny is paid.Not to mention that the Bible makes use of a variety of different words borrowed from differentcultures and containing variously associated meanings to describe what often simply getstranslated as hell. As you can see, it is not a simple topic and that is why I remain agnostic.

However, I would like to primarily critique what I see as the most disturbing andpsychologically unhealthy doctrine that of possible unending torment of any number of humanbeings. I think that this doctrine, particularly when it depends on holding to specific rightbeliefs (more so when billions have never had a chance to even hear these beliefs) is ludicrousin the light of how complex the questions of belief are. Worse still, the traditional doctrine ofhell produces various fears, dogmatic self-righteousness, and is often the fuel for violence andwars in the name of God. For, at the threat of hell, many are often coerced to do anythingseen as necessary.33 Lastly, I have the following basic philosophical problems: for aconscious creature to undergo physical and mental torture through unending time (if this isindeed conceivable) is horrible and disturbing beyond words; and the thought of such tormentbeing deliberately inflicted by divine decree is totally incompatible with the idea of God as

infinite love; the absolute contrast of heaven and hell, entered immediately after death, doesnot correspond to the innumerable gradations of human good and evil; justice could neverdemand for finite human sins the infinite penalty of eternal pain; such unending torment couldnever serve any positive or reformative purpose precisely because it never ends; and itrenders any coherent Christian theodicy impossible by giving the evils of sin and suffering aneternal lodgment within Gods creation.34 To put it graphically, how can the righteous behappy, how can God have final victory, if their loved ones are experiencing eternal torment inhell?

AndrewYou covered a lot of the philosophical ideas I was going to mention Peter, thanks.

Though Ive still got a few more for later.

PeterYes, I think that these problems are clear to most people, but I dont understand how

they cannot be for people like you Trevor? I see you would like to respond.

TrevorYes. I realize that when these type ofemotionalobjections are raised, my position

tends to become rather unpopular. However, first and foremost, we do not believe that oneshould change ones doctrine or ignore the scriptures simply because the topics areuncomfortable and difficult. If we did that, we would soon be editing out just about everything

except for maybe God will be all in all. However, I will address a few of the questions youraised.

First of all, as usual, we differ on the question of how clear the truth is I maintain that tothose with eyes to see, the truth can be clearly found in the scriptures. Second of all, we arenot dealing with the question of religious pluralism there are many within my camp who hold

33 In Islam, for example, the only direct guarantee that one will go straight to heaven is to die in holy war. Theflames of hell are a mighty motivation.

34John H. Hick, Death & Eternal Life, 200-201

26


27/50

to different views on that question, including the rather extreme belief that the message andmeans of salvation is widely available on the basis of a general faith, even to those who havenever even heard the gospel.35 But that is another question. Next, you state anunsubstantiated opinion that the doctrine of hell brings about such evils as fearfulness, self-righteousness, dogmatism and the motivation for violence and war. I see how this could bethe case, but do not see this as inevitable for those who truly understand and receive the graceand saving mercy of God. Next, the questions of the metaphysics of hells pains andpleasures can no more be explained as the metaphysics of any other eschatological theory.Next, the question of Gods love and an infinite punishment for finite sinswell, I think wevebeen through those ones before.

the final forum

Documents