Eldon
New Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by Eldon on Jul 24, 2009 9:52:55 GMT -8
I was listening to a sermon today and heard a view on Hell that I hear commonly from Christians and one I've believed and taught myself. Namely, that Hell is a separation from God after someone dies, that the person chooses to enter into when that person chooses against God in this life. And the person that rejects God imposes the eternal torment on themselves when they die because they freely rejected God. Here is an excerpt from the full sermon text found here www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/BySeries/2/1084_God_Credits_Faith_as_Righteousness/"Here's the issue. In the article, the pope portrayed hell as real, eternal and terrible - which is true - but the main point was that hell is not something God imposes on us, but a condition we bring about through separating ourselves from God. "Hell is not a punishment imposed externally by God, but the condition resulting from attitudes and actions which people adopt in this life. . . . Hell is the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy. So eternal damnation is not God's work but is actually our own doing."* The two negative statements in that quote are not Biblical. It is not true to say, "Hell is not a punishment imposed externally by God." And it is not true to say, "Eternal damnation is not God's work." I'll come back in a moment to show you why. But why does it matter? It matters because if hell is merely a self-imposed condition of sinning and separation from God, and not a God-imposed judicial sentence and punishment for breaking God's law, then justification by faith, as Paul teaches it, simply isn't necessary." John Piper desiringgod.orgWhich is view is Biblical, or is there another view? And why is the correct view, correct? |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jul 24, 2009 10:29:11 GMT -8
Hi Eldon,
3 questions:
1. Why would anyone in their right mind do that?
2. Why would someone choose to remain in that state forever?
3. How does this shape the believers attitude toward unbelievers?
|
|
Eldon
New Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by Eldon on Jul 24, 2009 13:26:40 GMT -8
If I understand your questions correctly in reference to the quoted text, then the answers to number one and two are found in Romans 1:18-24 among other places.
"... who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth...because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator..."
And this applies to every one " for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Rom 3:23
To answer your third question I think I would have to ask first: "How does this shape our attitude toward God."
According to the quote God is off the hook for sending people to hell because people are choosing not go there. God is no longer responsible for people going to hell. Because there is no third option, people must be choosing to go to heaven by not choosing to go to hell. This means some people do something to go to heaven and others are not doing something and going to hell.
Now those that made the choice to go to heaven have something to boast about. Thus they can judge those who made the choice to "exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator".
Now this is starting to sound like the Pharisees' thinking that Jesus hated so much. People have to do things to get to heaven.
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jul 24, 2009 22:29:47 GMT -8
Eldon, Forgive me, I totally misread your original post and thought you were arguing for the pope’s version of hell and condemnation. That’s what I get for reading so fast.  Having said that, I don’t agree with Piper’s view either. To answer your question, all views of hell are biblical (meaning proponents of said views derive their view from the bible in some way). The real question is (as you also asked), which one is correct and why? That’s the 64 mina question. Unfortunately, I can’t answer that, because I’m undecided. However I can say, that I find the eternal torment view altogether the least likely of all. Therefore, I disagree with both the pope (John Paul II in the article), and Piper (a 5 point Calvinist by the way). |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 25, 2009 9:39:40 GMT -8
the view the pope is espousing is quite similar to C.S. Lewis' view, and is a view I think holds some merit. Chris asked: I think Lewis answers this quite satisfactorily in The Great Divorce, don't you think? He makes a good case that some people/ many people think they would rather have their free will and their hate and their pride and their selfishness than submit to love. That said, I agree with Chris that regarding the 3 traditional views: 1) eternal conscious torment (CS Lewis version or Piper version  2) annihilationism/ conditional mortality 3) christian universalism/ universal reconciliation after much study I find myself currently agnostic. Furthermore, I think God left the issue somewhat vague on purpose because having some mystery in this issue produces the best results in us. Originally starting with view #1 I set out to disprove both option 2 first, and recently option 3, and found that all three views can find substantial biblical and rational support. If you look here, you'll see some of our longwinded discussions on these topics: www.aletheia.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=afterlifeJust as a sidenote, Eldon, do you consider yourself a Calvinist? oh, and I'm not sure I see Piper's point about the "hell is locked from the inside" view threatening the doctrine of justification by faith. How does it do so? |
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Jul 25, 2009 15:16:12 GMT -8
Must be time to get a new pastor.  |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jul 25, 2009 17:02:28 GMT -8
Do I think an fictitious allegory of Lewis' view on hell answers the question? Uh, no!  As much as I like Lewis and the Great Divorce, it's only a highly speculative story of the afterlife and therefore offers no real answers to speak of, only "possibilities". One thing I noticed about the Great Divorce is that these "hellish creatures" never did see God as He truly is. It was all about heaven and hell. I think that would make a huge difference in attitude and desire when God is seen for who He is without our blinders and pretensions we carry as baggage (I believe Talbott said something similar in his book too, correct?). Incidentally, do you know where Lewis and the former pope are getting their ideas? I mean biblically speaking? (that's a real question as I don't know what their biblical arguments are). |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 25, 2009 22:42:55 GMT -8
Yeah, how could we possibly expect an allegory to answer any questions?? Too bad Jesus wasted so much time on those silly parables I think Lewis' depiction of those who would rather cling to anything but God is way more than mere possibility. It's something we see already on this side of eternity, and we see people, as their lives progress, heading further and further in that direction. It's fairly warranted, imo, to suppose that that process will continue in hell, at least for a long time. Even from a UR perspective, I don't imagine that the person in hell would immediately "see God for who He is". I would think that that would be a long process, for to see Him for who He is would mean redemption. As to proof texts... be back later... maybe  |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jul 26, 2009 7:26:04 GMT -8
2 differences:
1. Lewis was not inspired (as far as we know).
2. Jesus told parables so that the crowds wouldn't get answers (Matt 13:10-16)
I would imagine that it would be much like others in the bible who saw Him...They were "undone" (Isa 6) and "fell over as if dead" (Rev 1:17).
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 26, 2009 8:01:11 GMT -8
Chris,
When I say "answer questions" I don't mean authoritatively. I just mean that Lewis did intend, to the best of his ability, to answer some questions even in fiction like the Great Divorce, despite the amount of speculation. And I think he did well on a few matters in particular.
...from the blind. But the parables did contain answers for those who can see, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jul 26, 2009 21:11:33 GMT -8
Sure, Lewis is a master at explaining his views. That goes without saying. But since I don't hold his views on this, it really doesn't answer anything for me except what Lewis believed (and I'm still not sure where he got his ideas).
I think there's more to the whole thing and I'd like to think that God is more personally active in the process than the book portrays (afterall he says he is). And if that is so, than I think that personal agendas and pretenses will no longer be a factor and people will see Jesus for who He truly is and bow the knee willingly. I really don't see how/why one would choose otherwise with those things which block rationality are removed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 26, 2009 21:15:00 GMT -8
Wait....
even assuming universal reconciliation, someone like Talbott isn't saying that all will bow the knee willingly immediately (as in at the judgment). That would be something he sees as happening after hell, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 29, 2009 16:33:50 GMT -8
I just read the second chapter to the end of Talbott's book and I think I see better the angle your taking on this discussion regarding what it would mean to a sinner to have all their illusions about God and reality swept away. I think Talbott makes a good case, and I'm interested in taking his perspective for some test drives.
Still, I'm curious your response to the question in my last post.
Eldon,
This book we're discussing does give some good arguments against Lewis' "hell is locked from the inside" view, but more from the universalist perspective than from the eternal torment view.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 29, 2009 16:58:47 GMT -8
Must be time to get a new pastor. Oh and  |
|
