Final Objections: Thoughts on Hell, Part 3 - GraceLife Church of Pineville

Introduction

When someone comes to GraceLife Church, there’s a high likelihood that they pass several other churches along the way—sometimes even 10 or more. My favorites are the ones with the marquees out front—the signs that send messages.

Even this morning, I saw one church’s sign lit up with these words on it: “God is love, not punitive.” The editor in me needs to get this out of the way, because the grammar was bad. The sign should have read, “God is loving, not punitive,” or “God is love, not punitiveness.”

But I digress. Punitive, of course, means “involving punishment.” And I don’t know what this church’s intentions were—if the sign was referencing eternal punishment, or God’s disposition toward humanity in this age.

What causes such statements? What leads to sentiments like “God is loving, so He cannot also be this other thing [which I view as unloving]”? I think such statements come from the desire not to be judged poorly—that is, not to be judged negatively. And it’s certainly reasonable and natural to desire to escape punishment.

These kinds of messages can also reflect a desire for others not to think poorly of God. Our hearts may (rightly) desire for those who don’t know God to come to know Him, and to realize He loves them and isn’t seeking to punish them. (If you’re inviting someone to a relationship with God, your starting point probably wouldn’t be “Hey, God wants to punish you,” right?!)

There’s a third option, though. If we consult Scriptures, we see some nod to both concepts. God is love. There’s also punishment for those who do not come to Him. So how do we deal with these competing characteristics? There’s a tension there, between His love and punishment, and it’s a tension we’ve seen already in this subseries on the doctrine of Hell in our look at eternal judgment.¹

Author, theologian, and former bishop in the Church of England N.T. Wright wrote, on the question “What about hell?”, the following: “This question really demands a book in itself, and I am torn between my lack of desire to write such a book and my recognition that one must at least say something.”²

I feel somewhat the same way about preaching on the subject of Hell, especially these last few points to be made. So why do it—why preach on Hell?

For one, I think it’s an important exercise in assessing how we approach Scripture and how we approach people. Now, let’s combine those ideas: How is it that you judge others who haven’t judged Scripture in the same way you have?

We could take any topic of Scripture and consider it in terms of interpretation and those who differ with our interpretation. So what’s special about this topic? Well, for one, the truth is that not much is said in Scripture when it comes to descriptions about Hell. We’ve looked at some of those descriptions, but then there’s the question of whether the descriptions are literal or symbolic (and if the latter, what they stand for).

Despite the Bible’s descriptions being sparse, many have an image of what they think Hell to be, and they are often pretty committed to that image. They may even use it as a litmus test of someone’s theological acumen. If the other person’s position isn’t what we deem to be traditional, we might brand them as someone who doesn’t read or understand the Bible, or someone who is too liberal; conversely, if their position doesn’t line up with our picture of God’s mercy, we may conclude that they don’t understand the love of God and brand them as too conservative.

You need to know that you can find good thinkers who adopt just about any position. But be careful of adopting or rejecting views based on what someone else believes. Our goal is good theology, but it’s not our chief goal. To hold all the correct positions but to live or love poorly is to fail as a disciple of Jesus.

You can find good thinkers who adopt just about any position. But be careful of adopting or rejecting views based on what someone else believes. … To hold all the correct positions but to live or love poorly is to fail as a disciple of Jesus.

Considering the Option of “No Eternal Hell”

In this sermon, we’ll consider the position held by some that there’s no eternal Hell—no real place of torment—in the end. (I’m not saying that that is the correct position—just that we’re going to take up the argument of those who hold to it.)

This view that there’s no real place of torment in the end is against the traditional, mainstream view that there’s a place of “eternal conscious torment.” This position of no eternal hell is not the same as saying that there’s no afterlife. (That position leads to a meaningless life, a life of indifference, because after this life, these people believe there’s just nothing.)

In terms of this argument against Hell, there are two possibilities—two main forms of the argument:

Everyone will eventually be saved (this is called universalism).
Those who reject God will be destroyed to the point of nonexistence (a position called annihilationism).

Universalism

Let me first make a distinction about the universalism we’re discussing. I’m not referring to the religion of universalism that says “any religion will do,” or “everyone will be saved in the end, through any means, so all is well.” That’s another type of universalism.

In this sermon, I’m speaking of Christian universalism, which says that everyone will be saved through Jesus eventually. Whether it’s through punishment or second chances in the afterlife, these people believe all will eventually come to faith.

Christian universalism … says that everyone will be saved through Jesus eventually.

Here, let me caution a measured response to this idea. If you bristle at the notion that Scripture doesn’t teach this idea, that’s fine, but do consider whether the concept itself seems desirable. Scripturally, I think the desirability of this position (or, at least, of the end result) is demanded. God Himself desires that all people would be saved. So, it’s good for us to think, “I wish (or even hope) that all will be saved through Jesus eventually.” In fact, if you don’t hope that, it’s probably time for a heart checkup.

In 2011, a pastor named Rob Bell wrote a book titled Love Wins. That phrase has since been co-opted by other groups. What Bell was arguing for was, in some sense, the possibility of universalism. It’s a somewhat frustrating book, mainly full of questions (rather than answers), but in it, he leans into universalism. And before the book even hit the public, another pastor, John Piper, responded on Twitter with the words, “Farewell, Rob Bell.” A frustrating response to a frustrating book!

Despite what you think about Bell or Piper (some may even scowl at both names), let me caution this: Don’t be so quickly dismissive about other people’s positions. They may be worth dismissing, but there’s a difference between dismissing an idea and being dismissive of fellow believers. If you’ve come to a confident conclusion, I hope that your investigation was and is marked by a humble curiosity.

There’s a difference between dismissing an idea and being dismissive of fellow believers.

Those who hold a universalist position aren’t always just leaning on unstudied wishful thinking (“Boy, I hope everybody will be safe in the end!”). Let me give you an example of a passage in Scripture that Christian universalists may cite:

But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death. (1 Corinthians 15:20–26)

In the above passage, the phrase “as in Adam all die” applies to all humanity. So the Christian universalist would say that the next phrase—“so also in Christ all will be made alive”—must be a parallel statement about all humanity. The universalists will also point to the statement that death will be abolished (in verse 26) and say that death will not win in the end—that is, no one will end up in Hell in the end.

You and I may not agree with this interpretation, but it is indeed a fairly straightforward reading of the text. So you can see how someone might reasonably come to that conclusion.

I could have turned to Romans as well, specifically this passage:

So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. (Romans 5:18–19)

I don’t think the universalists’ interpretation of this passage is correct, but I can understand why they hold it; I can respect the position, and even if that weren’t possible, I can always respect the person holding it.

The main view of Christian universalists is that Hell is remedial. You must endure the punishment because it has some remedial effect, they say; it moves you along the path to salvation.

This is not a new idea. It has older proponents, such as Origen and Gregory of Nyssa. There are modern proponents as well. Here’s a quote from someone who went on to become known by the name Pope Francis: “What I am going to say is not a dogma of faith but my own personal view: I like to think of hell as empty; I hope it is.”³

Another relatively modern (19th century) proponent of universalism was the author George MacDonald. MacDonald wrote stories for people of all ages with imagination, and C.S. Lewis had this to say about him: “I have never concealed the fact that I regarded him [George MacDonald] as my master; indeed I fancy I have never written a book in which I did not quote from him.” MacDonald believed not that all would be saved automatically, but that everyone (through the course of eternity) would eventually repent (and therefore be saved). Lewis, though a devotee of MacDonald, was not a universalist. Lewis rejected universalism not only based on Scripture, but also because he found such universalism to run against his understanding of human free will. Consider what he had to say about free will in The Problem of Pain, the first part of which I quoted in an earlier sermon:⁴

Some will not be redeemed. There is no doctrine which I would more willingly remove from Christianity than this, if it lay in my power. But it [the doctrine of Hell] has the full support of Scripture and, specially, of Our Lord’s own words; it has always been held by Christendom; and it has the support of reason:⁵ If a game is played, it must be possible to lose it. If the happiness of a creature lies in self surrender, no one can make that surrender but himself (though many can help him to make it) and he may refuse. I would pay any price to be able to say truthfully “All will be saved”. But my reason retorts, “Without their will, or with it?” If I say “Without their will” I at once perceive a contradiction; how can the supreme voluntary act of self surrender be involuntary? If I say “With their will”, my reason replies “How if they will not give in?”⁶

Lewis speaks about those people who simply “will not give in,” who will not surrender the self, in The Great Divorce:

There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, in the end, “Thy will be done.” All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. To those who knock it is opened.

I’m reminded of a similarly clever view of the afterlife in an episode of The Twilight Zone titled “A Nice Place to Visit.” The show plays on this idea of getting what you want, and of the afterlife. After dying, a man named Rocky Valentine asks his Spirit Guide, “What are you after, anyway?” The well-dressed guide replies: “Only one thing, Mr. Valentine: your comfort. My job is to see to it that you get what you want—whatever it may be.”

And so Mr. Valentine gets and gets and gets. Money, house, clothes, food, drink, women; he wins every game in poker. He finally says to his guide, “Look, look, I don’t belong in heaven, see. I want to go to the other place.” To this, his guide responds, “Heaven? Whatever gave you the idea you were in heaven, Mr. Valentine? This is the other place.” The episode ends with the guide laughing maniacally and the narrator concluding, “Scared, angry little man who never got a break. Now he has everything he ever wanted. Now he’s going to have to live with it for eternity.”

The idea of God’s love or mercy or righteousness—it’s hard to differentiate those. The idea of God allowing us to have what we want is terrifying. For those who don’t want God, or don’t want to give themselves over to Him, they get what they want, and for those who do want God, they give themselves up, and receive God fully and delight in becoming who God wants them to be.

Again, from Lewis, he writes:

I willingly believe that the damned are, in one sense, successful, rebels to the end; that the doors of hell are locked on the inside. I do not mean that the ghosts may not wish to come out of hell, in the vague fashion wherein an envious man “wishes” to be happy: but they certainly do not will even the first preliminary stages of that self abandonment through which alone the soul can reach any good. They enjoy forever the horrible freedom they have demanded, and are therefore self enslaved: just as the blessed, forever submitting to obedience, become through all eternity more and more free.⁷

Others cannot get on board with the concept of universal, ultimate repentance, but instead view Hell as a place in which those who reject Christ are ultimately snuffed out. Let’s turn to that possibility now.

Annihilationism

Remember, to believe in annihilation is not the same as believing there’s no afterlife. Those who hold this position are not saying that earthly death annihilates someone. Those who believe in annihilationism believe the wicked are ultimately annihilated in some judgment to come. After some form of punishment, they are annihilated.

This idea comes from multiple Scriptures in Revelation. The “lake of fire” in Revelation is called “the second death,”⁸ and so some say that this lake of fire refers to annihilation.

The idea also comes from Jesus’s words in Matthew 10:28, where He says, “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” Some argue that, in this verse, Jesus Himself gives a nod to the idea that souls and bodies will one day be destroyed. This position is sometimes branded as “conditional immortality.” There are arguments over the nature of humanity and whether we are by nature immortal. Some say that immortality is a gift from God, and not everyone has it.

The well-respected, late Anglican minister John Stott believed immortality is the gift given only to believers. He didn’t reveal this belief until later in life, and I’m not sure how well respected he was afterward, as it was a shock to the evangelical community.

Some believers have devoted their lives and ministries to this doctrine of annihilationism. I expect it will gain more and more ground in the years to come. It is, however, a nonessential doctrine. Most, I think, recognize that fact. But many—because they think the reputation of God is at stake—have dedicated their ministries to the idea that God is not going to send anyone to eternal, conscious torment. Instead, they say, He will eventually annihilate them.

The key question you have to ask with respect to this position is, What is eternal? …. The length [or] …. the effect of the punishment?

The key question you have to ask with respect to this position is, What is eternal? Is the length of punishment in Hell eternal? Or is it the effect of the punishment that is eternal?⁹ You could argue for eternal punishment—not as eternal conscious existence, but you could say that, once someone is destroyed, that’s an eternal position. That is, they are destroyed forever—they have been eternally destroyed, even though they no longer exist.

How do you decide what is eternal? (How do you decide whether it’s the length or effect of the punishment that’s eternal?) Do you decide based on …

… the nature of the word? Some will say, “Eternal means forever—everlasting; it lasts forever.” But we also see in Scripture that the mountains are called everlasting, at the same time that it says the earth will one day be burned up and destroyed.¹⁰ Or, sometimes in Scripture we see examples of “eternal life” not necessarily referring to the duration of the life but to the quality of life. So, it’s hard to make a decision just based on the nature of the word.
… the nature of the soul? That’s another area that Scripture only tells us so much about. So, we lean into philosophy and combine it with our theology.

I think we answer the question about “what is eternal” using some of each of these areas—the nature of the word, the nature of the soul, philosophy, and theology.

To tell you the truth, annihilationism is exhausting to study. Not exhausting as a topic necessarily. It’s exhausting because when you read how people think a Scripture passage supports this view, their argument can easily leave you scratching your head because it actually undermines rather than supports their view.

Let’s take an example: 2 Peter 3.5–7. There’s an argument made in this chapter that is explained in a work by Edward Fudge (a theologian and author who was also a practicing attorney) called The Fire that Consumes. It was originally a self-published book because no publisher at the time (1982) wanted to take up the topic of annihilationism. But it’s now in its third edition and has been cited even among the so-called academics, professionals, scholars.

When they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. (2 Peter 3:5–7)

Fudge uses this passage as an example—a fair example, though I think it’s a wrong one—to appeal to the idea that God once destroyed this world by a flood, and because of that, parallel with eternal judgment, he argues for annihilationism in the judgment to come, the judgment of fire.

The problem is that “destroyed” in this passage does not mean “rendered nonexistent.” Last I checked, the world is still out there, even though it was destroyed by a flood. So I would argue that, in this sense, “destroyed” doesn’t mean to erase from existence. Rather, it means to render it less than what it was, less than what it should be.

Almost every argument that you could read when it comes to annihilationism is going to hang on a word that can mean something else—words like death, perish, and destroy.

Almost every argument that you could read when it comes to annihilationism is going to hang on a word that can mean something else.

We get this lesson from the very beginning of Scripture: “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die” (Genesis 2:16–17). Of course, the man and woman do eat from the forbidden tree, but do they die? Yes and no. This is how language works.

Destroy, death, and destruction can mean damage; they can mean obliteration.

This reminds me of the history of the word “decimate.” When you hear this word, you think “utterly destroyed.” And that’s what the word means now. It first meant “to reduce by a tenth.” That’s why it has the dec- prefix. Roman armies would sometimes ask their own troops to kill every tenth troop if there was a mutiny, for example. But killing is bad—we don’t want it to come to that! So, decimate eventually meant “to destroy everything.”

This is the nature of language.

When it comes to annihilationism, so many of the arguments simply beg the question.

When it comes to annihilationism, so many of the arguments simply beg the question.

Again, if we can hear from Lewis on the matter, he leaned into the doctrine a little bit, but he did so like this:

Destruction, we should naturally assume, means the unmaking, or cessation, of the destroyed. And people often talk as if the “annihilation” of a soul were intrinsically possible. In all our experience, however, the destruction of one thing means the emergence of something else. Burn a log, and you have gases, heat and ash. To have been a log means now being those three things. If soul can be destroyed, must there not be a state of having been a human soul? And is not that, perhaps, the state which is equally well described as torment, destruction; and privation? You will remember that in the parable, the saved go to a place prepared for them, while the damned go to a place never made for men at all. To enter heaven is to become more human than you ever succeeded in being in earth; to enter hell, is to be banished from humanity. What is cast (or casts itself) into hell is not a man: it is “remains”. To be a complete man means to have the passions obedient to the will and the will offered to God: to have been a man—to be an ex-man or “damned ghost”—would presumably mean to consist of a will utterly centred in its self and passions utterly uncontrolled by the will. It is, of course, impossible to imagine what the consciousness of such a creature — already a loose congeries [jumble] of mutually antagonistic sins rather than a sinner would be like.”¹¹

Lewis argues, essentially, that the unsaved are reduced to some existence that is more like a collection of sins that perpetuates than something you would point to and say, “Look at that person, the sinner.”

Now, the objection here would be, “Well, this doesn’t seem so bad, if that’s all Hell is for the person—reduced to this ghost, this shade or shell of their former existence.” Lewis, anticipating this, writes:

There may be a truth in the saying that “hell is hell, not from its own point of view, but from the heavenly point of view”. I do not think this belies the severity of Our Lord’s words. It is only to the damned that their fate could ever seem less than unendurable.¹²

Conclusion

What should we conclude about such matters? If any of you has ever read the book Love Wins, you might’ve been frustrated by the seemingly endless questions without answers. A book with 200 pages and some 300 questions.

I’m all for the well-placed “Hey have you thought about this?” but that approach can wear out its welcome if that’s all there is. I’m not raising the prospect of universalism or annihilationism simply to say, “Hey what about this?” I don’t want you fearful or wondering, “Is our pastor an annihilationist?” I think the view of eternal conscious torment is probably correct. That’s the traditional view, or what has become the traditional view anyway. I believe that there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth as those in Hell continue to live lives of futility of their own making. They will be disappointed with humanity and angry at God.

So I think Hell is, in many ways, the perpetual unfulfillment of the Great Command. Instead of loving God with your entire being and loving your neighbor as yourself, in Hell you will be hating God with your entire being and hating your neighbor as you hate yourself.

Hell is, in many ways, the perpetual unfulfillment of the Great Command.

I think it’s also reasonable to want to be wrong about all that. Those who hold to a different view aren’t on the kook fringe of Christian thinking. It’s not a doctrine to divide fellowship over. Here is our (GraceLife Church’s) statement on the matter:

Eternal State
We believe that upon death the spirit of every believer enters the presence of God, while the spirit of every unbeliever dwells separated from God. In the final state a believer’s spirit is reunited with his glorified, resurrected body in like fashion as the resurrected Christ. An unbeliever is reunited with his body to be cast away from the presence of God and from the glory of His power.

I said earlier that statements like “God is love, not punitive” were motivated by:

A desire not to be judged poorly
A desire for others not to think poorly of God
The fact that Scriptures support both God’s love and His punishment

My challenge to you related to these desires is this:

Strive to live in a way that judgment is in your favor. (If you’ve believed in Christ for eternal life, that judgment is already taken care of—you’re not condemned. You have the possibility of living a life that is judged favorably and rewarded in the next life.)
Strive to live in a way that others think more positively of God because of you.
Learn the Scriptures so well that you know God better. You can answer questions about His love or His punitive nature. (Knowing Him is the point anyway.)

Bottom line: None of us is yet to comprehend the joy of what it will be like to be united to our Maker; and so, also, none of us is yet to comprehend what it will be like to behold that Maker and be cast away from Him. To lose the opportunity for that unity is an eternal loss in whatever form it takes.

Table of Contents

Introduction

Considering the Option of “No Eternal Hell”

Universalism

Annihilationism

Conclusion