Does Hell really matter? (A response to a friend)
One of the great things to come out of the whole “Bellgate” controversy is a renewed discussion of eternal destiny and what Scripture actually teaches about the consequences of rejecting God fully and finally.
My friend Kurt wrote an excellent post in which he wondered aloud why it is that Hell still matters. You can (and should!) read it HERE.
In response to Kurt, our mutual friend (and recent news-maker within Methodist circles!) Chad Holtz proposed that being wrong about Hell wasn’t something he was too concerned about, due to the nature of God’s love. You can (and should!) read it HERE.
As someone deeply rooted in the Evangelical Christian tradition, but not the Reformed/Baptist variety (from whom have come the strongest criticism of any doctrine of Hell which does not hold to eternal conscious punishment and a Restrictivist/Exclusivist concept of salvation) I find myself agreeing more with Kurt, yet sympathizing with Chad’s desires. Here is the response I left in the comments sections on their respective posts…
Kurt’s:
Excellent post, Kurt. Balance is hard to maintain, but those who’ve “lost Hell” are as wrong as those who preach a “fire insurance” gospel. If Hell–whatever it’s ultimate ontological nature and characteristics–weren’t a reality, Jesus and His Apostles sure did waste a lot of time warning of it.
Chad’s:
I believe you’re overlooking the need for simple balance, Chad. Just because a doctrine is TRUE, doesn’t mean it must be taught 100% of the time. The Spirit leads and guides those who proclaim the Gospel as to what to proclaim at any given time (if they’re listening, that is!).
It’s puzzling that so many within our Methodist denomination are quick to abandon a Biblically balanced view of eternal separation from God in favor of a redefinition of God’s “love” which downplays God’s Holiness. I say this because Wesley, Asbury, Clarke and pretty much all the founding voices within the Methodist tradition believed very much that some people would ultimately choose to reject God and that He would not force salvation upon them in the end. Belief in the NATURE of Hell has never been a required doctrine of orthodoxy…but belief in the REALITY of eternal separation (be it through traditional notions of “hell” or annihilation upon final Judgment) has always been a strong thread in the Gospel tapestry.
It seems that most people who reject it do so for emotional reasons rather than out of a sincere exegesis of Scripture’s teaching on the subject. They construct a strawman god who is a mean, grouchy, doctrinal watchdog and then dismiss this idea mockingly…as if that has in any way dealt with the issue or overturned the sober, reflective and profound depths of the doctrine of eternal separation (as put forth by such diverse voices as John Wesley, John Stott, N.T. Wright, Tim Keller or Scot McKnight). Of course we are right to reject such a concept of God. And all but the basest and most folk-theological approaches to the doctrine of eternal separation reject it as well.
From reading your posts on the subject, Chad, I can’t help but feel that this is the path you are choosing to take. While I sympathize with the desire to not be “Fundamentalist” and while I believe that we SHOULD desire that everyone turn to God and experience His salvation in the end, I’m forced by an honest reading of Jesus’ words and the words of the Biblical authors, going all the way back to Daniel and all the way through to John of Patmos, to hold these desires in tension with the very prominent Biblical teaching that in the end, God will say to some “thy will be done” and it will be permanent.
If there’s any doctrine I’d rather be wrong about, I can’t think of it at the moment. But the cost of taking your position and it being wrong is one that Pascal himself would warn against wagering on. For those, like you and I, who are called to teach and preach, the responsibility is enormous and what we’ve built through our ministry will be judged by God’s refining fire. I believe teaching people that final Judgment and eternal separation from God are not something that we actually have to consider, despite the persistent and trans-canonical claims to the contrary, is indeed “building with straw” (1Cor 3:10-15).
This is a discussion worth having, because frankly, most Christians have little idea what it is that the Bible itself teaches on life after this one.
For a fuller discussion of Scripture’s teaching on Heaven, Hell, Judgment and Resurrection, you can listen to my lecture on the subject (part of my Apocalypse Now?? audio course) here:
For a great survey of the various evangelical positions on Hell see the Christianity Today article “Undying Worm, Unquenchable Fire” as well as the volume in Zondervan’s Counterpoint series Four Views on Hell.
Categories: Biblical Theology, Blog, Eschatology, Heaven, Ministry, New Testament, Theological issues
Thanks for engaging with us both on this issue JM! I am with you on this issue and appreciate the kind and nonjudgmental tone in which you speak to our mutual friend Chad.
by Kurt on Apr 15, 2011 at 8:45 pm
[…] responses to this article. Check out – Chad Holtz’s article and J-M Smith’s article. These guys are both great conversation partners! […]
by Why Hell Still Matters | the Pangea Blog on Apr 21, 2011 at 4:43 am
[…] […]
by Why Hell Still Matters | The Pangea Blog on Jul 7, 2011 at 2:12 am