So, I was looking through some books on my shelf awhile back and came across “Now That’s a Good Question” by R.C. Sproul. In it he answers a question about hell that makes Jonathan Edwards look like the Easter Bunny. According to Sproul the symbol of fire points to the terribleness of hell. But the reality is always worse than its symbol:
I still like the Eastern Orthodox concept of heaven and hell as states - not places.
The Eastern Orthodox church teaches that heaven and hell are being in God’s presence, which is being with God and seeing God, and that there no such place as where God is not, nor is hell taught in the East as separation from God. One expression of the Eastern teaching is that hell and heaven are being in God’s presence, as this presence is punishment and paradise depending on the person’s spiritual state in that presence. For one who hates God, to be in the presence of God eternally would be the gravest suffering.
Hey Randy!
Yeah, that’s better than R.C. Sproul’s version. I’ve been reading “Hope Beyond Hell” recently and I think it’s the best Christian Universalism to date. Gerry is quite persuasive in that book. I tend to go back and forth on the issue of hell. One thing is for certain for me though. I think R.C. Sproul’s version is insane.
As is that despicable version of Jesus that Jonathan Edwards believes in.
Hey Gabe!
I agree that Jonathan Edwards hell is crazy. I guess since he believes that Jesus is God then that would make his Jesus crazy as well.
I’ve heard Tim Keller say something very similar to that. When he’s asked about hell and the idea of hell fire, he apparently always tells people that it’s metaphorical, at which point the person asking always breathes a sigh of relief. Then he’ll add in “it’s metaphorical for something infinitely worse.”
The problem with these two responses from Sproul and Keller is the intent and purpose that God has. I dispute that it is retributive punishment for its own sake, a ‘reward’ for disobedience that lasts forever, simply because making someone suffer (either actively giving them a specific punishment or passively abandoning them in their sinful ways and desires to gradually destroy themselves [in many ways, it’s irrelevant precisely how God does it]) doesn’t take away sin or injustice in the slightest bit. If you want to maintain that He does this, then you have to hold that these sinners will never repent (as I’ve read Edwards point out) and therefore God is sustaining the existence of sin within His creation for all eternity, even though He could put an end to it if he wanted to.
I don’t think it’s anything worse than Edwards ever said though. His images, on top of the general notion of conscious torment, bordered precariously close to sadism. I’m not sure Sproul or Keller have ever gone as far as Edwards did on this - they’ve merely described or hinted at the extent of the torment.
Jonny,
The problem I see with Sproul’s hell is that he says that the person in hell will do everything in his power to be in a literal lake of fire. This is insane. Much worse than Edwards. It assumes that those in hell don’t want to be there. If hell is eternal (which I doubt) then the people there will want to be there. For eternal hell to be just it cannot be as intense as Sproul claims. Moreover, the people there will have to stay evil forever for the punishment to be just.
I really don’t think that’s any worse than Edwards. I dare say that Edwards would say the same thing in fact. Except he would also add in the image of God hanging sinners over the fires of hell like a person holds a spider over flames (who does that anyway?!) and only holding them just above the fire out of his own ‘sovereign pleasure’. It might not technically be sadistic but the way Edwards frames it in his famous sermon comes relatively close to appearing that way.
The whole “people in hell want to be there” is frankly the most bizarre defence of hell I’ve ever seen. It’s never really seen in the Bible when describing judgement and when people say it, what they really mean is that those in hell would rather serve only themselves than serve God. If hell in a certain sense is giving people over to their destructive self-centredness, then that would be a more precise way of putting it. But they don’t want to be in hell per se. Its like if I have a really bad stomach ache and I haven’t eaten enough, then the best thing for me would be to go to the kitchen and get something to eat. I might not feel like I want to eat anything because I feel sick so instead I just lay in my bed scrunching up, trying to take away the pain and discomfort. In that situation, I would rather do that than attempt at eating something (even though eating something would be better for me). So I just lay there in my pain. But I don’t actually want the pain to be there.
People in hell (in whatever form, purpose, length, intent etc) don’t really want to be there. I don’t think it’s that controversial either to say that it’s pretty damn intense. ‘Weeping and gnashing of teeth’ is a pretty strong and vivid image, not to be taken lightly. So I don’t necessarily take as much of an issue with what Sproul says as you do. I take issue with the heart behind it, the intent, the purpose, the length etc (as you also do)
Where does Edwards say the same thing as Sproul? Holding someone over flames is nowhere near as bad as saying that people will do everything in their power to be in a Lake of Fire.
Also, while you may think it’s bizarre that people will want to be in hell - it’s not. Not if God’s redeeming grace isn’t there and hell isn’t as intense as Sproul claims.
The Christian philosopher C Stephen Evans takes a mild view of hell that is eternal in this book:
Philosophy of Religion: Thinking About Faith
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41EnGceSjCL.SY344_BO1,204,203,200.jpg
I don’t hold to eternal hell at the moment but if I did it would be the mild hell view of Evans.
Edwards describes it as “merciless vengeance”. He says that the torments will be of an “ineffable strength”. He refers to Nebuchadnezzar having the fire heated for Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego at the “utmost degree of fierceness that human art could raise it” and then says that God is wanting to show his own wrath and power (which is greater than the strength of punishment than any human can give). He also says that the sinners in hell are suffering “the infinite weight and power of his indignation.” That is enough examples to know that Edwards felt exactly the same as Sproul and Keller in regards to the intensity of hell.
Jonny,
That may be so. But the fact that Sproul describes those in hell wanting to be in a literal lake of fire while Edwards merely has God hanging them over flames shows that Sproul is trying to be more insane than Edwards in his description of hell. A lot Calvinists that I have read say that people WANT to be in hell. Sproul’s description says otherwise and this makes his hell more insane than a lot of Calvinists I’ve read.
I think the worse description of hell comes from John Piper. He claims infinite weight and intensity of punishment of those in hell. But since those in hell continue to sin they get infinity upon infinity upon infinity etc…for their sins.
Edwards has them hanging over flames currently but eventually God will drop them into the flames. And everything that I’ve pointed out in his infamous description - “merciless vengeance”, “infinite weight and power of his indignation”, the implied contextual comparison between Nebuchadnezzar through his human might burning the three believers and the intensity of God’s might - all of that points to exactly the same thing as Sproul’s view. I don’t know why you’re denying it. It’s along exactly the same lines.
And again I will say; NOBODY wants to be in hell. Nobody wants to be in a place where they will be wailing and gnashing their teeth. There is nothing in the Bible about people wanting to be in hell (whatever you take it to mean) and there is plenty about people not wanting to be there. And if people genuinely wanted to be there then it wouldn’t really be punishment. They might want it in the sense that they want to only live for themselves instead of for God but they still don’t want the punishment or suffering that they would receive in ‘hell’, and so in a straight forward sense, no, they do not want to be in hell.
Jonny,
The traditional Calvinist reading of the Bible says that God’s redeeming grace isn’t in hell. If this is so then it is easy to see how people will want to be in hell. Especially if it is not intense as a lot of Calvinist teach.
While Edwards has God dropping people into the flames - Sproul has people wishing they were in the flames. Much more intense and crazy than the God of Edwards.
Cole, I’m not going to keep arguing exactly the same points, it’s fairly clear that Edwards and Sproul are in exactly the same ballpark.
Sorry Jonny but you are wrong.
Edwards uses words like “ineffable”, “infinite”, “merciless” and compares the human might of the punishment Nebuchadnezzar was giving to Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to God’s ultimate, infinite might. How is that any different? You haven’t explained why.
Jonny,
It’s like Piper says. Sin against God is infinite and deserves infinite degree of punishment. Those in hell continue to sin and incur infinity upon infinity upon infinity etc. I think this is the view of Sproul. It’s not merely being in a Lake Of Fire but wishing you were in one. Edwards has God holding people over a Lake of Fire and then dropping them in. Sproul has people wishing they were in a Lake of Fire because of the intensity of God’s wrath. The image that Sproul brings forth is worse than that of Edwards.
As you say, Sproul is talking about a physical lake of fire - he is saying people in hell will wish that they were in a physical lake of fire instead of the intensity of the the torment that they have to cope with. But Edwards is saying exactly the same thing. He directly says that the flames he is talking about are the “flames of divine wrath”. The “infinite”, “merciless”, “ineffable” wrath that God apparently has for sinners, according to Edwards. This is what Sproul is saying as well. There’s no technical difference there. Except for the fact that Edwards constructs an image that on the surface appears very close to God playfully torturing sinners like a person (probably a very dark-minded person as far as I can see) would hold a spider above flames.